The travel question

Over the years - and there have been many of them, which is increasingly relevant - I've adopted a few different approaches to image-making while travelling. If it's been business, and/or I've needed pix for publication or other use, then it's been pretty straightforward: take "best" camera and selection of "best" lenses and deal with the logistics. Family holidays are a lot more relaxed, but I still want images for posterity so will err on the side of quality and flexibility. Road trips, where weight is not an issue, I'll happily take the kitchen sink.

However, over the last decade or so, we've been tending towards fewer but longer trips - especially back to Europe to see friends and relatives before either they or we die or become to old to travel (we already have the compression socks). Next year, we're going to spend six or seven weeks in the UK and Europe. Activities will include catching up with old friends in the UK, a bike tour of Bordeaux and its vineyards, walking a section of the Stevenson Trail (without donkey), and some time eating, drinking and (perhaps) cycling in Girona. We'll be living out of two suitcases, and the lighter they are, the better.

On our last similar excursion (last year) I took the R6, the 70-200 f4, 14-35 f4 and 50mm f1.8 and got some nice shots. I'd have liked a longer lens for birds on a few occasions (Bempton Cliffs, Pembrokeshire Coast Path), but the weight of the 100-500 didn't appeal to my back. The main difference next year is that for a couple of sections we'll be relying on third parties to move suitcases while we cycle or walk, and I really don't want to trust a lot of gear to French rural taxi drivers.

That's the context. Here's the question. What's your preferred lightweight single camera solution for this sort of trip?

One obvious answer is to rely on the smartphone that will be with me wherever I go. I recently updated to the iPhone 17 Pro, and at least partly justified the expense on the grounds that it's a good snapshot machine. I'm also finding my way round Adobe's Project Indigo camera app, and I'm impressed with what it can do. But, but... can I really rely on it as my main camera for a long trip?

But what about "proper"cameras with bigger sensors? Things like the Fujifilm X100VI or similar? I like the retro looks, but don't have Leica money. If Canon brought out something like the Nikon Z f or fc, I'd be all over it in a flash (or without flash - seldom use it).

So what does the hive mind think? All suggestions gratefully received.

Cheers

Sunset after rain, Girona from Can Lliure. June 2024

For light travel I used to take a crop and ES 18-55 and ES 55- 250. Light, cheap and good IQ. If I dropped a lens into a river I’d just buy another one. Never happened but I approached it that way.

Not an iPhone or full gear but it still made me feel like I was using real gear. I went to Singapore with only my iPhone and Canon G11 for 5 days. Neither felt quite right.

That's not a bad idea. An R50 perhaps, or R10, with kit lens is in budget. Has the benefit of working with all my other glass when I'm not travelling... Anybody got any experience with those bodies. Lack of IBIS might be an issue?

I shot with my R without IBIS and didn’t even notice. I’ll post a shot with my 100-500.

With 100-500



With EF 100-400 II and 2X

Thailand 18-55 @ 18



Switzerland 55 - 250 @ 250

Also the Canon 16mm 2.8 is sharp

This from Thailand is sharper. 18mm

I think that some of the 'cheaper' or more 'consumer' RF lenses give better quality than some review sites, but mostly forums, claim. To me the quality is often far better than actually needed. People (including me on some occasions) tend to want to have there ultimate lenses with them for that very unique opportunity that may occur for which they want the best quality their gear is able to, while in reality they hardly need that quality.

Travelling lighter does mean a 'compromise' on ultimate quality, but I do not feel that the 'remaining' quality is insufficient for most uses.

When cycling or hiking in the mountains I want to bring more than my phone. Having full frame Canon's, that is what I take. For most of my shooting I prefer a larger camera, I now shoot gripped R5 series. Other than the megapixels, I prefer the R5 or R6 style over R3 and R1, since the grip is optional.

So for travels, I leave the grip at home. For cycling and hiking I take my R5 and the RF 24-240. If I want to cover a wider end, the 16mm f2.8 or the RF 15-30 STM are easy to throw in the back and if I want tele, the RF100-400 is a decent performer. Even with the full frame body it isn't that big of a kit and still fits a not too large slingback or can just me in pouches in my backpack.

When light levels drop and I need sufficient shutter speed, I just need to take my f2.8's. But at the cost of weight.

Bucolic Old Sir Henry said:

Over the years - and there have been many of them, which is increasingly relevant - I've adopted a few different approaches to image-making while travelling. If it's been business, and/or I've needed pix for publication or other use, then it's been pretty straightforward: take "best" camera and selection of "best" lenses and deal with the logistics. Family holidays are a lot more relaxed, but I still want images for posterity so will err on the side of quality and flexibility. Road trips, where weight is not an issue, I'll happily take the kitchen sink.

However, over the last decade or so, we've been tending towards fewer but longer trips - especially back to Europe to see friends and relatives before either they or we die or become to old to travel (we already have the compression socks). Next year, we're going to spend six or seven weeks in the UK and Europe. Activities will include catching up with old friends in the UK, a bike tour of Bordeaux and its vineyards, walking a section of the Stevenson Trail (without donkey), and some time eating, drinking and (perhaps) cycling in Girona. We'll be living out of two suitcases, and the lighter they are, the better.

On our last similar excursion (last year) I took the R6, the 70-200 f4, 14-35 f4 and 50mm f1.8 and got some nice shots. I'd have liked a longer lens for birds on a few occasions (Bempton Cliffs, Pembrokeshire Coast Path), but the weight of the 100-500 didn't appeal to my back. The main difference next year is that for a couple of sections we'll be relying on third parties to move suitcases while we cycle or walk, and I really don't want to trust a lot of gear to French rural taxi drivers.

That's the context. Here's the question. What's your preferred lightweight single camera solution for this sort of trip?

One obvious answer is to rely on the smartphone that will be with me wherever I go. I recently updated to the iPhone 17 Pro, and at least partly justified the expense on the grounds that it's a good snapshot machine. I'm also finding my way round Adobe's Project Indigo camera app, and I'm impressed with what it can do. But, but... can I really rely on it as my main camera for a long trip?

But what about "proper"cameras with bigger sensors? Things like the Fujifilm X100VI or similar? I like the retro looks, but don't have Leica money. If Canon brought out something like the Nikon Z f or fc, I'd be all over it in a flash (or without flash - seldom use it).

So what does the hive mind think? All suggestions gratefully received.

Cheers

Sunset after rain, Girona from Can Lliure. June 2024

View attachment 40655

Click to expand...

Hi Gareth,

'What's your preferred lightweight single camera solution for this sort of trip?'.

Sony RX10 IV. (20.1MP 1-inch stacked CMOS sensor, 24-600mm f/2.4−4 ZEISS lens, A9 class AF, 24 fps and 4K video).

Sadly Sony discontinued development and no longer manufacture these - though you can occasionally find one for sale. We still use ours - a lot.

Otherwise, my suggestion would be a FF Canon Rxxx with RF 24-105mm f/4L, RF 70-200mm f/4L and RF 16mm f/2.8. (+ iPhone 17... ).

Phil

Jan_K said:

... I take my R5 and the RF 24-240.

Click to expand...

+1

This is my preferred 'just a camera and lens' solution for travel. The 24-240 does not get enough love. Its a very handy lens and does what it needs to do.

If I'm really pressed for space then I take my Sony Rx100VII.

+1 for the RF24-240mm, it is always with me when I travel.

I really don't care much about weight. Camera bag is on my shoulder, camera is around my neck. No problem here, no body strain. Problem would be if I would miss great quality photos with all the Canon gear I paid a fortune for. At 68 my opinion may change 5 or 10 years later. Hope not!

Ferenc MÓGOR said:

I really don't care much about weight. Camera bag is on my shoulder, camera is around my neck. No problem here, no body strain. Problem would be if I would miss great quality photos with all the Canon gear I paid a fortune for. At 68 my opinion may change 5 or 10 years later. Hope not!

Click to expand...

It's not so much about weight - though that's important on longer hikes: I lugged 3kg of camera and lenses along the Milford Track (4 days) and that was 3kgs too much over the McKinnon Pass... ;-) On cycle tours though, it's more about compactness and security. Typically you only have a small handlebar or frame bag to carry your day stuff while your suitcase goes on to the next overnight stop. That's why I mentioned the Fujifilm camera; small enough to be pocketable but with serious image-making abilities.

I will have to go and play with some of the R series crop bodies though. Greg at Photo & Video will probably try and sell me a Leica, so it might be an expensive visit. ;-)

I'm finding weight is getting less appealing every year. Even just ½ a pound adds up at the end of the day.

When I retired I started making more trips on motorcycle. Weight wasn't a problem, space was.
I got a Panasonic FZ1000 to fit in a 6x6x9 bag and found it to be a great little travel camera.
And it was cheap enough I didn't worry about it getting stolen or dropped.

We have a calendar photo contest that draws around 500 entries every year. A FZ landscape was the January 2023 header.

I will agree with Jan above that the ‘consumer’ RF lenses are better than what some review sites/forums claim. Let me be clear-I’m a relative newcomer to photography, and will defer to those of you that have more knowledge and experience than I do. That being said, I got acceptable images with my R50 and 18-45 kit lens. They aren’t pro quality, but then I’m not pro quality either. I traded my 18-45 and 55-210 in on a 18-150 just so I could have one lens for mostly that range. I have the 35mm 1.8 prime as well. I would think that for a lightweight, everyday carry rig, the R50 might suit Sir Henry’s needs. As far as lack of IBIS, the lens IS seems to be enough. I’m happy with the results I get, and given my skill level, at this point it isn’t the camera that’s holding me back. It’s a small camera and I have big hands, but I got used to it.
Dale

R50 and RF 18-45 lens for reference

SwampGrizz said:

I will agree with Jan above that the ‘consumer’ RF lenses are better than what some review sites/forums claim. Let me be clear-I’m a relative newcomer to photography, and will defer to those of you that have more knowledge and experience than I do. That being said, I got acceptable images with my R50 and 18-45 kit lens. They aren’t pro quality, but then I’m not pro quality either. I traded my 18-45 and 55-210 in on a 18-150 just so I could have one lens for mostly that range. I have the 35mm 1.8 prime as well. I would think that for a lightweight, everyday carry rig, the R50 might suit Sir Henry’s needs. As far as lack of IBIS, the lens IS seems to be enough. I’m happy with the results I get, and given my skill level, at this point it isn’t the camera that’s holding me back. It’s a small camera and I have big hands, but I got used to it.
Dale

Click to expand...

The new flange design moving the rear element closer to the sensor makes a difference.

Bucolic Old Sir Henry said:

That's not a bad idea. An R50 perhaps, or R10, with kit lens is in budget. Has the benefit of working with all my other glass when I'm not travelling... Anybody got any experience with those bodies. Lack of IBIS might be an issue?

Click to expand...

I bought an R10 about a year ago to anchor a little urban prowl kit. I got RF-S 18-150mm and 10-18mm lenses specifically for that body. I don't use it a ton, but when I do it's awesome. Those lenses are tiny and I get a full 16-240mm FF equiv kit that fits in a Think Tank Retrospective 5 shoulder bag, which is smaller than a messenger bag.

I've got an R7 (and xxD cameras before that) that I used for city shooting when it wasn't being used for wildlife, but the R10 takes that to another level of inconspicuousness and portability.

My first lens for that camera was a Sigma 18-50/2.8. My wife and daughter started using that camera some, and neither the camera nor the lens have any kind of stabilization. I picked up those Canon RF-S lenses for them because they have IS, but now I use those lenses too when I use that body.