Backpacking Camera

I am interested in taking pictures while backpacking. The two

categories of pictures I anticipate (landscape and wildlife) seem to

require two totally different cameras (wide angle, and zoom). What do

you think would make the best choice for this application? Size,

weight, and durability are important factors. So I have pretty much

ruled out an SLR and have been looking at P&S. The Olympic Stylus

Epic looks like a good choice on all counts expect for wildlife since

it has no zoom and a fairly wide lens. I have also been considering

the Samsung 38-145 zoom with the Schiender (sp?) lens thinking that

it would give me some zoom, has a sharp lens, has macro capabilities

for flowers and insects, and while twice the size of the Olympus epic

is still fairly small. Any feedback would be appreciated.

You're not going to get in any serious wildlife shooting with any point and shoot zoom. I'd consider an FM2n, 24mm f2.8, and 300mm f4.5 EDIF AIS combo. This, plus an 85mm f1.8, used to be my usual backpacking kit, all fitting into a large Kelty beltpack with some padding.

Eric,

 

The "What Camera to Buy?" section of photo.net would be a good place to start looking, as there is a lot of good info on point and shoot cameras there. If you browse through photo.net and photo.net/photo/nature/ you'll quickly realize that for most wildlife applications, a 145mm f/9.6 (or whatever) lens, Schneider glass or not, won't be enough for wildlife. Don't know about the Samsung's macro capabilities. For what it's worth, I just bought my sister an Olympus Stylus Epic to take overseas for landscapes and scenics for some of the reasons you mention, and some that you may not have thought of. Weatherproof (water-resistant), small/light, the f/2.8 lens gets you more "keepers" (all else held equal) in lower light, decent fill-flash, etc. Though I don't own one, any camera that weighs about 12oz (or whatever the Epic weighs) is not one that I'd look to for durability...but that depends on your definition of durability, I suppose. Good luck.

The weatherproof aspect of the Olympus was part of what I was referring to when I mentioned durability. By durability I was thinking of the the ability of the camera to endure not only minor bumps and bangs, but also some dust and maybe a drop or two if trying to capture a shot just after a shower. It sounds like if I really want to get some wildlife shoots I will have to carry a SLR with a serious zoom lens. So maybe I should just give up on that idea and concentrate on landscapes. Just seems a shame not to be able to catch the occaisional bird, deer, elk, bear, bobcat, etc. as well.

Forget wildlife with a P&S. You'll just disturb the critters by trying to get too close and frustrate yourself by not being able to get sharp (even if small) images due to small apertures and slow shutter speeds at the long end of P&S zooms. You can do OK landscape work, but you're going to be hampered by the fact that you can't set the aperture on cheap P&S cameras, so you have no control over depth of field.

 

If you're only interested in decent snapshots a P&S will do the job. I use a Minolta Freedom Explorer zoom (28-70) and for what it is, the results are very good. The 28 is nice for landscapes. I find 35-38mm not really wide enough.

 

The $400-$800 "P&S" cameras give you more control, but for that price a low end, light weight SLR and lens would probably be more versatile and give you better results.

My combination for hiking has become:

 

*An Olympus SLR (I use the OM4-- small, light, durable and pro-level capable) with whatever lenses I think are right for the occasion (usually a 35-105 zoom and a 28 f/2.8) in a Tamrac holster style bag that can attach various ways to my pack; and

 

*Until I decided I hated it, a Fuji GA645Wi (I am currently trying out a plaubel 670 as a replacement, and may look at the wide version) in an F64 4x5 film case, so that I have some relatively light, compact medium format capability.

 

Both of these are a lot bigger than your choices. Still, I think it's worth the weight because of the capabilities I get. I cannot argue, however, with the idea that P+S's are pretty capable these days, so maybe it's time to go with one of them.

 

Biggest mistake: an APS P+S. Alright, I KNOW an APS camera was a mistake. But it was small, and waterproof, and kind of cute. And it was on sale. It has yet to take a good picture. One instance I resent in particular: I was at the top of one of the runs at Alta, and there was a magnificent and terrifying looking weather system moving in. It was very cold and windy; my companions were yelling at me to forget the picture, c'mon, let's get off the ridge line, etc. I took a pic with the Vectis. Gackkk -- it came out awful. That was my inspiration for moving to a med. format camera that was reasonably portable (first the overated Fuji and now the slightly finicky plaubel). Given how I ski, I'll have to work out something that provides for A LOT of cushioning; but if I do and I ever see a storm like that roaring up a Wasatch mountain valley, I'll be in great shape.

 

Most of the time when hiking or whatever, I have found myself wishing for wider lenses (the vistas). So the Olympus stylus epic, which uses either a 28 or 35 (can't remember which), strikes me as pretty good.

I have tried two different cameras for backpacking with some success. First is the Yashica T4 Super. This is a point-and-shoot with a fixed Zeiss T* 35mm lens. The camera is water resistent and takes excellent snapshots and landscape pictures (within its limiations). Nothing fancy, but it works reasonably well. I have taken mine backpacking, caving, and canoeing with nice results.

The other is a slr with a 28-200 zoom. I use a Nikon N6006 which is pretty light (significantly lighter than a 8008 or N90). This combination is somewhat heavier but still not too heavy. It is also considerably more bulky.

If you go beyond this level, you will be starting to be more serious about photography than backpacking. You will find yourself with multiple lenses and, of course, a tripod.

Eric, the Epic is quite robust, both with reference to it's waterproofing and it's ability to withstand shocks. Almost all the party pictures on my web page were shot with the same Epic. 8 hour long parties, 200 people, that camera took a lot of spillage and droppage and keeps on ticking just fine (my friends call it the "Beer Cam" because it's been doused several times). I carry mine around in my pants pockets with no problems, the sliding shell covers all the optics (including flash).

 

Bob's point about controlling depth of field is of course valid in general, and in particular a lot of user's complaints about the Epic have been about it's autofocus accuracy and depth of field. My feeling is that the Epic tends to be biased towards staying wide open (f2.8) for as long as possible, hence many pictures have lots of out of focus areas.

Eric,

What type of trips are you taking and what is your style? Do you like to go 10-15 miles in a day or do you take things a little slower. Do you like week long treks or 2-3 day trips.

 

I personally try and cover between 7-10 miles a day. This allows plenty of time to drop my pack and go exploring up a hill or up a side canyon. I generally take 2-3 day trips. I find that taking my Elan IIe and a 28-80 & a 100-300 does not kill me on the up hills. But that is just me. The Elan has taken a bump or two, plenty of dusty roads & trails, and some rain. That is my experience. Good luck. Where do you backpack?

 

Brian

Brian, I hike mostly in the Cascades of WA state, but also the Olympics and other West coast areas. Many trips are only 2-3 days, but like longer ones as well. My preference is for light wt. backpacking so longer miles are possible. My guess is the minimum wt. I would be looking at for an SLR setup is about 2 lbs. I was hoping to find something at half that weight or less, and something less bulky than an SLR. I am trying to keep my pack wt. and bulk down so that I can really enjoy the hike and not just feel like a pack mule struggling to get to camp so I dump my load. Looks like I will have to be content with a light P&S for scenery photos only, or give up the pack light and small idea and go with a SLR setup.

The Rebel X body (not current, but I have the data on it nearby) weighs 11.1oz. The 80-200/4.5-5.6 lens weighs 8.8oz and the 28-80/3.5-5.6 lens weighs 7.2oz, TOTAL = 27oz.

 

Now these aren't the best lenses in the world, but I'll bet they beat out most P&S optics, plus they are fast enough (at least f5.6) to be useful. The 50/1.8 weighs 4.6oz, so if you can live with only 50mm, you can get a "P&S killer" that weighs under 1lb with the Rebel+50/1.8.

 

A used Ricoh GR-1 "P&S" with an excellent 28/2.8 lens and aperture prefered auto exposure would be the best, cheapest, snallest, lightest camera for landscape work which allows control over depth of field. You should be able to find one for $400 or so.

 

A 1970s rangfinder like the Canon Canonette QL17 (there are similar Olympus, Yashica etc. models) will give you full control over focus and aperture, a 40mm f1.7 lens, excellent quality and freedom from batteries (except for metering) for about $75. They typically weigh around 1lb (all metal!). If you can live with a 40mm lens and the extra weight over a modern plastic P&S they're a good deal.

A system that can do it all is sure to involve some weight and bulk. A P&S along the lines of T4 or Epic or GR1 is great only if you're content with one focal length. If you want to do any macro or work beyoond 90 mm you need an SLR. My solution to this dilemma is a ZX-M (no lighter SLR exists in 35mm), 35-105 f/3.5 SMC-A macro(fairly fast, good optic), 28 f/2.8 (although a 24 would make more sense), a Tokina 400 mm f/5.6, and extension tubes. I would add a good 1.4 TC. So far, about 6 pounds. I'm hard put to see how you could get this much capability for less weight.

Check out Galen Rowells site at www.mountainlight.com and click on articles. He claims to backpack with a Nikon FM10 28-80/3.5-5.6 and an 80-200/4.5-5.6 (when he wants to go light), and also claims that when stopped down these lenses do a great job.

 

The total weight of these three items is around 35 ounces.

No one has mentioned it but a Leica M6 with, say 21mm, 35 (or 28-35-50mm Tri Elmar) and 135mm lenses would be smaller and weigh less than most and would have the best optics bar none. The 135mm is a reasonable telephoto and the current version is an Apo-f3.4. Others are available that are f4 and even lighter. Can you spare $5000 or so?

 

Of course, what you are really is after is the holy grail of photography: something light and versatile with performance equal to the best cameras. It is impossible of course, but we tend to keep trying. You will have to compromise!

I think the basic question here is, How serious are you about your photography? When I backpack I select pieces from my larger outfit, depending on what I think I'll need. The gear I take when I need pictures for articles or stock is different than if I'm just out with friends, but I always take at least an SLR, one or two lenses (usually wide and telephoto), appropriate filters, and a TRIPOD (a Gitzo 01 w/ Slik head, ~2 pounds). Obviously this adds up to about 5 lbs. total, but I usually carry the camera & two lenses in a holster pouch that keeps most of the weight balanced, off my back, out of the way, and easily accessible. It also means I can get just as high quality pictures as when I take my full kit and work out of my truck. My usual trips are 2 to 3 days, and I keep my pack weight around 35 pounds, including a 2-pound tent, gas stove, etc. I usually sacrifice camp chairs, extra shoes, Maglites, binoculars, novels, axes, and water if I can filter it on the trail.

 

If you decide on point and shoot, I will say that the Stylus Epic is a fine camera for the money. I can get high-quality snapshots of family, etc, but I would miss the control of an SLR or expensive P&S too much to take it backpacking. It is very durable.

Please let's keep suggestions reasonable. This is the nature forum, not the photo.net Q&A forum!!

 

He wants under 32oz, preferably under 16oz. He's looking at a P&S. Suggestions to carry a $5000 M6 outfit (not to mention the weight) or a 6lb outfit including a 400/5.6 (and tripod we can assume) don't really answer the question which was asked.

 

I'd take a GR-1 for serious landscapes plus a zoom for the other snapshots - the Samsung sounds fine. I'd also take a minitripod. I have a couple which weigh maybe an ounce or two at most. 6" tall, flexible legs - one even has a small ball head!. OK with a P&S on them when placed on a rock or tree stump to gain some height. Essential if you want to do longer exposures at smaller apertures with a GR-1 or for evening shots without flash with any camera.

I have used an $89 Pentax EZY in combination with a metal hiking stick that has a tripod threaded bolt at the top. The combination is very light in weight and the use of the hiking stick as a monopod greatly increases the image quality of the photos.

The suggestion by Bob Atkins -

 

"The Rebel X body (not current, but I have the data on it nearby) weighs 11.1oz. The 80-200/4.5-5.6 lens weighs 8.8oz and the 28-80/3.5-5.6 lens weighs 7.2oz, TOTAL = 27oz."

 

- was the best so far but I would add the compact tripod from the Cullman Touring Set (19 oz., 32" max height). You might also substitute the Sigma (sorry) 24-70 for the Canon 28-70. With good technique you can get some great results with an outfit like this, in places you could never get to with heavier gear.

 

And now an editorial: I wish the purchasers and manufacturers of professional equipment would get over their obsessions with METAL and WEIGHT ("it feels too plasticky"). I would be happy to pay a premium to get lighter "L" lenses and a lighter EOS-3, even if it meant a slight loss in durability. I hike, travel and photograph with this equipement. I don't pound nails with it. I strongly suspect much of the heft of professional gear is put there purely for marketing purposes. Canon has made a small improvement with the use of magnesium, but why not use carbon fiber or titanium?

An M6 and Tri-Elmar weighs 32.45 oz presumably excluding film - with the APO 135 is 48 oz. That is not terrible. Eric only said he was 'looking at P & S' not that that was his absolute requirement. The M6 is very durable, comparatively light (and small) and of top quality. Apart from the high price my suggestion was not ridiculous.

Hey Bob - Why doesn't an M6 fit the bill? And why is not "reasonable"? The stated important factors are, "size, weight, and durability." A price range qualifier like "cheap" was never stated. Maybe Eric was looking at point-and-shoot because he was not aware of the M6 and its attributes. I thought this was supposed to be an information forum where all ideas were welcome. I use an M6 setup specifically because it is small & light weight - and robust. The suggestion of the Tri-Elmar and the 135 is certainly a good choice. They all can be found used. A good used M6 body with carefully chosen used lenses can be had for a lot less than the $5,000 stated earlier and would make a really good camera suite for backpacking.

"Why not use carbon fiber or titanium?" Magnesium is a much better choice as it weighs much less than titanium and is easier to work with.

 

Both titanium and carbon fiber are time consuming to work with. Titanium is difficult to machine. It likes to stretch or compress instead of cut. If you machine a titanium part and measure it immediatly, it will be one size, and when you measure it 1 hour later it may measure up to 1/1000 different because it either has been compressed or stretched depending upon the tool, cut direction, and cutting force applied. This means you have to take many very light cuts to get to the final dimension. Yeah, I know CNC machines can do this automatically - and time is money and that's what it's all about. You still have to pay an operator to stand and monitor the machine while it makes all the cuts.

 

 

Carbon fiber is an electrically conductive material. Galvanic corrosion of the carbon fiber can happen with certain metals if they are in direct contact with it. So metal choice for metal parts becomes an issue or the metal has to be dielectrically isolated from the carbon fiber. I know, no hill for a climber, but again, extra parts, labor etc. - and that time / money thing.

Thanks for all of your input. Based on everyone's comments I'm probably going to start with a pretty light and small P&S camera and a little desktop tripod with plans to eventually buy a SLR camera after I have seen how the P&S camera does while I'm hiking. I wish some of the good little P&S units offered more in the way of manual settings so you could choose automatic or manual.

 

I have worked very hard to keep the weight and bulk of all of my gear down and I'm having trouble with the notion that I will be adding lbs. back in photo gear to get good pictures. I don't want to take all the pleasure out of the hiking by packing a heavier load just to be able to take quality photos. So I'm going to look for the best compromise I can find. The suggestions I received here have helped clarify what my choices really are.

 

Thanks again for all of you help.

While man M6 may be a nice camera, in the context of this question I don't think it's really a practical suggestion.

 

Someone backpacker contemplating a lightweight $90 Stylus Epic or $200(?) Samsung P&S isn't likely to suddenly think "Gee, a Leica M6 outfit at $5000 - why didn't I think of that myself". Just ain't gonna happen.

 

I don't want to start a dispute, I just want to slightly discourage the typical photo.net (not nature forum) response to a question, which has increasingly become less and less related to the actual question first asked without consideration of who is asking it. I've seen someone asking about P&S cameras directed to a 4x5, or someone asking about the best print film for a job told that they should really be using Velvia, or someone looking for an inexpensive 3rd party telephoto told they really shoukld buy an $8000 600/4. I'd just like to keep most of the posts here useful to the poster of the original questions.

 

No big deal, but sometimes reality tends to escape us. I'm guilty too!

I think a Yashica T4 and an Ultrapod II will point you in the right direction, and all for ~$175.

 

I have a Canonet QL17 which I love, but have not had the chance to take it into the field. I once took my Minolta SRT-101, but that is a pretty heavy piece of metal. I would consider one of my Minolta X-700's with a 50mm all purpose lens, as it's neither an expensive setup, nor very heavy.

 

The nice thing about a P&S is that you can have it in your pocket, or in a "pouch" that is daisy chained to your shoulder strap, and it is very accessible.

i did some hiking in the white mountains, i brought the cannon elph and my friend brought a massive camera with 5lb lens. the pictures from the elph were INCREDIBLE. they actually came out cyrstal clear, even in some dark conditions they all came out clear. i couldn't een tell the diffrence between his and mine, except on a few landscapes that he took spending 20 mins to set up. i ruined the cannon elph by dropping it in water. i might get another because it worked so perfect but everybody here says they suck! any suggestions????