Seeking (Hiking) Camera Recommendations

[Sarcasm the elf]

I am going to use this Fujifilm XP75 from Wally World. Has a 16.4 Mega pixels with 5x optical zoom. It is waterproof, shockproof, freezeproof, dustproof. You will need to by a memory card as it only has 99MB internal memory. Right now i is $200.00.

I bought a very similar fujifilm camera a few years ago but ended up returning it simply because I was concerned that the permanent glass lens cover would get scratched up while living in the hipbelt pocket of my pack. I ended up getting an Olympis stylus tough (not sure if they still make it) which had a metal cover that automatically shut over the lens when the camera was off, that camera has served me well for several years.

If you do use the Fujifilm for a long hike I'd be interested to know afterwards whether the lack of a separate lens cover causes any problem or if I was just being paranoid about it.

[swjohnsey]

Has anyone compared a camera in the S100/S120/RX100 class to a late-model smartphone?

Doing that over here (DL'ed images vs. my own from smartphone) -- dang, but the smartphone looks to be in the same league. Maybe my eyes are so shot it doesn't matter any more.

The smartphone is only in the same league shooting on auto.

[rafe]

I have a gorgeous rosewood 4x5 "alba" camera (very much like a Tachihara and actually very lightweight) and 3 excellent lenses as well (heavy!) What to do with them? Keep them! One of these days a relatively inexpensive 4x5 digital sensor/back will come out and we'll be golden! There are some "multi stitch" schemes out there right now:

http://www.multistitch.com/get-yours/

For a while I was checking up on Better Light scanning backs on eB-y. There was some photographer, whose name I forget, who documented many of the US National parks with a view camera fitted with a scanning back. Gorgeous images. The problem with scanning backs is that the longest CCD chips are stilll not that long, so they still don't even use half the imaging area of a 4x5. Scanned 4x5 film gives massive files -- 6.25 million pixels per square inch times 20 square inches is 125 megapixels.

But all that is old hat; it's done now with fancy pano heads on tripods and stitching together dozens if not hundreds of digital images.

[Andy P]

I used a Ricoh wg-4 rugged camera this summer and I was very happy with it. Water proof and held up great getting banged around in the White's and Maine. It has a nice wide-angle and the shots came out great.

[slbirdnerd]

I LOVE my Nikon A100 (current model A120) shockproof, waterproof, full HD point and shoot. It lives on an S-biner on my pack strap and has taken a beating but performs like new. Around $250-$300, bought mine at a Meijer (similar to super Walmart) here in Ohio. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...PIX-AW120.html

[jjozgrunt]

I bought the Olympus TG3 camera as my weapon of choice for bushwalking. Light, takes a good photo, has manual controls, tough and water/dust proof. But the biggest consideration for me was the fact you can recharge the battery, in camera, from a portable battery via a usb cable. Nothing worse than getting a great photo op and no power. Just under your budget on Amazon. https://www.olympus.com.au/Products/...ough/TG-3.aspx http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-TG-3-W...ds=tg3+olympus

[Bob55]

Currently use Nikon's AW100, and if I go will be upgrading to the AW120. I used Sony's TX waterproof model before the AW100, but first time I used it underwater, it failed. (screen blacked out with in 6 inches under). Sony was great sending me a new one, but I look at it as being highly water resistance instead of water proof. MY AW 100 has been in loads of weather, Down 15 feet, dropped in mud, etc. and never gave me any issues. Trouble with these is battery power. Not nearly enough power for the amount of photos and Videos I believe I'll be doing. Even with the AW120's higher battery rating, I'd will be carrying few extra batteries.

[rafe]

I recently switched to a Sony RX100 and the images are really good and the battery life is excellent. I carry a spare battery, but as yet have not had to use it, even on a seven day stretch between resupply on the Colorado Trail. The only down side for me is that it is not weather resistant.

I'll risk the weather/impact resistance (or lack thereof) for all the other goodies the RX-100 has. At a street price below $400, I haven't seen any contenders that can beat it for image quality. I've carried cameras on almost all my hikes and managed to keep them dry and intact.

[Ray C]

I was going to go with the GoPro Hero4, after using my nephews GoPro Hero3 I thought a good point and shoot would be better. No doubt the GoPro is a great camera.
I have decided to go with the Nikon AW120 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IA9LR9Q/...9QULHDHQ&psc=1

[Another Kevin]

My current camera is a Canon SX120IS. I got it at Target on closeout. It performs better than my phone. It has a macro setting, and can go full-manual or do things like aperture or shutter priority. It's compatible with a tripod. My main complaint is that the autofocus is painfully slow, particularly in low light.

[R1ma]

If image quality is job #1, look at a Sony NEX or Samsung NX camera - mirrorless, APS-C bodies with small, light lenses. A Samsung NX2000 is 228g without battery or lens and a 30mm f/2 pancake lens is 85g. Amazon sells it for less than $300.
Sony NEXs are a bit more expensive and a bit nicer.

[gollwoods]

I have had good results with this fuji but the shutter speed will only go as long as 8 sec. the new 50 will go as long as 30 sec
http://bridge-cameras-review.toptenr...s-details.html

[rafe]

Ordered a Sony RX100 on Wednesday from Abe's of Maine. The original (2012) Mk-I version. It arrived a couple of hours ago. It's a gloomy dark day, but as soon as the battery was charged I took it outside and snapped a couple dozen shots around the yard.

I must say the image quality is incredible. I'm seriously blown away. And as a special plus the thing weighs 8.5 oz. and fits in my shirt pocket.

I used to argue over "film vs. digital" back in the USENET days but it's all over. Way over. I'm looking at a closet full of Nikon 35 mm. gear, Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7 (medium format) gear that hasn't been used in years. Thousands of dollars worth. All junk.

I think I'll keep the 4x5 view camera for old time's sake.

[Lyle]

I used to argue over "film vs. digital" back in the USENET days but it's all over. Way over. I'm looking at a closet full of Nikon 35 mm. gear, Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7 (medium format) gear that hasn't been used in years. Thousands of dollars worth. All junk.

I think I'll keep the 4x5 view camera for old time's sake.

Rafe, plenty of folks (myself included) still buy/sell/use film cameras. For easy sale, not the highest dollar amount, check out KEH.com They are a great company, 100% trustworthy, been around in the used camera business for a long time with a great reputation. Or take your chances on ebay. B&H and Adorama are also very reputable businesses that deal often in old film cameras.

People still pay hundreds of dollars for some of this gear. No where near what it was worth new, but hardly "junk".

[Lyle]

Meant to add, you could sell it on APUG once you establish yourself there. Good bunch of folks, all have been honest in my dealings with them.

[rafe]

Thanks for the pointer to APUG, Lyle. In truth, I haven't shot film of any kind for several years now. We had a great little photo shop here in town that did a fine job of processing, but they've closed down as well. I sold my LS-8000 film scanner soon after that. Even when I shot film, in recent years, the back end was all digital. Haven't worked in a proper wet darkroom since maybe 1975 or so.

I could process my own BW film but I'm concerned about the toxicity and disposal issues with C41 processing.

The only film camera I own that can still beat digital is the 4x5. So I might keep that one for a while.

I'm really looking forward to a walk in the woods with the RX100! But maybe not tomorrow, serious cold rain (maybe snow?) is predicted.

[bigcranky]

I gave almost all my film gear to the art department here on campus. They get a lot of use out of it, which makes me happy.

I kept the better 4x5 and the lenses, but I haven't shot with it in years. I also kept my old Canon F1N and my original breech-mount FD lenses, and my X-pan. Again, though, no film has gone through any of them in years. I just can't give those away for some reason, but I guess I'll have to eventually.

Glad you like the RX100.

[Traveler]

Rafe, plenty of folks (myself included) still buy/sell/use film cameras. For easy sale, not the highest dollar amount, check out KEH.com They are a great company, 100% trustworthy, been around in the used camera business for a long time with a great reputation. Or take your chances on ebay. B&H and Adorama are also very reputable businesses that deal often in old film cameras.

People still pay hundreds of dollars for some of this gear. No where near what it was worth new, but hardly "junk".

There are a lot of purists who will not abandon film, even though DSLR is coming close to the same level of image quality. Positive imaging (as opposed to negative) in slide film is a pretty good example, though I suspect digital will reach that level eventually. You have to get into DSLR equipment at the $2,500.00 and up level to get close to this, along with the extras like filters and lens options. There is room for both digital and film, though I do see film moving to the artistic niche than it will be in the mainstream as it once was. For me, I find digital to work very well for most of the stuff I shoot, but I still haul the 35mm SLR around when I want to get a very specific photograph.

[Lyle]

Yeah, to my eyes (not to everyone though) digital is equal to 35 mm unless you want to do your own processing, which I do not do. I can still see huge differences with medium or large format, however. when compared to the normal DSLR suspects. For that quality, digital would be WAY out of my price range especially considering how inexpensive these film cameras are today.

For shooting day to day, the costs of digital, plus the convenience have trumped film, no doubt. Most folks just use out of camera jpegs and do very little post processing, thus the great time savings.

Most of my film 35 mm cameras are for fun and because I just really enjoy shooting film still. Slow, much more methodical, forces you to think about what you are doing instead of just shooting "trial and error" style. Unfortunately, I hear MANY professional photographers espousing the idea that that is what makes a good photographer, or at least a professional, they just shoot thousands of photos in the hope that one or two will be great. To my thinking, this is NOT a good way to approach photography, even in the digital age, but it is becoming accepted. I'm not saying that one will not shoot thousands of photos, but that should not be your "method". Ok, rant over...backpacking cameras - again, my new choice is the Ricoh GR.

[rafe]

I see folks still have strong feelings about film vs. digital. For what it's worth, it seems KEH thinks some of my gear may be worth more than I thought. I need to box up and ship some stuff to them. We'll see!