Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
InFlight coated in DEET
Joined: 20 May 2015 Posts: 847 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle area |
|
InFlight
coated in DEET
|
Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:08 pm
|
|
|
Ive been looking at the various cameras available today, and have come up with a ideal feature set for a ideal backpacking camera.
1. Water resistant (tested not claimed Sony)
2. Body Weight of 24 ounces maximum, preferably 16.
3. 5-axis sensor stabilization. Easier use of prime lens, and makes for simpler sharper zoom lens.
4. Good low light performance (astrophotography capable). FF or APS-C
5. USB Battery Charging. I have a brick to charge my phone or headlamp, I dont really need to carry the weight of another special charger.
6. Fully Articulated screen. ( Turn 180 to protect the screen while traveling)
7. Reasonably good lens options that are weather sealed.
The less important.
I primarily shoot landscapes, so x number of focus points and auto-focus speed are nice, but not really important to my primary style.
The maximum print size I would make is 8x10, at 300 dpi is 8 megapixels. With extensive cropping 16 megapixel. Thus any of the current generation of 20 megapixel plus is fine. If your shooting weddings and portraits worry about the 30-60 megapixel options.
I dont normally shoot video. Almost all modern cameras cover HD and 4K at some rate. HDMI outputs and micro-phones really are an afterthought for me, but I realize these are important to others.
I carry my DLSR camera on a peak design capture clip on my left backpack strap (right handed). I also bring an ultra-pod with a miniature acra-clip (capture clip compatible).
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
|
Back to top |
|
|
williswall poser
Joined: 30 Sep 2007 Posts: 1967 | TRs | Pics Location: Redmond |
|
Back to top |
|
|
InFlight coated in DEET
Joined: 20 May 2015 Posts: 847 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle area |
|
InFlight
coated in DEET
|
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:37 am
|
|
|
The Micro 4/3s has most of the better options - including the Lumix G9, G90, & G95. The Olympus OM-D E M1 & M5 models are equally good, and have an excellent reputation of waterproofing.
The brand new Fuji X-T4 looks to be an excellent weather sealed camera. 26MP APS-C, fully articulated screen, sensor shift image stabilization, and USB charging. It's the first X-Tn model with sensor shift stabilization. Too new to have very many reviews, but seems like a great option.
Pentax obvious has a good reputation of weather sealing. With the sales of cameras in general declining due to smart phones, I can't see Pentax surviving long at 3% of market share. It's not a system I would want to invest in.
Nikon Z6 & Z7 series are full frame with sensor stabilization and USB charging. The next models will likely include a fully articulated screen.
Canon EOS R full frame has everything but sensor stabilization. With all their new RF lens having image stabilization, I don't see them changing.
Sony weather sealing of the 7 series seems to be suspect at best. It's not ideal for outdoor PNW conditions The battery door isn't sealed on any of the 6500 and other "weather sealed" models. Sorry to upset the "Sony Fans", but having to stop to remove and stow your camera every time it rains lightly is unqualifying.
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
|
Back to top |
|
|
williswall poser
Joined: 30 Sep 2007 Posts: 1967 | TRs | Pics Location: Redmond |
Looks like you just need to make a decision based on your research.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ski ><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:40 pm
|
|
|
I'm buying two more Nikon L28 "Coolpix" cheapie point-and-shoot models. Used. One of them is going to set me back $41 and change, the other $32 and change.
Just broke the last one dropping it on the rocks, so these will be #3 and #4. I figured I would just get a back-up this time since I seem to have a propensity for destroying them in fairly short order.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
Back to top |
|
|
InFlight coated in DEET
Joined: 20 May 2015 Posts: 847 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle area |
|
InFlight
coated in DEET
|
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:04 pm
|
|
|
Ski wrote: | I'm buying two more Nikon L28 "Coolpix" cheapie point-and-shoot models. Used. One of them is going to set me back $41 and change, the other $32 and change.
Just broke the last one dropping it on the rocks, so these will be #3 and #4. I figured I would just get a back-up this time since I seem to have a propensity for destroying them in fairly short order. |
Ski, you are a certified menace to electronics. A neck strap or a lanyard would avoid "Nikon on the rocks"
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ski ><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:26 pm
|
|
|
What's weird is that I hauled an old Nikon FG20 around for almost 20 years before I accidentally kicked the tripod on a gravel bar and cracked the case.
These little point-and-shoot models don't seem to be quite as durable when it comes to dropping them on gravel bars along rivers.
Just got an invoice for one: $34.14 total. I think the other one will be about the same or a few bucks less.
No problem!
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:08 pm
|
|
|
InFlight wrote: | Body Weight of 24 ounces maximum |
What about lenses?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Im thinking about down sizing to the Sony a7R IV. Its a major change for me because of all the Canon glass I already own. Im pretty sure I can sell everything I own and more than cover the cost of the change. In the end Ill lose money overall, but I just care about the change not really costing me more money.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
InFlight coated in DEET
Joined: 20 May 2015 Posts: 847 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle area |
|
InFlight
coated in DEET
|
Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:49 am
|
|
|
Tom wrote: | InFlight wrote: | Body Weight of 24 ounces maximum |
What about lenses? |
Obviously lens weight is a considerable issue as well. The other issue is what lens are offered that are water & dust-resistant.
Minimum Backpacking Kit
1. Fast wide prime (preferably a light pancake). Around 16-24mm, F1.4-F2
2. Normal Zoom, preferably with 70-80mm high-end rather than 50-55mm;
With APS-C the 80mm is actually 120mm; so the single zoom could cover some telephoto range as well.
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately... ― Henry David Thoreau
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:01 pm
|
|
|
Everybody shoots differently but I find that the Olympus 12-40 (24-80) covers 85% of my needs so on many hikes that is all I carry. But on other hikes I add the Panasonic 35-100 (70-200) and the 60 macro (120).
When I want to go wide with a ridgetop or large lakeshore camp, my wide angle is the Oly 8mm FE which I shoot most often as if it was rectilinear. The 1.8 aperture and extreme angle of view makes it good for astro/landscape and selected other uses.
All of the above lenses are very compact and light and cover from 16-200mm (ff equiv). Some folks prefer the 12-100 (24-200) which is high quality but larger than I want on my chest. In any case the weight and focal quality is in top tier lenses where you probably get 15-20% higher IQ on average.
The Olympus EM-1 was my hiking body for five years and is still plenty good enough and compact and light for hiking/scrambling. I recently bought the EM-1 II and Olympus has now released a brand new EM-1 III. With the II and III because stabilization is so good, a tripod - which is the heaviest piece of gear - is only necessary if I choose to shoot astro/landscape or Focus Stack macro. The answer for me is usually going to be no - no tripod. For the top birding lens - the 300 (600) F4, matched with the EM-1 II - I can handhold fairly reliably at 1/15 second. The EM-5 III is another good choice, but the EM-1 II has been super reliable over the past 3 years - you never hear of defective bodies. The EM-1 III has some new stuff, as does the EM-5 III - though it's innards are similar to the EM-1 II. The newer bodies are significantly better than the EM-1 I in stabilization and in certain functions, like Focus Stacking. To me any of these bodies in the 410 to 550 G range are reasonable to carry on any type of hikes/scrambles/backpacks. The tripod is a different story and avoiding carrying one is a big deal. I can use a tiny tripod for scenics if I can place it on a rock/stump or the like - but likely not with UWA or with the FE where you need to be well above the ground in many cases.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6307 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
Backpacker Joe wrote: | Im thinking about down sizing to the Sony a7R IV. Its a major change for me because of all the Canon glass I already own. Im pretty sure I can sell everything I own and more than cover the cost of the change. |
1 - You can use Canon lenses on the Sony bodies with an adapter, so you don't necessarily have to sell any glass.
2 - If you do get rid of your lenses, be sure to compare the weight with the Sony equivalents you'd look at replacing them with. There may be other benefits, but chances are you're not going to be saving much weight that way.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
Sore Feet wrote: | Backpacker Joe wrote: | Im thinking about down sizing to the Sony a7R IV. Its a major change for me because of all the Canon glass I already own. Im pretty sure I can sell everything I own and more than cover the cost of the change. |
1 - You can use Canon lenses on the Sony bodies with an adapter, so you don't necessarily have to sell any glass.
2 - If you do get rid of your lenses, be sure to compare the weight with the Sony equivalents you'd look at replacing them with. There may be other benefits, but chances are you're not going to be saving much weight that way. |
Thanks SF Ill do that. Just going to a store and feeling the camera and lens's they seemed way smaller and lighter. Ill have to work out the statistics and see a comparison.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
|