Lightweight Backpacking Camera

[John Hollenberg]

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.

[Ken Bennett]

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.

[JayWPage]

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...

[Schewe]

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...

[Chairman Bill]

My Fujifilm X100s does just nicely

[sniper]

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.

[E.J. Peiker]

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.

[spidermike]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[John Hollenberg]

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?)
 

[jmwscot]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[John Hollenberg]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[LesPalenik]

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

[John Hollenberg]

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?

[LesPalenik]

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.



 

[hjulenissen]

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

[hjulenissen]

...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

[BernardLanguillier]

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