Taking a DSLR to India - convince me (or dissuade me!)

N

Noopz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
150
Edit My Images
Yes
Lo all

Planning to go to india in a few weeks and am going to be travelling through a lot of the country. In brief - Delhi, Agra, Jaipur, Shimla, Amritsar, Mumbai and Goa. Will be going on some fantastic railway journeys into the mountains and along the coast too too.

I was planning to take my 50D and 3 lens but now not so sure.

I have no doubt I'll see some great sights, but will the shots at the end make up for all the extra lugging around I have to do? :bang:

I have two options:

1) Take the 50D, Sigma 10-20, kit lens, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, and lug it all around

2) Buy an LX5/S95, live with the limitations and be done with it.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

cheers
 
Personally I'd go with option 1. A trip like this is once in a lifetime.
When I went to India for my friend's wedding I had a film camera and took loads of rolls. When I came back I then bought my first digital camera the Canon A60.
 
Definitely take the 50d but I'd invest in a travel lens and only take that.

I have the canon 18-135 IS which I would take on a trip like that, and I'd have the confidence it'll do all I want. Great iq on the 50d and very flexible. Also consider the sigma and tamron equivalents.
 
odd jim said:
Definitely take the 50d but I'd invest in a travel lens and only take that.

I have the canon 18-135 IS which I would take on a trip like that, and I'd have the confidence it'll do all I want. Great iq on the 50d and very flexible. Also consider the sigma and tamron equivalents.
Click to expand...

What would you suggest as a travel lens ??
 
Maybe the 18-135? :)

Definitely take it. There's no point having a camera if you don't use it when you go to interesting places!
 
Stop being a pussy and take the SLR. What's the point in having it if you're going to leave it at home the first time it's going to be put to its best use? Or take a girl with you to carry most of it. I've humped more than twice this amount round India twice now, and I bet I'm more than twice your age.

You could almost certainly do without the 70-200. No idea what the kit lens is. If you wanted to take just one lens then something starting at 18mm and stretching to 100+ will get you by nicely.

If you can splash out a bit on a do-it-all lens then look at the Tamron 18-270
 
Just spent a month there visiting the places you mentioned. Took most of my gear. What class are you travelling on the night trains? I travelled AC2 and had no problems with security but you should have a chain and lock for peace of mind.
 
I have the Tamron 18-270.
This is a great travel lens, and not to heavy either.
 
Take all else you'll regret it.

I went to Sri Lanka and took my 10-22, 24-105, 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f2.8is and 100-400, 2x convertor, plus about 80gb of flash cards and 4 batteries plus mains charger and car charger.

At some point I used every lens and would have been gutted to have not had them.

Ignore the advice about not needing range. You will almost certainly see great wildlife.

Invest in a good large comfy backpack, plus don't forget to take plenty of CF cards and a decent hat. I can recommend Tilly hats as they are light, comfy and stay on your head on the back of a landrover.
My Lowepro backpack weighs about 12.5kg fully loaded and I have no issues climbing up hills etc with it.
 
Last edited:
All I used last time in India was my 18-50, 50mm and a flash. I shot a lot during durgapuja in Calcutta and I didn't want to or need to carry any more than that.
 
There are different ways of looking at this. Some people don't mind carrying a lot of gear while they're travelling, others prefer not to. I'm in the second category. I travel for the experiences and photography is a very secondary consideration. A DSLR and one lens would be the most I would consider, and I'd probably end up taking a good compact.

One question. You're going to travel by train, but where will you be staying? Will you have somewhere secure to leave the gear, or will you have to carry it everywhere, all the time. I could see that becoming a bind.
 
Very similar thread here.

Some very important considerations. are you travelling alone? if not, will your travelling companions wait whilst you switch lenses? do you want to experience the holiday or photograph it?

To play devil's advocate.. why not travel as light as possible? the one thing you havn't listed in your choice of lenses is anything fast enough to cope with low light in the evening. So I'll suggest you consider one sharp prime plus one other lens.
 
Travel in India is not as straightforward as Europe and presents its own challenges. I have travelled there full of luggage and the second time next to nothing - literally. I would suggest taking somthing like the Canon S95 and the clothes you stand up in. Anything else you need get whilst there. Lugging round a bulky DSLR and assorted lenses and other bits is no fun and the S95 is capable of producing quality images - albeit without the flexibility the various lenses on your DSLR gives.
 
I did it. You'll regret it if not. Aslong as you keep it close and secure you be fine. Thoses diagonal across your shoulder bags are good, very hard to rip off.
 
omega63 said:
What would you suggest as a travel lens ??
Click to expand...

As per my post, I already suggested the canon 18-135 IS!
 
id take the dslr and one lens that has been suggested purely for the fact of you spent all that money getting a nice camera and going somewhere like india and leaving it at home.
 
Thanks for the replies; guess the camera is coming with me!!

I didn't realise the canon 18-135 was so cheap, the reviews make it sound like a piece of crap.

I don't think I could go without my UWA, so I'm thinking the 10-20, 30mm 1.4, and something else that I could buy that will cover a decent range.

The 15-85 is an ok range but that much cash for a 3.5-5.6 lens just seems like madness.
 
take it! it's damn dusty though, so dont forget the sensor blower and swabs to use back at the hotel.

10-20 is a must, 30 1.4 is great for walking about with, then how about an 85 1.8?

[edit - dont forget the immodium either ;) (2 or 3 trips a year for work and play) ]
 
I took a backpack with one camera body and 4 lenses... we visited family, so unfortunately, I didn't get to travel and see much... we stayed in a remote village for around three weeks, and a week of that i was ill... ... i know if i was to go again, i'd most likely take a 50mm 1.8, the 10-20mm and my sigma 2.8 105 macro which i could also use for candid portraits as well as macro stuff... ... i wouldn't bother with the 70-300 or the 18-70mm, but that's my personal choice... i'd love to capture portraiture and architecture, so i think i'd have that covered with the above and not have to haul a great big bag around... ...

Hope that helps... end of the day, if ** split minded whether to take a lens or not, then take it... or you'll most likely regret it...

All the best for your trip!

Moey!
 
Take all your DSLR kit you will only kick yourself when the photo op appears in front of you and you can't take the shot. My experience in India has been very positive in regards to photography and general security. Sounds like a long trip you might also want to consider how you'll back up all the pics you take would suggest something like a Jobo Giga Vu or similar went to China a few years ago and it was a godsend not to have to bother with a laptop etc Have a great trip.
 
Noopz said:
Thanks for the replies; guess the camera is coming with me!!

I didn't realise the canon 18-135 was so cheap, the reviews make it sound like a piece of crap.

I don't think I could go without my UWA, so I'm thinking the 10-20, 30mm 1.4, and something else that I could buy that will cover a decent range.

The 15-85 is an ok range but that much cash for a 3.5-5.6 lens just seems like madness.
Click to expand...

The 18-135 isn't crap, some of the very early reviews wernt favourable but i tried it against the 28-135 IS I was going to purchase and the 18-135 was better for sharpness, range, far better IS and the colour rendering was much nicer and it was about the same price - no brainer.

It's the best travel lens I've used over the years.

Sure, if you want to spend more money on a travel or walkabout lens then you can go for something like the 17-55 or 15-85 but you miss out in range which is crucial for a proper travel lens and IMO opinion the iq from the 18-135 is very good indeed apart from a bit of barrel distortion at 18mm.

But my main point is it might be better to take a one lens set up for ease of travel. I normally take my 50d and the 18-135, and depending where on going, the 10-22 as well.
 
Last edited:
i think 2 lenses are fine. the UWA and the 30 1.4 should be all you need in my opinion. I have a similar set up with a 19mm wide angle and a 50mm prime on 35mm film and i've never wished I had more reach (in China at the moment so in a similar boat to you). The resolution on your 50d should be good enough to crop if you need to. Any mid-range zoom won't be worth it, but I would suggest using that money to buy a point and shoot. Sometimes a big DSLR can be inconvenient, especially in crowded spaces (which you will no doubt encounter)
 
An 18-270 means you can take just the one lens and keep it on all the time. No dust problems. No sensor cleaning. No cleaning kit to take.

And you can capture all that wonderful Indian wildlife. Black cows. White-ish cows. Black and white-ish cows. Brown cows. Black scrawny dogs. White scrawny dogs. Multi-coloured scrawny rabid dogs. And more cows.
 
Sigh.

Remember to take photo's of the people. You'll find it a friendly place and the photos of the people will remind you of that.
 
You're going to India and your contemplating not taking your dSLR? I'd slap you if I could. Take the camera and don't be so soft!
 
If it were me, I'd be tempted to find a grotty (on the outside anyway) old inconspicuous bag to keep your photo gear in.
 
Oggy said:
If it were me, I'd be tempted to find a grotty (on the outside anyway) old inconspicuous bag to keep your photo gear in.
Click to expand...

Make sense no matter where you go. A satchel type back is good and practical.
 
Is it fear of getting the camera stolen? Dirty? Or worse...used!! Lol.

Why did you buy the camera if not for trips like this!!
 
The thing I like about the 1 body/1 lens outfit is that you don't even need the bag most of the time. I'll usually take a basic lowepro nova 2 aw when I'm on holiday but normally just leave the bag in the hotel each day. When I'm out and about I like just the camera/lens to carry without any other bags or clutter.
 
AlphaGirl said:
Is it fear of getting the camera stolen? Dirty? Or worse...used!! Lol.

Why did you buy the camera if not for trips like this!!
Click to expand...

In my case, to take photographs when I need/want the DSLR's functionality. That might be in my own garden, or the African bush. Photography is usually a long way down my list of priorities when I'm travelling, and I just take "snaps". A compact is fine for this.

Please don't sneer at people who have different opinions about this sort of thing. No-one is right or wrong, it's just personal preference.
 
For business reasons, I used to do a few trips to India.

Because of the endless photo ops, I'd certainly recommend a decent camera and a good all in one travel lens. Multiple lenses will be a pain in the backside.

Most of my trips would be with film, using an M6 with a 35mm f2 lens for general street pics and for most landscape stuff. With a dslr, I'd go towards a decent wide angle/normal range. Maybe a 24-70 or whatever the approprate Canon lens is.

People in the cities dont shy sway from having their pic taken so no real need for tele lens for street pics.
 
Definitely take your DSLR! You will regret it if you don't! My friend visited India a couple of years ago and took her DSLR with her - she said it was the best decision she ever made when she returned - her photographs were amazing. She got up a stupid o'clock in the morning just to take a picture of the Taj Mahal when there were no people around - she thinks its probably the best picture she has ever taken :)
 
MartynK said:
In my case, to take photographs when I need/want the DSLR's functionality. That might be in my own garden, or the African bush. Photography is usually a long way down my list of priorities when I'm travelling, and I just take "snaps". A compact is fine for this.

Please don't sneer at people who have different opinions about this sort of thing. No-one is right or wrong, it's just personal preference.
Click to expand...

there is no 'sneer' in my post - perhaps some sarchasm, but in a light hearted way. You have your reasons, but correct me if i am wrong - the reason you posted this thread was to ask others opnions on your dilema to take your SLR or not? please then dont be offended when opinions are made.
 
Why would you not take it?

Ok there's a risk it might be stolen, but that's what insurance is for.
 
AlphaGirl said:
there is no 'sneer' in my post - perhaps some sarchasm, but in a light hearted way. You have your reasons, but correct me if i am wrong - the reason you posted this thread was to ask others opnions on your dilema to take your SLR or not? please then dont be offended when opinions are made.
Click to expand...

Celine, I am going to correct you. I didn't start the thread, I am not in a dilemma, and I didn't ask for anyone's advice, so I'm certainly not offended. I've just offered my own opinion - further back - like most of the other people who have posted.

Your post did come across as sneering to me, or sarcastic if you prefer, and it's just a reprise of a common response. It doesn't offer any insights or useful advice to help the OP. There are trade offs in these situations, and people have different priorities. That's it.
 
I fairly recently spent 6 months backpacking around India (and Nepal) including the places you mention. Your gear MUST go with you... you may never get the same chance again for those shots that will present themselves... and they will present themselves :lol:

You will know from your past experience what lenses you would like with you, I think I had my Sigma 70-300 on most of the time to get up close without intrusion in a very private country... although the places you mention are more than familiar to the sight of cameras.

I traveled with a large rucksack on my back for stuff I could live without and a smaller pack that I carried on my chest for stuff I couldn't imagine losing, camera equipment, lonely planet guide (which was my bible) plus my every day stuff... water, fruit etc.

Trains be especially careful, my last train journey was 42 hours from Patna down to Goa for my flight out and just prior to that I'd spent 14 hours from near Darjeeling with a 10 hour wait on the station to connect... don't let your guard down ever... padlock your zips and chain your bags. Your passport stays with you ALWAYS :thumbs:

Lastly, as you are up between the fantastic Amritsar and Shimla, try and build in to your itinerary McLeod Ganj (Dharmsala) the home of the Dalai Lama and seat of the Tibetan government in exile... you may even see the great man himself like I did and manage a sneaky snap of him :D

Take care and take your gear... I don't regret a moment :D
 
MartynK said:
Your post did come across as sneering to me, or sarcastic if you prefer, and it's just a reprise of a common response. It doesn't offer any insights or useful advice to help the OP. There are trade offs in these situations, and people have different priorities. That's it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, there seemed little point in voicing such an opinion (when it doesn't really address the question of the OP) beyond sneering at the question.

In answer to the OP - depends on what sort of shots you want to capture, and how much you want to carry. I travelled around China in '02 with a 3mp p&s that had a decent enough zoom, and I caught some pretty good images. It didn't add any bulk whatsoever (and because it used AA batts I didn't have to lug a charger around with me). There again, I recently did a six-month trip around SE Asia with a D300 and took only the 17-55mm f2.8. If your camera has enough resolution you can crop to make up for a lack of reach, I tended to find that most of the time the 26-82mm equiv was sufficient, and excellent for street photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top