Is it imperative to have a dedicated camera when traveling to

>>1177921
No, not at all, and sometimes a shitty photo is all you need to relive a great moment, but a good camera is also a great asset.

If you want to get a DSLR, look into getting a decent camera that has been refurbished, ideally by Canon or Nikon.

I went on a big trip recently and got a refurbished Canon T5 with two kit lenses for around $300 which was (and still is) a good deal.
In retrospect, the bigger 70-300mm telephoto lens has been mostly useless, but the 18-55mm lens has been essential.
You can do the same -- more or less - for Nikon and you'll get great photos with either of them.

A camera phone might be fine for a lot of people, but it sucked shit for me because I could hardly ever see what I was doing when it was sunny outside, which happened often.
It was really only good for the convenience factor and small size.

Well think about why you want the camera. If it's just for some selfies/memento snaps to post online, a nice phone will probably do.

If you want to actively photograph, and search out interesting things to snap, you'll probably need a better camera. You can get quite good P&S cameras these days, but obviously a DSLR will give you more flexibility and better results at the expense of portability.

If you want to take photos of wildlife/birds, lots of scenery and good low light shots, you will need a DSLR with a good lens for these to turn out acceptable. This can be quite an investment though, so be sure that you will get use out of the equipment besides your trip before going down this path.

Having a decent camera is very useful for lots of different things though, and like the other anon said, pick up a good enough DSLR body with a kit lens (will probably be as cheap or cheaper than a good P&S) and you can always spend thousands on your autistic 266 mm f/1.69 turbo lenses in the future if you feel like it.

No, it's not.

SLR cameras are not magic. They don't turn selfies into high art. For most people, dropping $500+ on an SLR camera just so you can take photos of tourist traps is a complete waste of money, and your phone camera will suffice.

There was a time long ago when phone cameras had less than 5 megapixels, and they were shit. That's no longer the case today.

The main reason to have an SLR camera is because you can swap lenses, something you can't do with point and shoot cameras like "coolpix" or cellphone cameras. If you don't know shit about lenses, or you only plan on bringing one lens with you while travelling, you don't need an SLR camera. If you're planning on taking long exposure photography at night, if you want to take infrared photos, if you want to mess around with depth of field and apertures and shit, if you have a tripod and want to use it, then get an SLR camera and have fun laying into all the features and swapping out the guts and everything. But let's be real here, most people are too fucking lazy to even get down on one knee to take a photo from a more dynamic angle, and a lot of people buy these $500 SLR camera and never take it off autofocus-- and if that's you, then you don't need an SLR camera.

>a phone camera will cheapen my experience somehow.
It won't. Sometimes having less stuff with you makes a better experience.

>>1177921
>Is it imperative to have a dedicated camera when traveling to a foreign country?

No, unless it is, for you. That's a very subjective ting. I carry two cameras -- Camera A for use in most instances, Camera B is water and dust resistant and is used for rainy days, sandy.dusty excursions or when in the water. But I enjoy taking pictures while traveling, and enjoy looking at them for years afterwards -- some people buy souvenirs, I take my own. But if you are not into it, take snaps with your phone and call it good enough. Hell, some people don't even do that.

>But does an actual camera (as opposed to a mobile phone, let's say) make any difference at all?

Makes better pictures and gives you more options in what you can do taking them, as far as settings and things. It's a question of whether that matters to you, what you will want to do with the pictures later, how much trouble it is to you to lug a camera around... A lot of "you"s in there, indicating there is no answer other than what YOU prefer.

>... what kind of camera would be ideal?

I like the Panasonic LUMIX cameras. For what I do, I need a fair amount of soom, but I don;t like lugginf extra lenses around and the like. Right now I am toting a DMC-fz-300. But it is heavy and a bit spendy. Might not be what you want.


>Sorry if my post seems a little scatterbrained. I'm at the packing stage, and I'm stuck contemplating on cameras, and part of me thinks that a phone camera will cheapen my experience somehow.

Do you use it to take pics at home? Are you happy with what you get? Do you feel like they look cheap when you go back and look at them later? If the answer there is yes, yes and no, then you are likely fine.

Me, I need that zoom, and I want something I can display large later if I want to. To each his own.

>>1177952
>There was a time long ago when phone cameras had less than 5 megapixels, and they were shit. That's no longer the case today.

True enough, they are much better than they were. Compared to an actual camera, they are pretty shitty, but for snapshots and such, they are fine.


>>a phone camera will cheapen my experience somehow.
>It won't. Sometimes having less stuff with you makes a better experience.

Unless OP does not like the picture quality of his phone, Then yeah, maybe it will cheapen how he feels about his pictures later.

>>1178021
>I need a fair amount of soom

Zoom. Dammit.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't use any "soom" at all.

Does anybody know of a compact camera with a good sensor? I want something that can better handle taking pictures indoors/in lower light but I also want something portable.

>>1178022
The camera in my cellphone has 22.6 megapixels. The top selling Nikon DSLR on amazon has 24.2 megapixels. I don't think there are many human eyes that can tell the difference, so I don't imagine OP will be going over his photos saying "gee, I wish these photos had 2 more megapixels."

>>1178035
just figure out how to adjust the iso on your camera phone.

>>1178048
Its not about megapixels and 'adjusting the ISO' is not the answer here.

Sensor size is far more important than how many megapixels you have. And the tiny sensor in a smartphone will always be limited in low light conditions.

>>1178048
I came here to post this, more or less: >>1178052
with maybe some additional use of the word "lenses."

But if your phone takes pics that you find acceptable, good. There is no One True Answer.

>>1177921
I just recently went through Canada, the US, Peru, Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico and before I left I contemplated whether to buy a proper camera or stick with my iPhone 5s to document my trip. I'm not much of a photographer at all, but I got a Sony A5000.
Was worth every penny, and I'm glad I have some proper photos with decent detail on them.
Used phone for some shots, but the camera was great, especially for Machu Picchu.
Do it man

Get a mirrorless camera with an APS-C sensor. The sensors are the same size and quality as you find on entry-level to intermediate level DSLR cameras, but they are a lot less bulky, really helps you just whip out the camera to take some quick shots, saves space in your backpack. And they also have interchangeable lenses.

Well, a cheap camera in the hands of a pro will probably provide better pictures than an expensive one in the hands of an amateur so don't spend thousands on one if you don't know what you're doing. I did that (I have a D750) and it took me an eternity to learn it.

I don't regret it in the slightest because stepping up from a phone camera to a DSLR made me want to take pictures instead of doing it out of a sense of obligation. I always felt like my pictures were just to give an idea of where I went. Now I feel like my pictures bring my trip to life for those that didn't go.

It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it was one of the best things I did when it comes to travel. On the face of it that might sound like I am missing the point of travel, but it's made me actively seek out more interesting things. I am actually "seeing" things now, and not just looking at them.

Whether it's something as simple as nice architecture or an interesting moment in the street I am always on the lookout. Before I used to glance around and be taken in by the atmosphere but come away remembering how I felt, but not what I saw.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Basically, do it.

A phone camera is tiny, so it has a tiny lens and a tiny sensor, which decreases image quality (less sharpness, increased noise, etc). You're also most likely limited to digital zoom, which generally produces terrible results.
On the plus side, it's always with you and easy to carry, and the image quality is mostly decent enough for mementos.
If you need a camera or not depends mostly on how ambitious you are and if have an interest in photography or not.

A DSLR is impractical for traveling. It's too bulky.
A MILC is a more compact choice and most are just as good as DSLRs.
They are a bit expensive though, so if you want to get a decent one, $500 is already a tight budget.
The main problem is lens choice - some lenses are very unwieldy and heavy, good ones often expensive, and you might want some for special shots, so lens choice is a compromise between space, weight, price and image quality. Kit lenses often kinda suck.

Another option is a compact camera. They offer more flexibility (zoom, etc) than a phone, but won't quite reach the image quality of a good lens on a good MILC/DSLR. They're often space-efficient, though, and they're a bit cheaper.

tl;dr
pleb tier - phone
poor tier - compact camera
ambitious tier - MILC
photography is why I travel tier - DSLR

>>1178094
>it's made me actively seek out more interesting things. I am actually "seeing" things now, and not just looking at them.

This. I concur.

>>1178035
>Does anybody know of a compact camera with a good sensor? I want something that can better handle taking pictures indoors/in lower light but I also want something portable.
If you want a coolpix or something like that, you buy one. Assume $350 is your starting pricepoint for professional line point and shots, and maybe $550 is your ceiling. These point and shoot cameras must come with the wider lens, and a few of the bells and whistles their higher quality cameras have, like shake correction They do have better sensors. So, newbs can do great things like fast sports and moving animal pics, lower light, some smaller amount of zoom, some of the auto-focus benefits on multiple points, but at least it's not digitally done fake zoom due to the larger lens than your phone is using.

Did you say where you were going OP? What kinds of pics? Those atmospheric shots that you can't do without a nice camera might just be true if you're climbing some huge peak, want to do a lot of night photography, pictures of yourself indoors at family gatherings (you will never see these people again worries), attending a music festival, or taking shots you clearly know you will want to enlarge and hang on your wall. If you aren't a camera enthusiast, just realize you can work up towards that more easily if you do buy a nice basic DSLR now, and simply get into the better lenses and such as you learn how to use them or find the need to sink that money even further. Do you think you ever will be a photog buff? Don't sweat whatever you spend now, because there's always craigslist or ebay when you think you bought wrong (or buy it on a credit card and at a nice store with 30day returns, so buyers remorse sets in you can return it for the better model).

Most of my take it or leave it camera choices have to do with wanting to carry no weight on my person, or else theft/attention reasons to have nicer things. I don't give a shit about leaving a point and shoot in my hotel room.

>>1178048
>The camera in my cellphone has 22.6 megapixels. The top selling Nikon DSLR on amazon has 24.2 megapixels.

Brilliant detective work (-:

>>1178112
you can do that with any fucking camera, though.

You're praising the placebo effect an SLR camera had on you.

>>1178048
>Implying everything good about a camera is the megapixels

>>>>1178183
>Ignoring my other posts

SLRs are better than camera phones, no doubt. One is a machine precisely manufactured for photography, the other is a feature tacked onto a Facebook machine. But like I already said, most people don't need an SLR camera.

Will you be bracketing? Will you be composing your shots? Will you be doing long exposures? Will you bring a tripod? Will you wake up a 4 am to take photos during magic hour? Will you be making poster sized prints? For most people the answer is no. In that case, use a cell phone.

Will you be taking selfies? Will you post things on Instagram? Do you want to do that Sin City thing where you make the photo black and white except for a rose, or your eyes? Is the only difference between a good photo and a bad photo whether or not it's blurry? For most people the answer is yes, and they don't need an SLR.

I'm not saying camera phones are just as good as SLR cameras. I'm saying for most people they are just as good.

>>1177921
>is it imperative to have a dedicated camera when traveling to a foreign country?

It is if you want one. It's not if you don't. What the kind of retarded question is this? It's like asking id you need to bring your phone or your books or something. Bring whatever the fuck you want.

>>1178201
You are ignoring anybody who is not going to do all the fancy stuff but still wants something capable of taking good photos in anything but ideal conditions.

Also not everybody who does not need a DSLR is a vapid selfie taking, instragaram user. Stop being so condescending.

>>1178277
>anything but ideal conditions
Camera phones are much better than that.

>Not everyone is a vapid selfies taking...
I see too many fucking idiots marching around with bulky as fuck SLRs taking mediocre photos with them to believe that. A crappy snapshot is a crappy snapshot, regardless of what camera is being used. Similarly, if you're any good you can make due with a lesser camera.

Like I said before, most people don't need an SLR because most people have no fucking clue what they're doing.

>>1177921
No. I'm a /p/hag so I carry one most of the time while traveling but I also use my phone to take pictures and that's cool. How important are the pictures anyway? What is their purpose, and what kind of pictures would you like to take? SLRs like the one you posted are bulky and often impractical to carry, especially with multiple lenses (not to mention the risk of them getting stolen), so it seems better to rely on your phone (or a compact) unless you need high resolution images, or DSLR features...
I could get into gearfagging and recommend travel cameras, but honestly chances are you don't need one so save yourself the trouble.

For some reason nobody seems to make a rugged, waterproof compact camera that also has a large sensor. That would be ideal for a lot of travellers.

>>1178182
Yeah, I probably like a lot of other things you don't like as well.

Such is life.

>>1177921
It's not imperative to have a dedicated camera, it depends on where you're going, how you're travelling, what your interests are and myriad other factors.

Obviously an SLR will get you better shots, and with the technology these days you don't need to have that much skill to get some pretty good shots (of course truly top-tier shots still require a high degree of skill). I also don't buy into the argument that photography inherently enhances or detracts from your experience, it's just technology, how you use it is up to you.

Personally I like to bring a decent compact/point and shoot. An SLR is too big for me and I try to avoid bringing valuable items that I can't easily keep on me wherever I go. I don't often photograph landscapes/monuments because you can usually just go online and find a way better picture than I could ever take, but the cellphone camera is shit for anything more than a few metres away so the compact is a happy medium for me.

Photography is like any other creative pursuit where technology has greatly lowered the barrier for entry and made it harder for those outside to judge skill. Thus you get people like >>1178281 who get all buttmad that beginners are going around with expensive SLRs taking decent photos, meanwhile few people can appreciate the difference their extra practice produces.

It's the same as a golfer hating on another golfer who uses expensive custom clubs to compensate for his swing, or the guitarist jealous of the other guy impressing girls with his Guns n Roses riff while nobody appreciates his neoclassic shred.

>>1178414
If you want to like something, that's fine, just have a reason.

>>1178417
You've kind of got the wrong idea.

If you drop $1,000 on an antique Les Paul or NASA-built titanium golf clubs without knowing how to properly tee off or knowing a basic three cord progression, you're wasting your money. Expensive equipment does not automatically produce good results. That's something a salesman would tell you.

>>1178418
Of course an expensive camera doesn't magically produce good shots, but it makes it easier for the average punter to get good shots. Especially these days, when there a models specifically designed to take reduce the technical knowledge required. If you hand a decent DSLR to someone who's only ever used their iPhone prior, they're not going to produce much. But give them a quick run-down on the basic use, then let them practice for a few hours, then some of the shots they'll get will be pretty good. Better than a professional, suitable for high marks in a photography class assignment? Of course not, but certainly better than what they would get with a simpler camera. I can understand a professional getting annoyed by a beginner trying to discredit their abilities but how often does that actually happen in real life?

So really, who gives a fuck if they're not using it to its full potential if they enjoy using it and it produces an output that's suitable for them.

>>1178430
>But give them a quick run-down on the basic use, then let them practice for a few hours, then some of the shots they'll get will be pretty good.
No, they'll probably continue to put whatever they're photographing dead center of the frame, taking photos of airplane windows on landing without a polarizing lens, and taking all their photos from eye level.

>certainly better than what they would get with a simpler camera.
What makes you say this? If I gave some idiot soccer mom a camera phone and an SLR camera, and told her to go take photos of the statue of liberty with both cameras, do you really think she would somehow take better photos with the SLR? I think she would wind up taking the same photos with both cameras, because it's the same photographer using them.

>who gives a fuck if they're not using it to its full potential if they enjoy using it and it produces an output that's suitable for them.
We're not talking about what cameras people "enjoy" using, we're talking about whether or not owning an SLR is an absolute necessity. The answer is no, it's not. If you're not going to take advantage of the features an SLR camera offers you, and just take autofocus snapshots all day like you would with a cell phone, why the fuck would you buy an SLR?

>>1178434
Breh I'm not trying to convince people to use a more sophisticated camera than they need or have the ability to use to its full potential. I'm just saying it's autistic to get so mad about what other travelers use to take photos when it doesn't effect you in the slightest.

>>1178434
You are still ignoring the fact a better camera is better in more situations. Come back to me when a phone has a sensor large enough to take pictures in a dimly lit church or a cave without failing utterly.

Or is simply being inherently superior at taking photos not a 'feature' to you?

>>1177921
>Is it imperative to have a dedicated camera when traveling to a foreign country?
Of course not. If you like to take photos, as noted above, you can certainly get a lot of mileage out of a simple and/or secondhand DSLR--I am an enthusiastic but not particularly gifted photographer, and I have gotten some great shots on a Canon EOS Rebel, among the most basic DSLRs out there. I also got a telephoto lens which came in handy for wildlife shots--I have a bunch of large framed prints decorating my house.

But the 'real camera' means an extra, dedicated bag that gets heavy, could theoretically get lost, stolen, or smashed, and has to be hauled around. I don't always want or bring it.

A good phone fits in your pocket and takes decent snapshots. I use this for a great many of my trips.

A modern, high-quality point-and-shoot, of which there are many nowadays, will produce images at least as good as a DSLR in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, or how to take pictures.

My father-in-law and sister-in-law are both serious photographers, with a lot more gear than I've ever wanted (he also shoots film and only recently closed the darkroom in his basement), and they both often use small but good point-and-shoot cameras.

Honestly one of my biggest regrets from my last trip was not taking a better camera. All I had was my cellphone and a shitty mid-2000s digital compact. The phone was fine for taking pictures of/with people, objects, funny/weird shit, but for anything outside or large I wanted to use the compact and because of its low resolution it didn't do a good job at that. I'm not big into social media but I do run a blog when travelling solo (shit's easier than writing 5x emails/week to soothe Mum's nerves) so I would have liked some higher quality photos that would have looked alright when viewed on a computer monitor or printout.

Next time I'm going to splash out a few hundred for a decent compact.

>>1178446
>I'm not trying to convince people to use a more sophisticated camera than they need.
But that's exactly what you're doing when you say everyone needs an SLR camera.

If I'm mad it's because I have to keep repeating myself every time one of you morons completely misread what the OP is asking. He's not asking if SLRs are better, he's asking if they're essential.

>>1178475
Gee, maybe if that's the case op should see how well his current camera functions in dim light and decide for himself if it's insufficient.
>dimly lit church or cave
When op said he needed a camera that worked fine in low light, I assumed he meant places like bars, restaurants, maybe a cityscape. I didn't assume he meant he was going spelunking, in which case not even the fanciest fucking SLR will take a decent photo if you don't know how to adjust your iso or have a tripod with you.
>or is being inherently superior
once again: the average fucking person does not need a top-of-the-line, I-can-photograph-vampire-bats-200-feet-underground camera. Do I have to turn caps lock on? We're not talking about what's "superior" we're talking about what's suitable. The average person does not need to drop money on an SLR.

>>1177921
Any if the newest starter nikon or canon is good enough. But you need a 18-200mm lens aka do everything lens with that dslr, buy the lens secondhand

>>1178078
Less weight maybe, but it doesn't save space. You can't make the lens any smaller. It's just physics man, you can't make a zoom lens as small as a 50mm lens

My Galaxy S6 takes better pictures than my Nikon D3300. 16MP vs 24MP so no idea why. I know pretty much nothing about photography but I'm using the built in features and the pictures are shit.

>>1178547
Even with kit lens, no ways that's true. Maybe on the s6 screen. But blown up the D3300 will win every time

File: P1185592.jpg (1MB, 7040x2504px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 7040x2504px

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a panorama of Bergen made with iPhone 5.

>>1177921
What? No.

Most mobile phones have cameras that are good enough to capture good shots.

Everybody has already seen a billion perfect pictures of Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower so photos on your travels should be more personal in my opinion.

Feel free to carry around a big fucking camera for your perfect shots of tourist traps but I personally prefer the convenience of whipping out my phone at a party or interesting place and snapping a quick picture. The whole action takes like 5 seconds.

File: P1185593.jpg (1MB, 8428x2449px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 8428x2449px

Well, two pictures to be exact. This one is shot at the same time with a micro 4/3 (smaller sensor than DSLR) Olympus PEN.

File: 20160616_085627.jpg (5MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5312x2988px

>>1178548

From my trip to Banff. This is from my phone. The next is from my D3300 in Landscape mode.

File: DSC_0013.jpg (7MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 6000x4000px

>>1178580

I gotta believe they are getting compressed when switched from SD card to my computer, zooming in on the camera pics is horrible.

>>1178580
>>1178581
>>1178548

So maybe it's any of the viewing programs, because on firefox it looks good.

>>1178581
Nah, It looks like the camera photo isn't shot so well. Also the shooting conditions are obviously different, so you can't really compare these two.

>>1178585

Pictures were taken about an hour apart.

Since this is a thread about cameras, I might as well ask this:

How much storage (SD cards, in gigabytes) should one bring? I have a 32GB card right now, but camera technology today is very different from just a few years ago, and I hear that filesizes are getting bigger.

>>1178777

Depends if you shoot in Raw. To be safe, I always bring 2 64GB cards.