Point And Shoot for hiking

I am a photographer and I have a D300. I love my camera but it is too heavy and bulky to bring with me when I go

hiking, I would like to buy a good point and shoot from Nikon. I am not sure about what one to buy. I would love some

advice, It is hard leaving my 300 at home but I am sure you can understand why I would.

 

Thank you

 

Jenn

To be frank, Nikon does not necessarily make the best point-and-shoot digicams.

Since there is no lens compatibility issues with your D300 anyway, would you consider digicams from other brands such as Canon, Sony, etc.?

I'm a Nikon DSL user, but my point and shoot for the last year has been a Canon G9. Poke around and you will find quite a following, starting with Gordon Buck's blog: http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0208whybrid/index1.html

 

While it is as capable as any point-an-shoot at producing blown-out highlights and noise, when used with the same care as a DSLR it produces excellent results. I have sold images taken with it to a county tourism bureau - it does just fine at ISO 80 or 100, which of course is fine for hiking outings. On a large screen it is possible, but difficult, to see the difference in image quality from a DSLR image. The G9 is limited at the wide angle end to about 35mm equivalent. The new G10 opens out to 28mm, I believe, while sacrificing the long end a bit.

The D40 with the kit lens or a small/light prime could be an alternative to a P&S. I own a D300, and got a D40 for P&S style shooting on the go.

Hi Jenn,

 

When weight is an issue for me I put a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 on my D300 and carry no other lens. A bit heavier than a

P&S but you get a real camera in the deal. This lens is very light weight! Also innexpensive at $125.00 USD.

 

Best of luck in your descision, D

I'd seriously consider the Nikon P6000

I'd go with the advice Douglas gave. Put a Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D lens on your D300 and use that if you want to go light weight. No point and shoot can come close to the quality the D300 offers.

The Coolpix 8800 was a very good P&S digicam, but not much more compact than something like a D40 and small zoom. In prints up to 8x10 made from JPEGs I couldn't tell the difference between photos taken with the 8800 and my D2H.

 

Today, if I was seriously considering a new P&S, I'd go to the nearest shop and try the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3.

Jennifer: I too hike and have a D300 and a lot of lenses. I found a D40x and put a used 55-200 VR II used on it for hiking. Works great. I fly fish as well, fits nice in my vest. I view it as my P&SDSLR.

 

Light and great results. Much better than any P&S I have ever owned. My total bill was under 450.00 USD.

 

Good luck.

I love my older Nikon P&S. It only does JPEG, but serves its purpose. Most people can't tell the shots are from a cheaper digicam. I would second Lex's recommendation on the Lumix. I've also been kicking around the new Canon G10, Leica DLux 4, and the Sigma.

I agree with Lex about the LX3. That's probably what I'd get too. But if you need some sort of resistant type P&S, the Olympus tough camera series looks good too with its shockproof, water proof, etc...

Please check this out . http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm

P6000.

Conni

Jennifer, I also have a D300 and do a lot of hiking so yeah, it can get pretty heavy, especially if you load a backpack with gear. I played with the Nikon P6000 and really thought about it as a replacement for my older P&S but there are still a few things that bother me about it.

 

Then, a couple reviews came out. Thom Hogan's is mentioned above and other is from Luminous Landscape. Clearly the P6000 is better for you if something real small is your top priority. However, the Canon G10 seems to have superior performance overall but it is larger.

Sorry, forgot the link.........

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml

Thank you for all your suggestions. I have a lot of research to do. I appreciate it.

 

Jenn

Hey Jennifer,

 

Hope this is not to late, but, I do loads of hiking, and not just day hiking. Week to 10 days, 80-120 mile

hikes. I also own a D300 and taking this camera on these types of hikes, NEVER!!! Not only weight, but if

anything happens to it.....No thanks. I take a Nikon Coolpix S2. It is splash proof and the photos are great.

I would also look at the Pentax waterproof cameras, I belive they are called "Optio" or something like this.

Waterproof or splashproof for outdoor work is what I look for along with it fitting in my shirt pocket. I have

done 16x20 prints with my Coolpix S2 and they look very nice. I have found the Coolpix on some websites, but

Nikon does not make it anymore, so it could be a bit hard to find, but well worth the look.

 

Good luck....

 

Randy

I do have my D70 that I could bring which is lighter but it does not do well in cold temperatures.It is a hike in December in Connecticut and it is overnight on a mountain. Last year when we went it was about 18. I will look into all of the cameras mentioned. I appreciate all your suggestions. Thank you...

 

Jenn

IMHO, a lot depends on how critical you are of image quality, and how large you intend to print. At ISO's under 200, for reasonably good IQ on prints under 8X10, a Nikon P5100 or Canon G9/G10 produce good results. If you are more critical

or print larger, I agree with suggestions for a small DSLR and compact lens. You can always leave fresh food home and

eat MRE's to save weight...8-)

Because I actually work in the woods, Ive been researching the very same thing. I use a D200, which is also a bit of a brick, and since keeping it somewhat clean and free from damage means keeping it in a protective sling, my reaction time is also affected whenever I am dealing with any action or wildlife.

 

I don't know how tough the LX3 is, but it provides a wider angle than most other P&S, plus the larger aperture would also be handy under the canopy of trees, and any other low light situations.

 

I just bought a 50mm 1.8 for my camera, and it helps a lot with the tricky light, and it's also a little lighter, but unless I bring an additional, wider lens, (more stuff to carry) I end up mostly with a bunch of close-up shots of faces or flowers, etc. This is probably not helping much. If you ever get it figured out, let me know. I keep going in circles.

-Rick

Sorry to disagree with almost everyone here but the D300 is not a heavy camera. I do adventure photography for a living and I have no problem carrying it around. I just finished a documentary of the Tahoe Rim Trail (168 miles in 12 days) and I was very happy with my D200 and 18-200mm VR lens as well as a Tokina 12-24mm. I would never take something like a D3 on a trip like that (that's too much weight and camera) but the D300 or 200 is a perfect camera to manage on a long trip. Point and shoots are great but they don't offer me the same flexibility that a D300 or 200 does. The extra two pounds aren't really a big deal, in my opinion. It's not just me. If you look at most adventure photographers out there, all of us are fine with something like a D300. You don't need to carry a lot, but you have to be willing to carry a little bit more than "the average bear" to be ready for that truly exceptional shot. A carbon fiber tripod is also a good bet for saving weight. If your that worried about your camera getting ruined while you're out in the field, consider taking out insurance on it. It's just part of being a photographer. Hell, Ansel Adams used to take a 4x5 up to Half Dome a couple times a year. I'd say we've got it pretty easy.

 

Rachid Dahnoun

I use the Nikon 35Ti when I go hiking for fun with friends. Great little camera. No zoom, super sharp prime lens, f2.8, and

it's a Nikon. SInce you didn't specify if you wanted to use digital or film I thought I would through it out there. I don't really like any of

Nikon's digital P&S cameras. If you are wanting digital I personally would go with either a Panasonic or Canon.

Rachid - while I agree with you as I am now used to DSLR sizes and weights, remember that to the bulk of people a camera can and should be only marginally larger and heavier than their mobile phone, and should unobtrusively fit into a standard pocket. Its wasn't any more than 2 years ago that I was in that crowd. When looked at it from that perspective even a D40 with a small prime is one big, heavy unit.

 

Jennifer - I've had a succession of the higher end Canon IXY / IXUS / Powershot [what they are called depends on where you are in the world] ultra-compact models and have really liked them, especially the ones with inbuilt IS. One of those and a gorilla-pod is what I used to take travelling and camping and basically everywhere before my SLR days.

If you are really seroius about IQ, consider picking up a used Olympus Stylus Epic. Loaded with Kodak 400UC/Kodachrome 64/Kodak Ektar 100/Vlevia 100 it will blow the pants off anything else in a similar size. Fits in the palm of your hand, with an SLR quality 35mm f2.8 lens.

I recently got back from the Porcupine Mountains, and carried a new Panasonic FX150 15MP digital that shoots RAW + a Stylus Epic loaded with Kodachrome 64.. The Epic quality was in a class by itself. I extrapolate this to a G10 also, as it has only marginally better IQ than the Panasonic (I tested both, bought the FX150 due to very similar IQ but much smaller size). The drawback is no zoom, but maybe not so critical for landscapes/people shots.

As a moderator here, I would like to remind everybody that this is Jennifer's thread.

As long as she feels that the D300 is too heavy FOR HER, that is the end of that part of the discussion.

I go hiking with a 500mm/f4 in my backpack, but mentioning that does not help Jennifer a bit.

 

I would appreciate it if people stop making those unhelpful comments. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.