touring with a SLR vs Compact camera
 

What are peoples thoughts and preferences on touring with an digital SLR vs digital compact camera, and is it worth taking something like a Go Pro for some riding footage?

I switched to a compact in the dying days of 35mm and matched or exceeded the quality of my OM system using a Ricoh GR1s.
Nowadays, we have a handy compromise in 4/3 style systems, plenty of quality and features in a slim package, esp with smaller lenses.
My old canon A630 soldiers on, producing good enough 8MB pics, with all the modes and features and a moveable screen for selfies and odd angles.
Making a movie of touring that is in any way watchable or interesting is a hard task and gets in the way of actual touring. Once you have the "footage" you have to edit; a skill which is under-rated by many amateur movie makers.

I carry a compact waterproof camera (Pentax WG-3) and if I anticipate wildlife photos, a small superzoom (Pentax X-90). Last tour I did a couple videos with the waterproof camera as I rolled thru a redwood forest of a California state park. A lot of compact cameras will do what a go pro will do unless you are doing something rather extreme. My waterproof camera has a shockproof rating, that can come in handy if packed on a vibrating bike.

I leave my big heavy DSLR gear at home on bike trips.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=435041

My smartphones have terrible cameras, but some of the newest ones have a pretty good camera.

If you are camping, you may run low on battery power. Last tour I carried 5 camera batteries but only needed 3 or 4. I bought cheap batteries shippped from China on ebay, not the full price branded ones. Shipping from China can be slow if you go that route.

I will start with an observation... A good percentage of camera nuts lugging tons of gear couldn't take a decent picture if their lives depended on it. On the other hand, while they have limitations, beautiful pictures can be taken with a cell phone camera by someone with a good eye.

The choice does to some extent depend on what you expect to do with the pictures. My suggestion is to not get carried away with equipment for its own sake. Big SLRs are overkill for most folks. The smaller 4:3 cameras are a bit more likely to suit the task at hand. And truth be told most of the time a decent cell phone camera is good enough.

As far as vids go... I have seen very few touring videos worth watching. I know a few folks who carried a GoPro and of the ones I personally know, I have seen exactly zero produce a video that was worth the effort. Unless you are already pretty into videography I'd skip it for your tours.

I did a month long tour with just my smartphone for a camera. I put it on a Bento box on the top tube, so it was easy to grab, and the pictures came out just fine for the crazy guy blog. A fellow rider rode with an SLR, and yes, her pictures were probably better, but I prefered the convenience.

Agree with staehphj on videos. I find them totally irritating and useless. Some of 'em even make me car sick.

I toured with 35mm film cameras...

you might take more pictures with a no brainer auto everything point and shoot than the SLR ..

but if you do Ortliebs Padded insert for their handle bar Bag has a U shaped divider to cradle the Lens..

I don't "bike tour" but I'm a photo enthusiast. I totally love my mini Nikon and sportcam combo. I would have no problem ditching the SLR while bike touring especially considering the size/weight issue. while bike videos are truly boring and mini cameras take video too now, I like the sportcam cuz it's waterproof and has an awesome wide angle and takes still as well. the timelapse settings cam be fun too.

I'll echo the comments in favor of a smaller camera. I carry mine in a little Bento-type box on the top tube so it's very easy to grab it for impromptu shots while riding. Think I'd miss a lot of photo opportunities if I had to get out a much bulkier DSLR - and I'd worry much more about damaging it.

Unless the point of my tour was to be a photography expedition... I'd go as small as possible. I usually carry a small digital with manual controls like the Nikon S90/100/110 and it suits my needs on a tour. I wouldn't hesitate to take an SLR/DSLR along if I planned on spending as much time behind the view-finder as I did on the saddle. It really depends what you want out of the tour.

Sony RX100, version 1, 2 or 3, Panasonic LX100, or FZ1000 is you like wildlife. I switched to mirrorless. I don't see any reaon to carry a SLR unless that's all you have already.

Well put. My first tour (in '99) was part a photo expedition of sorts. I carried a Mamiya 645 Pro TL with metered view finder, Power Grip and three fixed lenses. I also had a Nikon 35 mm with a 35x70 zoom. Wouldn't dream of carrying all that today unless I was going for a similar purpose, which is unlikely. I don't have a smart phone so I currently take a P&S but I intend to upgrade to something along the lines of what you mention.

Used to use a Nikon SLR. Switched to a "professional" compact.

Ricoh GR:

https://maxthecyclist.files.wordpres...5/dsc_0002.jpg

Mirrorless interchangeable lens (MIL) cameras are relatively small and lightweight compared to SLR, and most take excellent photographs.

I have a Sony NEX-3, which came with a 16-50mm lens (24-75mm 35mm equivalent). It was relatively inexpensive, very small and 13 oz complete. The kit lens is excellent for landscapes. When I tried it in the store it would consistently focus quicker than the latest Canon Rebel model and a slightly more expensive Nikon. This is a basic model, no viewfinder, a very small pop-up flash, no wifi, and an unsophisticated user interface, i.e. few buttons, complicated menu. It's proven pretty easy on the battery and still works 2 years later, despite being the cheapest NEX camera Sony ever sold.

The Sony NEX product line has been discontinued, all of them are now simply part of the main Alpha line. If interested in Sony, take a look at the A6000, it seems to be highly recommended by all reviewers and can be found for ~650 USD with 16-50 lens.

Sony A6000 Review - Overview

My thoughts:
From hiking long ago- you need to decide what your goals are and tote stuff accordingly. Some people are riding to photograph, others are out for a ride and just happen to take a picture here or there. If you're riding to photograph, take an SLR, a tripod, a bucket of lenses, whatever it takes to get the job done, and just figure your speed and distance will suffer accordingly. If your goal is the riding itself, leave all that crap home and take your cell phone and be done with it.

I've got a GoPro that I've only used a few times. Problem is, I don't really have any use for the footage I generate. People that aren't interested in riding with me mostly aren't interested in watching videos of me riding, either, you know? It's cool having a GoPro on a helmet, but it is a noticeable weight up there, so I don't care to tote one all the time just in case something interesting happens.

I don't do bike touring, I do bike travelling. I like to ride a bike when I travel.
I use mostly a compact waterproof Fujifilm XP50 for both pics and vids. I also
have a ContourGPS(a GoPro competitor) to take on bike shots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AopS...6zPoymgKaIoDLA

A few times on my travels when I realize that I don't have a camera(forgot to bring, charge battery, just didn't feel like taking);
I just used my cellphone. It's acceptable; here I just used my first generation Samsung Galaxy S smartphone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asYP...6zPoymgKaIoDLA

I've cycle toured and backpacked with both iPhone and sport (waterproof, shockproof, etc.) cameras and the limitations have frustrated me by not being able to get a good shot of very important moments. (E.g. Had a Fuji Finepix XP70 mounted on my trekking poles when two California Condors flew over me at about 30 feet in the Grand Canyon last summer and the lack of zoom frustrated my attempts to get a good shot.) For that reason, I've purchased a high-quality, long-zoom (30x), compact camera, the Sony HX-50V, that I think will be a good compromise between weight and capability. These compact cameras also take fantastic video as well.

Regarding the GoPro. My friend has taken the GoPro on weeklong cycle tours and backpacking trips and I've seen the amount of effort goes into keeping the batteries charged and memory cards allocated. He has focused on time-lapse video, which means the camera has to run for hours at a time and generates a huge amount of data. I personally don't think the results are worth the effort. Here's an example from our bike tour of the Gulf Coast. I think a GoPro can be very useful due to its light weight, but I'd keep it exposed and mounted/at-hand for shooting full video at opportunities.

If you have to ask, you don't need the DSLR.

DSLRs are big, heavy, and bulky. They take lovely pictures, but you need to spend time getting everything set "just so" which eats into your riding time. If you're a professional photographer and plan to ride a bike between taking pictures, you wouldn't have to ask.

Other people take pictures to document their ride, and these people (most of us) can find a smaller camera that will do it just fine. We'll be a bit frustrated that the light wasn't just right, or the air was a bit hazy, but we don't spend a week at one place to run out at sunrise and sunset to get those perfect pictures; we're riding bikes to someplace else the next day.

I would be surprised to see a casual (non-pro) photographer get a good picture of a flying bird. They're even more elusive than the perfect sunrise shots, since the bird isn't always the same place the next day like that mountain range is. You can get a super zoom compact, but it's no good at extreme zoom unless you've dug out the tripod, found a place to set it up, mounted the camera, and ... hey! Where did the eagle go?

BTW, you can buy professional quality pictures of most scenic spots for a quarter or so. They're called "postcards."

I think that's a decent shot. I managed to stop and change lens (not sure of the order). One thing for sure is there wasn't enough room to stop in a car.

http://www.borealphoto.com/Velo/Atla...SC_1082a-L.jpg

Ok, it was not flying, I had time to check focus and zoom it.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=435140

If you enjoy photography and normally use an SLR, then that's what you should take. There are many things you cannot do with a small point and shoot, including control depth of field. If you click the link below, Kyushu, Yakushima and Rural Honshu are all biking trips where I took my heavy Canon 5d. And biking in Japan means constant mountains.

http://www.waddo.net/Indexpages/mainphotoindex.htm

Also, I think very nice travel videos can be made if you take the time to learn. The link below has several biking videos. Perhaps the nicest one is the last one at the bottom of the page, Shikoku, as I also used a GoPro along with a regular video camera.

Keith Waddo Waddington travel videos

All in all, I say if you do real photography or videography on regular holidays and enjoy it, then you should do the same whilst bike touring.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Waddo

+1

My wife uses a Sony a6000, and it will do just about anything our DSLR's will do. It will even do some things better, like fit in her bar bag. The sensor is almost full size, and the picture quality is superb. She just got it this Christmas, but even though it is relatively new to her she is getting some great pictures.

Photography is an integral part of everything we do. On a 3-month tour through 7 European countries we shot 9,000 photos. That was the gross number, and after editing was significantly smaller, but it does take time whether it is a "keeper" or not.

A "mirrorless" camera with at least an APS-C size sensor will give excellent results. If you like to take pictures of people or action shots, a good digital or optical eye-level view finder is a real plus. It is faster than the screen, and less intrusive. That is one of the main reasons my wife opted for the a6000, the eye-level finder. For touring I still use one of the higher end compacts, a Canon G12, and get good (in my opinion) results.

You are right Pete, I probably couldn't get a good picture with a barrel full of lenses, but it is fun trying:) To me photography is a lot like bike touring; it is often the journey that is important, not the destination.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...49001bc3e5.jpg

I used to carry a compact but I'm not a photographer so I found my phone has the most simplistic settings and does more than I would ever need plus give a quality shot that suits me. Just using my phone means I unloaded some gear so a tad lighter and less cables needed. I don't have the ability to detect the quality between my phone and high end camera hence the decision to just use a phone now

Nobody wants to see raw, unedited touring footage. Including yourself. We're talking about hours for each touring day. Technically you could edit it when you get back home but that takes time. Pro editors estimate 1hr of editing time per 1 minute of final product, at minimum and depending on lots of variables. That's professional quality production, but you get the idea.

On paddle tours, I attach a waterproof compact digital camera on the deck of my kayak and set it to take one pic every 5-10 minutes or so. At the end of the day it's easy enough to browse through the 30-40 pics and choose which to keep. More than 90% of the pics are not worth keeping, but I invariably find at least 2-3 that are unique / beautiful / funny enough to save. A riding (or in my example, paddling) camera doesn't allow you to fine tune anything, so even if you did get the GoPro you'd probably still want to carry another camera close at hand, for framed shots.

I'm in the compact camp myself. I could see myself carrying a micro 4/3, although weatherproofing might become an issue there. I take pics for journaling my tours, not so much for their artistic value. Even so, I suspect my pics would benefit far more from me improving my photography skills than upgrading my (rather modest) equipment.

--J

Had a Pentax Optio WPi for backpacking, biking, paddling and it is still going strong. I just bought a Ricoh WG-4 (non gps) and think it will be awesome. I didn't want all the wifi, gps, abc stuff and this camera can be had for under $200..what a deal.

I got a couple of bodies for Pentax Q system camera, it reminds me of my Rolleiflex, and Minox cameras I used to backpack with. In fact it all started with the false notion that things being what they are, there ought to be 35 mm film sized camera that would allow one to use older cameras. Which I think someone is working on, but it is better to just buy a new body and adapters, or better still all new.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...XQ-VERT400.JPG

Or you can get swayed by this guy's cultish devotion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8QdMmI7RyM

There are more advanced versions of the Q depending on how new you want your stuff. The original Q has that retro flavor , and was made to compete in the just south of 1K market, so it feels very precise. The more capable subsequent versions of it like the q10 are based on "plastic" bodies that are more typical these days and save some weight, and offer better performance. The original Q was a 700 dollar camera, but they rapidly dropped the price and introed the new models. The result is a market glut of small cameras around the 100-120 range lens extra, or base lens versions around 150.