Camera Buying - should I sacrifice zoom or picture quality?

[sdisser]

I'm shopping for a pocket-sized digital camera with superior quality for my thru-hike, but I'd also like to have decent zoom. Unfortunately, you get one or the other in this market. Quality is more important to me.

I am considering the Canon Powershot S100, but it only has 5x optimal zoom. So, my question is, for someone looking to shoot better quality photos than a regular point and shoot, will I miss having a better zoom quality on the trail if I buy this camera or one similar? I mean, do I need zoom enough that it would be worth sacrificing some quality?

I realize that I'm probably going to get some "to each his own" replies, but I'm asking your opinion because I don't really have one yet. haha!

Thanks!

[Mobius]

With the caveat that I haven't thru-hiked...

When I'm out in the woods hiking or trail running I've been using a Panasonic Lumix TS series (I have the TS1. My wife has the TS4). My criteria were: water proof, drop proof (impact resistant), and hard to break. The lens is entirely internal so there are no moving parts to break (or get water/grit in). That sacrifices the zoom capability. It could be my shooting style but I find that I generally want wider angle shots (landscape), not zoom shots. The only thing I want to zoom on is wildlife and no point and shoot is really sufficient for that.

It's pretty light too, all things considered. It shoots pretty nice HD video as well and the battery has pretty good staying power. My wife's model has GPS built-in. We have that turned off (privacy and battery life) but for a trail hike that might be handy to know where you were when you took the shot, assuming you get GPS reception). There's a smaller/lighter model as well though I forget the designation.

[RCBear]

I would take photo quality any day. if the picture quality is high, then manipulation can be done in software like photoshop later. if you start out sacrificing quality at the outset then you are limited immediately Most point and shoots these days have an optical zoom that isn't bad. forget about the digital zoom length because as soon as you cross over from the built in optical to digital zoom you get significant quality deterioration and image stability becomes difficult.

[Feral Bill]

Really long telephotos need a tripod. At that point you might as well carry an SLR or other interchangeable lens camera.

[bigcranky]

Picture quality. Super zooms are generally not great, and not really necessary in my experience. I prefer a moderate wide angle lens with a fast aperture. For most hiking I take a micro 4/3 camera with the 20/1.7 lens. Great image quality, small carry size, just the right focal length for my style of shooting. Not the lightest in the world, but not too bad.

I'd look at the Canon S100, the Fuji X10 or X20, the Olympus XZ-10, the Panasonic LX-7, etc. All will have excellent image quality for a point and shoot (i.e., not terrific high-ISO images but still usable.)

[Ender]

Get the S100, it's the best P&S camera out there (or the S110, the newer version of that camera). Don't worry about the zoom, just crop and zoom after the fact on your computer.

[GoldenBear]

You said you planned to use this camera on a thru-hike. That latter phrase clarifies, at least for me, the advice I'll give.

First off, let me make clear that I'm a photo-taking freak, and have been for over thirty years. When I see a beautiful scene, just about my only thought is whether or not I can photograph it. If I can't capture the scene in a photo, then it's as if the view or experience wasn't worth having.

Nevertheless, the longer I spend time on the AT, the less has become my desire to have a camera with me.
It's not that I no longer enjoy taking good photos
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863
or that I don't want to record my unexpected discoveries
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863
or that I don't consider a photo a good way to convey information
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863

It's just that these tasks have become so much less of a priority during a long hike.
When I'm on a day-hike, I can take the time and effort to get a good shot. On the other hand, when I've been drudging along for days, my thoughts turn to avoiding another knee injury, or tick bites, or melanoma, or sleepless nights, or blisters, or cuts on my wrists, or socks that never seem to get dry, or getting drenched in the rain, or heat exhaustion, or any of a dozen other hazards I've ALREADY EXPERIENCED -- without ever hiking for more than five days! At this point, the effort needed to get a good photo becomes a luxury I've decided I just can't afford. I've never considered taking the SLR that served me for over 25 years -- just too much weight. Even the point-and-shoot digital camera I now use has evolved from a necessity around my neck to an albatross around my neck. Plain and simple, I'm finding it's just not worth it to have a good camera -- the importance of a good photo has been eclipsed by the importance of dry socks.

So, what I'm saying, don't worry about either a large zoom OR a high number of pixels. Find a camera that's light and durable, and can be kept out of the rain while still being easy to reach. It's fun to get photos of shelter buddies, stream crossings that look impossible, and bears that pop out from behind trees -- they create memories that will last longer than the Lyme Disease anti-bodies in your blood, and allow to accurately share those memories in a delightful way. But, on a thru-hike, your main concern isn't the TECHNICAL quality of your photos, it's (1) surviving the hike and (2) having a camera that survives the hike as well.

[leaftye]

I'll take zoom every time. I've missed too many wildlife pictures because I couldn't get enough pixels on target. All the image quality on the world doesn't matter if animals are only 3 pixels wide. If image quality was really important, I'd carry nothing less than 4/3rds, but would more likely go with APS-C, and even full frame if I had lots of money to spend on a camera. Even then, I'd still carry a second compact super zoom camera to catch quick pictures that the big sensor camera isn't ready/equipped for.

[Feral Bill]

As always in photography, the camera is only as good as the photographer. Read a book or two, and practice, practice, practice. Not just with shooting, but with Photoshop (or equivalent).

[tds1195]

I use a Samsung w300 - weights about 4.8 oz, is waterproof, shockproof, and dustproof. I got it for $50 (newegg refurbished)...zoom sucks but it has good enough quality. I love the little guy! It's a video recorder first and camera second, though. If you want something simple and durable I would go for it. Can't beat it for the price!

[swjohnsey]

Yep, the S95-100-110 is a great P&S (really not a P&S as it has most of the manual features of a DSLR).

[FarmerChef]

I too take pictures and often with my iphone. I've carried a P&S and gotten good photos with that as well. This next hike I will take my SLR and see how that feels over 180 miles.

It's the person behind the camera not the camera that takes great pictures. Megapixels and zoom don't matter. It's what you do with it that does. So really, the answer to your question is...it depends. Personally, I find that I tend to take more macro photos and wide area photos that I later stitch together into panoramas in Photoshop. Rarely do I use the zoom. But I'm not on a wildlife safari, trying to sneak up on unsuspecting animals where closeness and a long tele really matter. If I'm too close I backup. Too far away, I'll get a bit closer. Or as another poster put it, I'll crop it later in PS. One other consideration I would give is that having a more detailed and sharp picture means it will be easier for you to crop/zoom later in PS before it gets too grainy to be useful. That said, if animals are your game and you really think you will take the time to zoom way in then go for the zoom. Otherwise people can move and you can move to get closer. My two cents.

[Slo-go'en]

I agree a good maro is more important then zoom. There will be a lot of wild flowers you'll want to get in close too and not all that much wild life to have zoom in on. Just about any shirt pocket PS camara on the market right now will have 12 to 15 mega pixels and a 3X or better optical zoom anyway. 99% of your pictures will be of landscape vistas or people at vistas.

[fredmugs]

Most people on here would not carry a camera as big as the one I use but I wanted something better than I had for my JMT trip last fall.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cyber-sho...ds=sony+camera

18.2 MP. 20X Optical Zoom. Full 1080P video. Weighs a little more and the body is thicker but the quality is superior to the Nikon Coolpix I used to use. If you plan on taking video make sure you have a Class 10 card to write to.

[hikerboy57]

taken with my nikon coolpix from app 50 ft
would have been even clearer with a tripod

[Wise Old Owl]

Nikon Cool Pix for me....

[nitewalker]

if you want to get a clear pic then you need to have a steady hand or a tripod. i dont care how good the camera is that you have. if you shake at all the shot is blurred to a degree. if your trying to zoom in it becomes even harder to keep a steady shot. i take all my shots by hand and i make 100% sure that i am super steady when snaping the pic. sure it doesnt always come out super clear thats why i take several pics of the same subject. i have a sony cybershot dsc-h55 14.1 megapixels and a 10x opticalzoom and 25mm wide angle lens. i went with this camera for the zoom over the mega pixels, although i do belive 14.1 mp is plenty...i just need to master the art of taking better pictures using the setings provided by the camera. diferent scenes and lighting come out better using different settings...

[Wise Old Owl]

Nitewalker good advice, but from a "got to have caffeinated drinks to function in daylight... one only has to turn on "STEADYSHOT" works every time!

[nitewalker]

Nitewalker good advice, but from a "got to have caffeinated drinks to function in daylight... one only has to turn on "STEADYSHOT" works every time!

i still forget about that freakin steady shot. slips my mind everytime i use the camera, lol....

[colorado_rob]

I've owned a Canon S90 for a couple of years. Ken Rockwell (check out his web site sometime) calls this series the best of the compact, pocketable P&S cameras. The pic quality is really very, very decent from the S90. I plan on buying an S100 for my AT attempt here in two months. The S100 has a wider zoom range, 24-120mm (35mm equivalent) vs. the S90 (28-90mm). the extra wide angle (24mm vs. 28mm) is what prompts me to get the S100, and the extra long end is a bonus. I'm more of a wide-angle shooter than a tele shooter, so this P&S is perfect for me. Hard to find a small P&S (maybe impossible) that gets wider than 24mm (again, 35mm camera equivalent).

By the way, the S100 sells for $250 on Amazon. The S110 is pretty much the same camera for $100 more, and includes WIFI, if that's important to you (it is not to me).

Furthering what is said below, and though I never carry a tripod, whenever possible I do brace the camera against a handy tree, rock, whatever to get as sharp an image as possible. The S90 takes some remarkably sharp, clear, vibrant images. I've owned a lot of cameras, including a DSLR, and my S90 is the camera I now always reach for. (except situations where a big tele is necessary, weddings, events, etc then it's a 480mm lens on my Canon DSLR).