The Ideal Travel Camera and Lens?

[SYS]

A Canon shooter all my life here..... my latest Canon gear being the R5 with a line of RF lenses for just about all shooting purposes.

For my international trips, however, I could no longer tolerate carrying anything heavy, so for my latest couple of trips (to East Asia this past year and to Europe this year), I opted to just take my old Samsung Galaxy S23. If I had to weigh the difference in physical suffering of carrying a heavy camera gear vs. enduring photographic sufferings, I don't know which would be greater. Looking at a compromising solution for my next travel needs, I started to look into Sony and came down to two possible full frame cameras and two possible lenses that might meet the most critical criteria: weight and image quality. Whichever, it's going to be heavier than the Samsung but with mitigated suffering, I'm sure.

For camera, these are Sony a7CR vs. Sony a7C II. For lens, the choices are Sony 20-70mm f/4 vs. Sigma 20-200mm F/3.5-6.3 DG. My initial choice was Sony a7CR with Sigma 20-200. However, when I got to handle both lenses side by side, I found the Sony lens to be much lighter in hand than what the specs sheet would indicate in comparison to the Sigma's. From my past travels, I also know that I hardly ever felt the need to shoot anything beyond 100mm. I felt the greater need at wider angle, if anything, when I used to travel with the then EF 24-70mm lens aka the "Brick."

As for the camera body itself, both bodies are equal in weight. Setting aside cost difference factor, the resolution is primarily what separates these apart, one being more crop friendly and the other slightly and supposedly better with the noise performance. No, I don't plan on printing a billboard, but I do crop a lot in post for a variety of reasons. As a travel camera only, I have no need to count the burst frame rates.

Anyone with the experience of using any of these cameras and lenses, your thoughts?

 

[Dicky109]

I don't have any experience with those lenses, but a couple of years ago had the same excess travel weight quandry when I was shooting a Canon DSLR. My solution was to go with the OM-5, a small Micro Four Thirds camera from OM System (formerly Olympus). While there are modern FF cameras that approach the very light weight, where the difference lies is in the lenses.
For instance, the camera is small and weighs 414g and paired with a Panasonic 14-140 (28-280 full frame equivalent) which weighs 265g, I have a small light kit that I don't mind carrying around. Admittedly, while it's good, it is not the best glass that can be used, and there are many other choices of lens.
Before going that route, I had always discounted MFT systems as inferior, never having used or tried it, but in the 2 years I have shot with the OM-5, I have been more motivated to use it than I was with the Canon. The rap on MFT has always been the lower MP and low light issues, but unless you are going to blow up your photos to huge sizes, is really not an issue. Regarding the low light, where you have to use higher ISO, new cameras have partly solved the noise issue and modern software can pretty much eliminate the rest.
Whatever way you go, good luck with your decision

 

[West Coast Birder]

Lots has been said and written about the Fuji lines. They tend to be overpriced IMO because of supply and demand but I've never heard anyone say anything but praise for their compactness and effectiveness as a travel camera. Perhaps one of the Fuji guys like @MatthewK can chime in.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Just to add, and I realize this is the Sony forum and I'm sure Sony guys will chime in with their recommendations, I've been researching this as well specifically as a light(ish) travel setup. I think that the Fuji XT-5 with a 35mm f/2 or a pancake lens, or a zoom, may be a good compromise between ultimate pocketability (like the X100VI) and a more conventional FF mirrorless setup. It has lens interchangeability with a modern sensor. I haven't looked but since the model is a couple of years old, it may be good to explore the used market.

 

[saraspics]

Sorry, another non-Sony post, but I love my OM-5 (with the Panny 14-140 zoom), it fits in my purse when walking around a city and on a bike ride fits perfectly in my handlebar bag for quick access.

 

[tony-s]

Former Canon shooter, too, starting with 35mm A-1 to F-1N to EOS A2E and EOS3 film, then Rebel XT and finally 5Dii. Like you, I just was tired of carrying such a heavy load and switched to Fuji about 10 years ago. I've been to every continent other than Antarctica and my approach has come down to one thing - what is the size of bag that I want to carry for X number of hours? For nearly all my travel, I take my medium sized Domke F-10 JD. Just this week I was in San Diego and in this bag I had my X-E5, Fuji 35mm f/2, Sigma 10-18 and 18-50, and Fuji 70-300, plus an extra battery, lens cleaning supplies, polarizers and ND filters, and a table-top Manfrotto mini tripod. If I had still had my 5Dii, this would have been just the camera plus the 24-70 and that would have been about it. I probably could have tucked my 50mm f/1.4 in, too. But that's all. This is the biggest issue with full-frame cameras - you simply cannot get away from the fact that their lenses will be much larger than crop sensor lenses.

So, I guess the question is, what are you wanting and what are you needing?

 

[paddler4]

Sorry, another non-Sony post. My solution is not to travel with my FF gear (Canon R6 II). When I just want something I can stick in my jacket pocket or a fanny pack, I take a Lumix LX-100. (I have the original, but I would much rather have the LX-100 II). It's micro 4/3 in a tiny body with a non-interchangeable lens. I'll paste below a shot of Bergen I took with it some years ago. But I'm planning a trip with more serious photography, and I'll take an OM-1 with the 12-40 (24-80 equivalent) f/2.8 and the 40-200 f/4 zoom (which is tiny). As Dicky109 wrote, the big difference isn't in the body; it's in the lenses.