# DSRL Camera for travel



## Hjalmarg1 (May 22, 2014)

Hi all,

I am planning to have holidays but I don't want to travel heavy with my 5D3 and the FF lenses. I want to buy a light body and I am between the SL1 and the T5i that could be also light for my kids to use. Obviusly I will have to buy one or two lenses compatible with the APS-C sensor but, I am also thinking about a do-it-all ultrazoom and carry my 35mmf2IS for low light situations.
Any experience or suggestion on those bodies and ultrazoom lens?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2014)

the eos m kit is dirt cheap and the 22mm is an awesome f2
the 18-55 kit lens is very respectable too


----------



## verysimplejason (May 22, 2014)

If you have the budget and would love to retain that excellent IQ, Canon 6D + 24-105L. It's a combo that can almost do it all as I experienced from a recent trip to Krabi, Thailand. I'm using that combo for about 80% of the time. The rest was taken using my G11 with underwater casing since 20% of my shots are taken in deep water or while swimming/having fun in the beach.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2014)

About you add 40mm pancake to your 5D III? 

For truely compact get one of these: X100s, A7 series + FE 35mm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 22, 2014)

You can get a smaller body, but good lenses are big and heavy, and somewhat proportional to the camera size. That's where the smaller sensor sized bodies seem to excel, decent images in a small package.

I have a G1 X, its not a tiny point and shoot, but the G1X II is smaller and has a better lens, I'm thinking of getting one as a take along camera for decent images that rival a DSLR with the standard lenses.

The Sony RX100 series seem to be hard to beat for the size, the new MK III will be out in June, but the lens has sacrificed telephoto for wide angle, and has a much smaller sensor than the G1 X, which has a wide zoom range and better overall aperture which combined with the larger sensor which means very good low light performance. If my huge fingers could operate the Sony, I'd be considering it strongly, but the nice large touch screen on the G1 X means I'll go with it, since it works with my large fingers just fine.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 22, 2014)

Mt. Spokane makes a good point. Putting a large lens on a small camera defeats the purpose of having a small camera.

I am pretty happy with my T2i and 18-55 kit lens for travel. I sometimes take a longer zoom, but almost never use it.

Here's a casual HDR shot I took in the Columbia River Gorge last month using this combination and a flimsy tripod.






The upload doesn't look as sharp as the original. Here's a crop to show what kind of detail you can expect:


----------



## rpiotr01 (May 22, 2014)

I'd just take the 5D plus that 35 f2 and 100 2.8. Outstanding IQ, no need to spend more dough. 

For something you can put in a coat pocket the M + 22 f2 is hard to beat.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (May 22, 2014)

I would consider Canon M, so you can still use your Canon lenses in the future, just in case. 
Also Fuji has great new sensor.


----------



## MTL18 (May 22, 2014)

I don't have the bodies you are interested in but do own the 18-200mm lens. Fine lens, but it does have distortion at the 18mm range so I'd be pairing it with the new 10-18mm if I didn't already have a better lens in the 18mm range. I'd consider bringing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for nicer portraits and it doesn't add much weight (or even the pancake 40mm).


----------



## witty_username (May 22, 2014)

After lurking for a while, I finally signed up to reply to your post. I own the SL1 and love it. It's incredibly small, light and produces surprisingly great images for being so compact. Jumping on it from a 5D3 it's going to feel a little like a toy in the hand, but the picture IQ is rewarding for such a small package. Especially with some good glass in front of it. I own the 35 F2 IS and it's by far my most used lens on it. FANTASTIC for street photography and general use. The nifty 50 makes a SUPER light and portable package too if an 80mm equivalent focal length works for you. 

Just for grins I've thrown the 16-35 F2.8 II L and the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II to see what it could do. Really pleased with the results. The "more reasonable" 16-35 was a little odd feeling on balance, but I got used to it pretty quick. The 70-200 was obviously ridiculous, but it was fun to be absurd and see the results. The little camera performed beautifully with the L's and the weight & size reduction was nice on the hands. Just remember that most(all) crop cameras low light performance isn't anywhere near the same as the 5D3 so don't push the ISO too crazy. Other than that don't feel like you have to throw a "cheep" zoom on there to enjoy the weight + size reduction benefits. 

Lastly, like all purchases I'd recommend going to a store and holding both to see how they feel in your hand. I have pretty small hands so the SL1 feels great, but you might prefer the t5i. I felt the t5i just didn't have the huge advantage and novelty the size + weight reduction the SL1 has. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## Redder (May 22, 2014)

I own a SL1 it is a very small and capable DSLR. 

One thing to pay attention to with this camera is that it lacks AF micro adjustment feature. It is not sharp with my 28mm 2.8 IS. The method I use to check focus accuracy is comparing phase focus with live view focus. On this particular combination SL1 with 28mm 2.8 IS, the files using phase focus will only match with live view focus in sharpness from F4.0 and onward. (Note this 28mm 2.8 IS when paired with my 5D3 needs a +6 AF micro adjustment).

Luckily it has no problem in AF with my 24mm 2.8 IS, which the combination is still very light, focus fast and spot on, even when I use touch screen and live view focus and shot.

Other lens that I owned and used with SL1 without any AF issues are 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS and the very compact 35 F2.0(non IS).

One other camera that I found very useful on travelling is the small G1X. By setting C1 and C2 in 28mm and 35mm F8.0 with manual pan focus it enable me to switch around the 2 focal lengths and shoot very quick on the street. And the lens is quite sharp.


----------



## SPL (May 22, 2014)

+1 on the SL1!


----------



## Dantana (May 23, 2014)

MTL18 said:


> I don't have the bodies you are interested in but do own the 18-200mm lens. Fine lens, but it does have distortion at the 18mm range so I'd be pairing it with the new 10-18mm if I didn't already have a better lens in the 18mm range. I'd consider bringing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for nicer portraits and it doesn't add much weight (or even the pancake 40mm).



I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but as much as I wanted to like that lens when I was shooting crop, I was pretty disappointed. Slow focus, lens creep, not as sharp as I had hoped... Since I've moved up to the 6D, I haven't touched my old crop rig or the 18-200. Actually meaning to sell it for whatever the market will bear.

My last trip was with a 6D 24-105 kit, and my 40mm for when I didn't want to carry around the zoom. The pancake is sharp and makes the setup quite small, and the focal length was great walking around Austin.


----------



## brad-man (May 23, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am planning to have holidays but I don't want to travel heavy with my 5D3 and the FF lenses. I want to buy a light body and I am between the SL1 and the T5i that could be also light for my kids to use. Obviusly I will have to buy one or two lenses compatible with the APS-C sensor but, I am also thinking about a do-it-all ultrazoom and carry my 35mmf2IS for low light situations.
> Any experience or suggestion on those bodies and ultrazoom lens?



I have a T4i coupled with an EF-S 15-85mm for inconspicuous travel (when my M+22 just won't do), and find it to be a very capable combination. It's not quite a "super zoom", but it has fantastic optics, very effective IS, and would go very nicely with your EF 35 IS.


----------



## Destin (May 23, 2014)

Digital Single Reflex Lens?


----------



## 278204 (May 23, 2014)

I'm in the middle (*sniff* over halfway through) of an 8-month travel stint with the family and I've been perfectly happy lugging the 5D2 + 24-105 around. Before leaving I sold my cheapo tripod (planning on getting a proper on when I return) and 100-400 (suspected/hoped the new model would come out while I was away, flooding the secondhand market). I find that rushing about with 2 small kids doesn't give you many chances to change lenses (or use a tripod). I miss a bit more reach for wildlife.


----------



## zim (May 23, 2014)

All depends on what kind of holiday.

I'm recently back from a short city break to Rome, decided to challange myself and just go with an aps-c and 40mm.... "Rome on a Pancake" 

It really was great fun, yeh you have to move your feet a bit but a great street lens so small nobody cares ;D and great for high res stitches/panos

If it's not a safari, keep it simple, have fun


----------



## KKCFamilyman (May 23, 2014)

I am in the same boat. I am bringing my 5d3, 24-70 2.8 II, 35mm 1.4, 600ex, 70-300L (only one day where I will need the reach. May bring the 16-35 also. I am going on a Disney cruise with a large group and then all the WDW parks. I know the 24-70 should cover most of that I still find myself researching the sony alpha a6000 with lenses, SL1 with my lenses, Canon G1x Mark ii, etc. I just think in the end if you don't bring your best for some of the more photogenic places you are going then where do you bring it that's new? Anyone else in this boat? If so what did you do?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 23, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> the eos m kit is dirt cheap and the 22mm is an awesome f2
> the 18-55 kit lens is very respectable too



+1. Got the M + 22 f/2 for 300 and later added a white box 18-55 from Hong Kong. System is compact. AF is slow compared to a DSLR but what you gain is minimal size and good IQ at a low price. I primarily use the 22 (and occassionally a 270EX) indoors, and the 18-55 outdoors.

APS-C sensors are at a disdvantage to FF when light levels are low (indoors), so fast lenses are more "needed" for smaller sensor cameras. Unfortunately those types of lenses tend to be larger/heavier, which takes away a bit of the size/price advantage of the smaller sensor cameras.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 23, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am in the same boat. I am bringing my 5d3, 24-70 2.8 II, 35mm 1.4, 600ex, 70-300L (only one day where I will need the reach. May bring the 16-35 also. I am going on a Disney cruise with a large group and then all the WDW parks. I know the 24-70 should cover most of that I still find myself researching the sony alpha a6000 with lenses, SL1 with my lenses, Canon G1x Mark ii, etc. I just think in the end if you don't bring your best for some of the more photogenic places you are going then where do you bring it that's new? Anyone else in this boat? If so what did you do?



Yes, I agree. I used a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II when I went. I used the 70-200 for the parades, shows and safari. If I were going now, I'd take the 24-70 II, 35L, 70-300L. I'd use the 24-70 and 70-300 during the day, and the 35 at night (i.e. Downtown Disney), so I wouldn't be taking all the lenses with me all the time, which makes a big difference. The flash I'd really only use on the boat -- I find it too bulky to lug around the park for the few times the scenes are severely backlit and you need fill.


----------



## MTL18 (May 23, 2014)

Dantana said:


> MTL18 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the bodies you are interested in but do own the 18-200mm lens. Fine lens, but it does have distortion at the 18mm range so I'd be pairing it with the new 10-18mm if I didn't already have a better lens in the 18mm range. I'd consider bringing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for nicer portraits and it doesn't add much weight (or even the pancake 40mm).
> ...



All fair points. When evaluating a lens I always try to take the viewpoint of "what is it doing for the price". You're right that there are sharper lenses, the focus isn't as fast as other lenses, and I personally find it annoying that you can shake the camera and the zoom will move automatically (requires you to always lock it).

That being said, for a superzoom in the $600.00 range, it is pretty good. Shooting outdoors (with good light) at f/8.0 and it does a fine job. I have other lenses for indoor purposes, especially portraits, but it is a good travel lens when weight is an issue. 

Your 6D +24-105 will be better in terms of IQ, but that combo has half the focal range and weighs more.


----------



## mvinson1022 (May 23, 2014)

Do what I did and what canon is about to do. Get a Fuji! I hardly ever shoot my 5DMarkiii anymore except for fast moving grandchildren. One body and three lenses covering 28-300 with zooms and either the 35 or 50 (ff equivalent) will weigh less than you can believe. IQ is fantastic.


----------



## sdsr (May 23, 2014)

If you want to stay with Canon, I too would suggest the SL1, which produces image quality at least as good as any other Canon APS-C body (except perhaps the 70D and leaving aside such things as AF points and the inability to microadjust AF) and - at least if you're in the US - can be bought very inexpensively. I keep reading good things about the most recent Sigma 18-250mm OS Macro and if you act within the next few days, you can buy a new one from Adorama for a mere $260; you'll find a link + code for the extra discount at - hold your nose - kenrockwell.com. It's currently on backorder, but maybe it would arrive before you leave (I just ordered one for such a purpose; at that price it was hard to resist). Anyway, an SL1 + that zoom + one or two small primes you already own may well be more than enough. The same might be true of the EOS-M, if you can do without a viewfinder and don't mind the rather laggy performance.

Vacations pose rather a dilemma, don't they? If you're going somewhere special, it seems silly to compromise on image quality, but you don't want to ruin your day by lugging around heavy expensive stuff. To go smaller/lighter than the SL1 + above, you would need to switch to an entirely different system such as Micro 43, or get a relatively expensive high-end point-and-shoot (such as the tiny Sony RX100 series or the bigger Sony RX10) or, for optimal image quality, a Sony A7/7r and its two primes. But those options will all cost more (a lot more, in some cases) and, depending on what sort of images you take and what you plan to do with them, the differences in quality may well be negligible to nonexistent (some of the options will be inferior).


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am planning to have holidays but I don't want to travel heavy with my 5D3 and the FF lenses. I want to buy a light body and I am between the SL1 and the T5i that could be also light for my kids to use. Obviusly I will have to buy one or two lenses compatible with the APS-C sensor but, I am also thinking about a do-it-all ultrazoom and carry my 35mmf2IS for low light situations.
> Any experience or suggestion on those bodies and ultrazoom lens?



70D, 'nuff said 

But if between those two, I don't think you can go wrong either way. The T5i's larger grip will make it more usable with your FF lenses in case you did want to use it for some scenario.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 27, 2014)

Thanks to all that provided me with good information!

In my holidays I plan to walk quite a bit and need something light, not bulky and responsive for most of the city environment picture opportunities so, zooming is very welcomed. Sometimes, I am concerned about taking the attention of people when they see kind of semipro camera gear or due to security issues since camera gear is considered valuable items.
Suggestions of moving to a good mirrorless camera might suit my needs but exploring prices for the good ones lead to spend US$1,000+ that is more than what I planned to spend. Other option could be as discussed a good P&S camera so, the Sony RX 100 III or the Fuji X100s or the new G16 sounds like also as an option.


----------



## surapon (May 27, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> the eos m kit is dirt cheap and the 22mm is an awesome f2
> the 18-55 kit lens is very respectable too



+ 100 for me too, I love my EOS-M
Surapon


----------



## Eldar (Jul 8, 2014)

My wife has been using an 18-200mm zoom on a 7D on vacations for some time. With a CPL filter she's getting very good results, when she has enough light. For low light situations she turns to my (monsterously heavy) camera bag for a faster prime.

Alternative: I just bought a Sony RX100 MIII to use when I'm flyfishing (a 5DIII with a 24-70 f2.8L II does not fit inside my waders :). It has the equivalent of a 24-70 lens, with good low light performance. I am very impressed with the IQ from this very small thing.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My wife has been using an 18-200mm zoom on a 7D on vacations for some time. With a CPL filter she's getting very good results, when she has enough light. For low light situations she turns to my (monsterously heavy) camera bag for a faster prime.
> 
> Alternative: I just bought a Sony RX100 MIII to use when I'm flyfishing (a 5DIII with a 24-70 f2.8L II does not fit inside my waders :). It has the equivalent of a 24-70 lens, with good low light performance. I am very impressed with the IQ from this very small thing.



I'm about to sell my a7r + FE 55mm and replace with RX100 III. Played with this little guy few days ago at local camera store, I really like the size. Can't go wrong with 24-70mm range.


----------



## Rams_eos (Jul 8, 2014)

I use a T3i with 18-55 when I travel light and pictures are ok as vacation souvenirs. I would pair a T5i with 18-135 or 18-200 as lens is fairly compact.
I would also bring a 40mm pancake as I found the picture quality outstanding (for the price).
I use it when I want a sharp picture. Then I use either my feet  or Stitching. For that I use Microsoft ICE (free and effective).
Other advantage of cheap gear is that you can let children play with no (less) fears


----------



## Pitspics (Jul 10, 2014)

my 2 cents... 

2 years ago i was in a nearly same situation. My opinion is...

If i want i lightweight camera for traveling, i would never take a camera with interchangeable lenses.
you know the benefits of you dslr, it´s heavy with 2-3 good lenses but you want the best image quality you can get... 
A small DSLR is nice (SL1) but with a cheap-superzoom-lense it´s also bulky/big/heavy - but you loose a lot of image-quality. so you still have a "big camera" with you but you´ll miss the handling/quality of your "good gear".
(So you can theoretically still use your 5D3 with 24-70... 8) )
*
that´s the reason i ended up buying a Fuji X20. *
Yes, the image-quality is not the best, but this small guy (or any other p&s-camera in this price-range, G1X, RX100...) is just a joy to use for walk around. VERY light, you have zoom-range for most situations (28-120 or so), and no worry about which lense to choose... just turn it on and take your picture. that´s just easy and makes fun... 

what do i like about the x20? i love the "zoom-ring" at the lense... "dslr-feeling" ;D and i can use pol-filter or nd-filter with this cam (44mm i think). just like on my 6D... but SUPERLIGHT AND SMALL 
and a very imressive macro-mode!!!

what i would like to say... 
if i would loose image-quality with a cheap DSLR+Superzoom to my 6D, than its no problem for me to "loose a little bit" more IQ with a good p&s but i have so much more fun and flexibility with a really small and light "walk-around-system".

Here are some examples from my X20.
(yes, at 100% it´s not like my 6D - but for screen and medium-prints... hey, for me this is the way to go!) 8)


or you can check for examples my "triest-gallery" at my website... all shoot with the x20.
it was a really hot day and i was so happy that i have just this little guy with me. WONDERFUL! 
http://100iso.at/2013-triest/

or this gallery... all with pol-filter on x20. just great
http://100iso.at/2014-schlosshof/


----------



## Eldar (Jul 10, 2014)

Pitspics said:


> what do i like about the x20? i love the "zoom-ring" at the lense... "dslr-feeling" ;D and i can use pol-filter or nd-filter with this cam (44mm i think). just like on my 6D... but SUPERLIGHT AND SMALL


FWIW, since I recommended it, the Sony EX100 III has a built in ND filter (have not tried it yet) and there is a small simple adapter you can hook on and use other filters, such as a CPL. 

The IQ (provided you shoot in RAW) I have seen from this very tiny package is very impressive. It is supported in LR5.5.


----------



## Pitspics (Jul 10, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Pitspics said:
> 
> 
> > what do i like about the x20? i love the "zoom-ring" at the lense... "dslr-feeling" ;D and i can use pol-filter or nd-filter with this cam (44mm i think). just like on my 6D... but SUPERLIGHT AND SMALL
> ...




sometimes (for more important stuff - little bit mor DR and no "smuged" images at 100%) i shoot in RAW with the X20 - but for normal stuff and walk around at daylight jpg is just fine... 

and not to forget 20MB!!!! RAW vs 3MB jpg : 
(on screen you really cannot see any difference)


----------



## Cory (Jul 10, 2014)

Have some found an EOS M/22mm lens a good solution for a big trip (one not including wildlife)? Just got my M/22 and Aruba is just a few weeks away.


----------



## lady (Jul 21, 2014)

When I absolutely must travel light (this happens to me on trail rides) I use a Sony RX100. I personally don't bother with interchangeable lenses while traveling light because it's more to store and more to lose. 

I usually just bring my 5D3 or 7D along with me while traveling. Which camera I bring depends on what my photography needs are (will I need zoom or nah?) as well as how camera-safe where I'm going is. On a beach trip I brought my 7D as it was less expensive to replace, for example. As for kids handling it, DSLRs are pretty big whether it's a 6D or a 1D.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 25, 2014)

I just took the *SL1 + Tamron 18-270* hiking over 70+ miles. It worked great.

If you want it to be smaller, use the kit lens or the 40mm pancake or whatever smaller zoom or prime you like.

The batteries are also smaller than the 5D3 batteries.

Let us know what you decide!


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Aug 2, 2014)

Recently went on a trip where it was hot and lots of walking. I used the 5d3 and 24-70 95% of the time and the 70-300l the other 5


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> the eos m kit is dirt cheap and the 22mm is an awesome f2
> the 18-55 kit lens is very respectable too


I bough the M system with 22mm and the 18-55mm for travel. Now my camera bag is 3ibs instead of 7 lbs.


----------



## AJ (Aug 2, 2014)

Skip the ultrazoom and get a 18-55 STM and 55-250 STM. Much better performance for less money. Enjoy your travels.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 2, 2014)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I am in the same boat. I am bringing my 5d3, 24-70 2.8 II, 35mm 1.4, 600ex, 70-300L (only one day where I will need the reach. May bring the 16-35 also. I am going on a Disney cruise with a large group and then all the WDW parks. I know the 24-70 should cover most of that I still find myself researching the sony alpha a6000 with lenses, SL1 with my lenses, Canon G1x Mark ii, etc. I just think in the end if you don't bring your best for some of the more photogenic places you are going then where do you bring it that's new? Anyone else in this boat? If so what did you do?



My standard travel kit: 


5D3 gripless, 35mm f/2 or 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300L. This is relatively compact but not really light.


Other travel setups I've used: 


400D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (a truly excellent setup, even though the camera was rather dated. That Tamron is a truly magnificent little lens that delivers 'L' quality optics in a very reasonably priced package. I added a canon 55-250 is ii at one point, which is also a good lens despite the kit lens build.

Sony NEX-6 + lens(es) in losts of different configurations. My NEX has replaced the 400D as my go-to small camera system. 

On a business trip to Angola I brought only a cheap point and shoot (Powershot A590IS) and managed reasonable results nonetheless: http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/reizen/angola-2009


----------



## bholliman (Aug 2, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I just took the *SL1 + Tamron 18-270* hiking over 70+ miles. It worked great.
> If you want it to be smaller, use the kit lens or the 40mm pancake or whatever smaller zoom or prime you like.
> The batteries are also smaller than the 5D3 batteries.



How do you like the IQ of the Tamron 18-270? I've been looking at buying an SL1 kit as a lightweight option for some time. Carrying multiple lenses defeats part of the purpose of a lightweight/small kit, so a good superzoom would be a nice option for long hikes.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 2, 2014)

Pitspics said:


> If i want i lightweight camera for traveling, i would never take a camera with interchangeable lenses.



Sure, but just because your camera takes interchangeable lenses doesn't mean you have to take a bunch of them with you. I don't know where the OP lives, but right now in the UK you can buy an EOS M kit with 18-55 zoom lens and flash for £199. There's nothing else on the market for anywhere near that price that approaches it for IQ, and it makes a great travel outfit IMO.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> Pitspics said:
> 
> 
> > If i want i lightweight camera for traveling, i would never take a camera with interchangeable lenses.
> ...


The 22/2.0 is only another US$120. It is a very good lens. This will make the EOS-M pocketable for a jacket. It will rake care of the low light situation.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 2, 2014)

Rocky said:


> bainsybike said:
> 
> 
> > Pitspics said:
> ...



Agreed, although it costs a bit more than that over here. I love the 22/2, low light or not.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > bainsybike said:
> ...


Blame it on the high VAT.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 2, 2014)

bholliman said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I just took the *SL1 + Tamron 18-270* hiking over 70+ miles. It worked great.
> ...



The SL1+18-270 is acceptable, pretty good actually. After all, the whole point is to reach an acceptable compromise. The IQ is much better than a point and shoot and I can focus and shoot quickly using an SLR. Everything else I've tried is a more difficult and less useful compromise. I tried EOS M, G15, D20 Tough Cam, D30 Tough Cam, S95, etc. They all are basically point and shoots and take forever to focus, etc. The tough cams I like for their ruggedness but they are slow and don't do RAW. 

I also took an EF-S 10-22 for wide shots but I could have lived without it. FYI - I had to remove the lens hood to avoid a flash shadow on the widest focal length using the popup flash (to save weight).


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 2, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> Pitspics said:
> 
> 
> > If i want i lightweight camera for traveling, i would never take a camera with interchangeable lenses.
> ...



Ditto. The SL1 is very lightweight and it's still an SLR. The Tamron 18-270 lens weighed more than the SL1. All other cameras I tried that were not SLR cameras were too slow to focus, zoom or shoot the picture. They were a compromise. If I were going to make that kind of compromise, I would just take the Canon D20 rugged camera like I have in the past. If I wanted super light weight, I would use the 18-55 STM kit lens and give up the better reach/range of the 18-270.

Keep in mind, in my case, I wasn't going for the ability to put the camera in my pocket, I wanted the best camera I could get while saving weight and also be able to survive in an outdoor environment.


----------



## f2 (Aug 2, 2014)

Just finished a week in Venice with a 7D + 15-85 + 10-18. The 10-18 was invaluable. Would have preferred a 5Diii + 16-35 f/4 IS but $$ was a factor. Excellent results with the 7D at first review. IS is a must for shots from a bouncing water taxi!!! Had the 135L as well but did not feel the joy of this lens in the tight confines of Venice. Now in Umbria where the 135 can really shine. The 10-18 is a real gem. Colour rendition is on a par with the 135L!!


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 2, 2014)

My 3 cents: SL1 with Canon 15-85 IS.


----------



## candc (Aug 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My wife has been using an 18-200mm zoom on a 7D on vacations for some time. With a CPL filter she's getting very good results, when she has enough light. For low light situations she turns to my (monsterously heavy) camera bag for a faster prime.
> 
> Alternative: I just bought a Sony RX100 MIII to use when I'm flyfishing (a 5DIII with a 24-70 f2.8L II does not fit inside my waders :). It has the equivalent of a 24-70 lens, with good low light performance. I am very impressed with the IQ from this very small thing.



now were talking. fly fishing and cameras! what do you fish for mostly? we have some really good trout streams and rivers where i live, mostly browns and some brooks with a few rainbows. usally bring a waterproof sony tx-5 that i have had for a few years with me but it needs an update. i looked at a rx100iii today. it is compact but it has a lot of buttons. i wish it just had a touch screen instead but it is feature packed and supposedly the best you can get for a small camera


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 3, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> My 3 cents: SL1 with Canon 15-85 IS.



I tried that combo and while I agree it's sweet... it weighs a ton. That 15-85 is a beast.


----------



## candc (Aug 3, 2014)

somebody mentioned fishing and i lost my train of thought. anyhoo: the sl1 is very nice, the 18-55 kit lens it comes with is really good also and a real bargain. no dslr (even the sl1) is pocketable though so its more about bringing a lens or two that suit your needs. if you are mostly in the normal range then the sigma 18-35 on a 70d is fantastic.


----------

