BootsnAll Travel Community

Does anyone have any experience with travelling with an SLR camera? I got a beautiful second-hand camera for Christmas - it's about 20 years old, but in perfect condition - and right now I'm going photo-mad learning how to use it.

I love what I can do with it, and I'm thinking of setting up my own darkroom soon. I feel like I've found an artform that I can actually do! I'm one of those artist-wannabes with very little talent in visual arts, and now that I'm doing beautiful things with my camera...well, I'm thrilled!

So here's the question: has anyone travelled long-haul with an SLR? Is it worth the weight and bulk? I travel very light, with a carry-on bag, so my camera would take up a serious chunk of space. What about safety? Has anyone had their camera or lenses nicked, or have you felt less safe for lugging the camera around?

Weighing the pros and cons, would you suggest I bring mine with me on my next trip?

Cheers,
Random
bolt.icestorm.com/lyric

I say do it. You will be so much happier with the results than bringing a point and shoot or digi cam.

I've always been protective of my camera so I took it, a 26 yr old Minolta SRT 101, everywhere with me until recently - it was stolen out of my car the day I got back from a three month trip and I miss it terribly! I felt safe travelling with it w/o the case. It's less obvious to would-be thieves and if you do not take a case with you it fits nicely between the clothes in your pack. True, it did add to the weight, but the end justified the means.

The big issue is, knock on wood it never happens, repairs. If you are in the middle of a long haul and the camera wigs on you, even common problems will probably be unfixable. Most cameras that old have to be sent to the manufacturer for repairs. I suggest taking it to a shop for a bit of pre-trip servicing. See, the thief didn't know it, but my camera crapped out on me with a week left on my trip.

But what I printed when I got home were beyond my expectations. Totally worth the weight. By the way, what kind of camera did you get? (she asks, vicariously living through someone else's good fortune).

cheers,
delara

I agree entirely with Delara's response.

I keep my SLR in a sidebag that isn't a 'camera bag' and that makes it less of a target for thieves. If I feel like I'm in a dodgy area I don't take the camera out. Having a small bag that I can keep with me allows me to leave my backpack in my room and keep valuables with me, this reduces stress somewhat.

You never know when a good shot may present itself so it's good to have the camera loaded with film and ready to go.

After carrying a full complement of lenses for six-months and only using one or two regularly I decided on my next trip to take only two lenses. A moderate wide angle (28 mm) and an extreme wide angle (18 mm). Your choices may be different than mine but I encourage you to experiment with your equipment (and films) before you go. Sounds like you are.

The tip about having a pre-trip check-up is a very good one. Also be sure to clean your camera along the way, dust and sand are camera killers, even more so than water really.

Be sure to have extra batteries, if your camera needs them. I met a couple along the way that were in dispair about their 'broken' camera and it turned out to be a case of dead batteries. Depending on where you go and what batteries your camera uses it can be difficult to find the type you need.

Also, as Delara pointed out, the photos you get may well have more enduring value that the equipment you used to capture them so take the camera you like to use and use it a lot.

Cheers, Aaron

I think one advantage to an SLR is that it actually takes longer per shot than a point and shoot. This may seem like a disadvantage, but if you take the time to think about your shot, compose it, fix the aperture / shutter speed etc. you will end up with fewer, but better pictures. Isn't that the idea?

I remember taking a point and shoot by Pentax to Nepal. It was a really handy camera, but once we reached altitude it stopped working. Another friend who had the latest 'do everything' camera had a low battery problem. How I wished for a no nonsense SLR with manual shutter. I used to have a Nikon F3, which for those who don't know is a bomb proof older model that was favoured by journalists.

Small auto cameras are handy as you can have them on you more often, but an SLR will offer better control and better pictures.

Nic

And if you are at all concerned about getting the quick shot, take that pesky point and shoot with you as well. I used to travel with both and, when the occasion arose, chose between the two. I've always been happier with the SLR photos, though.

Single Lense Reflex - I did not know what that stood for - so I asked Nick across the office and he told me in case anyone else was wondering waht it was

It means - it the action that one of these cameras take - the light bounces off of a mirror or something like that once...anyone else know what it is?

Single Lens Reflex means that there is only one lens used for composing and taking the photo.

There is a mirror in front of the film, at a 45 degree angle, which springs up and out of the way when you press the shutter release. There is also a prism which turns the image around the right way left to right-wise, it would otherwise be backwards (the mirror flips the image around so it's not upside down).

Some other popular (at least historically) types of cameras are:

Rangefinder, which Leica is famous for but also includes most point and shoots, where there is a seperate little window for composing the shot.

Twin Lens Reflex, which Rollieflex is famous for but also includes several lesser-known makes, where there is a second lens directly above the taking lens. These have a mirror but, usually, not a prism so the image is backwards left to right-wise.

Large-format, where the image is directly projected onto a special glass for composing and focusing, the image is upside-down and backwards. A sheet of film is then placed exactly where the glass was and exposed.

I like to use single lens reflex cameras because you can see exactly what's going on the film, the right way around. On better cameras there's a little button which allows 'depth-of-field' preview so you can see exactly what will be in focus and what will be out of focus, this give me qiuck and easy creative control over the entire look of the composition.

Sorry if this was more than you wanted to know.

Cheers, Aaron

Beauty -

Thanks for the explanation...it is much clearer now!

Sean

Well, I'm convinced. I'll be bringing the camera along next time I go on a trip.

Cheers,
steph

Glad to see you decided to take it, random. I was going to say that when I was in Scotland I had an SLR Nikon with me, thing was older than I am, something my dad had given me. But I tell you, that camera could take pictures anywhere! I was traveling through the Highlands in January, it was cold and spitting rain and ice, but the camera did just fine - even after I accidentally dropped it a few times :-)

The better control really is great. Taking the extra time to compose, having a better range of lenses, it's wonderful. I also agree with taking a wider-angle lens, say a 28mm or 35mm; I only had a basic 52mm and a 70-220mm zoom; they worked okay, but there was many a time where I would've eaten raw haggis for a wide-angle.

I'd also get the camera serviced before you leave, that way you should be able to head off any potential problems. Also, for on-the-road maintenance, a wee bottle of lens cleaner and a packet of lens tissue will add negligible weight/bulk, and help keep lenses clear and clean (only get the paper made specifically for lenses though, other stuff will scratch).

I didn't have a fancy bag for my stuff, just cobbled it in with my daypack usually, and only had the camera out when I was shooting; otherwise I had it tucked into my coat or shirt, so it wasn't always visible.

Good luck with it!

I stopped taking a small handheld with me travelling ages ago, they're a nuisance and the results are never as good. When you go so far on holiday the last thing you need to record memories is a crap camera.

A fully auto SLR can be had new for well under £200 these days and if you shop around for second hand auto-SLRs this can dip under 100. Just as easy as a handheld, just as portable, but way better results.

A 70-200mm lens will be fine for most circumstances but a 28mm wide angle is also a must. If you can afford it simply buy a 28-300mm lens and you'll never need swap your lens again!!

Remember, it's the lens that matters, plus, as a simple guide, always remember to get some perspective in your photos for the best shots, make sure you have something in the foreground and background for the best depth to a photo. For instance, a cliff wall may look fantastic to your wide-angle eye but will always look crap on a photo if you take the shot facing the wall! Put someone in front of the cliff-face and even better, get some sky in there for real perspective! Get a picture of a camel walking in front of a pyramid rather than just the pyramid, or get all 3 in line.

If you put a bit of life into your shots, or try something unusual (think perspective-foreground/background!!) the results will blow you away!!!

Easy.

Hi there;
Thanks everyone for your valuable information. My partner and I are about to embark on a year plus travel around the world and wonder what we should be doing camera wise....We have an SLR, a point and shoot 35mm and were thinking of a digital so we can send pix home during our travels. We are concerned about picture quality with a digital...we are also concerned about what to do with film, developing, mailing home, with an SLR...We also have the regular weight and theft issues with an SLR...Has anyone been on a long term trip with an SLR? Digital? What did you do for film and did you keep the used film in your pack or did you send it home developed/undeveloped? How is the quality of pictures with a mid-range quality digital camera? Any feedback anyone has would be very helpful, thanks in advance!

I have had a Cannon Rebel SLR for the past five years without a problem and many great pictures. It is perfect for traveling because of its light weight and ruggedness. I wouldn't travel without it.

I was in Europe for three months and took an SLR with me, shot about 150 rolls of 35mm and medium format. As I was shooting quite a bit, film did become a burden.

To ensure quality prints, film has to be developed soon after being used. So I did have to mail film back to the states to a friend to take care of it. As your trip is a year long, definitly, this will be needed. Unless you want to develop along the way, which means you end up with even more to carry.

For my next trip (6 months RTW) I plan on taking a digital camera (Olympus E-20) along with something called an ImageBank (made by SIMA). There are several brands of this type device (look on www.dpreview.com under storage forum). Basically, it's a notebook computer hard drive that will store all your pictures from the digital camera, just plug your memory into it. About the size of a point and shoot camera. They come in several hard drive sizes, so think about how much data you'll have. (10 gigs, ~4000 pictures at 5 megapixel detail)

You can also hook this thing up to a computer to download the images and send them. Overall, a much more compact solution than film.

Hope this helps!

Try travelling with a medium format!!! 3.5kg and the size of a..... two slrs. but stunning results!

If I had a preference it would be for the SLR over point and shoot. I have traveled with both and feel I have much greater control over the result with an SLR. I basically use two lenses: wide angle and telephoto zooms. Of course it depends on what you want out of your photos

Think I have passed the bugs (travel and photography) to my youngest daughter who is ending up 5 months in Australia. we just got a package with 20 developed rolls in it with a note - "these are just some of my pics" LOL

serendipity was my tour guide, aided by caprice

I always travel abroad with a SLR. I am a photographer and ph professor and yes I travelled for 10 weeks in the British Isles with a slr and a medium format camera. The same for Mexico two weeks this year. The same for Bahamas twice last year. ETCI would recommend getting a second camera body for whichever model you initially purchased and use the second one for black and white or slides or any other type of film. it's too inconvenient to take the roll out put another type of film in and do that again when you wish to switch film again.
I do have a Nikon FM which is one of the lightest 35 mm on the market. i would strongly recommend a lightweight camera.
I never let the camera out of my sight. If I am on a bus it does not go on the luggage rack, it sits on my lap.
Good luck, read a lot of how to do camera books and shoot!

I traveled America and Europe with my SLR but am not taking it RTW... have decided to join the digital revolution for this trip.

Marylou

I agree with everyone else....... don't leave home without it. I'm a picture freak so I've even gone without things just to make space for my camera.

jaynefm

Last year I finally made the switch to digital and at first I was very dissapointed because I like to print my pics. After buying and returning several cameras I am finally happy about switching! A few months ago I bought myself a HP Photosmart 850 and LOVE it to death!! LOVE,LOVE,LOVE!!!

If your passion for SLR camera photography is great enough, then you won't use the verb "lugging."

e.

http://www.theglobaltrip.com