Seeking (Hiking) Camera Recommendations

[rafe]

If you take your hiking photography fairly seriously, I'd like your opinion. (OTOH if you carry a DSLR you're probably too serious .)

Here's what I know:
* My newest digicam (aside from my smartphone) is a 7.1 MP Canon A620, circa 2005. I really like the tilt/swivel display. But it's kinda heavy (11 oz.)
* I'm quite impressed with the image quality and features of my smartphone (Galaxy S4). But I suspect a dedicated camera can beat it. Right?

Priorities (all over the map):
* not a DSLR
* image quality, big sensor, some manual controls
* small, lightweight, etc. I like having camera on shoulder strap, instantly accessible while hiking.
* say, $350 or so (max) street price (used/good condition is OK)

I'm all over the map. I'm kinda liking the Canon G15 or G16, Nikon P7800, but also like the compactness and lightness of the Sony DSC-RX100 or maybe even Canon Powershot S120. Mainly I'm thinking, all my cameras (except for my smartphone) are OLD. Technology has surely improved. I used to know cameras upside down and inside out but I haven't been paying attention to the market for a long, long time. I'm getting to be an old phart and less willing to lug big, heavy cameras on backpacking trips.

[Rolex]

I got a gopro for my birthday and plan on using it. Still looking at the whole battery thing though as its a rechargeable type. Another reason to get a usb battery stick or solar charger I guess.

If you take your hiking photography fairly seriously, I'd like your opinion. (OTOH if you carry a DSLR you're probably too serious .)

Here's what I know:
* My newest digicam (aside from my smartphone) is a 7.1 MP Canon A620, circa 2005. I really like the tilt/swivel display. But it's kinda heavy (11 oz.)
* I'm quite impressed with the image quality and features of my smartphone (Galaxy S4). But I suspect a dedicated camera can beat it. Right?

Priorities (all over the map):
* not a DSLR
* image quality, big sensor, some manual controls
* small, lightweight, etc. I like having camera on shoulder strap, instantly accessible while hiking.
* say, $350 or so (max) street price (used/good condition is OK)

I'm all over the map. I'm kinda liking the Canon G15 or G16, Nikon P7800, but also like the compactness and lightness of the Sony DSC-RX100 or maybe even Canon Powershot S120. Mainly I'm thinking, all my cameras (except for my smartphone) are OLD. Technology has surely improved. I used to know cameras upside down and inside out but I haven't been paying attention to the market for a long, long time. I'm getting to be an old phart and less willing to lug big, heavy cameras on backpacking trips.

[BuckeyeBill]

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.

[bigcranky]

You are in luck -- there are a number of new cameras with a large sensor, some manual controls, very high quality files, and fast lenses. The bad news is that they are freakin' expensive. The camera manufacturers have figured out that there is a demand for very high quality small cameras.

If I were buying a new camera right now, it would be the Panasonic LX100. Built in electronic viewfinder, 4/3 sensor, fast zoom. Yeah, it's $900, but Panny sells a 12-35/2.8 zoom for $1200 at it doesn't come with a camera. This zoom is *faster* and comes with a nice little camera attached.

The Sony RX100 series has a large sensor. The first version can be found for around $350 online, but the latest is probably closer to $800 or more. I find the Sony much fussier to use, but that's probably because I have much more experience with Panasonic and Fuji.

The Canon G1X series, with two models, has a large sensor and a decent zoom. The older model is about $550 and the new one is $800.

The biggest thing with your wish list is the large sensor -- that gets the price up pretty quickly. You could find a used Olympus or Panasonic Micro 4/3 kit with a camera and the 18-55 kit zoom lens (like this). These can be found for around $400 pretty easily. But they are larger than the p+s style -- though not as big as a DSLR.

All that said, I have been carrying a tiny Canon S100 on recent hikes. It's a small sensor P+S camera, and it's really tiny. It has a metal body, so it's not really light, but it's rugged and the files look okay for a p+s. Best part is that it was $175. It fits in the front padded pocket of my waist pack, so I always have it with me, accessible for easy shooting.

Good luck and happy shooting!

[colorado_rob]

... All that said, I have been carrying a tiny Canon S100 on recent hikes. It's a small sensor P+S camera, and it's really tiny. It has a metal body, so it's not really light, but it's rugged and the files look okay for a p+s. Best part is that it was $175.

I'm one of those too-serious DSLR guys most of the time, but on a long hike where carried weight is paramount, I carry this little gem (the Canon s100), bets bang for the weight-buck out there IMHO, outstanding image quality for a smaller sensor camera. Ken Rockwell calls this series the "best pocket cameras", check this out:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reco...ras.htm#pocket

[rafe]

Thanks all so far, esp. BigCranky for the up-to-date market survey. Sony RX-100 may be best (affordable) choice from above. I have the original Canon G2, 10D (DSLR) and A120, the latter was my main hiking camera 'till this year when I leaned heavily on my smartphone. Tons of film cameras that I need to unload on eB-y some day. Ha.

[rafe]

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.

[Traveler]

I use a light fanny pack around the pack as a deep pocket to keep my camera in. It isn't able to bounce out and it is turned so its just like having a large pocket on the side of the pack.

[colorado_rob]

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.

Smart phone cameras are pretty dang good these days and I do take some shots with mine on the trail, but the S100 shots are superior, at least vs. my smart phone which is a 1-year old HTC one. Much bigger sensor in the S100 than my phone. this is really only important however if you make any larger prints of your images. For viewing on computers/tablets and emailing, it really doesn't matter that much. Still, I like the manual controls afforded by the S100.

[Nooga]

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.

[bigcranky]

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.

Yes. In good light the smartphone images are pretty good - certainly comparable to a small sensor compact. In bad light the phone sensors don't do as well, while the small-sensor compacts are a little better.

Neither of them does as well as a large sensor camera, especially in bad light. But for many, many uses, it won't matter. If you're looking at photos on a web site, the phone pix are just fine. 5x7 inch prints? Doesn't matter. Larger prints are where you'll see the difference pretty clearly.

[rafe]

Rob: back in the day I made 8x10 prints routinely from the 10D, and even sold one 24x36" print from a 10D image. It's a standard APS-C sensor but only 6.3 MP. The 10D print was displayed along with others made from scanned film (35 mm and 645 mostly) and nobody could tell which prints came from which camera. Freaking camera body cost $1200 and is currently worth maybe $35, if that. I held out with film for as long as I could, but I sold my fancy Nikon film scanner years ago.

I'm torn and ambivalent and just kinda looking for opinions at the moment. I put aside photography as a hobby partly because it was an endless money sink. I suspect that part hasn't changed... I could almost cry looking at the $$$ worth of useless (or at best, unused) camera gear in my closet. (Or the 9 year old Epson R1800 printer next to me, which keeps threatening to croak unless I feed it $$$ worth of ink.)

[bigcranky]

Rafe,

I think the ten year transition to digital imaging was, in fact, an endless money sink as the cameras improved so much in each iteration. Much of that is now over -- one can purchase a digital camera and some lenses that will make very high quality images pretty much indefinitely. Of course the manufacturers will keep endlessly hyping the "next big thing" but almost all of it is just very minor improvements.

That transition period left a lot of very expensive gear basically worthless. I think I got fifty bucks each for the Canon EOS 1-D bodies I bought in 2001, at $5500 apeice back then. Let's see, that's a "loss' of $10,900, though of course that's not really true -- I got far more value out of them than their initial cost, or I would not have purchased them. (I was spending more than $30K per year on film and processing, so an $11K investment which cuts those costs to zero looks pretty good.) And those were 4.1 megapixel cameras, and I have lots of big prints in the 24x36-inch range that just look terrific, especially compared to same-size prints from 35mm film.

Your 10D was an impressive camera at the time. Previous versions were $3000 for "prosumer" digital SLR cameras -- which was dirt cheap compared to the $15,000-45,000 price of the "pro" bodies. So $1200 was a drop in comparison, especially if you shot enough film over a two or three year period (not to mention all the time we spent scanning film. Ugh.)

The improvements in imaging sensors and lenses are just amazing -- my little Fuji kit has prime lenses that are just leaps and bounds better than anything I shot on film twenty years ago, and the Canon professonal zooms are simply fantastic.

If you wanted to get back into it seriously, you could also look at an Epson 3880 printer. Printer tech has improved rather dramatically, too, and the 3880 has much lower ink costs per-milliliter, and can sit unused for months without clogging. Compared to my Epson 1200 it's night and day.

I guess I have something of a Pollyana-ish view of all this. I generally don't regret the piles of unused gear sitting in my locker, but then I was using it all to make a living and it's much easier to justify that way.

[rafe]

Ken: I bought a lot of my best (film) camera gear on eB-y from pros like you who were ditching the stuff. I never made a living off my photography, but I did earn some decent change from it, and plowed most of my "profits" back into more gear.

The 10D convinced me that 35 mm film was dead. The 5D (never owned, but lusted after one) killed medium format. I still have a beautiful Shen-Hao 4x5 view camera and nice lenses I'm wondering what to do with.

I look at David Muench's gorgeous landscape photos (including many on the AT) and feel humbled. But I was sifting through many old prints yesterday and was reminded of my affection (& maybe a bit of talent) for this hobby.

[colorado_rob]

I still have a beautiful Shen-Hao 4x5 view camera and nice lenses I'm wondering what to do with.

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/

[swjohnsey]

The camera is gonna take a beating. I really like the G15/16 and also the S95/100/105. I took a S95 but it finally developed lens error in Maine. I've been getting the little Canon S100's off ebay slightly used cheap. I kill about one a year.

[Theosus]

I loved my 620! Yes, it was heavy and went through those four AA batteries like Whitney Huston went through Cocaine, but with the aftermarket free software it got the advantage of taking RAW files. I don't know why cameras today have to cost over $300 before they'll give you the raw data. They all process it and SD cards now are HUGE and cheap. I guess it helps the camera companies sell the more expensive cameras. I dropped the 620 once at the house, and got the dreaded E15 error (which pretty much means "hey your lens slipped off the gears, your camera is dead now"). I use my wife's nikon coolpix s3100. It NOT weatherproof but I have a little neoprene case for it. I just don't take it out in pouring rain. It's light, the case is aluminum, and the battery pack is TINY and lasts forever. Carrying a second one would be a non issue (seriously, stack two SD cards on top of each other, thats the size of the battery pack). Its also pink, so if I drop it in the leaves it shows up really well. It clips to the shoulder straps and I can pull it out and be ready to take a picture really quickly. But - if I was looking to buy a dedicated hiking camera, I would probably start by looking at one of the Olympus Tough series, and move up from there. I have seen a few hikers using those DLSR look-alikes. You know, the ones that look like mini DSLRs but the lens doesn't change out. Those are still a little large for me, I like the convenience of something in the hip belt pocket or on a shoulder strap, and the lighter the better. I'm not ansel adams. I have a canon t1i and a few lenses, but the thing is too big for hiking (for me). MY old camera was my father's canon ftB and some of those lenses (with an adapter) still work in manual mode on my rebel. It's hard to believe 40 year old lenses can still take good pictures (although the 50mm canon lens by itself outweighs my t1i body. The 500mm lens needs it's own tripod. You could beat a bear to death with it, if needed).

[Pendragon]

IMG_0527.jpg

This was taken with an iPhone five encased in a Lifeproof case.

[Pendragon]

file:///Users/michaelwilliams/Desktop/IMG_0527.jpg

[Pendragon]

ignore this, obviously....I screwed up