Do not forget although DSLR is easy to handle but has their own problems such as if the CF is full then how could you transfer your images to another meduim?
Easy, you put in a second memory card. They're dirt cheap nowadays up to several GB. Alternatively, you walk into an internet cafe with a full card, and 15-30 minutes later walk out with a filled DVD or several filled CDs, plus an empty card.
But what if your roll of film is full then how could you transfer your images to another meduim? [sic]
you walk into an internet cafe with a full card, and 15-30 minutes later walk out with a filled DVD or several filled CDs, plus an empty card.
I guess it depends where you are travelling to.
If you are in the middle of no civilization or any places that still use fire instead of having elevctricity, then ........
Not only do I agree with the poster who said BOTH! I'll go one step further and say to take a disposible camera and Polaroid as well. (Hope you have a great photographer's vest.)
Why, one may ask? (Don't be "photo-snobs" here!) The disposible because you can take grab shots in less than half a second. They will not be the photos to put in your portfolio or hang on your wall, but they can be a lot of fun when you have absolutely no time to set up your shot. The Polaroid is actually for your subject. I've worked with a photographer who has been to 84 countries. His favorite thing to do is to shoot a "roid", then take out the "real" camera to capture the people looking at their own image as it developes. (Especially if it's children or others who may have never seen a likeness of themselves before. Their expressions are priceless! ...And...it's less scary if they know what you're up to.)
Really it depends. If you like people shots, take all of the above. If you like shooting mostly landscapes, nature shots, architecture and such, then take whichever you are most comfortable with.
LadyMacWilly ^..^ ~
[ Edit: Edited on Jul 23, 2007, at 7:06 PM by Ladymacwil ]
Not one person has asked you what you intend to do with these images, and that's the most important thing.
If you don't want to print poster-sized, then the film-is-better argument is irrelevant, as is the "all the pro's use film" statement. That is a very uninformed comment indeed.
It could all boil down to whether you want to put these images onto the internet as you go. Sticking your memory card into a PC in an internet cafe in Kathmandu is an awful lot easier than have film processed and scanned before doing so. And I'd rather carry a 2GB memory card than 500 prints (or 150 if using RAW) in my backpack.
That said, it might depend where you're going. If it's subject to extreme temperatures, then an old-fashioned film camera with no batteries is likely to come in very handy!
I like film. I use it, I build pinhole cameras, I took a plastic manual 35mm to the top of Kilimanjaro because of the temperatures, but digital has one killer advantage for travelling. One way or another, you have to carry or post your films/prints. Digital files can be emailed home from the comfort of a cybercafe.
For the real photography I still use my 35mm film camera.
For travelling and ease of functions, then I reckon a compact digital camera with the biggest chip would be more desirable.
This user who asked what you intend to do with your pictures is dead on. There is no one correct answer since we are all so different as to how we want to use our camera's, where we are traveling and what we want to do with our pictures.
I am also not a professional photographer, as some posters might be from the sounds of it - just a traveler with some photography experience (my dad tried to teach me, but at that time I didn't listen much).
For me, I have gone Digital and could never go back (although I still have some film camera's back at home). I love the ability to take as many pictures as I want without having to worry about the cost (of film). It does cost if you print the digital pictures of course, but I don't print very many anymore. I find I like taking several shots of a subject at different zooms, angles, etc. to try to get one that's 'just right'.
Since I'm travelling in the USA in an RV, storage is not an issue. I copy the pictures to my laptop nightly, so the 2GB cards I bought are probably overkill.
Before we left home, I seriously considered buying a Digital SLR for the higher quality (and may still get one someday), but I like my smaller high end camera so much I decided against it. I have a Sony Cybershot with 12x zoom and optical image stabilization. It can be used on full auto (which takes very good pictures most of the time), full manual, or just about any combination in between. It can also zoom in to about 2 cm for macro and I have a set of filters that fit it.
Like many digital camera's today, mine also takes video. The video is quite limited (you can't zoom while taking a movie) and the quality is limited, but it's always available. I was in the Badlands National Park a couple of weeks ago taking still shots when a couple of Bison started rolling around in the dust. I didn't have time to haul out the video camera, tripod, etc. so just switched the Sony to Movie and shot the whole thing. Video isn't commercial quality at all, but I'm sure glad I got that shot! The image stabilization is a must have if you use a long zoom and don't have or use a tripod. I do have a tripod, but am too lazy to get it out (also, sometimes the shot won't wait for me to set it up). (ps - I am trying to improve my video shots, use other camera's and start using the editing software, so be kind if you find this quality too poor to tolerate).
Anyway, that's just my experience & preference. I'd still like a high end DSLR someday - but would probably continue to use my regular digital camera (also I forgot to mention the weight and convenience - this is so light compared to the DSLR or SLR's that I'm more likely to always have it with me).