Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: John Hollenberg on April 05, 2015, 07:02:59 pm
-
I currently take a Canon t2i with 18-55 mm IS lens on my week long (40-60 miles) backpacking trips. Hoping to find a camera/zoom lens combination with better dynamic range and better image quality that weighs 2 pounds or less. Taking my Canon 5D Mark 2 with 24-105 L lens is too much weight for a trip that is not primarily photography focused (plus I don't think I can carry the added weight--every pound counts and I am not getting any younger). Any suggestions among current offerings that would be a significant improvement with that weight limit? IS is a must, I won't be carrying a tripod. Thanks.
-
I'm a hiker, too, and a photographer, and so I struggle with the same issues. I like to have a camera with me, but not too heavy, but I want good raw files, but not too heavy :)
Honestly I don't know that you'll get something better for less weight than the T2i. Maybe one of the full frame Sony compacts? Not sure of their zoom lens selection. I did have an RX1 that made lovely photos, with a fixed 35mm lens of course. The body was p+s size, but with a lens sticking out.
Most of the usual suggestions for backpackers are the large sensor compacts, like the Sony Rx100 series and the new Panny LX100, or a micro 4/3 system camera, but I don't think any of these will have *better* image quality than you are getting now.
My camera of choice for hiking has been a Canon S100, though I recently got a Sony RX100 II. It's very similar, slightly larger and with a significantly larger sensor. I'll take that on my next hike and see what happens. For me, the hikes are about hiking, not photography, so YMMV.
-
I carry a Sony Rx1 in the back country, actually it's my favorite camera in the front country too. My wife carries a RX100M2, it uses the same battery as the RX1 so the spares can be used with both cameras.
The weight savings from carrying the RX1 gets put toward a Gitzo tripod (0 series), so my pack never seems to get any lighter...
-
My wife carries a RX100M2, it uses the same battery as the RX1 so the spares can be used with both cameras.
I also love this camera (I have the M1). It fits in a pocket (easily) and has a good zoom lens and produces good raw files. My main complaint is that it's almost too small. I have fat fingers and sometimes struggle with the buttons...
-
My Fujifilm X100s does just nicely
-
One of my friends has a lumix dslr type camera (dont know the model) with a few lens, it's small light and took impressive pics on the last trip. The dynamic range looked pretty good to me, but I haven't done a comparrison obviously.
If the dynamic range is an issue what about exposure blending or dare I say HDR? I'm thinking subtle here, I used to carry a canon 450d on long hikes and used that for hdr stuff, even with hand holding I used to get great results, and they didn't look hdr if you know whay I mean.
-
I've turned to the amazingly good, for the price, Sony a6000 for that use. I've paired it with the Sony Zeiss 16-70 (24-105 equivalent FOV) but there are many lens options available.
-
I see a lot of suggestions here are for compacts, but how small do you want to go?
I got fed up of carrying my 7D with me so bought a micro four-thirds outfit and I have 2 bodies, 4 primes and a zoom that together are barely larger than my 7D body alone with a battery grip fitted.
The E-M5 (original) has been discounted heavily because the MkII is now out but they both use pretty much the same sensor anmd this makes it ridiculously good value; the wide-to-telephoto lenses are amazing quality and very compact and the in-body 5-axis stabilisation is unbelievable when you first use it (20mm lens, 1 second hand held...yep, 1 second!).
As a starter kit I would suggest the E-M5, Panasonic 14mm, Panasonic 20mm and Olympus 45mm f1.8. If you want a one-lens solution to replace the 18-55 then the Panasonic 12-35mm will pretty much do it.
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.
-
You would save about 120 grams with an APS-C DSLR Canon SL1/100, which weighs 407 grams. The one thing about DSLRs is the relatively long battery life compared with the typical mirrorless camera. If you need to carry and can use (have appropriate weather for) a solar charger for other purposes, you could live with short battery life on a long trip. Some people just bring an inordinate number of batteries, OK if they are light and inexpensive.
-
I've turned to the amazingly good, for the price, Sony a6000 for that use. I've paired it with the Sony Zeiss 16-70 (24-105 equivalent FOV) but there are many lens options available.
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?)
-
I have the Canon G7 X as well as the 5D MkIII. It will give you 24-100. It's very sharp at f/5.0-f/8. It's big downside for me is the lack of an eye level viewfinder. Otherwise the image quality is excellent, and the lens compares well with your 24-105 in the centre and only slightly worse at the corners (bearing in mind that the 24-105 is soft at the corners). There is no ideal camera at any level. If the G7 X had an eye level viewfinder and the image quality was as noise free as the 5D MkIII it would be near perfect for me!
John
-
Although I haven't used mine that way, I would think that the Sony a5100 fitted with few good primes imay be the best option if you want to go real light.
Its 24mp APS-C sensor (same as the a6000) delivers better DR that the FF Canon bodies and it is super compact and light.
Matched with a good and light wide such as the Voiglander 15mm, it may be hard to beat. This gentlemen seems to like it (on the a6000 but it should be the same): http://sebimagery.com/blog/2014/3/23/a-day-with-sony-a6000
Now, if I may, have you already reduced weightto the minimum for the following items?
- yourself?
- your pack?
- your tent/mat?
- your shoes?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now, if I may, have you already reduced weightto the minimum for the following items?
- yourself?
- your pack?
- your tent/mat?
- your shoes?
Yes, you may. ;)
--BMI is a little less than 25, have lost about 5-10 pounds over the last several years
--Tent is a Tarptent (Rainshadow 3), which weighs 3 pounds and fits myself and 2 of my brothers; I don't have to carry it
--Canteens are Gatorade bottles (1-2 ounces each)
--Sleeping bag is Western Mountaineering, weighs 28 ounces as I recall; can't sleep without 3/4 length thermarest (about 24 ounces, I think).
--Pack itself weighs about 4.5-5 pounds empty (Osprey Aether I believe), much more comfortable than external frame pack I had. Need a large pack in order to carry a week worth of food and bear cannisters are required most places in the Sierra Nevada (and have lost food when not using bear cannisters)
--Shoes are boots with Vibram soles, about 3.5 pounds for the pair. I have found I can't go with anything lighter, as we often go cross country for long distances and my feet need the support, especially over talus (have spent up to 8 hours in a day on it). Also, I am no longer in my 50's.
--Polypore rainsuit weighs 10 ounces for pants and jacket
--Have decreased total pack weight as much as I can over the last 10 years, can't cut any more and still enjoy the trip. Total pack weight except food is about 28 pounds. Food and bear canister 12-14 pounds at beginning of trip.
-
Yes, you may. ;)
--BMI is a little less than 25, have lost about 5-10 pounds over the last several years
--Tent is a Tarptent (Rainshadow 3), which weighs 3 pounds and fits myself and 2 of my brothers; I don't have to carry it
--Canteens are Gatorade bottles (1-2 ounces each)
--Sleeping bag is Western Mountaineering, weighs 28 ounces as I recall; can't sleep without 3/4 length thermarest (about 24 ounces, I think).
--Pack itself weighs about 4.5-5 pounds empty (Osprey Aether I believe), much more comfortable than external frame pack I had. Need a large pack in order to carry a week worth of food and bear cannisters are required most places in the Sierra Nevada (and have lost food when not using bear cannisters)
--Shoes are boots with Vibram soles, about 3.5 pounds for the pair. I have found I can't go with anything lighter, as we often go cross country for long distances and my feet need the support, especially over talus (have spent up to 8 hours in a day on it). Also, I am no longer in my 50's.
--Polypore rainsuit weighs 10 ounces for pants and jacket
--Have decreased total pack weight as much as I can over the last 10 years, can't cut any more and still enjoy the trip. Total pack weight except food is about 28 pounds. Food and bear canister 12-14 pounds at beginning of trip.
Sounds pretty optimal indeed. I use an Aether 60l also (your may be using the 80+)? I am considering replacing it with the new Osprey Atmos AG 65, but it will not make a big difference weight wise. I hope that it will be a bit more comfy as I still find the Aether a bit too rigid being designed as a climbing pack.
I am also currently using a Thermarest, but I have read great reviews about this which is quite a bit lighter: http://www.klymit.com/index.php/inertia-x-frame.html
In terms of shoes, I love Aku for their comfort and lightweight, still a good level of support I find. When I go lighter I currently use ankle supporting Trail shoes such as the excellent Montrail. Thanks to their higher cut, they offer much better ankle support than most trail running shoes but are still lighter than traditional trekking shoes. They don't seem to do mines anymore, but the closest ones in their current line up is probably this pair: http://www.montrail.com/mens-bajada-ii-mid-outdry-1605001.html?cgid=men-waterproof&dwvar_1605001_variationColor=464#start=1
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To reduce the weight further, I would cut off all clothing labels and remove any old images from the memory cards.
-
To reduce the weight further, I would cut off all clothing labels and remove any old images from the memory cards.
Are you speaking from personal experience?
-
I live in Ontario, and we have here more lakes than mountains, so the backpacks and other gear get transported on the bottom of the canoe rather than on my back.
In calm water, all this weight travels very effortlessly, but I still cut off the labels on my shirts.
-
I also love this camera (I have the M1). It fits in a pocket (easily) and has a good zoom lens and produces good raw files. My main complaint is that it's almost too small. I have fat fingers and sometimes struggle with the buttons...
I have the M2. I think that the size/weight vs image quality trade-off is close to perfection (for what I use it for).
It is still not "too small" in terms of fitting comfortably in a pocket wearing summer clothing. Thickness is an issue (and the M2 is slightly worse in this respect than the M1). The other dimensions are small enough to not matter to me.
-h
-
...The one thing about DSLRs is the relatively long battery life compared with the typical mirrorless camera. If you need to carry and can use (have appropriate weather for) a solar charger for other purposes, you could live with short battery life on a long trip. Some people just bring an inordinate number of batteries, OK if they are light and inexpensive.
This is a good point. I am able to use my 7D for extended trips on a single (fully charged) 5 years old battery. No charger needed, as long as I avoid excessive long exposures/LiveView/MagicLantern/popup flash. I don't know about the SL1 but if it is anywhere close to that, that may be a big plus for backpacking.
-h
-
To reduce the weight further, I would cut off all clothing labels and remove any old images from the memory cards.
Not to mention the dust on lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ripgriffith, who needs teabags? Sieve the loose tea with your bandana. ;)
-
;D Reminds me of sock filtered stream water.
Pre Giardia, of course.
-
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/ (http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/eos_m3/)
-
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!! :)
-
I bet you haven't forgotten about removing nose grease off the lcd screens.
:D
Not to mention the dust on lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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.
-
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