Lightweight Backpacking Camera

[John Hollenberg]

I am looking for a lighter camera to take on my backpacking trips to the Sierra. The trips are generally about a week long, and start with 45+ lbs. of gear. Up to 60 miles in length, a lot of elevation gain and loss. Until now, I have been taking my Canon 5D with 24-105L lens, but at 55 oz. (not including extra batteries, CF cards, perhaps polarizer) this is getting to be too much. I don't generally need lenses over 100 mm (35 mm equivalent) for my style of photography in the Sierra. Looking for recommendations about lighter setups that won't sacrifice "too much" image quality (very subjective, I know).

Now trying to decided between:

1) Canon Digital Rebel XTi (which I already own) with 17-85 IS (don't own this lens) - 36 oz.
2) Canon Digital Rebel XTi with 18-55 mm IS lens - 27 oz.
3) Olympus 420 (or 520 if comes out soon) with 14-42 lens - 21 oz.
4) Canon G9 - 13 oz.

Any thoughts appreciated, regarding relative image quality from these different options, plus other options I haven't considered.

Thanks.

--John

[John Camp]

Your 5D and a G9 are radically different cameras. If you're basically trekking and want to document it, the G9 (which I've owned) would be fine. It's a brilliant camera: you'll find testimonials on this site. If you're basically photographing, and you're hiking to get to photo opportunities, though, then you need something more flexible, and that produces a high-quality image. The new 14.6mp Pentax K20 is now out, and Pentax offers several tiny (and excellent) pancake lenses which weigh almost nothing. The camera also offers weather sealing, image stabilization and dust reduction. The camera (alone) weighs 25 ounces. I've used the K10, the model before the K20, and think it's an excellent camera. Sean Reid has a review on his (pay) site.

You might also consider some of the compact "near SLR" cameras with zoom lenses -- bigger than a G9, but somewhat smaller than any DSLR. Some them are supposedly quite good, though I have no experience with them.
 
JC

[John Hollenberg]

Your 5D and a G9 are radically different cameras. If you're basically trekking and want to document it, the G9 (which I've owned) would be fine. It's a brilliant camera: you'll find testimonials on this site. If you're basically photographing, and you're hiking to get to photo opportunities, though, then you need something more flexible, and that produces a high-quality image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Somewhere in between :-)

The new 14.6mp Pentax K20 is now out, and Pentax offers several tiny (and excellent) pancake lenses which weigh almost nothing. The camera also offers weather sealing, image stabilization and dust reduction. The camera (alone) weighs 25 ounces.

That sounds like an interesting option.  What "pancake" lenses are you referring to?  I found a 43 mm on B&H which at 5.5 oz. I assume is one of those lenses.  What are the other focal lengths?

--John

[Zeitz]

Have you considered a Leica M8?  I've had mine since Dec 2006.  Mine has worked flawlessly.  The camera is small and light.  Lenses are very compact and ultrasharp.  I routinely print on a Canon 5100 printer (17in wide) and wish I had a 6100 (24 inches wide).

[John Hollenberg]

Have you considered a Leica M8?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At the price for that camera, I would just drag the Canon 5D along and suffer the weight  

Interesting thought, though.

--John

[John Camp]

Somewhere in between :-)
That sounds like an interesting option.  What "pancake" lenses are you referring to?  I found a 43 mm on B&H which at 5.5 oz. I assume is one of those lenses.  What are the other focal lengths?
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John:

The 43 isn't one of the pancakes. There are four that I know about: a 21 f/3.2, a 35 f2.8, a 40 f2.8 and a 70 f2.4 (my favorite.) I've used all but the 35. I tried putting up a link to the B&H page, but it didn't take. Go to B&H and search for "Pentax 40mm," it'll be the second entry down the page. The 40 weighs 3.7 ounces and is 1/2 inch thick. Pentax also has a couple of interesting zooms, including a digital-specific 50-200 f4-f5.6, which is very similar (after accounting for the crop) to a 70-300, and digital-design 16-45 and 18-55 (I think one is a constant f4 and the other a variable aperture, but I'm not sure.)

The 21 pancake will give you about a 30 equivalent on a FF, the 35 about a 52, the 40 about a 60, and the 70 about a 105. The 40 is IMHO a great street-shooting combo, maybe the best available. It is autofocus, pretty fast, and even faster with the in-body IS, which people claim will give 2-3 stops. I wouldn't go THAT far, but I'd say it's close to the equivalent of an f1 (like the Nocti) but with more depth of field. (You wind up hand-holding at 1/15 with good results, though, it's not terrific at higher ISOs.) Google "Pentax 40 pancake" for some reviews.

The pancakes are so small they're weird. Find a Pentax outlet and handle one; you'll see.

Somebody suggested that you look at a Leica M8. I have a Leica M8, and I would not recommend it for backpacking. The M8 shines in a place where you can get to an immediate backup. Also, I just started a thread on the Leica forum about the fact that my camera failed, from cold weather, after about 30 shots -- but the cold weather was only about 32F/1C. Not that cold, really. The ensuing discussion turned up many failures at moderately cold temps.

JC

[John Hollenberg]

The 40 weighs 3.7 ounces and is 1/2 inch thick.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Damn!  That is one small and light lens.  I am leaning toward getting a Canon 18-55 IS lens, for my Digital Rebel.  Cost - less than $200.  Weight - 7 oz (27 oz. total with Digital Rebel).  Reviews on Photozone show this lens to be of better optical quality than the 17-85, which weighs about 16 oz.  My knees, feet and back will likely thank me.  Lighter than the Pentax option, cheaper (since I have the Digital Rebel), has IS.

Thanks for input.

--John

[Ken R]

I recently got a Olympus E410 with kit lens and love it. The lens is quite good (much better than the Rebel kit lens IMHO). It feels so light and compact its like it isnt there.

When I dont mind some extra weight I take the 5D and 17-40L. Its noticably heavier / larger but I see a difference in IQ at all iso for the better although the Oly is more than adequate for most things.

[geesbert]

bought the g9 , because i idn't want to drag around the 5d with me all the time and i was really dissapointed. the whole thig feels so slow and sluggish, the lens is a rather slow f3.5 at 50mm equiv. setting, high iso is terrible and even with the additional grip it is not nice to hold. this one will go to ebay...
if you can restrict yourself to one fixed lens (I can) have a look at the voigtländer 40mm Nokton pancake lens with a nikon to EOS adapter. it is manual Focus and aperture only, but i really like the results and focussing it with a 5d is very easy and fast . my hit rate isn't less than with an AF lens. it is very small and cheap.

[John Hollenberg]

I recently got a Olympus E410 with kit lens and love it. The lens is quite good (much better than the Rebel kit lens IMHO). It feels so light and compact its like it isnt there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why did you go for the E410 instead of the E510?  Seems like the image stabilization of the E510 would come in handy.  This setup would still be a lightweight contender for me.

--John

[stever]

i'd certainly vote for the 18-55 since you already have the rebel - there are certainly some good reports on this lens - but i'd buy 2 or 3, test them and keep the best one (as, from experience, i'd do with just about any lens).  

i have a 17-85 and don't think it's as bad as some of the reviews, but i'd much rather pack the 18-55.  as long as you're not looking for prints greater than 13x19 i don't think you're going to find serious IQ issues.  yes, the 5D and 24-105 are better, but i don't feel too badly about using a 20D or 40D and the 17-85 (but maybe i should have that 18-55 as well)

if you're only going to photograph in daylight, the G9 is not a bad alternative

[BryanHansel]

The trips are generally about a week long, and start with 45+ lbs. of gear.

Drop the gear load weight, which will allow you to carry a heavier camera.  Your experience may differ, but on my backpacking trips, I never seem to be in the right place at the right time with the right light to justify the high weight of the extra camera gear. So, I just got a G9, it's not like my real camera, but for a backpacking trip, it's probably going to do just fine. Understanding it's limitations is key. And using your best technique for images that count will make the camera go a long way.

[John Hollenberg]

Drop the gear load weight, which will allow you to carry a heavier camera.  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good thinking, but I have pretty much cut everything else to the bone.  Just bought a lighter down bag, will be taking a Tarptent for the second time (42 oz. for 3 person tent), planning to buy a lighter pack.  I use Gator Aid bottles for canteens, a microlight (12 grams with holder) for a flashlight, rain suit is only 10 oz. (propore--waterproof, but not the least bit rugged).  Due to the need to carry a bear cannister (38 oz.) and 13-14 lbs. of food (I can't make it if I eat less than 3,000 calories per day), there isn't much more I can cut.

Your experience may differ, but on my backpacking trips, I never seem to be in the right place at the right time with the right light to justify the high weight of the extra camera gear. So, I just got a G9, it's not like my real camera, but for a backpacking trip, it's probably going to do just fine.

To a certain extent, that is my experience also.  However, there are just enough times that I run across some pretty cool lighting that I still want a "decent" camera.  Just trying to find the right balance (for me).

Thanks for your thoughts.

--John

[Colorado David]

Have you considered carrying a Bivi-Sack instead of a tent?  I have slept a lot of nights in a Bivi-Sack.  Mine is the OR Aurora Bivy and is quite comfortable.  I have carried a PHD-Camera (push here dummy) and wished I'd brought a DSLR.  "Push Here Dummy" is not my own line by the way, I picked it up from a guidebook author.

Do you carry water for the duration of your trip or do you use a filter?  I carry the MSR filter which screws right onto the Nalgene bottles.  The Nalgene bottles are heavier than your Gatoraide bottles,, but if you carry less water and filter found water instead, you'll carry less weight.  Every pint of water you carry is a pound.

[John Hollenberg]

Have you considered carrying a Bivi-Sack instead of a tent?

No, but using a 3 person Tarptent that weighs 42 oz. with poles comes out to 14 oz. each (there are 3 of us, usually).  I don't think we can get much lighter than that.

Do you carry water for the duration of your trip or do you use a filter?  I carry the MSR filter which screws right onto the Nalgene bottles. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We use the Pur Hiker (11 oz.), which is now the Katadyn Hiker.  I try not to carry any water if possible, and just drink my fill at streams/lakes we pass.  Worst case I may carry a quart, very rarely 2 quarts if it will be, say 4-5 miles until the next water.

Good thought, though.

--John

[BryanHansel]

What Tarptent do you have? I have a Double Rainbow. I mostly like it. MSR's new filter is now on the market. Faster than the Hiker and lighter. It took me awhile, but I've gotten my base weight down to 12 pounds plus food plus camera gear just be replacing everything with lighter and lighter items. Are bear canisters required or could you use an Ursack?

To a certain extent, that is my experience also. However, there are just enough times that I run across some pretty cool lighting that I still want a "decent" camera. Just trying to find the right balance (for me).

That is the challenge. If you have a chance to play around with a G9, you should give it a try. Nice enough pictures, especially in B&W.

[John Hollenberg]

What Tarptent do you have?

We have the Rainshadow.  Main problem was slipping around on the Silnylon.  Today we coated the floor as described here:

http://jwbasecamp.com/Articles/Silnylon1/index.html

Hopefully this will make the floor non-slip, and improve the waterproofness should we end up in a huge puddle.

MSR's new filter is now on the market. Faster than the Hiker and lighter.

This is news to me.  Will have to check this out.  Always looking to go lighter.  
Edit:  It isn't actually on the market yet--has been delayed.  Listed as Spring 2008 release.

Are bear canisters required or could you use an Ursack?

Bear cannisters are required in the Sierra.  The bears there rip open the Ursack.  It isn't approved for the Sierra.

--John

[JMCP]

Hi,

for backpacking trips I use a Pentax DS2 equivalent (Samsung GX-1s) but this has now been superceded by the Pentax K200D which has shake reduction and sensor cleaning in a sealed body, it is also smaller and lighter than the K10D/K20D. The camera also uses AA batteries and I generally use the Lithium-ion versions which give me well over 1000 shots.

I generally only take along my 40mm pancake lense and the 55-200 lense which is also very small and light. I have been thinking about changing this combination to replace the lenses with the Tamron 18-250 which is meant to be decent.




cheers john

[Deep]

I used to carry a Sony V3 as a bush/long trek camera.  It was remarkably capable and light enough to hang in a small bag off the front of my pack (which can reach 60 pounds - I like my luxuries!).  The problem I found, and it is a real issue with most fixed lens options, is that the lens was not wide enough.  A 28mm equivalent would be the absolute minimum, 24 is even better.  It is amazing how many shots get spoilt because of a lens not being wide enough.  So now my day to day bush camera is a tiny little point and shoot and I drag a larger Olympus SLR with a wider lens for important trips.  I know there are compacts with wider lenses now but the image quality is a serious compromise with most.

Seriously consider the E410, or better the coming E420 with greater dynamic range.  Only ounces heavier than a point and shoot with lenses that really produce the goods.  I personally think IS is overrated - you can always brace against a tree or whatever - and you pay with extra weight which means you tend to leave your camera in your pack and miss the shots simply because you get too tired to take the pack off and take your camera out!  I do a lot of bush work and I know how true this is.  Nikon and Canon make light SLRs too but the light lenses are really poor by comparison, in my experience.

Don.

[sojournerphoto]

For the same purpose, this is my list and the features I care:

  1. Panasonic/Leica LX2: 28mm lens, IS, raw, ~1/1.6 censor
  2. Ricoh GX100:   24mm lens, IS, raw, ~1/1.6 sensor.
  3. Leica/Panasonic FZ50: 35mm lens, IS, raw, waist level LCD, ~1/1.6 sensor
  4. Canon A650: 35mm lens, IS, waist level LCD, ~1/1.6 sensor,
  5. Sony A350 DSLR + 50mm/1.4 + 24mm/2.8

Here I didn'y include Canon G9, its image quality was falling behind LX2 in every aspect. I replaced it with A650 instead, because A650 has waist level LCD. Alas it lacks of the raw format.

GX100's 24mm lens was very desirable, but its image quality fell behind LX2 significantly.

Unless you've investigated a lot in Canon's lens, I'd strongly recommend A350. ( I have the same problem, but I've just decided to get A350 anyway). I found the waist level finder greatly reduced the need of large tripods. The lovely Leica tablepod is perfect for almost all occasions.

My final choice is FZ50 ( and I'm getting A350 too, it will cover 50mm/1.4 and 24mm/2.8 or Tamron 17-55/2.8 when I'm willing to take them), but for you, the LX2 should fit better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've just got a gx100 and find the lens to be good, but high iso performance is poor (compared to 5D/1Ds3 - don't know about other compacts). I chose it over the G9 primarily because I can use it like a camera as the interface is really good for a P&S. My wife has a pansonic fz20 and we're getting a G7 for the little un so we'll have a range of small cameras to choose from. None really match up to the slr's for image quality in landscape apps though.

Mike