jhbeckman Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>I would appreciate some advice on a new camera set-up for hiking.<br> I don't care for digital point & shoots -- I have trouble seeing the LCD screen. So, I want to have an SLR. <br> I use Nikon equipment, and I have tended to drag along my Nikon D300, but even with two relative small + light primes -- a 24mm and and 85mm 1.8 -- it's awfully heavy. So, I'd like something lighter. The really small/light/relatively inexpensive Nikon bodies, however, don't support my AF-D lenses. The lightest current body that does -- the D90 -- seems like a good, capable camera, but is also nearly $900. I'd like to bring this in for a less than that.<br> So, I am now thinking about a few other cameras that are SLRs (or SLR-like). The top of the list would be the Olympus e620 and the Panasonic G1. The Canon SX10 is another SLR-like possibility (I would be interested in the SX1, but there appears a lot of questions about problems with image sharpness).<br> Thoughts? I'd appreciate any guidance.<br> This was a lot easier when I just carried an FM2n and little 2 x AA Metz flash on a hike...<br> Thanks<br> John Beckman </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Hmmm. "Light" and "dSLR" are not usually co-occurring conditions.</p> <p>I think your choices may well be better in the "-type" category than in the real thing. Seriously, why not just buy a nice Nikon or other quality "point and shoot" camera with a long zoom range? Quality from these is pretty decent, and if your main purpose is <em>hiking</em> rather than <em>photographing</em> , they'd fit in just fine.</p> <p>For things like this in the pre-digital days, I just carried a nice Rollei 35. Indeed, why not go back to a small film camera of the sort you're nostalgic about, for that matter? If you've got a decent scanner, it can work out pretty well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Do you know about the Panasonic FZ-35? It is similar to the Canon SX-10 but much lighter. The electronic viewfinder is OK -- not as good as the G1, but the Leica 27-486mm lens (crop equivalent) is phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhbeckman Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>JDMvW: It was easier to get around in the woods with a real SLR in the days of yore when we shot with film. When one was toting around one's camera in a car, hauling around some behemoth like an F5 with an 80-200 was fine. Out in the woods, the FM2n with a couple of primes was king. Digital, alas, is another matter -- I am having trouble finding the digital equivalent of an FM2n. Point and shoots do seem to yield lovely photos; the problem is me -- at this point in my life, I cannot focus on the LCD screen. So, a meaningful viewfinder is a must.<br> Bill: nope, not familiar with it, but I will take a look. thanks </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Take a look at the new Pentax K-<em>x</em> . It has almost all of the features of the Nikon D90 (and some features that the D90 doesn't have, such as built-in image stabilization). It's small and light, and best of all, the price is great: $649 with 18-55 lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Here is a side by side comparison of the D90 and the K-<em>x</em> :</p> <p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d90%2Cpentax_kx&show=all</p> <p>The D90 has a better LCD and a slightly bigger viewfinder, but other than that, the Pentax is as good or better than the D90, as far as specs are concerned. It's several ounces lighter, and smaller in every dimension. Icing on the cake: the K-<em>x</em> is $300 less. At that price, I'd say it's unbeatable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshio Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p>G1</p> <p>no doubt in my mind.</p> <p>The kit lens is quite good and I can add a light 200mm lens (effectively a 400) for some telephoto with just a few extra grams. Perhaps you might find <a href="http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/01/choosing-hiking-cameras.html">this fellows discussion</a> interesting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_wong Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p>Frankly, why not consider a used Nikon D80. I think considering another camera brand is moving in the wrong direction, especially when you already have Nikon glass. If I read the original poster's issue, he'd be happy with another DSLR as long as it was (a) lighter and smaller than his D300 and (b) could autofocus with his existing lenses. Staying within the Nikon family means you don't need to screw around with getting used to another set of camera controls.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now