Best travel camera

[pinakibaidya]

Hi friends, hope all are well. I have come a long way since my buying 1st DSLR Nikon D60 in 2010. I have now Nikon D7100 and D5300 bodies. Tamron 150-600mm , Nikon 70-300mm VR , Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 35mm1.8 lenses. Apart from DSLR i have Panasonic Lumix FZ 200. I shoot mainly birds. Besides that i am interested in landscape and portraits and street photography. Though i am happy with the D7100 and Tamron combo, the sheer weight of this combo and hassle of travelling with it making me think of an alternative for tavelling.I have searched a lot in the net and come to conclusion that mirrorless camera is the answer. Keeping in mind the fact that i shhot mostly birds i have shortlisted the following cameras / lenses within a budget of $2000.
1) Olympus OMD EM5 mark ii with M Zuiko 75-300mm lens
2)Nikon 1 V3 with cx 70-300mm vr
3)Panasonic G8 + Panasonic 100-400mm
4) Fujifilm xt1 with fujinon lenses
I am confused as not a single camera is perfect in every aspect . Please advise.

[Black Pearl]

Actually you've hit the nail on the head and are not confused in the slightest - no single camera is ever going to be perfect.

For size, weight and reach the Panasonic combination is probably the better option as its nice camera while the 4/3 sensor turns that 400mm into the equivalent of 800mm so only a little bit short of what you have now with the Tamron. Of course if you prefer the Olympus camera then you could put the Panasonic 100-400 on that instead - 4/3 is cool like that. I would be a little wary of the Nikon as the sensor is smaller and the system is a little less...lets say polished though it is capable of great results under the right conditions. I use Fuji and love them to a slightly unhealthy degree but they are geared to wider focal lengths and some of the longer lenses - like the 100-400mm are quite weighty so you might not gain a great deal.

[NorthernFocus]

I have no first hand info therefore no opinions on any of the listed kits other than the Nikon V series. In my experience the small sensors do fine with good light(i.e. plenty of contrast in the details). One thing to be aware of is that if you shoot in burst mode for BIF or any other type of action mirrorless cameras can be difficult in that regard. Some people find it an issue and others don't. If you do shoot any type of action I highly recommend that you try out whatever system you are considering on moving targets.

[Mike Buckley]

try out whatever system you are considering

Consider renting a camera before buying it.

[ionian]

I totally agree with Robin - EM5ii with Panasonic 100-400 will be a great combo, and gives you a hand holdable 800mm equivellant lens. Plus you can then get some of the tiny primes for street or landscape shooting. The m43 lens line up is fully fleshed out.

[LePetomane]

Keep in mind that mirrorless cameras will go through batteries faster.

[Shadowman]

I think you have everything you need already, we often concern ourselves with the perfect travel kit; I say if you can bear the load take it all. Even if you barely use w specific lens, its always the one you need but left behind.

[NorthernFocus]

I've been through this process multiple times and after MANY journeys finally got clear in my thinking. At the end of the day it comes down to how serious you are about your bird photography and why are you traveling. If the travel is with plans to shoot birds then it's foolish to carry less than your best kit. Otherwise why spend on kit and travel costs? If the purpose of travel is not birds then the travel kit should fit those needs. Much frustration and anxiety can be avoided.

[Manfred M]

I bought a mFT Panasonic GX7 a couple of years ago so that I had a smaller, light weight camera while I spent 2 months backpacking in South Asia - I had a 14-140mm Lumix lens as well as the 100-300mm Lumix. Size and weight were my primary concerns. It was the right move from a practicality standpoint, but I was under no illusions that the camera would be as good or easy to use as the D800.

There are a few inherent drawbacks that any mirrorless MFT camera will have versus a DSLR of the same generation.

1. Slow autofocus versus a DSLR - A mirrorless camera uses contrast detect autofocus, and while this works relatively well for stationary subjects, it cannot (for technical reasons) ever be as fast as phase detect used in a standard DSLR. Phase detect can quickly determine the direction that the focus has to move, whereas contrast detect cannot and additional time is spent determining this. Faster onboard processing and faster autofocus motors will improve on this, but the DSLR will also benefit from faster technology, so this problem will always be there unless there is a new technical breakthrough (the phase detect on the sensor approach that was offered by some camera makers doesn't seem to have made a tangible focus speed improveent).

2. A smaller camera body means that there is less room to put the controls directly on the camera body. This means buttons tend to be smaller and closer together (making it harder to work by touch alone) and more of the functions have to be made through menu selections. In spite of some innovative engineering, I found I had to take my eye off the viewfinder to make many of the camera adjustments on the mirrorless cameras that I can do without having to do so on my DSLR.

3. Smaller sensor tends to mean smaller sensor pitch - nicely said, this means that the images tend to be noisier, even at lower ISO levels. On my DSLR I have no issues shooting at ISO settings of 3200 but on the mFT, I rarely go about ISO 400.

4. Viewfinder refresh rate - when following a moving object on a DSLR, there is no lag or refresh rate issue on the optical viewfinder. On the mirrorless camera there is and depending on the make and model of the camera there will be refresh issues, blurring and / or blackouts.

I suspect that these would not be ideal birding cameras and I suspect that you won't be as happy with it as what you are shooting with now.

[John 2]

My only experience is with the X-T1. With the 100-400 Fuji lens, bird photography isn't a problem unless your interest is in birds in flight. The auto focus is much improved since its launch and although it now uses both contrast and phase detection for its autofocus, it still doesn't quite match up to DSLR standards. BIF is certainly possible but you have to work hard for it. To improve on that you would have to go for the X-T2. Reviewers now have that as good as many DSLRs. When it comes to size, the X-T1 is smaller that most DSLRs and the 100-400mm lens is smaller than Tamron 150-600 but the FUJI combination is still a handful especially when the dedicated 1.4x converter is added. Unless I was on a dedicated birding trip I probably would leave the 100-400mm behind. Finally, the battery life is only up to 80% compared to what you are used to on the Nikons. I would certainly recommend a spare battery. On the up side the image quality is better than most across the range and the fact that most of the cameras controls are on the external body means that you can generally make most adjustments without taking your eye from the view finder which I find very useful for chasing wildlife. Fuji also claim a 5 stop advantage for the vibration reduction on the 100-400mm and I can confirm from experience that it is as good as that. The one thing I miss by comparison with the D7100/Tamron combination is the ability to set up back button focussing. That is easy on the Nikons and not really possible in quite the same way on the Fujis. Hope this helps.

[ionian]

I agree with Manfred that they are not perfect birding cameras, but it's a trade off. If you want a small camera body, and (perhaps more importantly) a long lens that doesn't look like a traffic cone and weigh as much as a small piece of military hardware, you would be hard pushed to find something better than m43.

Plus I note that your current gear uses crop sensors, whereas Manfred's experience was a jump from full frame to m43. His was a much bigger jump in sensor performance than you would experience. The difference between the GX7 and the D7100 is just two-thirds of a stop in low light performance. I talk from experience, I own (or have owned) them both.

Finally, the d7100 buffer is tiny and any issues with focus would perhaps be less of an issue than you think if you just keep clicking away. Your hit rate will be lower but you can shoot for much longer. Another option would be the Olympus EM1 - used prices are ridiculously cheap right now, and with the current firmware (4.1) the tracking in c-af is very usable. Not DSLR standard, granted, but not as far off as some may think. The only thing with the EM1 is the camera body isn't tiny - it's a bit smaller than the d5300. Of course you still save a ton of weight with the m43 lens.

I am not trying to get into a format war here - different strokes for different folks, and at the end of the day I care about pictures, not gear. But I thought it might be useful for you to hear the opposite argument, as I am someone who has ditched the DSLR and completely bought in to M43 - for me the advantages (primarily the small size, affordability and size of the lens line up, EVF) outweigh the negatives Manfred mentions above, many of which are valid.

[rpcrowe]

The "best" travel camera is the one (or two) that you are willing to carry with you...

I can guarantee that a cheap pocket size P&S that you have with you will bring home better images that the very best full frame camera and collection of lenses that you leave home because they are too heavy or too valuable to risk taking on your trips

Of course, lots of folks are using their smart phones for travel shots, I have even seen people using their iPads for travel photography. However, I consider a small P&S camera (or even better - a bridge camera) as more versatile than a smart phone or iPad for photography...

As for me, I carry two crop DSLR cameras. It was a pair of Canon 7D cameras for a while but, on my next trip it will be a 7D and a 7DII, a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens along with a 12-24mm Tokina as a "just in case" lens. I also carry a pair of flashes, usually the small 420EX and even smaller 270EXII. I like the old 420EX so much, that I purchased a second unit a short while ago at under $50 USD on eBay I own a full frame Canon 5D2 but, my travel gear is crop sensor...

Of course, if I were going to do nature photography or sports, my gear might change. And would probably be a lot heavier including the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens

However, the one thing that I demand on any camera (except my underwater Fuji) is an eye level viewfinder. I prefer an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder (for the reasons stated by Manfred above), OTOH, If I really wanted to go light on a trip, I would bring my Canon SX-50HS bridge camera, even though it has an electronic viewfinder. I'd pair it up with a lightweight monopod and a Canon 270EX flash.

My son-in-law carried his SX-50-HS on an African Safari and brought home some pretty nice images like this one...



Camera gear selection is always about choices, decisions and compromises...

[pinakibaidya]

I agree with ionian as I am not going to expect my bird pics will be as good as full frame DSLR coupled with big prime lense. I am not a professional photographer and most of the time I have face the wrath of my family for carrying big lenses and big camera body. Nowadays flight operators are imposing restrictions more on weight that you can carry so I have to compromise with my gears. I believe micro 4/3 camera are capable enough to take good pictures as I can see in Flikrs groups. Limitations are there though continuous auto focus or tracking is not as good as DSLRs. High ISO noise is also a factor. But I think small size and ability to hand hold a 100-400mm lens is a big plus point. I saw Nikon 1 system giving good results in action photography but it may not track a bird as movement may be erratic and unpredictable. Otherday I saw bird images taken by Thomas Stirr in "Photographylife" review of Nikon 1 70- 300my. I was overwhelmed. In flickr group of micro 4/3 rds I saw some beautiful images of birds. It's true those are nowhere near the quality of full frame DSLR but even then I like those pics. Nikon 1 cameras pics are somewhat grainy / noisier than micro4/3rds. But I think I have to compromise a bit so that I don't miss a bird during my travel . Now which mirrorless ? Is there anyone who is using mirrorless for birding ? Please post some pics and share with us some 1at hand experiencek. Rpcrowe bridge camera is good for wild animals but I don't think it can help in shooting birds. High start up time and shutter lag and slow zooming and sometimes focus hunting means it is a hit and miss affair. I have experienced that already.

[John 2]

Ask and you shall receive. All Fuji X-T1 plus 100-400mm, in all cases with the dedicated 1.4x converter and all hand held. 560mm is the 100-400 at full stretch and therefore not optimal quality. Also note the shutter speed hand held in images 3, 4, and 5. The quality of 5. is a little below par but I included it because the lens in wide open for this shot. Hope this helps.

1.
1/320th @ f11 ISO 800 FL 522mm


2.
1/350th @ f10 ISO 640 FL 560mm


3.
1/120th @ f9 ISO 640 FL 560mm


4.
1/160th @ f9 ISO 640 FL 560mm


5.
1/80th sec @ f6.4 ISO 800 FL372mm

[Saorsa]

I've been using the Nikon 1 system since the V2 came out and the V1s came on sale. I can fit my kit into a small bag and have a all I need for a trip.

I am hoping that Nikon keeps the system growing once they get their processor problem sorted out for the next generation.

I see a lot of people happy with the superzooms but some of those are quite large.

The MILCs seem to be the way to go now now that the quality has been improved.

[pinakibaidya]

Hi John 2 ! I like those pics. At such high ISO quality is reasonable. But why did you stopped down ? Is there any specific reason? I want to see from micro 4/3 rd users also.

[ionian]

I'm afraid I'm not a wildlife photographer by any stretch of the imagination, and the only longish lens I own is panasonic's cheap 45-150 f4-f5.6. However, here are a couple of random shots from the archive, I'm not sure if they are the sort of examples that help; I'd suggest also looking at Flickr for the panaleica 100-400 or go to a dedicated micro four thirds site such as mu-43.com.

GX7, Olympus 45mm, f/1.8 | 1/500 | ISO200


GX7, Olympus 45mm, f/2.2 | 1/2000 | ISO200

[davidedric]

Hi, staying with the m4/3 idea.

The 100-400 has produced some great images, but it is a bit unwieldy (at least in m4/3 terms), and I couldn't imagine travelling with only that lens.

If your budget will stretch to it I would suggest adding the Panasonic 14-140. It really is an excellent travel lens. You could save by going for the Panasonic 100-300. It's capable of excellent results but needs handling and setting carefully to be at its best.

Incidentally, the newer Panasonic bodies such as the one you are considering have blazingly fast and accurate autofocus (though focus tracking still lags behind the best dslr's).

Dave

[Manfred M]

Dave - those are the two lenses I had along while backpacking in South Asia for a couple of months two years ago and used the same setup when I was back in India for 6 weeks earlier this year (size and weight being the main constraints again)..

I quite agree about the versatility, weight and value of shooting with them. The main downside is that they are not the best low light performers. For my shooting needs, 14mm is not as wide as I would like either, but for bird photography, that is not an issue.

[pinakibaidya]

Hi Dave thanks for your opinion. Panasonic 100-300mm or Olympus 75-300mm which one will be better?