First trip in a decade. Looking at DSLR. What is best?

[-hh]

Thank you for the good lense suggestion. I notice Pentax makes a lot of water resistant cameras. Is this a worthwhile feature to have? My trip have extensive time outside and near water.

IMO, not really. I've been doing underwater photography for a couple of decades, which also means quite a bit of 'seaside' stuff ... and the simple answer is that 'water resistant' is only a question of how long until it leaks (and saltwater accelerates this). As such, my recommendation would be to consider an inexpensive P&S with very much a "disposable" attitude for harsh environments. OTOH, being weatherproof (rain) is important on a good dSLR system if you're expecting to be in a wet environment (rainforest/jungle, Antartica/Alaska, cold weather cruises, etc)...and even so, rain hoods and camera cases are important here to minimize the risks.

Since you're going to be outdoors a lot, if this is referring to typical daytime touristic activities, you're probably not going to benefit as much benefit from having a fast lens because you'll probably have a generous amount of light to work with most of the time. This well-lit environment also minimizes differences between products too (especially high ISO stuff).

In general, I'd avoid buying too many lenses, particularly since you're starting out: I'd probably just pick two. Don't worry about focal length "gaps" too much - simply compose around it ("zoom with your feet", etc).


-hh

 

[Apple fanboy]

Thank you for all the replies, this feedback is terrific. I plan on using the camera frequently after vacation as in the next few years we will be having children.

Are refurbished cameras a bad idea? I was considering this nikon D3100 (it seems very similar to the D3200):

http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/pd/productID.213428000

I figured this is a good camera body choice and then I could buy a second lens. What is a good lens size in addition to the 18-55mm that comes with it? I imagine I'll be taking more scenery/family shots and very few micro shots.

Use the comparison facility on dpreview.com to compare bodies & lenses. The main difference between the D3200 and the D3100 (beside age) is the number of megapixels. Not really an issue unless your printing wide format.

 

[zObsidian]

DSLR Buying Tips:

As most DSLR users will tell you, the lens is the most important part of your camera. Most DSLR users will keep their lenses for a long time and upgrade the body every few years. So if you're interested in using a DSLR for a long time, take a longer look at what kind of lenses you want to own rather than just the wizbang features of the camera body. I would recommend staying away from kits (body and lense in the same box) and buy the two independently, as kit lenses are usually sub-par.

For vacation photos, you'll probably want to start with a nice wide angle lens 18-50mm so you can capture the scenery. The more expensive (and better quality) lenses will typically have a larger aperture (low f-stop value). You can worry about collecting other lenses in the future when you save up a bit. Don't worry if you end up spending more on a lens than on the body, you'll probably end up keeping your lens for at least a decade and buy new bodies every few years. Also, don't feel like you need to buy the latest model camera body, if you're on a budget pick up an older body for cheaper since there is typically a pretty small difference between versions, remember that the lens is what makes the biggest difference in clarity.

1. Look at all the different brands and find a brand that you like the feel of in your hands. Try the Canons, Nikons and Sonys. Don't listen to what people tell you, it all comes down to your personal preference, not theirs.
2. Now, ignore all the different models of that brand and pick out the best lenses that you can afford. Don't forget to check out the third party Sigmas and Tamrons, etc. They are typically much cheaper and almost as good as the first party lenses.
3. Then with whatever money you have left, buy a camera body to work with your lens.

 

[fa8362]

Most DSLR users will keep their lenses for a long time and upgrade the body every few years.

That isn't true. Most DSLR users keep their cameras until they die. Only a minority of DSLR users upgrade their cameras frequently. Just as only a minority of DSLR users post on photography forums.

 

[phrehdd]

Amazing looking at all the advice here (and I say that in a good way). It is a nice bit of luck on your part to get so many people sharing their experiences as reflected in their opinions.

I'll just add a few peanuts to the gallery too -

I'm not a big fan of video through DSLR but if that is important to you then you should research which cameras offer the best options for shooting video and let that help you make your decision. While many DSLR cameras offer the option, some fall short on either quality, stabilization and how the camera is able to maintain focus (nothing worse than constant refocus issues).

Lenses - this gets a bit tricky as digital camera allow fast and easy cropping after the fact and this provides nice flexibility if you are slightly further away from your subject than you like. This is something to consider when you go on vacations when access is not quite as available to certain subjects as you would want. There are plenty of sites on line that offer information on lenses in both lab test and actual use. Some folks like a moderate zoom and one fast regular to slightly wide lens in their arsenal. The latter being for people shots in lower light and more of a "street photography" style of shooting.
The advice on getting the best optics you can afford is great advice but remember that it now somewhat marries you to a camera maker.

DSLR or mirrorless. The line is far more blurred for vacation cameras. I am honestly thinking of venturing deeper into the mirrorless world as some of the offerings are just that good. Sony and Fuji X series cameras come to mind. The caveat is that the Fuji X are not that great at video but if its just family and not too much involved with moving subjects, it does okay. I believe my next camera will be a Fuji X series as it offers excellent optics, easy to use and fits my style of shooting. Interestingly enough, the kit lens for the X-EV1 and X-Pro 1 are outstanding zooms that are plenty sharp. The X-100s is a fixed lens akin to a 35mm lens on a fullframe and some professionals love it as a back up camera.

The best advice I can give you is to go hands on with the cameras and see which ones suits your style of shooting. Camera should feel good in your hands, have the controls (buttons and via LCD) in a manner you can learn quickly and remember and realize that when you come home, you will need to transfer the media to some sort of software (another topic unto itself) before printing or whatever you plan to do with these image files.

Some sites you may want to visit - DPreview, Ken Rockwell (I don't always agree with him but he gives a pro/user point of view as well) and Youtube to see some use/opinions of various cameras.

In the days of yore (film cameras) it was quite true people would keep their camera bodies but in today's market since things change so fast in terms of sensors and other features, the cameras may or may not stay with you but the lenses will. The D3200 as example is a good deal for vacation pix when matched with the right len(ses).

Vacation supplies - decent bag to protect equip from damage and THEFT, extra cards, lens cleaning tissue/brush/fluid, at least 2 batteries, battery charger, power converter if needed 11x-2xx (you may be able to pick this up in a host country if you forget), some sort of steady support be it tripod or monopod or beanbag type item. Flash is a topic unto itself and to make sure that if your camera has a flash built in, to know whether it matches the widest and longest focal lengths of a given zoom lens and if not, consider alternatives to built in. Last - a good comfortable shoulder/neck strap.

Hope you have a great vacation and find a camera that suits your needs and style.

 

[Laird Knox]

Are refurbished cameras a bad idea?/QUOTE]
I've purchased an AW100, D60 and D800 refurb. Never had any problems with them and all were like new. Often refubs are just open box returns that can't be sold as new. For the D800 I purchased a third party extended warranty that includes accidental damage coverage. Overall it was still cheaper than a new camera.

New I've purchased a D70, D7000 and D800. I never saw any difference in packaging or performance between the six cameras.

Refurb can be a good deal. Just make sure you give the camera a good examination when you get it.

 

[kallisti]

Do you have any photography experience?

Are you interested in learning photography? Will this be something you pursue in the future?

What constitutes a "good" (or "acceptable") photo for you?

As a caveat to this, what are you expecting (creatively) from the camera you buy?

Very hard to answer your post without knowing your responses to these questions. You may not be able to answer these questions at this point. Not trying to sound flip or cheeky. But these are ultimately really important questions...

As a quick reply, the D3200 with kit lens is wonderful. I bought one for my 14 y/o niece who is just getting into photography. She loves it. I also bought one for myself for an upcoming trip to Italy with my wife--I'll also be taking my usual rangefinder camera, but wanted a backup that was light/compact with a little zoom range that can shoot in color and produce nice images.

(1) Modern cell phones can take images that many are happy with. While I'm not happy with them, you may be. If this is the case, you don't need a dedicated camera.

(2) Point and shoots are a step up from cell phone cameras. The quality is slightly better. Creatively still extremely limited (easy to get "everything" in focus, very hard to isolate a subject unless you are very close to it). Still small and compact. Some ability to adjust controls, but often buried in menus that make it impractical. Has similar creative limitations to cell phone cameras--hard to adjust outside of "auto" mode, large depth-of-field (i.e. hard to blur the background), often run into problems in low-light, often a delay between pressing the shutter and capturing the image (so "action" photos may not capture what you were seeing at the time you pressed the shutter), distortion because of the small focal length of the lens used (worse on cell phones but often present on P&S cameras). May meet your needs though. Does for countless people.

(3) DSLRs are both a step up in quality and a step up in versatility. The D3200 with kit lens is relatively light and compact. Despite the naysayers, the kit lens is actually pretty good (heresy to state, I know). Possible to make adjustments more easily than with a phone camera or P&S. Overcomes several of the problems with a cell phone/P&S and also adds some versatility. As I stated above, I'm actually planning on taking this on an Italy trip of my own in the fall.

The most important thing to realize is that almost any modern camera you use has the capability to take "technically" good photos. DSLRs give you more flexibility when taking photos, but if you don't make use of the flexibility they offer you may not notice an improvement in the photos you take.

While this will again come across as heresy, gear is far less important than the internet would lead you to believe. Garbage in = garbage out. Whatever camera you take on the trip, my advice would be to *really* play around with it in the next few months and take a boatload of pictures. Possibly read on the internet about learning photography, reading books about photography (Bryan Peterson has written several that are a good starting point), and/or post in the POTD thread here or create your own threads asking questions and asking for feedback.

 

[jerrah]

NEX alternative

I was a long time user of DSLR's but I've been very happy after my Sony NEX 5N and now NEX 6. Same APS-c size sensor as the cheaper DSLR's but quite a bit smaller and easier to carry which means it's with me more often. The low light performance (coupled with a suitable wide aperture lens) has really impressed owners of other SLR cameras.

The 16.1 MP sensor is I believe the same as used in certain Nikon DSLR cameras.

There is also the wide array of legacy manual SLR lenses which I use with my NEX which has increased the flexibility of the camera.

 

[flynz4]

I was a long time user of DSLR's but I've been very happy after my Sony NEX 5N and now NEX 6. Same APS-c size sensor as the cheaper DSLR's but quite a bit smaller and easier to carry which means it's with me more often. The low light performance (coupled with a suitable wide aperture lens) has really impressed owners of other SLR cameras.

The 16.1 MP sensor is I believe the same as used in certain Nikon DSLR cameras.

There is also the wide array of legacy manual SLR lenses which I use with my NEX which has increased the flexibility of the camera.

I am also a NEX convert. I have a Nikon D7000 and several thousand dollars of lenses.... but when I travel, I almost always leave it behind and take my NEX-7 and my Zeiss 24mm F1.8.

/Jim

 

[ChrisA]

I'm going on my first vacation with the wife and family in over a decade. I'm considering getting an entry level DSLR to take scenery and family photos and short videos possibly.

Is the Nikon D3200 a good choice? Is there better choices in the same price range from Canon or Pentax? Are the pre-packaged lenses good enough for zooming and family photos?

What accessories are needed? A battery pack, SD cards, and a neck strap? I have no problem carrying weight around with me, I just want to be fully prepared.

I won't be leaving for two months so I assume it's wise to play around and get very comfortable with the camera before going.

I hate to say but you are making the most common beinner mistake. You are selectingthe SLR body first and NOT EVEN THINKING about a lens. You need to turn that around. What lens or set of lenses might you want? Are you looking to shoot in low light with no flash. Do you need a a longer lens? The 18-105 might be good and then maybe also buy the 35mm prime for low light indoor shots But if most of those ail be one person, head and shoulders them go withthe 50mm prime.

Then buy an SLR body with the remaining budget. Used bodies are not bad deals but the D3200 is a good value.

NEVER try and save money on lenses so you can get a better body. Never do that.

That said do you need an SLR? Woud something else work as well? The SLR is good for action and quick shooting. You do not need an SLR for posed shots of people who are just stnding there waiting for you. You do not need an SLR for building and landscape who can "wait" all day. For those subjects a micro 4/3 or high end point and shoot works fine. The SLR is for either quick handlinf or so that you can use a very high-end lens. I have many cameras including an IOS device. I use my SLR when the peupose of the day is photography. If I happen to be doing something else and just want to bring a camera I take soething smaller. I'm shooting a Nikon D200 and I've need collecting Nikon lenses since the film era when I was shooting an F2.

One thing about Niokon is they changed their system a few years back. If you want to buy and older used lens. Maybe you see the 80-200 f/2.8 used for only $600 it is a nice lens for sports and even weddings but one that old required a body with a focus motor. The D3200 lacks a motor but you can buy a used D70 with a motor for only about $150. or a D200 for $280 or a new D300. but if the buy the d3200 the 70-200 costs an extra $1,000. So it pays to plan ahead and think of lenses first.

On the other hand if the plan is to buy a dSLR body and "whatever" kit lens it coes with and never another lens, then buy the high-end point and shoot, you don't need an SLR.


LAST:
Take a few hundred "travel shoots" near you home with whatever camera you buy. Just pretend you are from some place and visiting your home town as the tourist. Give yourself a few assignments and shoot 100 frames then go back home and edit them down to the best 10 and go all the way through your workflow. Keep the best 10. Evaluate them and go and reshoot what you don't like and maybe add another assignment. Do that at least twice a week or every day if you can.

If you can't shoot god phots near your home where you know your way around you don't have a hope at all of doing better work in a new-to-you place. Build you skills near home when you have time

Look at magazines and try and copy styles of photos you like. Make up alignments from those photos, like "cars and bright lights at night", "city scape at dusk" or "girls at outdoor cafe table". Subjects like these exist in your city.

It will take you many tries to get good at those, may as well learn now then while on vacation in a new place.

ABOUT VIDEO.
Video in an SLR is a really GOOD idea for the SERIOUS videographer who is shooting a short film. He will bring a tripod, stedy cam and microphones and lighting equipment and so on. The SLR can do good work BUT it lacks the automation four in even a low-end $300 camcorder. TheSLR video assumes you are going to shoot like a pro in short few second set up shots and do manual follow focus, work ut exposures before you shoot and so on. It also produces huge files. It's not for casual users who generally don't shoot for editing. I think the SLR is best for "moving stills" (4 to 10 second long) of for serious work. For casual videos buy a video camera.

 

[iainzx]

Don't worry too much about the spec's - cannon and Nikon are so close on their equivalent products on the pro-sumer range there is nothing in it.
You do however want to try out and hold the different models as there can be big differences in weight and physical size I went nikon as it was bigger and heavier and it felt right in my hands - its worth doing

 

[shinji]

Is there any disadvantage going with a Sony NEX system instead of a DSLR?

I'm considering upgrading from my Canon G12, and I've been thinking about picking the NEX-5 up with their f/1.8 prime lens. Only thing is it would cost almost the same as a DSLR and a comparable lens (new).

The EOS-M is interesting too, but it looks like there are only two lenses meant for that specific mount.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

Such great advice, I'm very appreciative. Buying the lenses first and than buying a body is the approach I will take. I plan to shoot a few different types of photos:

1. Scenery and cityscapes in the distance both during the day and night without a flash. What is a good lense for this application? One of my biggest complaints with my current Lumix P&S is it's in-ability to take good night time shoots of the sky or town lights. They come out terrible, even worse with flash as everything in the foreground lights up and blurs/hides everything in the distance. Is it best just to forget the flash for these types of shoots at night?

2. Closer shoots of family members (both in action and still) and of closer architectural detail. These shoots would occur during the day an night. Again, I don't want the flash to blur out people and light-up photo details at the expense of everything else in the picture. What is a good lense for this? Also, is it best to forget the flash and just increase the exposure time to get family pictures in a darker setting?

3. I would like photography to become a hobby. I would especially like to become good at it before the kids start coming. I've attempted to take shoots of animals (birds, chipmunks, etc) with limited success. Can the same lense for these type of activities be used for shoots in number 2?

Finally, from my limited research, it seems the DSLR field is divided into two; image stabilization in the body (Pentax & Sony) and image stabilization in the lenses (Nikon and Canon). For the types of photos I plan to take, which route is better?

Thanks again for all the great advice!

 

[TheReef]

Then buy an SLR body with the remaining budget. Used bodies are not bad deals but the D3200 is a good value.

NEVER try and save money on lenses so you can get a better body. Never do that.

I don't entirely agree. Modern sensors have come such a long way in recent years - high ISO and dynamic range performance have improved hugely.

I'd argue that a good sensor is just as important, if not more important than having an expensive lens, for landscapes and scenery.
Of course having a decent lens is important, but most kit lenses these days are actually quite good when stopped down, and more than enough for a beginner. Once you have tightened up with your technique and can see if the lens is limiting you (it still may be perfectly fine), then may be the time to upgrade.

I would recommend buying a new camera with a modern sensor over one with an older-gen sensor.

My experiences with shooting with older-gen mid-range Canon and Pentax bodies with fast f/1.4 50mms, f/1.8 85mms etc, in low light, have been underwhelming. In good sunlight / studio conditions they perform a lot stronger, in which cases I'd be more inclined to agree with the point Chris was making.

These lenses shine on modern bodies in low light.

Such great advice, I'm very appreciative. Buying the lenses first and than buying a body is the approach I will take. I plan to shoot a few different types of photos:

1. Scenery and cityscapes in the distance both during the day and night without a flash. What is a good lense for this application? One of my biggest complaints with my current Lumix P&S is it's in-ability to take good night time shoots of the sky or town lights. They come out terrible, even worse with flash as everything in the foreground lights up and blurs/hides everything in the distance. Is it best just to forget the flash for these types of shoots at night?

Yes, don't bother with the flash for scenery. Invest in a good tripod, and use the lowest ISO setting. Any standard 18-55mm kit lens is a great start for these kinds of shots, you don't need to spend a lot.

2. Closer shoots of family members (both in action and still) and of closer architectural detail. These shoots would occur during the day an night. Again, I don't want the flash to blur out people and light-up photo details at the expense of everything else in the picture. What is a good lense for this? Also, is it best to forget the flash and just increase the exposure time to get family pictures in a darker setting?

Getting your people lit up and your background nice and brightly exposed can be tricky.

Generally you will still want to use a bit of flash in these scenarios, with the ISO cranked up a few notches to bring up the levels of the background.
A longer exposure time usually isn't feasible, as even the slightest movement will result in motion blur.

A faster lens always helps, but this is the most costly option. You're better off learning good technique (manual exposure / flash settings) with the basic gear/flash as a starting point.

3. I would like photography to become a hobby. I would especially like to become good at it before the kids start coming. I've attempted to take shoots of animals (birds, chipmunks, etc) with limited success. Can the same lense for these type of activities be used for shoots in number 2?

Not usually, generally for these subjects you'd want a longer lens, around the 70-300mm range.
These lenses enforce a distance between you and your subject that creates a perspective resulting in a tighter visible background for a subject, so will work better in isolating the subject from the background environment (rather than 'placing' a subject 'in' an environment as the standard kit lens would do).

Finally, from my limited research, it seems the DSLR field is divided into two; image stabilization in the body (Pentax & Sony) and image stabilization in the lenses (Nikon and Canon). For the types of photos I plan to take, which route is better?

Thanks again for all the great advice!

I prefer sensor-based stabilisation as any lens I attach becomes stabilised. Ultra-wides/fish-eyes/pancakes/third-party lenses/fast primes/legacy lenses... any kind of strange or exotic lens I attach receives the benefit.
It also makes lenses cheaper and lighter, with less things to break.

I'd recommend the Pentax K-30, they have terrific sensors. Very good prices at the moment given the recent release of the K-50.
They are weather sealed, with two e-dials and plenty of useful features to keep you going. (built in interval shooting, electronic level, custom button configuration...etc)
Not a lot is 'cut out' of the K-30, as is done with the basic Canon and Nikon models.

Good luck in your search and enjoy your trip!

 

[fa8362]

Finally, from my limited research, it seems the DSLR field is divided into two; image stabilization in the body (Pentax & Sony) and image stabilization in the lenses (Nikon and Canon). For the types of photos I plan to take, which route is better?

You want image stabilization in the body, so it works with any lens you attach to the camera. Canon and Nikon are simply trying to get you to buy new lenses, so they make more money. Don't fall for it.

 

[jerrah]

Is there any disadvantage going with a Sony NEX system instead of a DSLR?

Autofocus on NEX is generally slower than DSLR.

NEX-5 up with their f/1.8 prime lens. Only thing is it would cost almost the same as a DSLR and a comparable lens (new).

I've got the 50mm 1.8 - it takes ok photos but I'm not a huge fan of that one. Nex5, Nex5n, Nex5R? I would have thought a Nex5 would be cheaper now.

The EOS-M is interesting too, but it looks like there are only two lenses meant for that specific mount.

Without an APS-C sensor it doesn't interest me much... I'm sure it's an ok camera but it feels purposely crippled to promote Canon's DSLR's.

 

[shinji]

I've got the 50mm 1.8 - it takes ok photos but I'm not a huge fan of that one. Nex5, Nex5n, Nex5R? I would have thought a Nex5 would be cheaper now.

Yeah, that was the lens I was looking at. What don't you like about it?

And the 5R is $500 for the body, or $600 for the body and kit lens...around the same price as an entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR here.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

Although I'm still looking at lenses, what is a better camera body: the Pentax K-30 or the Sony A57? The prices are similar but I don't know if the electric view finder is an aid or a hindurance to photography, opinions seem to be mixed. I plan to purchase one of the two as body only and purchase a close-up and telephoto lense or buy a single lense between the two with a greater range than the standard kit lenses of 18-55mm.

 

[pna]

Yeah, that was the lens I was looking at. What don't you like about it?

And the 5R is $500 for the body, or $600 for the body and kit lens...around the same price as an entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR here.

Until sometime early-ish last year I'd been shooting with a Nikon DSLR (D80, then D90, then D7000) and the 50mm/1.8D and 35mm/1.8, as well as less frequently with some of the other Nikon glass I've accumulated (12-24, 80-200, etc). I picked up a NEX-5N in advance of a trip to China to lighten my load, along with the Sony 50mm/1.8 and a cheap adapter to use my 35mm/1.8 nikkor on manual focus.

I've talked about this in another post in greater detail, but I've barely picked up my DSLR since getting the NEX-5N. For the stuff I tend to shoot, which tends to be relatively static, or moving but not moving at the pace of sports, the NEX really can and does keep up with my D7000 in terms of image quality, but I'm taking more images because it's so much less obtrusive to keep it with me.

I'm a healthy, strongish, relatively young guy, so the extra weight of a DSLR really isn't a big deal for me in terms of carrying it around all day. And if you just chuck a small prime on a DSLR like the 35mm, the whole package isn't *that* big. But still, the reduction down to the size of mirrorless really does make a meaningful difference in terms of the overall experience, and that makes the NEX superior for many of the things I shoot. It's a much bigger difference qualitatively than it seems like it should be on paper, and for anyone leaning that direction, I'd highly recommend that you pick one up from somewhere so that you can try it out for a while and see if it's for you, and just plan to return it within the return period if it really doesn't work out for you.

My experience comparing lenses has been that the Sony 50mm/1.8 is pretty much on par with the nikkor 50mm/1.8D, though I'd love to see a side-by-side of some images or hear why a previous poster didn't favor it. I did some side-by-sides of my own between the sony 35mm and the nikkor 35mm, and found them to be almost indistinguishable (though the Sony has image stabilization, which can be handy).

I did find that I missed the optical finder of the DSLR, so I ponied up for the EVF for the Sony, and have found it to have the added benefit that reviewing images in sunlight is actually possible now, whereas I always had trouble reviewing images on the LCD on all of my other cameras in brightly lit situations.

The drawback to the Sony e-mount right now is unquestionably the lack of lenses. You can definitely use a cheap adapter to let you use lots of other brand lenses in manual focus mode, and the focus peaking helps a lot in terms of actually nailing the focus, but in all honesty I haven't found it to be terribly practical for shooting people, so I tend to think that actually buying lenses that will autofocus natively. Landscapes it's fine to manually focus with other lenses.

So to the OP, I know you said that weight isn't a concern for you, but I would strongly encourage you to consider some of the mirrorless systems. You don't give up much, can stay under budget (the 5R wasn't much of a revision to the 5N, so I'd feel fine buying a 5N for cheaper now), and I suspect will actually take more pictures and have the camera with you on your trip, as well as have the capability to grow your hobby after you return. The 5N also does better video than my D7000, at least from the standpoint of handling and autofocus. I've loved my DSLRs, but there's no question that this is the way that I'm heading personally, and I don't really plan on or feel like I'm giving up much, if anything, in terms of IQ. There are reasons that you see so many postings from the likes of Zach Arias and David Hobby, both professionals, that are raving about how much they love traveling with their mirrorless cameras and giving up the weight that they used to carry by bringing all of their DSLR camera gear.

In any case, though, any direction you head, you're going to have a great time, capture some wonderful moments, and have a lot of memories to hold for a lifetime. Enjoy.

 

[talmy]

I'm 64 and have used SLRs or DSLRs for nearly 50 years. All of our vacations are centered around photography. We "haul" 4 cameras -- a DSLR for each of us (my wife and I), a DSLR converted to infrared, and a "point and shoot" thats always handy. Then add two tripods, 9 extra lenses, various accessories, and the Macbook Pro to examine what we've done every evening. It's a heck of a lot of gear, but we are serious.

Given that, when we do a family outing, the family is the focus (no pun intended), and I take at most the point-and-shoot or just rely on cell phones. The only place a DSLR would be necessary is for children or pets actively playing or other "action" shots where fast shutter response is critical.

Consider the intended use of the pictures. If they will only end up on Facebook, or viewed on a cell phone, any camera will do. For a photo site like Flickr where one typically views pictures full-screen, a good point-and-shoot will 99% of the time do as good a job as a DSLR. You only need the DSLR if you are looking to make large prints.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

I'm considering the Pentax DA WR lenses (DA* is unfortunately out of budget)

Will a 35mm f/2.4 and a 55-200mm f/4-f/5.6 cover my needs?

Will I have much more flexibility if I swap the 35mm with a 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 even though I will be giving up some low light performance?

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'm considering the Pentax DA WR lenses (DA* is unfortunately out of budget)

Will a 35mm f/2.4 and a 55-200mm f/4-f/5.6 cover my needs?

Will I have much more flexibility if I swap the 35mm with a 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 even though I will be giving up some low light performance?

Depends if you are going to do a lot of night time shooting. I have the 18-55mm Lens with my Nikon and it's a good all rounder (but master of none as they say).
Personally if you're planning on taking your camera out with you, are you going to want to carry all your lenses at all times? Probably not. I think a prime lens is a little limiting unless you have the 55-200 with you as well. If your out and about with the 18-55 you have a bit more of an option.
That said it comes down to opinion at the end of the day, and I don't think either is a bad one.

 

[TheReef]

I'm considering the Pentax DA WR lenses (DA* is unfortunately out of budget)

Will a 35mm f/2.4 and a 55-200mm f/4-f/5.6 cover my needs?

Will I have much more flexibility if I swap the 35mm with a 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 even though I will be giving up some low light performance?

I think the DA 18-55mm WR, and the DA 55-300mm (not WR) would be most flexible.
You can save money on the 55-300mm by buying the DAL version (basically a lighter plastic mount version without quickshift bundled with cameras but not sold separately officially, they can be found cheaply new on eBay from Hong Kong and are optically identical to the DA version. I got mine for a steal at $200 shipped from Hong Kong, I use it quite a lot)

B&H have a sale on the DA 35mm f/2.4 right now as well.

If you think you're going to be more into portraits get the DA 35mm f/2.4, they get positive reviews.
If it's landscapes, go for the DA 18-55mm WR.

 

[notabadname]

Sony Cybershot RX100 is the highest quality you will get for that price. 22MP sensor that is 2.7 times larger than most sensors in compacts. It's optical zoom isn't as large as some, but it is balanced by the massive image size, which you can crop and still have a 12MP image that matches the higher zoom of some competitors.

Check out this review and explanation of its sensor.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

Does it make sense to get a single 18-135mm WR lens in place of two lenses, the 18-55mm WR and 55-200mm WR? Does the 18-135mm WR perform better than the 18-55mm WR in it's zoom range?

18-135mm WR: http://m.bhphotovideo.com/mobile/de....5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR Lens&itemcode=PE18135