Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightweight Backpacking Camera  (Read 11401 times)

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2015, 07:19:58 am »

Battery life is certainly a downside of any compact camera.
But with one charge battery in my GX7 or EM5 lasting about 300 shots, I sometimes wonder how I managed in the days of film with 36 shots per cassette. Could I really trek Everest basecamp now with a camera and 2 batteries the way I went out with 10 rolls of film? I doubt it.
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2015, 09:05:23 am »

This sounds like an ideal combination for my use, just a couple of questions:

--how is the quality of the Sony Zeiss 16-70 (not cheap at $1,000)?
--how is battery life?  how many shots do you get from a battery? (I see it is rated at about 310 shots, do you find that to be accurate?)
 

You'll find plenty of conflicting reviews out there on the lens but I have been pleasantly surprised.  No serious issues and ACR/LR has lens profiles for it.
Battery life is dependent on a lot of things including whether or not you use stabilization, flash, how long you let the camera display the image on the LCD etc but you should get 300-400 shots per battery and the batteries are relatively small so it's not hard to cary one with you.  You can charge the camera with a micro-USB cable so it's easy to charge from your power socket in a car if using a car to travel between destinations.  You can charge it with any USB charger (phone charger, etc).  You can buy a stand alone charger too.  You definitely want to turn WiFi and other things you aren't using off to extend the battery.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 09:13:46 am by E.J. Peiker »
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2015, 09:24:25 am »

The E-M5 is quoted as a 300 shots per charge but there are some reports (some fro people I trust) who say that they can get up to 1,000 per charge if they turn off things like auto-preview and eye detect, and chimping is kept to an absolute minimum. I have tried these things but only manage abnout 500 per charge at most - but maybe I tend to focus too long and the AF is chewing things up. And chimp more than I think I am.   

I have seen several suggestions about these solar charges but not completely sure how many of those are from people who have used them. I tried one once and it wsa pretty pants for battery charging but that may be the model used. And the amount of sun we get in merry old England.
Logged

maddogmurph

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1117
    • Maddog's Photography
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2015, 02:15:43 pm »

First of all 40-60 miles is short.  I'd bring my highest quality camera (d810) and spend my money on lightening up my other gear.  On my trip this last weekend I carried a 16oz pack from gossamer gear, a 28oz sleeping bag from hammock gear, and a 11oz shelter from Mountain Laurel Designs and slept in the snow at 11,000 feet in the high sierras.  I used a tripod that weighs maybe 6oz and brought 4 filters.  Here's a link to help you lighten up your baseweight and carry your high IQ camera: http://postholer.com/journal/viewGearlist.php?sid=8e9130343779ae7af1009630498524f5&event_id=2332

But since you've asked...  To lighten up further if needed I'd currently consider these choices and bring a backup:

Fuji XT1
Olympus EM5
Samsung NX1
Sony A7R
Leica M

Backup: RX100
Logged
Maddog Murph
www.depictionsofbeauty.com
Mostly here for constructive feedback.

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2015, 03:28:24 pm »

To reduce the weight further, I would cut off all clothing labels and remove any old images from the memory cards.
and the tags from the tea bags.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2015, 03:48:03 pm »

I prefer the Panasonic bodies but Panasonic rely on in-lens stabilisation which is almost (but not quite) as good as the Olympus in-body IS. The GX7 has also dropped in price recently and the Olympus/Panasonic lenses will work on each others' bodies.
The GX7 does have very adequate in-body stabilization. My (fairly) lightweight kit is the GX7, 14-42 and 45-175 zooms and the Panny/Leica 25mm  f1.4 Summicron.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2015, 05:07:52 pm »

Ripgriffith, who needs teabags? Sieve the loose tea with your bandana.  ;)
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2015, 06:31:51 pm »

 ;D Reminds me of sock filtered stream water.
Pre Giardia, of course.
Logged

jerryrock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • The Grove Street Photographer
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2015, 07:15:01 pm »

Canon EOS-M3 24 megapixel APC sensor, great low light sensitivity, Digic 6 processor, articulating touch screen lcd screen plus optional electronic viewfinder, WiFi with NFC, focus peaking, built in pop up flash, Four image stabilized USM lenses available and will accommodate any Canon lens with adapter.

I have been using one for a week now and it is a fantastic little camera! If you live in the US, you can buy one from Japan through e-bay.

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/eos_m3/
Logged
Gerald J Skrocki

bernie west

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Wild Photo Australia
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2015, 01:41:56 am »

If money was a bit more freer, I always figured I'd get an Oly 4/3rds of some sort.  But I spent all my recent money on a Nikon D810, so now I force myself on principle to lug the thing and its lenses with me on any trip.  I just recently took about 10 kilos of camera gear to India where the Indians laughed at me for having such a big heavy suitcase.  At least it was a theft deterrent.  No regular sized Indian could even lift my bag.. :)

I also lugged the D810 et al with me on a hiking trip to Tasmania in Australia last year.  I was really wishing I had an Oly then, as I discovered that I don't go up mountains as well as I used to when I was younger.  The point about slashing weight in your regular hiking gear is a good one.  I just feel I want a minimum level of space and dryness to house all my kilograms of camera gear.  It would feel somewhat strange bunking down with my $5000 worth of camera gear in my bivvie bag after carrying 30kilos up and down mountains in the rain and snow all day.  Yes, I'm soft now.  I'm old, I'm allowed to be!!  :)
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2015, 09:20:51 pm »




I bet you haven't forgotten about removing nose grease off the lcd screens.
 :D

Not to mention the dust on lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2015, 09:14:55 am »

Ripgriffith, who needs teabags? Sieve the loose tea with your bandana.  ;)
You take a bandana?  I just take one tea-bag, minus tag, and reuse it.
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2015, 08:07:11 pm »

I've been casting around for the ideal backpacking camera for years. It needs to be (my requirements, anyway)
1.) Relatively small and light (2 lbs with lens)
2.) Water/dust/ shock resistant (Nikon AW1 level would be ideal, but the AW1 is too compromised in image quality and usability - no viewfinder, AND the rear screen is unusable in sunlight - for me to consider it, so I'm always short of the ideal in this category).
3.) Image quality sufficient (body and lens) for 24x36" prints.
4.) One high quality lens that covers the range from 28-105 (in full-frame terms), with effective image stabilization (on extended trips, I won't take a tripod, both because of weight, and because it's too clunky to use while hiking.

I've used an Olympus E-M5 while backpacking (took it 200 miles on Vermont's Long Trail). It stood up to the rigors of the trail just fine, but I would call the image quality "almost there". I feel confident printing up to 16x20" from it, but not larger. It also has some dynamic range limitations that can become apparent in smaller prints.

I use a Sony A7r on day and overnight trips, and considered the 24-240 as a single lens option for long trips. The A7r's image quality is, of course, impeccable - that 36 MP full-frame sensor is the current state of the art, short of a Phase One back. It's also sturdy. The problem is that the 24-240 weighs nearly 2 lbs alone, which means that it's going to want the grip in order to balance reasonably. The A7r/grip/24-240 combo is approaching 4 lbs. Early reviews aren't all that enthusiastic about the 24/240, either.

I have just ordered a Fuji X-T1 with the 18-135 at the present low price, specifically for backpacking use. I've used Fuji X-Trans before, before the X-T1 came out, and loved it (very nice cameras to use, and the image quality is very good - substantially better than Micro 4/3), except for the lack of weathersealing (both the X-T1 and the 18-135 have quite extensive seals, but Fuji had nothing sealed until those two pieces). I won't be selling my Sony gear, and I have some Micro 4/3 around for video use and very long lenses, so I will actually have toeholds in all three major mirrorless systems, which is a bit inconvenient, but it will allow me to build up whichever system(s) evolve in my preferred direction.

I hope that one of the following happens, allowing me to simplify my multiple systems.

1.) Fuji releases a weathersealed body in the 24-28 MP range - if the per pixel quality and dynamic range is as good as the existing 16 MP bodies, such a body would be very close in image quality to the A7r, and would let me abandon Sony and go Fuji / Micro 4/3.

2.) Sony releases a body with superb internal video capability (4k and significant slomo, good codec, WITHOUT needing an external recorder). If this happened, I could sell the GH4 and go Sony/Fuji.

3.) (unlikely, because I looked VERY carefully at Sony roadmaps before ordering the Fuji). Sony releases a high-quality variable-aperture zoom that reaches at least 105mm, and is in the 1 lb range. This would remove the need for the Fuji, and make me feel very stupid for adding it!

4.) Fuji releases a body with very good video, which I think is unlikely (they don't seem to care, and it goes against their philosophy). If they did, it might very well ALSO have an improved sensor for stills, and might let me slim down to one system for everything.

5.) A Micro 4/3 body with better than Fuji image quality comes out (I think this is hard, due to the laws of physics, and also to the Micro 4/3 partners focusing on features and video).

With none of the above so far, I've ended up with three systems, Sony for ultimate image quality, Fuji for light weight with very good image quality, and Micro 4/3 for video and very long lenses.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Lightweight Backpacking Camera
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2015, 04:43:09 am »

If money was a bit more freer, I always figured I'd get an Oly 4/3rds of some sort.  ...
Just for kicks, I arranged these cameras for possible "backpacking" use (I don't know much about the systems, so I picked lenses that appeared interesting):
http://j.mp/1d38mSf
http://j.mp/1d38TUe

It seems that if you are willing to drop "pocketability" and "moderate cost", there are relatively compact, moderate weight, high-quality options, especially if you can live with a prime moderate wide-angle with moderate max aperture.

Are there no compact, nice Sony FE prime lenses wider than 28mm? A small-ish 24 mm with f/2.8 and stabilization would seem like a nice backpacking option.

-h
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 04:49:44 am by hjulenissen »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up