I haven't fully explored the limits of my Canon 40D, but the geek in me is wondering if there is a better camera to take to Iceland.
Yes, I'm looking at cameras. Again. If I'm going to go, I'd like to do it right.
It's like this...
What if I'm hiking the glacier and I drop my camera? I've never dropped a camera before, but I've never hiked a glacier before, either. A buddy of mine who just came back from Alaska said he wished he hadn't babied his camera so much and had simply had it out and taken more shots.
But if I lose my camera down a crevasse in a glacier... well, maybe I want the insurance policy of taking a "disposable" point-and-shoot for that. I could relax and know that if the worst happened and my fingers turned into thumbs, I didn't lose the big camera.
On the other hand, maybe I need a different camera. Maybe I need something lighter and smaller.
Mirrorless cameras are light-weight, but they're far more expensive than a point-and-shoot. After I've got a zoom lens on there, the weight I save in the body of the camera is pretty much negated by the heft of the lens. At that point, I may as well just take my 40D. If I'm taking the 40D, there may be a harness of some kind available so I don't have to worry about dropping the camera.
However, if I'm going to take a big camera, maybe I need a full-frame camera to capture the full beauty of Iceland. It would be a sin to go all the way over there with equipment that was not up to the task. If I'm going to get a harness, I can get one for a full-frame just as easily as the 40D.
Fortunately, I don't need to make this decision today.
No comments:
Post a Comment