Most travel camera reviews are written by people who spent twenty minutes with a loaner unit in a pristine studio or a backyard. They talk about “dynamic range” and “edge-to-edge sharpness” like those things matter when you’re sweating through your shirt in a humid alleyway in Bangkok trying to capture a cat sitting on a motorbike.
I’m not a pro. I work a 9-to-5 that has nothing to do with cameras, but I spend my PTO obsessing over them. And I’ve learned the hard way that a “good” camera is often the worst thing you can take on a trip.
The time I almost threw my Canon into a Kyoto canal
It was 2018. I was at the Fushimi Inari shrine in Kyoto. You know the one—the endless red gates. I had a Canon 5D Mark IV hanging around my neck. It was a three-pound brick of expensive glass and magnesium. I had been walking for six hours. My lower back felt like it was being compressed by a hydraulic press, and my neck had a permanent red welt from the strap.
I saw this perfect moment: an old man sharing a steamed bun with a stray dog. It was beautiful. I lifted the Canon, but the lens cap was on. Then the autofocus hunted because I had the wrong point selected. By the time I dialed it in, the man was gone and the dog was barking at a tourist. I ended up taking a photo of the gates with my iPhone 8 and it looked… fine. Better than fine. I felt like a total idiot. I actually sat down on a stone step and drank a canned Boss Coffee from a vending machine—the creamy one in the rainbow can, which is objectively the best one—and decided I was done with “pro” gear for travel.
Anyway, that’s why I’m picky about this stuff. If it’s not small, it’s not a travel camera. It’s a burden.
The Golden Rule: If you wouldn’t feel comfortable carrying it while running for a bus you’re about to miss, it’s too big.
My “scientific” proof that you’re doing too much
I tested this. Last year, I spent three weeks in Lisbon. I carried two cameras: a fancy Fujifilm X-T3 and a tiny, beaten-up Ricoh GR III. I tracked my usage. Out of 2,104 photos I took, 1,740 were from the Ricoh. The Fuji stayed in my hotel safe for 14 out of 21 days because I didn’t want to deal with the shoulder bag.
What I mean is—actually, let me put it differently. We are obsessed with specs that don’t manifest in real life. I tracked my “keeper” rate—the photos I actually liked enough to edit. The Ricoh had an 82% keeper rate. The Fuji? 12%. When you’re comfortable, you take better pictures. Period.
Also, I know people will disagree with this, but megapixels are a total scam for travelers. Unless you are planning to print your vacation photos on the side of a skyscraper, 12 megapixels is enough. 20 is plenty. 40 is just a way to make your hard drive cry. Total lie.
The Sony problem (and why I’m being a hater)
I refuse to recommend Sony cameras to my friends. I don’t care that the A6400 has the best autofocus in the world for the price. I hate using them. The menu system is like trying to navigate a tax audit written in ancient Greek. It’s soul-crushing.
The buttons feel like they were designed for someone with tiny, rectangular fingers. Photography should be tactile and fun, not a menu-diving exercise. If a camera doesn’t make me want to pick it up, I don’t care if it can see in the dark. I’m being unfair, maybe. But life is too short for bad user interfaces.
Never again.
The actual list of cameras you should buy for under $700
If you have to buy something in 2025, these are the only three that make sense. Everything else is either too expensive or a smartphone with a worse screen.
- The Lumix GX85: This thing is ancient by tech standards, but you can get it with two lenses for about $590. It’s small, it has a built-in viewfinder, and the stabilization is magic. It’s also incredibly ugly, which I kind of love because nobody wants to steal it.
- Ricoh GR IIIx (Used): You’ll have to hunt for a deal to stay under $800, but it fits in a jeans pocket. It has a sensor as big as a pro DSLR. It’s a cheat code for travel.
- Canon G7X Mark III: Great for video, decent for photos. The colors are better than Sony’s. Just don’t expect the battery to last more than half a day. Buy three spares.
I used to think you needed a full-frame sensor for “depth.” I was completely wrong. A Micro Four Thirds sensor (like in the Lumix) is more than enough when the light is good. And if the light is bad? Go get a drink and enjoy the trip instead of squinting through a viewfinder.
A hill I will probably die on
I honestly think if you spend more than $800 on a travel camera in 2025, you’re either a professional or you have more money than sense. The gap between a $600 camera and a $2,000 camera is narrowing every year, but the gap between your experience of the trip with a light bag vs. a heavy one is massive.
I’ve bought the same $400 used Lumix body twice now because I broke the first one in a rainstorm in Scotland. I didn’t even look at other options. I don’t care if something “better” exists on paper. I know how it feels in my hand.
Just buy the used one. Use the leftover $400 for a better hotel or more pasta. That’s the real travel hack.
Is the Lumix GX85 perfect? No. The autofocus is slow and the screen is dim. But it works. And it won’t break your back while you’re looking for a sandwich in Kyoto.
Get the Lumix.
