Skip to main content

Traveling light, revisited one year later

I usually take a couple vacation trips each year with my wife and daughters and of course I take photos on those trips. For years I took my best cameras (my digital SLRs) with me, on the theory that the best cameras would give me the best pictures. And then last year, I decided to question that theory. When we traveled to Yellowstone in summer 2010, I left my DSLRs at home and instead took a couple of fixed-lens cameras with me, the Panasonic LX3 (for wide and normal shots) and the Panasonic FZ35 "superzoom" (for shooting wildlife). The results were generally pretty satisfying and I blogged about the experiment when I got back ("Traveling Light: The Post-Mortem").

It's now August 2011, a year later. When we started planning our recent trip to Rocky Mountain National Park, I thought I'd "travel light" again, either with the same two cameras I used last year or perhaps with the new Sony Cybershot HX100V, which is similar to the Panasonic FZ35 but, well, a little newer and better. But I changed my mind and took two DSLRs instead (the Sony A550 and Sony A580). To go with the bodies, I took two zoom lenses. One  (Carl Zeiss DT 16-80 f/3.5-4.5) was a wide-to-moderate telephoto like the LX3. The other (Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di USD XLD) was a normal telephoto range of 70-300 or 105-450 in traditional full-frame terms; this replaced the Panasonic FZ35 although the FZ35 goes both wider and farther and so is more versatile. I wasn't expecting to do much hiking this year, so weight and size weren't really issues.

So, did it matter? Were my pictures better because I took bigger and "better" cameras?

On the whole, probably not. Most of the time, I was able to shoot outdoors in good to pretty good light, and under those circumstances, at least for the purposes of family vacation photography, I am pretty confident that the fixed lens cameras would have done fine. For example, here's a shot taken this year with the Sony A550 and Tamron 70-300 USD:

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640" caption="Shot with Sony A550 and Tamron 70-300 USD lens"]Marmot[/caption]

The shot above of the marmot might be better than the following shot of a couple of otters, but the superior clarity of the more recent shot is not, I think, due to the equipment, but to the lighting.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="562" caption="Taken with Panasonic FZ35"]Otters[/caption]

Let me say again that I'm thinking strictly in terms of personal photography. In other words, I'm not worrying about whether I can make a stunning 8x10" print for a paying customer. I don't like to stay that my standards are lower when I'm shooting for myself, but I guess I would admit that my purposes are a bit different and of course I'm able to tolerate failure when I'm shooting for myself. Most of my personal photos end up on the Web or in a memory book that I create at Snapfish or Blurb.

Which brings me to the real point. While the compact cameras can do really very well when the light is good, they fail pretty completely when the light stinks, as it did here:

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640" caption="Beaver eating dinner. Taken at ISO 3200."]Beaver[/caption]


That photo would simply have been impossible with the FZ35 or the LX3. It was taken at almost 8pm. The sun was going down and I was in a very shady wooded area. To get the picture at all I had to kick the camera's sensitivity (ISO) up to 3200. The photo you see has not had any noise reduction applied, partly because noise reduction reduces detail and partly because, in this case, noise reduction wasn't terribly necessary. Had I taken this shot with either the FZ35 or the LX3, well, it might have looked like this:

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640" caption="Beaver at ISO 3200 as it might have looked if shot with compact camera"][/caption]

The grain or pseudo-noise here was added in Lightroom 3. To be honest, I think the photo would have been even noisier if I'd taken it with the FZ35.

So, boys and girls, what have we learned?

First, as I have said many times before and for years: Compact (fixed-lens) cameras can take great pictures and they keep getting better every year. By contrast, DSLRS are more expensive than fixed-lens cameras. They're heavier. Changing lenses introduces the risk of dust on the sensor which can ruin photographs. Focus with DSLRs can require greater care because depth of field is smaller. And lens quality can be an issue with a DSLR. The best lenses are much better than the lenses on fixed lens cameras; but you can also buy consumer-grade lenses for DSLRs that are worse than the Leica lenses on the Panasonic LX3 and FZ35. In short, for many people, compact cameras make a lot of sense.

But second, DSLRs have their advantages, too. One advantage is that, because DSLRs have larger sensors than compact cameras, other things being equal, DSLRs wil perform significantly better in low light. This is why no pro shoots weddings with a compact camera.


Popular posts from this blog

Wireless control of Olympus OM-D E-M1 with OI.Share app

The Olympus Image Share or "OI.Share" app for smartphones allows you to do some very neat things with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera, like control focus, shutter and other settings, download photos to your phone, and geo-tag your photos. The only problem with this partnership between camera and phone — at least for me as a micro-four-thirds and Olympus novice — was getting it to work.

The documentation provided in the app and in the user manual for the camera is typically bad. I wrote this blog article from the notes I started making as I was trying to sort this out for myself. I hope I save somebody else an hour and some worry.

Ingredients To get started you'll need to have an EM-1 and a smart phone with the OI.Share app installed. I'm using an iPhone 5 running iOS 7 and version 2.1.1 of the OI.Share app. I downloaded the app from the App Store.

Addendum 7 January 2015: This article was first published a little over a year ago, in December 2013. I just went through the…

Why DxO Optics Pro 10 stays in my toolbox

You can read this post here, or read my reposted version over over at Medium.

I've used over a dozen apps in the last decade to convert my raw files and process my digital images. Today I rely on four main tools to process my images: Lightroom 5.7, the Nik suite of apps (now owned and published by Google), onOne Software's Perfect Photo Suite 9 — and DxO Optics Pro 10. I want to talk about Perfect Photo Suite some other time; it's my replacement for Photoshop and I really like it. But today, I want to say nice things about Optics Pro 10.

Might seem an odd thing to admit, but I don't really want to use Optics Pro. It can't hold a candle to Lightroom for browsing and managing images. And it doesn't support layers (like Perfect Photo Suite) or much in the way of selective editing (like Lightroom, Nik and Perfect Photo Suite do). I'm able to get what I want from most of my images using Lightroom, or Nik or Perfect Photo. So most of the time, I don't need Op…

Why I switched from Lightroom to Aperture

Read today an excellent article, "Why I use Aperture instead of Lightroom," by Mel Ashar; it's posted at the Aperture Expert blog edited by Joseph Linaschke. Ashar, a landscape and architectural photographer, provides a useful catalog of some of the reasons Aperture is a strong choice for photographers who use Macs. He focuses on the file-management advantages of Aperture that arise from the fact that Apple controls an entire file ecosystem, comprised not just of Aperture, but of iCloud and the file systems on both Macs and iOS devices (iPhone, iPad).

Now, notwithstanding the advantages Ashar enumerates, the consensus seems to be that, Aperture as a photo processing app lags way behind Lightroom. I disagree with the consensus. In fact, shortly after the public beta of Lightroom 5 became available, I started looking again at Aperture and this time I really gave it the old college try. To my surprise, I discovered that I liked it. I liked it a lot. So, instead of upgrading…