Studying Abroad: Big or Small Camera?

[slycedbred]

Hey guys, I've mentioned this more than once, but I'm studying abroad in Maastricht this fall... I really want to take some great photos and basically document my trip in detail. My biggest issue, however, is what to bring with me. I have three choices: camcorder, a dslr, or canon sd1000...

My thoughts:

Camcorder: This would be sweet beyond sweet...I think. The thought does come to mind that perhaps I won't be able to use it as often as I think? Also, I'd have to go out and buy one expressly for this purpose (though I'd most certainly get good use out of it after purchasing it)

DSLR: Amazing picture quality. Big size. Expensive. Will I look like an ultra douche tourist walking around with one of these? Does it matter? Would I have any hope of selling the pictures that I take (In other words, given good photos, would I be able to find a buyer)?

SD1000: Small, portable, easy...But the picture quality would be lacking compared to the DSLR.

 

[FidelCashflow]

My choice for travel has always been small cameras.

Lots of the stuff you see as a traveller just lend themselves better to pictures than video. I see lots of guys with camcorders trying to hold their camcorder steady and get a 10 second shot of something perfectly still like a statue, and I just think "why?"

I've worked with DSLR's which are great, but they're such a massive pain to carry around. If you really want to go that route, get one of those special padded compartmentalized backpacks with spaces for the body the lenses, and all your accessories. Besides, most people I see with a DSLR still use the pop-up flash All SLR's come with a bracket to accommodate a proper flash which makes a world of difference.

But for a tourist a DSLR is pretty massive overkill. Do you really want to lug that thing around if you wander into a cafe for lunch or a shop to look at stuff? If I took it on vacation, I'd probably leave it in my hotel room 90% of the time to avoid the inconvenience.

The best choice is for a tourist is a small camera. I like the panasonic lumix cameras because they have 28mm wide angle lens built in, which is incredibly useful for panoramic shots or shots of buildings, skylines, etc. To the average person, the difference in quality between a DSLR without a proper flash and a good point-and-shoot is pretty minor.

Usually the camera is suitable for the job, but people just don't know how to use it, or just don't know how to take a decent picture. I can't count the number of times I've seen people waiting until the sun is glaring and creating horrible cross-shadows to take pictures. Or they take pictures of something behind glass with the flash ON. Or they don't know how to compose a shot, and take pictures of people so their heads are near the center of the frame, and there's a huge empty space in the top half of the picture. Buying a more expensive camera isn't a remedy for that.

 

[ratboycom]

I'd go Lumix or Canon G9. or if stills are not gonna be the prime use and you really want some video, I would go with a Sanyo Xacti HD1000, they take decent but not great stills, and good quality HD video.

 

[whodini]

It really comes down to whether you're the kind of person who likes to take photos or not. While video tends to add a lot more depth to capturing a moment, I'm simply not the kind of person who'd just sit around watching clips of past trips. Photos seem much more tangible and timeless. I've used the video recording feature on my digital cameras only a handful of times and can't think of the last time I watched any of them.

I really appreciate what DSLRs can do but my philosophy has always been to think small. If I can't take a camera some place or if I somehow think of it as a burden then I'll never get the shot. If I'm not getting the shot then the camera's about as good as a lead weight.

 

[azn8oi]

bring both.

use your DSLR for pictures and your canon sd800 for videos and drunken times so you dont regret losing that ****.

dur.

 

[acidboy]

+1 on the Canon G9. Best compromise between dslr and pocket camera, imo.

 

[dtmt]

Definitely small camera. You're going to be walking a LOT, and you're going to have to carry it with you the whole time, along with a bunch of other stuff like books, clothes, etc. Anything that's bigger or heavier than it needs to be is going to get really old really quickly.

 

[Milhouse]

It comes down to how much you love photography. In general, if you love photography, I would say take a DSLR and a pocket camera. You can carry the pocket camera everywhere. When you go to particularly scenic or inspiring places/events, take the DSLR and get some good shots.

As far as selling the images, probably not. If you capture something particularly newsworthy, then that is a different story. For the most part, you could maybe earn a few pennies per photo if you sell them to a stock image house.

 

[Matt]

as an exstudyabroader, I say 'buy the small one'. The snapshots I took at random parties, of my friends, general 'America is weird' stuff from around the place are priceless to me. The panoramic shots from my travels are nice n all, but plenty of people have taken better shots of Niagara than me.

 

[globetrotter]

you should come back with a small handful of pictures. for gods sake, don't spend your time abroad trying to get pictures to take home. if you can carry one of those tiny ones that goes in your pocket and you forget about it, then when a really spectacular picture comes around, you can get it.


but first live, then document it. not the other way around.