DSLR Compact Camera or Phone? Belgium c50km/day

[Caledonia64]

I imagine there have been many threads on this before. I have searched... but the keywords regurn too many results)

I am swithering over which camera to take with me: I have taken a (nonD) SLR with me by bike before and worried the whole time about its getting bashed (this iin the diistant past).And felt the weight on the front in a barbag. I have taken a DSLR on on foot city sight seeing hostelling holidays and noticed the weight - and bulk - in a backpack and in any additional camera bag iinstead.


Going to Belgium (LNER, then Eurostar then bike) with large rear panniers, a large courier bag - secured on the rear rack (straps tucked in), and Small Ulitimate barbag. I can't decide if I take the DSLR or a Compact Camera or just make do with my phone.
Of course, I know I will wish I had, if I don't and find the weight/bulk/steering impact on the handlebars tiresome if I do.

[drossall]

I think it depends on you, the kinds of picture that you are likely to take, and the results that you generally get when using the different alternatives. I occasionally carry a DSLR, when I particularly want good pictures for the memories. I've also carried a compact camera, when I thought I might take a few snaps. And if I simply want to have a camera should I need it, I'll rely on a phone. But you may be able to get excellent results with your phone, which would change the answer.

[PH]

Of course, I know I will wish I had, if I don't and find the weight/bulk/steering impact on the handlebars tiresome if I do.

I think you've answered your own question! There is no answer...
I'm lucky in that my two cameras are both capable of the same images, same sensor and share the same lenses, though the larger one has a few more features and is nicer to use. I still can't make my own mind up. On past tours I've taken more photos while cycling if I take the small one and am more likely to go looking for photos in the evening if I've taken the larger one.

[Psamathe]

A lot must depend on the quality of your various cameras. There are some absolutely fabulous compact cameras (e.g. Son RX-100m6) with quality significantly better than some DSLRs.

For my (and my gear) the DSLR main use is for more specialised shots (specialist lenses). Travels last autumn I took the compact camera and there were a few times I really wanted the DSLR and specialist lenses but overall I'd have hated lugging the significant extra weight. But there are heavier DSLRs and lenses and lighter ones.

Personal choice with many variables.

BUT, I although I have a phone with a pretty good camera I rarely use it and don't like the results and find it very limiting ... so for me the phone is nothing more than an emergency backup.

Remember to factor in the weight for rechargers needed for the various options.

Ian

[Antbrewer]

This topic has been brought up a number of times in the few years I have been a member.
No easy answer I am afraid. I used to be a very keen photographer long before I came back to cycling. Lugging 3 or 4 bodies around with a selection of lenses, filters etc not to mention a whopping great benbo tripod. This while I was backpacking too though without the heavy tripod on those trips.
When I came back to the bike again it was with a SLR and a load of stuff.
In those days we used to 'wait for the light' as they say. These days I have 'seen the light' and now just use a good quality compact and I am very happy with the results. I use at present my trusty Canon G15. The only downside to this model is it doesn't have a flip screen which would be very useful.
I have a fujifilm mirrorless DSLR which is brilliant but far heavier. The compact is in my bar bag and can be hand held ready in an instant .

I think the images from my Iphone are really good too but would only resort to that if the camera broke down.
My advice would be to get a good compact ( there are enough out there) and appreciate the beauty of less weight with excellent images.
Happy snapping
Anthony

[fausto copy]

I've never toured with an SLR and wouldn't even dream of it with either of my current mirrorless compact system cameras.
I've always used Lumix travel zooms and got great results.
However, after having continual problems with dust getting onto the sensors, I've switched to an Olympus Tough camera.
Cudgel (my hero) recommended the TG-4, which had just been replaced with the TG-5.
I got a fair deal on the TG-5 (trading in my repaired travel-zoom) and it's just been superseded with the TG-6.
You may get a good deal on the TG-5 which is still readily available.
Although shockproof, drop-proof, waterproof and crush-proof, I bought a screen protector and replaced the original lens cap with a third party one which included a filter.
Really pleased with the results so far.
fausto.

[freiston]

I can't advise on what you should do but I can describe my experience and issues (which may or may not help).

Years ago, I carried a light SLR (Ricoh KR-10) with 50mm lens happily (in those days I couldn't afford and didn't care for any other lens). My DSLR (Canon 50D) is much bigger and heavier than the KR-10 and nowadays, I always feel that I am making unhappy compromises if I don't take most of my lenses, filters etc. - so I have given up on the DSLR for anything other than for specifically going out to take photos. I bought a small "bridge camera" (Lumix FZ200) - basically a small compact camera sensor (internet tells me 1/2.3" CMOS sensor with a diagonal of 7.70 mm) with a better body and lens on the front, giving a silly zoom capability. It does the job a lot of the time but it also falls short a lot of the time too - particularly on image quality in low light. My reckoning is that I would be best off with a camera with a bigger sensor and possibly with interchangeable lenses - something like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2000 (a bridge camera with a 1" sensor) or a compact system camera like the Fujifilm X-T2 or Canon M6. The trouble is, I don't want to get rid of any of my cameras and I can't justify spending the money on yet a different system/format. Also, with interchangeable lenses, I would still have a lot of stuff to take or compromise with.

I have rarely been pleased with anything taken on the phone except for snaps where it doesn't matter if the picture looks crap when I get it onto a monitor or print it. If I think I might take a photo when planning a trip, I take the bridge camera and hope for good light. For me, the "right" compromise was too expensive (not just to purchase but also to risk on the road) but the phone camera is a last resort fallback and the FZ200 is a weak but acceptable compromise - the biggest "compromise" was the one in my head that I couldn't do a cycling trip and a photography trip but I could do a cycling trip and get some reasonable photos some of the time with the bridge camera.

If I could be happy with a more limited range of focal length, I would look a a quality compact with a decent sensor. I do like a viewfinder (optical or electronic) too.

[Caledonia64]

This topic has been brought up a number of times in the few years I have been a member.
No easy answer I am afraid. I used to be a very keen photographer long before I came back to cycling. Lugging 3 or 4 bodies around with a selection of lenses, filters etc not to mention a whopping great benbo tripod. This while I was backpacking too though without the heavy tripod on those trips.
When I came back to the bike again it was with a SLR and a load of stuff.
In those days we used to 'wait for the light' as they say. These days I have 'seen the light' and now just use a good quality compact and I am very happy with the results. I use at present my trusty Canon G15. The only downside to this model is it doesn't have a flip screen which would be very useful.
I have a fujifilm mirrorless DSLR which is brilliant but far heavier. The compact is in my bar bag and can be hand held ready in an instant .

I think the images from my Iphone are really good too but would only resort to that if the camera broke down.
My advice would be to get a good compact ( there are enough out there) and appreciate the beauty of less weight with excellent images.
Happy snapping
Anthony

Thank you. I wrote a reply to the previous poster. My compact camera is very old and would be replaced, I think. My DSLR (i would take only the body and the zoom) is a Nikon DX 3500 (something) somewhat large and heavy (I miss my old Olympus but when it had become worn/outdated, Olympus seemed only to have £5K plus bodies or the PEN, so I gave my Olympus and lenses to a friend's daughter doing photography as part of her Nat 5 Art. I think a compact this tiime, and we shall see on future trips (I might well have taken the Olympus iif I still had it, maybe even the flash...it was so much lighter. And it would need to be iin the bar bag, absent a very solid padded ack pack (not the set up I intend, and even then...).

[PH]

In this talk about the quality of the image, lets not forget there's a something about taking photos that has nothing to do with it. I can't count the places I've been or the hills I've climbed because the view might be worth a shot, the pleasure has been in doing that rather than the end result and carrying a decent camera has made that more likely.

[andrew_s]

The only time I've taken a DSLR was when photography was a significant part of the trip (wildlife, Shetland).

Otherwise, I used to take a compact (Fuji F30, Canon G11 etc), but I've now settled on a Fuji X100.
It gives better results than the 50D, and has an excellent viewfinder (a thing I'm fussy about, having spent a tour in sunny Spain struggling to see anything other than reflections in the rear screen of the compact I was using).
The only real limitation is that the lens is a fixed 35 mm (equiv), but if you are to have a fixed focal length, 35 mm is it, as I was well aware, having spent much time back in film days using a Minox 35 or Contax T3*.


* Having been prompted to google, I'm astonished at what seems to be the going rate (~£1300)

[drossall]

...carrying a decent camera has made that more likely.

Carrying a camera has sometimes got me up the hills. Gives an excuse to stop on a scenic corner, and get a free rest

[al_yrpal]

It depends totally on what phone and what compact you have. I have an excellent compact and no way any phone could top that. It cost £300 and that's far less than most phones. No way an SLR, too bulky, too heavy and probably too valuable too.

Al

[freiston]

In this talk about the quality of the image, lets not forget there's a something about taking photos that has nothing to do with it. I can't count the places I've been or the hills I've climbed because the view might be worth a shot, the pleasure has been in doing that rather than the end result and carrying a decent camera has made that more likely.

I've read and re-read this and I'm still confused. I'm working on the premise that a decent camera is one that is capable of a decent image quality (if it weren't, then surely it would not be a decent camera) and I can't work out how your second sentence follows on from your first sentence - the first states that image quality is irrelevant (to "something about taking photos") and the second that you have climbed hills for the very reason of the possibility of a photo and that you were not as likely to have climbed those hills if you didn't have a camera which was "decent" (capable of taking a picture of decent image quality).

I can understand that there is an artistry in photography and that it can be argued that great photography is about artistry and not about great image quality, but if that is what you meant, I don't understand how that point ties in with the statement that the camera which was a significant influencing factor (in you making the climb to take the shot) is qualified by being decent (i.e. capable of decent image quality).

Are you saying that decent equipment will not make a good photo but you are not as likely to make the journey for the shot without decent equipment (and the pleasure was in making the journey rather than the end result of the photo)?

[Oldjohnw]

The best photos are in my view about the scene and the best camera is the one you have with you.

Having said that, what I miss about not having my Fuji bridge with me is the the optical zoom. A digital zoom is rubbish.

[Cunobelin]

Until recently. I used an Olympus Stylus 1s, a brilliant little camera with a "superzoom"

Bulkier than a true compact, but much smaller and lighter than a DSLR and spare lens that would make up the alternative.

Unfortunately, this has broken after some years of hard service and was declared BER by a couple of local companies and finally Olympus.

They did offer me a massive discount on the body of an Olympus OM-D 10 Mk2, which I accepted.

Only had it a few days, but a brilliant piece of kit.

Basically, I now run two principal cameras, The ON-D as above, and a comparatively massive Pentax k70

If I am on day's out, and similar then the Olympus will be the camera of choice, but for bad weather, the sealing and weatherproofing of the k70 is the deciding factor