35mm SLR or Compact
 

I shoot a lot with an SLR with a range of lenses and filters but feel that its all too much weight and very visable in use making you look like a tourist !

I am thinking of a quality (Leica, Contac) comopact zoom which have a high quality lens. I know they are very limited in terms of shutter speed and stuff but they are small.

Any comments, or should I just go digital ?
Help !
Thanks
Dave

[This message has been edited by mcluretaylor (edited 31 January 2003).]

Dave,

you could do worse than start right here:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/ubb...ML/000004.html

I took both a compact (canon sureshot 35-70 zoom) loaded with 200asa print film, and a SLR (canon) with a 28-80 with Kodachrome 64 to the Algerian Sahara last month.
Sure, the SLR gives much more exposure flexibility and the slide film is almost faultless and so on, but the quality of shots from the compact were superb, and soooo much more convenient to use in many situations.
A friend had a good APS camera (Ixus), and, I'm sorry, but unless you like grainy images, forget it in my opinion.

If you're pushed for space, get a good 35mm compact - they're excellent. If you really need the control over exposure and things, pay the weight penalty.

Neil

Thanks for the advice. I have recently been investigating another alternative.

Viewfinder cameras ! Yes they are very expensive (although lots secondhand). They offer compact light weight, superb quality, tough and rugged. You can't get zoom lenses but the prime lenses are small and of unrivalled quality. The viewfinder image is always bright and there is modern TTL metering (although only centre weighted).

So I might trade my SLR gear for one of these, maybe a Voitglander, and also have a PPS (in the words of our moderator!) as well. Looking at a seconhand Leica or Contact which both have superb lenses.

Think I have gone mad and these plans may change if I spend all my money preping the bike.

Cheers
David

Simple?

If you are going specifically to compile brilliant quality pix then the slr with lenses and tranny film is unbeatable. ie. compact and hi res ratio.
If on the other hand the journey is the hero and you just want photographic records then digital is the answer.
One thing to bear in mind is that all those expensive cameras and lenses and accessories all need protecting and if you are pre-occupied by the trip itself they may become a fragile heavy expensive bundle to worry about.

Amen to that. Excellent advice, and right on.

Roberto.

Suggestion:

Borrow what you don't have: a tankbag, slr, compact and /or digital and go for a test ride. Take the same photos with each then compare results and decide what to do.

Fwiw I think there are three criteria for a decision:

1 Picture Quality

SLR + zoom 2.8's

2 Weight

Compact is the way to go.

3 Time to take the first shot

Compact in a pocket.
SLR's in a tank bag. Take two if possible: one with 17-35, the other a 70-200.

Photo opportunities appear and disappear very quickly.

On one trip I had two slr's in the top box so had to stop, get off, get out camera, click, etc. I ended up sending them back to the uk and buying a compact. But, when I returned to the UK, the quality was awful compared to slr.

Jerome

http://www.fowb.co.uk


[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited 10 May 2003).]