View Full Version : photography gear question
OK my backpacking photography nut friends:
You are out for a week or two (or more) on the AT. Backpacking rugged terrain with all the varied weather conditions the AT is famous for (assume this is hiking season and not winter). Assume you are out to take some nice photographs (and I emphasize not cheap snap shots but nice photographs) and outdoor photography is at least a serious hobby for you:
What do you bring for camera gear? multiple lenses? compact? still bring an SLR? waterproof camera or regular camera in which case how do you keep dry?
I have found that nothing beats an slr for photographs but these things tend to have some real poundage.
One thing I have always wondered about, if I am using an SLR how do I keep the camera accessible? putting it in pack is inconvenient (you have to stop take off pack etc) and wearing it around mu neck is a bit cumbersome.
DavidNH
The weight and size of a DSLR is prohibitive, from a practical standpoint, for taking on a backpacking trip. You add in the cost of the body and lenses and then it becomes a real issue, for if something were to happen to damage the equipment, you would be out a lot of invested money.
I use compact cameras only when I'm backpacking.
They are easy to carry, easy to access, and easy to protect.
Typically I double bag the camera in quart size freezer bags and have it at the ready in my hip belt pocket.
Fiddleback
05-09-2009, 10:34
When I first started in photography, publishers didn't want to print 35mm photos. Today, as then, there are other cameras that produce photographs technically superior to SLRs but they have even more poundage.
I finally gave up. Over the years, I had stripped my backpacking 35mm SLR system to the basics...one body, one 28-90mm zoom lens. I considered that to be very minimalist yet the combo weighed over three pounds. After years and years of carrying that I move to digital...just about the same time I became an ultra-light backpacker wannabe.;)
The digital super zoom camera I use weighs 18 ounces (incld battery, strap and a couple filters). It's equivalent zoom range is 28mm - 504mm, i.e., more than five and a half times the telephoto range at about half the weight of my 35mm backpacking set up. More than that, the image stabilization feature is a stunning advance over my 35mm system. It's possible to take a handheld shot at the full 500mm+ range with a ½ second shutter speed...not often but you get the "picture.":D
In theory, I gave up some quality. The digital photographs have noise as the film had grain...in theory. But the supposedly noisy digital photos are just fine up to 8X10 or larger. Besides, if we were committed to 'clean' pics, we'd all be carrying 4X5 cameras and 50-pound tripods. I relish the Arizona Highways photography of David Muench and admire his dedication but I have no inclination to expend the same effort. It's a matter of where the individual draws the line.
There are some things I miss about 35mm film and its cameras. But the weight and bulk I don't. A $20 memory card the size of a postage stamp and the weight of a dime gives me the capacity of 20 rolls of film. And, of course, the card can be used over and over again.
Yeah, I miss the old ways sometimes, but I'm not going back.
FB
Zabigail
05-09-2009, 10:55
I just do day hikes here where I live, but I have found my Nikon Coolpix L16 (http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/nikon-coolpix-l16/) to be easy enough to manage. Even with 2 spare sets of batteries, and a spare 1 gig memory card. I have it in a Samsonite camera case, which can go on a belt. (Link is to a review of the camera.) It cost about one hundred dollars a year ago at Wal-Mart. I may share a link to my flickr stream privately, if anyone is interested in what kind of pictures it takes.
bigcranky
05-09-2009, 11:49
It depends: is this a photography trip in which you happen to be backpacking? Then take serious photo gear: SLR, several lenses, big tripod, etc. Is it a backpacking trip in which you want nice photos? That's when I take a good point-and-shoot. In my case that's a Canon G-7, but these days the G-10 would be better (raw files, 28-135 zoom range, etc.) For a two week trip, I would carry a spare battery, the charger, and lots of memory cards.
Feral Bill
05-09-2009, 12:11
I carry a digital ultra zoom (10X range) camera in a paddded case on my hip belt. With spare batteries and a mini tripod it's a bit over a pound. If it was really wet I guess I'd pop it in a plastic bage for a while. It works for me.
springerfever
05-09-2009, 12:13
Panasonic LX3 is my favorite......its ONLY downsides are very limited zoom (but you do have an excellent 24mm wide-angle) and the fact that it takes a proprietary battery. My previous favorite the Ricoh GRD took the factory battery OR 2 AAA's. Both are extremely lightweight and versatile.
Zabigail
05-09-2009, 12:22
I carry a digital ultra zoom (10X range) camera in a paddded case on my hip belt. With spare batteries and a mini tripod it's a bit over a pound. If it was really wet I guess I'd pop it in a plastic bage for a while. It works for me.
I'm hoping for a Gorillapod (http://www.joby.com/products/gorillapod/gogo/) for my birthday this year. :D My Nikon weighs 125 grams (4.4 ounces) without batteries etc., according to its specs.
Snowleopard
05-09-2009, 12:37
It's all a tradeoff between image quality, weight, cost and convenience. Digital wins on convenience. Film cameras larger than 35mm win on image quality but are mostly heavy.
What I will do now for backpacking is take my compact digital camera (Olympus SP-565, superzoom a little less than one pound). Digital cameras are a great convenience over film. The Canon G-10 that bigcranky mentions is a very good camera, more $$, more than 1 lb, better image quality but not as good as digital or film SLR.
You might look at the thread: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49927&highlight=slr where wetbottom inherited some film SLR equipment.
In the past I'd carry either a film SLR (1.25 to 3 lb depending on lenses) or antique folding roll film camera using 120 film (about 1 lb). For travel or backpacking I'd never take a full tripod, but I got good at propping up the camera on makeshift supports or used a couple ounce minitripod. My SLR gear was carefully chosen to minimize weight.
A light weight digital SLR is the Olympus E-420, 4/3 camera, about 13 oz without lens. $400.
New digital technology is something called micro 4/3 system. The CCD sensor is a bit smaller than 'full frame' DSLR. It is not exactly an SLR, it eliminates the mirrors of an SLR and just duplicates its function electronically.
Pros: lighter, simpler, picture quality almost as good as the DSLR.
Cons: not much that I can see.
Currently: Panasonic G1 ~$650, about 13 oz without lens.
Soon, Olympus has a camera coming out soon that may be smaller/lighter.
If you can afford a micro 4/3 camera and lenses, I see no reason to get something like my camera. Only a little more weight, and significantly better image quality than mine.
On the other hand, a really compact digital camera (the one I was looking at Panasonic FX-150, ~$200, 4 oz) can take pretty good pictures. This class of camera is much smaller and lighter than film or digital SLR.
http://dpreview.com/ is good for reviews of digital cameras.
Ansel Adams backpacked with an 8x10 view camera (film is 8"x10"), heavy tripod, and probably a mule. He probably carried 50 lb of photographic gear.
Zabigail
05-09-2009, 12:42
I didn't mention, the reason I want a Gorillapod is because it is very light, doesn't take up a lot of space, and is quite versatile. The site says it weighs an ounce. :)
from a bit of previous experience, i would tend to say that all you need is a good lightweight tripod (as nice as the gorilla sounds, i find them a bit of a pain in the but... you could find a good tripod for under $50 and less than a lb for sure, though... it might also be worth looking into a monopod, depending on exactly what kind of photography you will be doing.)
its also worth looking into camera armour (http://www.cameraarmor.com/), depending on how prone you are to bashing your camera around...
as far as lenses go, i would tend to recommend sticking with something fairly basic (the zoom that i included in most kits should do you...), considering that we're trying to choose equipment that is multifunctional. if you really want to bring another lens, go for a nice wide angle to get some good dramatic landscapes. polarizing filters a a must (again, they will help protect you lense, and will also help improve the quality of your skies/water). make sure youve got a lens hood to, to help cut back on flare.
Get yourself a drybag to store your gear in (i find hard cases clumsy and cumbersome), and then just tuck this in the top of you pack when you are not using it.
Crumpler (http://www.crumplerbags.com) makes some great options for bags for shorter (day) hikes, and i highly recommend their "industry disgrace" camera strap (my camera weighs about 5 lbs and its comfortable to have around my neck all day with this strap) - it may make it a little easier to lug it around while hiking....
Finally, i would say that it is probably also a good idea to use a series of smaller sized memory cards (several 2 - 4 GB) and switch them up often, storing the ones that you aren't using in various locations in your backpack in waterproof cases/bags - thatway if the worst happens and you and your camera get drenched, at least you wont have lost all of your images.
MintakaCat
05-10-2009, 08:00
I carry the Canon PowerShot A590IS (Got it on sale at Amazon for $99)
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=16336
And to carry it I use the Mountainsmith Exposure II Camera Pouch (medimum size):
http://www.mountainsmith.com/products.asp?productId=260&categoryId=13&subCategoryId=12&subCategory2Id=0
The whole setup is great and all the photos in my gallery were taken with this camera. The whole thing weighes 10 oz and that includes extra batteries. I use Energizer Lithium batteries and they seem to last forever in this camera.
Zabigail
05-10-2009, 12:52
*meep* A pain in the butt to use? How so? :( The camera geeks I post with or interact with on flickr swear by it! Some of them are hikers (Montana mountains) too. I use Duracell NiMH batteries. I wonder if that pouch is more durable than my Samsonite? I like the fact that what I have is semi-hard. I do have to be careful, it isn't the most waterproof. Hmmm...
Zabigail
05-10-2009, 12:57
Heh, I see they don't make any camera armor for point and shoots. :(
Jim Adams
05-10-2009, 14:00
It depends: is this a photography trip in which you happen to be backpacking? Then take serious photo gear: SLR, several lenses, big tripod, etc. Is it a backpacking trip in which you want nice photos? That's when I take a good point-and-shoot. In my case that's a Canon G-7, but these days the G-10 would be better (raw files, 28-135 zoom range, etc.) For a two week trip, I would carry a spare battery, the charger, and lots of memory cards.
Pretty much says it all.
If you want photos, carry a good film camera.
If you want pictures carry a digital.:-?
geek
"If you want photos, carry a good film camera.
If you want pictures carry a digital"
That would have been good advice up to about 5 years ago, things have changed a little bit since then.
Hardly any pro is using film this days, except the guys that shoot large format/panoramic , but that is obviously not what the OP was on about.
Some suggestions:
For a light and capable DSLR look at the Olympus E420 or Nikon D60
Around 30 oz with a 28-80mm equivalent zoom and batt.
The Pana G1 is too close (IMHO) to the size weight of the E420 to pay all that extra money for iy.
However if you want to shoot some movie clips the GH1 could be worth a look.
For good quality pics from a "compact", take a look at the Panasonic LX3, Canon G10 or Nikon P6000.
Choose according to the lens you like (24-60mm for the Pana, 28-140mm for the Canon, 28-112 for the Nikon)
For something even more compact (and less expensive) look at the FujiF200EXR or Pana X550/580 for a wider lens.
Franco
Zabigail
05-10-2009, 19:39
My Nikon Coolpix L16 might just be a little point and shoot, but it can also take movies. :)
Panasonic GH1
Movie mode
Full HD 1920x1080 at 24 fps or 1280x720 60 fps , Input for stereo shotgun mic.
Nikon L16
640x480 @30fps
Franco
Shutterbug
05-10-2009, 20:14
I have found that nothing beats an slr for photographs but these things tend to have some real poundage.
One thing I have always wondered about, if I am using an SLR how do I keep the camera accessible? putting it in pack is inconvenient (you have to stop take off pack etc) and wearing it around mu neck is a bit cumbersome.
DavidNH
I don't carry my slr on multi-day hikes. I agree with you that it is too heavy.
On day hikes, I carry it in a Lowpro Slingshot. http://products.lowepro.com/product/SlingShot-100-AW,2034,4.htm
It allows me to carry it on my back, but have almost instant access.
I bought mine at REI.
Zabigail
05-10-2009, 22:01
Panasonic GH1
Movie mode
Full HD 1920x1080 at 24 fps or 1280x720 60 fps , Input for stereo shotgun mic.
Nikon L16
640x480 @30fps
Franco
It takes sound too, not sure how good, haven't experimented and taken a movie yet. (Because it takes so much space on the memory card!)
Jim Adams
05-11-2009, 00:45
"If you want photos, carry a good film camera.
If you want pictures carry a digital"
That would have been good advice up to about 5 years ago, things have changed a little bit since then.
Hardly any pro is using film this days, except the guys that shoot large format/panoramic , but that is obviously not what the OP was on about.
Some suggestions:
For a light and capable DSLR look at the Olympus E420 or Nikon D60
Around 30 oz with a 28-80mm equivalent zoom and batt.
The Pana G1 is too close (IMHO) to the size weight of the E420 to pay all that extra money for iy.
However if you want to shoot some movie clips the GH1 could be worth a look.
For good quality pics from a "compact", take a look at the Panasonic LX3, Canon G10 or Nikon P6000.
Choose according to the lens you like (24-60mm for the Pana, 28-140mm for the Canon, 28-112 for the Nikon)
For something even more compact (and less expensive) look at the FujiF200EXR or Pana X550/580 for a wider lens.
Franco
I shoot both film and digital. Most photograghers use digital now simply for the convience but the film has far more latitude and can be worked more for the desired effect of the actual photo. Most shots on the AT are landscape shots and a quality film camera and lens will give you far better photos.
geek
For the ones that have the time and the desire to do so , this is a pretty objective series of articles that explain the difference. Keep in mind that as digital is progressing at a faster rate than film (resolution and exposure latitude/dynamic range) it will be also obsolete pretty soon.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)
scan down to links to the Dynamic range portions
Note also that contrary to popular opinion, slide film (chrome) has much less latitude than both negative film and digital.
In the end is a personal choice. You can get ,if you use a good negative film and a pro lab, better pictures from some compact film cameras than most compact digital. The same is for consumer SLRs versus consumer DSLRs.
However if you want to share those images, having them scanned at high res can become tedious and expensive.
The convenience of digital is not just the cost, shoot almost (batteries...) as much as you like and pick the best, but also that you can get an idea of what you have captured, particularly with the ones that let you magnify the image on playback.
As for compacts, I listed a few very capable built in zoom cameras cameras, but as it is easy to get a pretty cheap and sharp fixed lens on a compact film camera, there are hardly any decent ones with a zoom lens, forcing the use of an SLR, and that is what provably the OP was trying to avoid.
Franco
For another point of view...
a couple of years ago I did a 5 day walk with the shop's "digital guru" ( the shop is a specialist photo retailer with more than 60 workers) , I used my pretty low end but so easy and care free Pentax Optio WPi (I used the real stuff at work...) , he used an Olympus Mju 2 with Fuji Reala inside.
I thought that it was rather funny but apart from the good results also gave him a break from handling digital every day, and we had a very good Fuji Frontier lab on site. (of course it is a digital lab...)
Adam still occasionally uses that or his Fuji Natura (24mm F1.9, film camera) or whatever exotic model passe through his hands.
The guy that took over from me as a buyer when I left also occasionally uses film on walks , Contax T or Nikon 28Ti
Franco
Gray Blazer
05-11-2009, 09:02
OK my backpacking photography nut friends:
You are out for a week or two (or more) on the AT. Backpacking rugged terrain with all the varied weather conditions the AT is famous for (assume this is hiking season and not winter). Assume you are out to take some nice photographs (and I emphasize not cheap snap shots but nice photographs) and outdoor photography is at least a serious hobby for you:
What do you bring for camera gear? multiple lenses? compact? still bring an SLR? waterproof camera or regular camera in which case how do you keep dry?
I have found that nothing beats an slr for photographs but these things tend to have some real poundage.
One thing I have always wondered about, if I am using an SLR how do I keep the camera accessible? putting it in pack is inconvenient (you have to stop take off pack etc) and wearing it around mu neck is a bit cumbersome.
DavidNH
How about posting some of your photos in the White Blaze Gallery?