Backpacking Camera

[bobatkins]

The only opinion that counts is yours. If you think the Elph gave incredible results, get another one. Those who think they suck can get something else. It's that simple.

 

Of course some might suggest you'd really be better of with an M6 and pocketful of lenses, but that's another story.....

[karl_lehmann]

Eric -

 

I couldn't resist paraphrasing part of your last posting, from a slightly different point of view:

 

I have worked very hard to keep the weight and bulk of all of my camping gear and photographic equipment down and I have trouble with the notion that I will be adding lbs. back in food and clothing just to keep from freezing to death...

 

 

There is no magic solution but if you make a good compromise you can expect serious backpackers and serious photographers to be equally horrified by what you're dragging around!

 

FWIF, when I absolutely can't take more than a P&S with me, I just leave the camera behind and enjoy the experience on the theory that it's better to come back with no pictures at all. It's too agonizing to throw out all those bad slides that "could have been great if only..."

[anthony_wong]

Hi Eric, <BR>

If weight and image quality were your only issue, then an old Minolta/Leica CL would give you excellent quality pictures for a very low mass (and reasonable price), but it sounds to me like you're trying to get the most versatility per oz and a fixed or short lens will not cut it. Have you considered carrying two point and shoot cameras? One wide/fast camera, and another that has longish zoom lens? Together, they would still be lighter than an SLR with one or two lenses - I mean, we're not even talking about backpacks here, we're talking about pockets or belt-clips (attached to the backpack?).

<BR>You mentioned in your follow-up post that you'd like more manual control over your pictures, and if you go the two-camera route (and if you have the means) I'd suggest you look at the Nikon 28Ti 28mm f2.8 with ability to use manual focus and aperture priority. I don't have a suggestion for the long zoom, but between a 28/2.8 and the 38 - 140mm, f/4.6 - 12.2 that you mentioned, you'd have a lot of options in many photographic conditions. Don't give up the tripod; it is, of course, what makes the point and shoot option viable for outdoor photography since these light cameras with slow lenses are more susceptible to hand movement.

[bobatkins]

Don't forget the Olympus XA. Manual focus rangefinder with aperture priority autoexposure. Available used for around $100. It has a 35mm f2.8 lens of reasonably good quality. Very small and very light. There's also a 35mm Minox which I think has similar specs. Both will give you the one thing most P&S cameras lack, control over depth of field, while being no bigger and heavier than many current P&S cameras.

 

I don't see why anyone would leave a P&S behind just because it couldn't get every shot as well as you could with a full SLR outfit. If you recognize the limitations of the camera and work around them you can get excellent results. Trying to get "near-far" landscapes in low light (where the lens will open up fully) is clearly not going to work well, but if you know that, you can work around it by using a different composition.

[dan k]

I've wrestled with the "backpacking/camera gear" issue for a few years now and this is my basic take on it: If you're actually backpacking (wearing a backpack, not just dayhiking) use a chest pouch for your camera. This keeps it as a separate, non-interfering entity from your backpack and gives the best access. As far as a camera I'd go with whatever entry level (EOSRebel-PentaxZM-MinoltaHTSI) SLR camera you like most, then add a lightweight zoom lens (~28-80). I routinely hike and backpack with an Elan II, but the Rebel is much lighter and less expensive. Although it is 'plasticky', it won't take as many 'hard knocks' as you think (as long as it's in the chest pouch). Your main concern should be dust and water. Happy Trails and Merry Christmas.

[graham_line]

I struggled with the same sort of question years ago. If you consider the desired results, it answers itself.

If you want good wildlife photos you take the best tools for the job and save weight elsewhere. Taking second-rate or compromise equipment is self-defeating if you're after a picture that requires a couple days of walking to duplicate. Personally, in terms of hardware, I'd say take your most reliable body, a suitably long lens and whatever other lens suits your scenic needs. If you really want great scenics, go to a Fuji or Mamiya rollfilm RF. The difference in quality is worth the weight.

[gregruskin]

My two cents:

 

 

1. The ricoh GR1 produces stunningly sharp results - great for landscapes (lens is 28 mm)in aperture priority mode. Weighs approx. 6 oz. and fits in shirt. Just had beautiful 11X14's of Mountain landscapes in Alps done by Portland Photo.Very close to a regular SLR

 

2. Second on the FM2n for a compact, lite SLR. Totally manual. At 19oz. for body its one of the lighter SLR's (and weighs about the same as an M6 or contax g2). The N70 weighs 20 oz, but is bulkier and probably not as sturdy. I own both, but take the Fm2 during hiking/climbing trips.If you want a sturdy SLR like the FM2 in weight and durability, but with autoexposure and an an electronic shutter, the FE2 is hands down THE best of the older nikons. Used in mint condition it runs $400-500. The nikon FG is a slitely smaller alternative to the FM2/FE2 and weighs in at around 15 oz. They're quite cheap on the used market (150-200)and take all the regular Nikon lenses.Probably not quite as sturdy as the FM2, but good nonetheless and a great value.

 

3. Contax G1/G2 The G1 body weighs 16oz vs. 19 oz. for the G2. The G2 is better in terms of faster autofocus (Less hunting)and brighter and more accurate viewfinder, but for landscapes during hiking, the G1 would do fine, and is FAR cheaper. I've used the G1 with no problems focusing. The advantage with this system is that the lenses are small and lite: 5-6 oz. for the 28, 35, and 45. Not a good choice for wildlife since the longest lense is a 90. The new 35-70 zoom only works for the G2

 

Overall, I HIGHLY recommend getting hold of a GR1. Second choice for a compact, bombproof SLR good for backpacking is the FM2 or FE2.

[andy.kim]

A bit off-topic, but a comment that comes often. No camera bodies are made of magnesium. Doesn't anyone remember high school experiments where you burn magnesium and are blinded? Want to try to machine that?? I'd guess manufacturers are referring to aluminum-magnesium alloys.

 

I was looking around the used section of a camera store and realized that one thing that wasn't mentioned for your wildlife interests are the myriad mirror lenses out there. Albeit they are slow (f8 or so), but they are compact, light, and cheap for the focal length (typically 500mm). I've never played with one extensively, but have seen some photos...if you can live with the strange highlights, good quality samples (ie Nikkor, not the third-party lenses) are quite nice. Coupled again with the FM2n or equivalent and a 24mm, you're good to go.

[john_wall1]

(Flogging a dead horse...) I've been using a Leica Minilux in a small Eagle Creek pouch (perfect fit for the camera) which I hang from my chest strap, and Kodak Gold 200. Even Leica P&S quality is strictly "for the photo album" (or web site). For "real" photography, you have to just grin and bear the load. P&S has been liberating and limiting, and also fun and challenging. I even had the cheek to enter a shot I took with it in an amateur photo contest (results aren't in). You can see some recent stuff I put up with it at http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/3067/BH12.html.

[dave_giordano1]

I have had this same problem for years. Lately I have gone with the Canon Rebel 2000 (very light). Before everybody starts yapping about durability, let me just say that I used a Rebel G HARD for 3 years, backpacked all over the place with it, dropped it a few times and it still works like a charm. I recently bought Canon's 28-135 ISM. It has an image stabalizer in it and you can shoot slow shutter speeds without using a tripod. It is a heavier lens but considering that you don't have to use a tripod, it is not bad. This might be the ticket for a decent backpacking set up.

[scott_laughlin]

Sure, the M6 would be the ultimate backpacking camera. But the Porche 911 would also be my ultimate car. As I can't afford either, I'll give my more reasonable suggestion. Eric, I've never had a lot of luck with the P&S for the work you are talking about. A real good option would be a Nikon FM2n, and the 55mm macro (very good, and very available used). This combo could take a pounding and continue to provide great service for many years.

[christina_stonehouse1]

Eric, you have probably long since bought a camera for backpacking but I just wanted to say for the benefit of anyone who might be reading that if you buy and Epic, consider the gold coloured delux version instead of the regular black one. The gold colour will reflect heat instead of absorb it and that has got to be a good thing in the sun and even when carrying it in a dark coloured backpack. I used to wrap my black Epic up in tin foil to keep it cool. Black ones are easy to loose too. Take my word for it, I have.

[darryl_nightingale]

Olympus RC Rangefinder - a circa 1970 rangefinder

 

Size: 4.25 x 2.75 x 2 inches

Weight: 14.5 oz

 

2.8 42mm lens

Shutter priority automatic or fully manual - full speed and aperture display in the viewfinder

B, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125. 1/250, 1/500

Film Speeds: ISO 25/15° - 800/30°

flash hotshoe

 

Available used, on ebay and elsewhere for $65 - $110 dollars.

 

Cleaned, lubricated, and calibrated it will deliver razor sharp images with it's 5 element, 4 group Zuiko lens.

 

Designed for the hard-to-find 1.3v PX625 mercury battery, but you can use the readily available 675 zinc-air hearing-aid battery as a replacement. You have to wrap a little tabe or something around the hearing-aid battery as it's a little too small - or I belive a search for "rangefinder or camera and batterryp and adapter" will bring up some pages that sell adapters to do the job, if you're uncomfortable with tape.

 

One disadvantage - it has a wierd 43.5mm filter size - if you want to use filters, that is.<div></div>