Canon G7, in a waterproof waist pack, worn in front...
~If you cant do it with one bullet, dont do it at all.
~Well behaved women rarely make history.
Bunch of dilettantes. You're not serious about photography unless you schlep one of these...
Canon Mark IIN, 17-40mm f/4L
Hangs around neck with belly-strap. Looking for a better way to carry it, as it pulls on my neck too much and my body heat fogs up the viewer.
The Mark IIN is mostly for my sports photog hobby. I would NOT recommend it for backpacking. Wayyyy too heavy, but it takes nice images. My top choice in a camera body would be the Canon 5D and its 1.0 crop factor. It's much lighter in weight but I cannot justify two bodies of this level, so I lug the Mark IIN.
There is nothing "pseudo" about my Panasonic Lumix 12. The 12 refers to the optical telephoto. there's also another six digital. And with the built in anti-camera movement I can shoot hand held at 48X and still get interesting photos.Originally Posted by The Solemates
I can set any shutter speeds or f stops I want. I rarely bother however. I just chose one of the 100 or so automatic settings. For tricky snow and beach shots, for instance, I choose a special snow setting. If I'm still in doubt I can choose snow and have the camera automatically shoot three shots at once. One at normal settings, and two at exposures over and under the normal.
If anything the camera is too sophisticated. It offers at least 100 automatic exposure combinations, as well as those I set myself. I haven't begun to explore all the combinations available. It even takes videos, complete with sound.
It's all quite amazing for a camera that weighs less than a pound, complete with batteries. No. It doesn't compete with a good 35mm film camera with 2-3 thousand dollars worth of lenses. But at around $300, it's an ideal hiking camera.
Only a digital camera far more expensive than mine can compete, picture quality-wise with a film camera in the hands of a skilled photographer. But a digital, I've found, is also a powerful learning tool. I can make dozens of exposures of a scene, and get instant feedback on which combination seems to work the best.
Weary
Digital gives one options not available with film. An example of that is the following shot using HDR. One could not get the details in the shadows without and elaborate array of neutral density filters. With HDR, it's shoot and play on the computer later.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...tonemapped.jpg
In the late 70's and early 80's, I backpacked with an 8x10 view camera. I hauled it all over the Georgia and North Carolina mountains, and took it to Cumberland Island with me for a week. It was a (fairly) light wooden camera, and I didn't take many shots (film was about $3.50 a sheet in the late 70's), but I had a ball doing it.Bunch of dilettantes. You're not serious about photography unless you schlep one of these...
You tend to hike at a more liesurely pace!
I would camp with minimal equipment just because the camera and tripod weighed so much. I guess my average pack weight on those trips was over 60 pounds (!!) including food and everything.
Danged good thing I was young and strong then!
Canerunner, I presume you've seen David Muench's photos of the A.T.? There's also a guy named Jerry Greer who hangs out on the L.F. forums and has contributed many images to the ATC calendars over the years.
I'm determined to get this camera onto the AT some day, but haven't really figured out the logistics yet. It'll have to start with a simple overnight trip.
4x5 sheet film is about $1 per sheet, but processing is another $2 per sheet (for C41.)
If I had one it would hike with me. In fact, I think that it would become attached to meBunch of dilettantes. You're not serious about photography unless you schlep one of these...
It really helped me that I had a couple of other photo-lunatic friends that hiked with me. At least I didn't have to carry everything by myself. They carried their cameras as well, but we shared a tent, cooking equipment, etc., etc.
I have admired Muench's work for a while. He does very nice work. I worked in the Weston/Adams method of photography a bit, and have a good collection of pretty good work. At least I think so. I never really tried to commmercialize my stuff, though.
I worked as a commercial/industrial photographer for a number of years, and worked in and managed photo labs for a long time. I finally got burned out after about 20 years of doing it. I saw people selling stuff that was worse than a lot of images that I threw away.
I still have my Hasselblad and all of the accessories, but mostly work with a Kodak Z712 digital zoom camera now. It has a very good Schneider Variogon on it, and pretty respectable image stabilization. That, coupled with the fact that it gives me full manual control makes it very workable for me. The only thing I miss is a PC flash contact. It has a built in flash and no hot shoe. Of course, I don't do a lot of tabletop work anymore, so it's not a big deal. I can still use the flash to trigger my studio flash via a slave cell.
BTW, the Z712 is WAY lighter than any view I ever used!
If you're really interested, Bender Photographic (www.benderphoto.com) has the best value/performance view cameras available anywhere I've found. Their 4x5 kit is only about 3.5 pounds (plus lenses, etc.), and the 8x10 is about 5.75 pounds.
These are available as a kit, but are easy to assemble. I'm actually thinking about building one of them to work with. I may do the 8x10, as I prefer to just contact print the negatives anyway. that removes the need for an enlarger.
You'll think that I'm crazy when I tell you this, but when my Dad was growing up back in the 30's and 40's, they didn't have a lot of money, so he built himself an enlarger, and used the 4x5 view camera that he had as the enlarger head. In the 60's and 70's when I got interested in photography, that was the enlarger that I learned on!If you're really interested, Bender Photographic (www.benderphoto.com) has the best value/performance view cameras available anywhere I've found. Their 4x5 kit is only about 3.5 pounds (plus lenses, etc.), and the 8x10 is about 5.75 pounds.
These are available as a kit, but are easy to assemble. I'm actually thinking about building one of them to work with. I may do the 8x10, as I prefer to just contact print the negatives anyway. that removes the need for an enlarger.
Hey, it's only 2 megapixels, but the price is hard to beat. (This site is a slooowww loader).
Had my G7 a few months now and am getting really happy with it. I found a nice M-Rock bag that's got multiple carry options to hold it and all the necessaries.
A few from the G7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdale/s...7600702203619/
Umm. Sure, if you're shopping in 2001, its a great price. (They're listing "list price" as $350 and their price as $70.) But it's 2007, and I'm pretty sure, if you go to Walmart, you'll find their cheapest digital camera (a) isn't much more than $70 and (b) is a heckuva lot better than 2 megapixels.
Actually, I'm wrong about (a). Wally-world's got better-than-2-megapixel cameras for $50: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=5640635
Caveat emptor. Prices that are "hard to beat" are often actually not. I hope no one followed that link and actually made a purchase.
"when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." --HST
Uncle Silly VA->VT '05, VT->ME '07, VA->GA ??
Could be just me, but I wouldn't skimp on a camera. My time on the trail is precious. A camera is just "a thing."
All good points, U.S., but one might want to consider a brand name over an off brand like this. And, the user comments on your link are less than glowing (I think I'm being kind) for the Walmart camera.
The megapixel count is something that should be considered, but it isn't the most important spec for a digital camera. Almost all of my photos here were taken with a 3.1 mp camera. On my 19" monitor, I can't see any difference between them and shots taken with my current 6.1 mp camera, except in low light shots, and I think other specs come into play in that situation.
Just getting it out there.
Last edited by c.coyle; 10-13-2007 at 14:08.
I don't disagree; I honestly wasn't recommending the camera I linked to, just providing a quick price+feature comparison. I didn't even look at the user comments. If you peruse the Wallyworld selection, you'll find modern name-brand cameras (HP, Kodak, etc) that are very near the price point of the camera you originally linked to. In fact, if you break it down to a $/megapixel rating, you'll do better with the Wallyworld selection than your bargain site.
Your original link didn't claim it was a great camera; you only said the price was "hard to beat", and I'm only pointing out the absolute fallacy of your statement. It's not a hard-to-beat price. It's a price for complete suckers.
"when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." --HST
Uncle Silly VA->VT '05, VT->ME '07, VA->GA ??
I backpack with a Lumix. I am able to have complete manual control and unlike Weary, I rarely use the automatic features. This may be more camera than most people would want to take backpacking but it works for me. Taking more expensive cameras and lenses on backpacking trips makes me nervous.
If some of you would post pictures in your gallery, we could see if your cameras are all you crack them up to be.
I'm just an amateur but my compact Kodak C875 8 megapixel 5X optical zoom and video makes me look like a pro sometimes.
For $200.00, it was a bargain but still learning how to use it correctly.
Here's a recent foliage tour picture from Bigelow Mtn.
I use Lithium batteries and a 1.0 GB card, and take lots of pictures when out and about.
Lots more C875 photos in my gallery. Not all perfect, yet.
Last edited by woodsy; 10-14-2007 at 08:03.
WALK ON
How about let me use it (for about ayear) and I'll send it back to you with instructions on how to 'use it correctly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
