[tgc]

I'm thinking of buying an SLR camera for shooting some photos in the backcountry. I have about $300 to spend on the body, lense, and accessories. Anyone have a favorite SLR that they would recommend? I don't mind if it's an older model (in fact I'd prefer it - I don't want the camera to do EVERYTHING for me)? I should mention that I'm a beginner, so I don't need the most complex features. I'd love to hear what other people use for backcountry photography. Thanks.

[Larry]

TGC. Pretty much any camera will do. The lens is what makes the most difference. Of course, I would look for a rugged construction on the camera body, maybe stick with the high end brands such as Canon and Nikon. You should try to get one that allows manual overrides on the shutter speed and f/stop. If you can get tele or wide angle lenses within your budget, great. But...you can do very well with a quality "standard" 50mm lens or so...the "standard" lenses are often overlooked in what they can provide for you. A lot of them can get quite close for macro type shots, but still have a fast speed for low light, and 50mm or so gives good depth of field. Make sure you get a tripod. Doesn't have to be fancy. There are a lot of good cameras out there now, on eBay and elsewhere. The prices are down due to the digital revolution. My 35mm is an old Canon AE-1. It's not a tank, but it certainly is not "chicken feed". A good basic camera with manual capability. Personally, I have had best luck with a REALLY old Yashica Mat twin lens reflex. The large negative scans well.

[Larry]

TGC. Something like this looks like a decent deal. Of course, it's eBay, so make sure that you have a "return policy" of a day or two so you can run a roll of film through whatever camera you might get. This camera on eBay is just an example, but the Beck 135mm lens is good glass. The glass is actually made in Germany from a spinoff Carl Zeiss factory. That means the lens glass is PROBABLY quite good. Also, you have the standard Canon lens, which is good. The filters include two good ones for the mountains...the PL81 warming filter and the Polarizing filter. Those alone can be quite expensive to buy sometimes. So...just a thought to get your started looking. Here's the eBay URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2921552283&category=11720

[Newt]

I've always been a Pentax guy myself. Have 5 now. The one I like the best is the K1000 with a 200mm lens. Good camera. Still pack it along even tho I have digital. Had a Yashica Mat EM years ago. I wish I still had it. Was a good camera. NN

[MooseAndSquirrel]

I've used a Canon Rebel for the past 5 years and like it very much- it's been the lightest SLR on the market and if not anymore it's still up there. Lots of features(or manual) & Canon quality. I've owned the model XS and now the 2000. The 2000 had a few improvements on the XS but the XS would be a great value, especially for a beginner. I think you could find a Rebel XS kit ( body & usually the 28-80 Canon lens) for around your $300 price. Try Adorama or B&H, both very reputable mailorder places with very good pricing. Whatever brand you decide on or who you buy from, stick to name-brand quality names. You don't have to get a Canon lens with a Canon body either- with both of my models I had the dealer substitute the Sigma 28-80 Macro Zoom lens, which gave me more versatility than the standard Canon lens and was a bit cheaper. I read a good review of that lens in a photography magazine, and Sigma is a good aftermarket lens maker. It's a true 1-2 macro & I think is a great value. I still believe film cameras are superior in a price/benefit basis to digital ones but the margin is narrowing quickly. Good luck & have fun! You'll no doubt find a lot of good advice in this forum. M&S

[rubberlegs]

I also have a K1000 and it's very reliable and Pentax has great lenses. However SLRs are such tanks that I never brought out the beast from my pack. Now I use a point and shoot and take a lot more slides. It fits in my pocket. It's an Olympus, but the markings are all rubberlegged off from miles of slogging through snowdrifts and traipsing on trails and clamoring up climbs. And I forgot what kind, except the 35/2.8 lens is very sharp. So ya might concider a point and shoot.

[Larry]

[Karen]

I've got a Pentax K1000 and it's still a great camera. I also have a Pentax ZX-7 (automatic) and a Samsung digital camera (4.0 MP). I often take all of them with me on photo trips or easy hikes. Two cameras minimum go with me anywhere -- I like to have a back-up. Also, I find that each camera is better at one type of photograph than the other two -- so they all serve a purpose. I've got a wide angle lens to go with the Pentax K1000 and a 200 lens as well. Gosh, I don't know how long I've had that Pentax K1000 -- I think I bought the last one in the store years ago. The camera I had before that was a good one too -- a Ricoh. I wore it out. I practically lived in that camera for about 12-14 years. As for filters the only one I've ever used is a polarizer. Good luck with your photography -- and don't forget to check yard sales. You never know what you might find. I've seen old cameras (Yashicas) for sale with their manuals -- why didn't I get them? They were written in Japanese!!!??? Karen

[Steve]

http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx Try this link and you'll find lots of reviews with prices. To me though, a decent camera can be had for $300 but not a very good one. I bought a Nikon F3 back in 1984 and it still works great. You get what you pay for especially in the lens department. Don't expect great photos from that $100 lens unless you don't intend to get anything bigger than 5x7 and take most of your shots at f8. You might want to consider digital unless you really want the flexibility of having different lenses.

[The Guy From Bend]

So has digital caught up to "regular" cameras as far as photo quality? I've heard that there still aren't enough megapixels to really duplicate what you get from non-digital, except for the really expensive stuff. Any other significant benefits besides the light weight? I've used the same Olympus OM-1 since 1974. Great camera. It's been beat up a few times and the last time I had to take it in for a refurb. The guy told me that it was expensive to fix, but that you couldn't get a camera like that for less than $1000 these days (they actually used metal parts!). I think it cost $250 to refurb, but it's still kicking. I've taken almost solely slides. With the relatively new technology of inexpensive slide scanners, it's not too difficult to make digital images. One of these days I'll get a website going and post them. (Except I'm the web guy at work, so the last thing I want to do when I get home is work on a website! )

[rubberlegs]

I've seen some incredible digital images... but how many people really make 8x10's? Most people take snapshots and put them in books. So high resolution is overkill if that's the final product. So a good place to start is with inexpensive (used) gear. Then if you get super interested in serious photography, go for the fancier gear. It's a guarantee if you get serious about photography, you'll want to rethink your entire equipment setup. So start small and learn a lot, then you'll know what to get.

[Tom]

IMO, most folks who claim digital hasn't caught up to film are holdouts that haven't tried digital. Digital does some things better. Film does other things better. At the end of the day, digital is far more convenient, albeit more expensive. Don't believe the nonsense that 4MP+ is overkill. There are plenty of times you'll want to crop an image or zoom in. It's worth paying an extra $50-100.

[Larry]

[kleet]

Does anyone ever read The Gear Guy column on Outside Online? He's got a big, fat bias against digital cameras but this is what he had to say last month about SLRs for backpacking. Gear Guy

[MCaver]