View Full Version : calling all photography buffs..i am seeking feedback!
I would love to take pictures...LOTS of pictures..that can visually describe the best of what I hope will be a fabulous AT north bound through hike starting next spring.
I would like advice on camera to have. I am thinking digital..as they dont use film and are smaller and lighter than film cameras. I now have a NIKON that weighs 2 pounds (ouch!) and an olympus stylus that weighs 1/2 pound without film.
I was at a RITZ photo this evening and saw a Pentax WP that is 5 mega pixel and is water proof to 5 feet. It takes these chips that (1 gig down to l 1/4 gig or so) and a small battery. the camera goes (5 mega pixel) goes for around 300 and the 1 gig chip is a good 100 dollars and I have no idea what the battery would cost.
so questions are:
1) would a digital camera like this one be more cost effective than a compact film camera? since it isnt using film or would it be less cost effective since you have to pay for this expensive 1 gig chip?
2) Would a camera like this work for the riggors of at thru hiking? I would want prints and if possible slides, though I dont know if digital cameras can produce slides.
3) what do you see as the downsides to this camera?
4) could the small size and weight of the camera lead to a shaky hold leading to blurred photos?
5) do you have any thoughts to share that I may have not thought of?
I just can't spend 5-6 months in the mountains without bringing wonderful pictures of the experience home with me. That would be an absolute sin!!!
DavidNH
Here is a good link for camera reviews:
http://www.acme.com/digicams/sd_review_links.html
I have a Canon SD 300- 4 mega pixels. I think 4 MP is more than enough and should not be the main criteria. My main criteria was light weight, mine is about 5 oz and fits in a shirt pocket. Battery life is always a problem. The Canon battery will last about a week, so you need a spare ($50). Some cameras use AAA or AA cells. This might be important if you are on the trail for a long time without access to electric power for recharging the batteries.
If you're concerned with water, Olympus makes a nice camera that is rain proof.
I found the best price from an online NY camera shop.
Good luck, there are lots of choices. Probably everyone will give you different advise.
MedicineMan
11-18-2005, 23:29
i've got the previous model 43WR i think it is--only 4 megapixels and these cameras are very nice...
on your thru-hike do yourself a big favor and get several large SD cards because these cameras actually do decent video.....when you get to trail towns upload to a service like webshots or any of the many others and burn to a CD and mail the CD home....always duplicating the files for safety.
I carry a PDA on the trail that also takes SD cards and on many trips have uploaded to the PDA for a second copy database.
The only downside of the new Pentax is it has no optical viewfinder meaning you will have to 'picture' the picture using the screen which takes power an optical viewfinder doesnt...........
vipahman
11-18-2005, 23:44
Without a doubt, you should go digital. Minimum 4 megapixel. Maximum is based on weight and your usage requirements. A good lightweight digital SLR is the Canon Digital EOS Rebel XT at under 2 lbs. I don't know about Nikon's equivalent. If you go the SLR route, take a wide - normal zoom lens. Alternatively, go with any of the point and shoot 1/2 lb or lighter cameras that have convenient full manual. They are a PITA to work with on the special shots but their light weight drives a good compromise.
I will be upgrading my PITA Canon Powershot S400 soon.:banana
hammock engineer
11-19-2005, 03:09
I have the Canon SD400. I really like the camera. If you want to spend a little more, canon makes a completly waterproof case for $100 that allows you to take up to 30 ft or so. It is made for diving, so it should handle any rain. I found the batteries pretty cheap on ebay.
I am trying to decide what camera to take, also. One thing to think about is the battery. I have not had the week long battery life. I take too many pics with the screen on, then look at them as I go. These special batteries have to be charged in their special charger. It might be easier to get a camera that takes standard AA or AAA, then buy new as needed.
I am planning on having a second memory card at home, and switch them out at a mail drop.
Well, here's my 2 cents.
First, your choice of cameras depends in part on what type of photos you want to take. Some people are happy with disposable cameras. Others carry SLR's with extra lenses.
With film becoming less available, it's certainly time to seriously consider digital. I started using a digital last summer. Doubt that I will ever go back to film.
Like all equipment, do your homework. Read reviews like www.dpreview.com. Figure out what you want. I suggest AAA or AA batteries rather than a proprietary battery so you don't need to carry a recharger.
Tha Wookie
11-19-2005, 11:58
If you want good pictures and you're used to a film SLR, get a Canon SLR digital. The files are so "deep" the high end ones are more flexible than even film
If you want to see some film, come check out my show tonight at REI atlanta!
Shutterbug
11-19-2005, 18:07
You mentioned that you are accustomed to a "Nikon that weighs 2 pounds." I assume that means an SLR. If you usually take pictures with a high quality SLR, you won't be completely satisfied with the pocket sized cameras.
For years, I have always carried an SLR when I hike. This year, I decided to compromise and bought a Nikon Coolpix. My pictures were ok, but certainly not up to the quality I get with my Nikon D70. Still, by most people's standards they are acceptable. Check them out at
http://www.naznet.com/mcclung/at/at.html
One "big" issue in your choice of cameras should be how rugged it is. On my two week hike in the 100 Mile Wilderness, I fell three times. Once I was climbing over some wet rocks to get a better picture of a moose. I fell hard with my camera in my hand. If I had been carrying an SLR, I am fairly certain it would have been seriously damaged. With the Coolpix, I was able to pop the lense back in place without serious damage.
As for the SD Chips, the primary problem is "putting all of your eggs in one basket." A 1 gig chip will hold a lot of pictures, but if you damage it you have lost all of your pictures. It doesn't happen often, but SD chips do fail. Don't put all of your pictures on the same chip.
I second Shutterbug's nomination for the Nikon CoolPix. I've got the 4100, 4.0 megapixel ( whoever she is ) and a 512 MB card. I don't even know how many pictures it holds. It's got a zoom lens, and you can zoom while looking through the viewfinder, and leave the screen off to save power. Uses two AA batteries.
It takes pretty good pictures, I think.
I use both, depending. one of the best suggestions I've seen here is NOT rely on the one egg, one basket. 128MB, 256MB, 512. all hold lotsa pix.
you can swap 'em out, send one home and pop in another.
One of the biggest distractions I've found in going digital is that unless you use one of high end. (or so I'm led to believe) that looks mostly like the familiar 35mm SLR, you have a lag. The point and shoot aren't really. they're more like point, autofocus cycle, shoot. can't tell you how many shots I have of the trail, or my feet, 'cause I pushed the button, lowered the camera and walked away, just at the shutter fired!
It's just a familiarity think, once you get used to it. the percentage of good shots goes up drastically.
And for those who say one doesn't need a 4mega-pixel, or 5, I point out that if you're taking snapshots, no you probably don't. but if you need to crop, or what I call the darkroom zoom, enlarge a small portion of the frame, you want the best quality you can get to enlarge that little piece.
am I blathering here, or what!?
vipahman
11-19-2005, 19:54
I use both, depending. one of the best suggestions I've seen here is NOT rely on the one egg, one basket. 128MB, 256MB, 512. all hold lotsa pix.
you can swap 'em out, send one home and pop in another.
One of the biggest distractions I've found in going digital is that unless you use one of high end. (or so I'm led to believe) that looks mostly like the familiar 35mm SLR, you have a lag. The point and shoot aren't really. they're more like point, autofocus cycle, shoot. can't tell you how many shots I have of the trail, or my feet, 'cause I pushed the button, lowered the camera and walked away, just at the shutter fired!
It's just a familiarity think, once you get used to it. the percentage of good shots goes up drastically.
And for those who say one doesn't need a 4mega-pixel, or 5, I point out that if you're taking snapshots, no you probably don't. but if you need to crop, or what I call the darkroom zoom, enlarge a small portion of the frame, you want the best quality you can get to enlarge that little piece.
am I blathering here, or what!?
No, you are not blabbering. All very good points. Point-and-shoots are slow but with a little practice they get the job done fairly decently. Auto-focus and auto-exposure can be locked on the expensive point-and-shoots. Bracketing and multiple shots are also available.
You bring a very good point on the "darkroom zoom" because while the average photographer should be content with 4 megapixel, the discerning photo editor will benefit from the additional clarity from a higher megapixel point-and-shoot.
MisterSweetie
11-20-2005, 02:30
This year, I decided to compromise and bought a Nikon Coolpix.
http://www.naznet.com/mcclung/at/at.html
Your pictures are great. I have a coolpix 5400 and 950 both. I like them both. Great cameras.
I have been debating the same thing DavidNH - I have a Minolta QTSi with a couple different lenses - LOVE THIS CAMERA! lol.....but its not so light and hiking with film is a pita.
So I decided to start my search with Minolta digitals. And I sent and email off to them asking what the digital equivalent of my QTSi is - and they sent me back the info. And my current lenses fit the digital - added bonus.
Its a way to start if you are happy with the rig you have but just want to convert to digital.
We now carry the Minolta A2 slr. It is 8 megpix and we love it. I carry 2 1 gig cards. One of the things we like is it has the 7x zoom. If you carry a SLR make sure you carry the filters. The are light and really add to the quality and protect the lens.
Lumberjack
11-20-2005, 15:08
aa batteries are the way to go for power.
watch the zoom specs. digital zoom doesnt actually do much more then crop your picture. get optical for real zoom work
all cameras are a bit delicate. get a well padded case to protect it.
for a long hike get several smaller cards and swap them with home base regularly. also keep a log of what the pics are and have home base keep them organised while you still can remember what they are.
The big consideration in the end is your picture taking habits. are you shooting wildlife or scenery or just people. A hefty zoom really helps bring in the game shots. scenery tends to look better in the higher resolutions. for just people a quick point and shoot is best. The higher end camera tend to have more options but unless your a major camera buff you will not use them very much.
there are several buying guides that can help you choose a good camera also but dont let them bully you into something that almost fits. Pick the features you need and do the research, sooner or later you will find a perfect fit at a reasonable price.
A few extra features to consider are movie recording and non picture functions like MP3 playing.
good luck wading thru all the hype
BTW - Minolta Dimage Z5 here.... love the 10x optical zoom :)
If you want good pictures and you're used to a film SLR, get a Canon SLR digital. The files are so "deep" the high end ones are more flexible than even film
If you want to see some film, come check out my show tonight at REI atlanta!
This really is correct, but also incorrect at the same time. A film (actually, slide film) SLR is going to give better results than any digital you can buy (short of dropping $5k for a Canon 5D and quality lenses). Assuming, of course, you know what you are doing with it and are going to take the time to be in the right place at the right time to get the killer shots. It is also assuming that you want to make big prints (i.e, 13 by 19 and up) to give to friends and hang on your walls.
That being said, on the AT I wouldn't bring an SLR. I would bring the cheapest digital I could find. Something like a 3-4 megapixel Olympus. Ignore digital zoom. Buy a 1 GB card and plan on spending some time in a few trail towns to burn CDs. You'll get a lot of good, impromtu shots that you can make into 4 by 6 prints, or post the pics to a website. Moreover, you won't have to learn anything new to take reasonable shots and can see via the LCD if you got something ok or just trash.
A second route (and one that I would be more likely to take) would be to bring something fancier, but still digital. For the last 8 months I've been using a Canon G6 and like it a lot. I can run it in full manual mode and shoot RAW files with it. If this means nothing to you, go with the options above. All the trips I've done since May (see my webpage) have been with this camera. Most of the Local Trips before were with an Olympus point and shoot digital.
3 megapixels is way more than adequate resolution. All the photos I've posted here are with a 3 megapixel camera. If you can get one at a good price, go for it.
Someone complained about the delay between hitting the button and the shutter actually firing. True, but you get used to it. Unless you're taking action shots (and you probably won't be while hiking), it doesn't matter.
I have a 512 mb card. I've had 100+ high resolution shots on it (300 to 450 kb each).
I am an old SLR and Kodachrome snob, but digital is the way to go. Lighter and less complicated. Most hiking photography is taking grab shots. An SLR, film or digital, and several lenses isn't worth the extra price and weight.
I second Shutterbug's nomination for the Nikon CoolPix. I've got the 4100, 4.0 megapixel ( whoever she is ) and a 512 MB card. I don't even know how many pictures it holds. It's got a zoom lens, and you can zoom while looking through the viewfinder, and leave the screen off to save power. Uses two AA batteries.
It takes pretty good pictures, I think.
I'm pondering the latest CoolPix, the S4. I'm intrigued by the 10X digital Zoom, Double A batteries and 6 megapixels. I've used only film cameras until now and show slides quite often to fairly large groups, (50 to 100 people) so I guess I need more than internet level megapixels.
The S4 specs look good. The price is pretty good. Around $300. The reviews, however, are only so, so. Does anyone have any experience? Or encouraging reviews?
Weary
Footslogger
11-30-2005, 13:42
[quote=weary]I'm pondering the latest CoolPix, the S4. I'm intrigued by the 10X digital Zoom
==========================================
Weary ...I would caution you in terms of the whole digital zoom aspect. Now, if that camera had 10x of "optical" zoom it's be a different story.
'Slogger
[quote=weary]I'm pondering the latest CoolPix, the S4. I'm intrigued by the 10X digital Zoom
==========================================
Weary ...I would caution you in terms of the whole digital zoom aspect. Now, if that camera had 10x of "optical" zoom it's be a different story.
'Slogger
Sorry. That was my mind not working. The S4 has 10X optical zoom. I'm toying with switching to "digital" from film, mostly to save money. And "digital" seems to be stuck in my brain.
MisterSweetie
11-30-2005, 13:51
Does anyone have any experience? Or encouraging reviews?Not on the S4 exactly, but the 950 I mentioned above is the same setup, twisting in the middle, and I love that camera. Macro is great on that one (better than my newer 5400 imho), and everything else is fine. I'd say for $300 the S4 would probably be a safe bet.
Any digital camera buffs out here care to give me an opinion on the Casio Exilim EX-z750?? This will be my first digital camera....and im kind of a newbie.....
Footslogger
11-30-2005, 16:33
All in all it looks like a nice little camera. Impressive resolution. Too bad there's only 3x optical zoom but I guess there's a limit to how much zoom they can pack into a small package.
I'm not a big fan of proprietary Lithium Ion batteries though. I lean more toward the cameras that use standard AA sized batteries.
'Slogger
David S.
11-30-2005, 16:54
If your looking for an excellent comprimise between an SLR style camera and something smaller and more light weight, I would take a serious look at the Fuji F10. Read the reviews and you will see why it would be a great backpackers camera...for the backpacker who doesn't mind carrying about 7 oz worth of camera. The zoom is not the best...thats the only drawback. I have two friends that have that camera and they love it. Hopefully, I will be the third very soon.
Tha Wookie
12-01-2005, 10:35
[quote=chris]This really is correct, but also incorrect at the same time. A film (actually, slide film) SLR is going to give better results than any digital you can buy (short of dropping $5k for a Canon 5D and quality lenses). Assuming, of course, you know what you are doing with it and are going to take the time to be in the right place at the right time to get the killer shots. It is also assuming that you want to make big prints (i.e, 13 by 19 and up) to give to friends and hang on your walls.
[quote]
I don't think waht I said is "incorrect" just because the "high-end" that I said happens to be expensive.
But apparently you have not heard: Cannon has now come out with a cheaper digital that ihas apparently "better" trail utility with the same image quality than the 5D (according to my dad, a 5D owner who tests camera for cannon). Of course, "cheaper" is a relative term;)
But, while I do agree with what you say about image size, it's certainly a narrow view of the end product. Size is not the only thing that matters. the ability to view the histogram, for instance, can save a shot and help get that perfect exposure. But you will not find this on many medium-grade cameras. There are many facets that are similar in this regard: it's not just pixel size.
Even if you have a small image size, in photoshop, you can pull out colors (by reducing the opposite color) that just can't exist in even the finest grain emulsion. Even if make a thumbnail-size print, it can mean all the difference in the world to get the real color. Color management at high levels of control (offered by the high-end cameras) is essential for the best quality (not quantity or size) photos.
All that being said, I shoot with an F3. But I'm close to switching. Being broke helps me stay traditional :rolleyes:
By the way, my dad loves your photos. Didn't you have those seamed digital photos?
did you see my new web gallery?
I would love to take pictures...LOTS of pictures..that can visually describe the best of what I hope will be a fabulous AT north bound through hike starting next spring..................................etc,etc,et c,................................................ ...........I would like advice on camera to have. DavidNH
BACKPACKER Magazine rated (in 2005) the NIKON COOLPIX 3200 "the lightest, best camera" for the trail. i bought mine March 2005.
its only 3.2 megapixels, but, i've found thats plenty for a 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 print. i upgraded the SD card to 1 gig for my 3+week section hike (i took over 900 photos).
i am still using the camera today & IF i upgrade it will be a NIKON COOLPIX 5.1
you can probably find them NEW for around $299 (refurbished approx $199).
Good LUCK on your hike!
betic4lyf
12-01-2005, 20:12
if u use high quality slide film(velvia) and drum scanned, the only thing better, as far as image quality would be a medium format digital back. this is only if you blow it up by a lot, but still.
camera choice matters on several things. one is goal. if you want to take snapshots, a p&s digi will be great. if you want to make artistic, ineteresting photographs, that is diffrent. i would suggest in 35mm land, either a quality rangefinder, as they are lighter, and have interchangeable lenses, and are well built if you get a good one. or a slr, but not a newer one, look for older, all manual, easire to use if you are using manual controls, which help if you want to control everything, and also they are built a lot stronger than the new ones. on the medium format end, i must plug holga's. they cost 15 dollars, made completely of plastic., the pictures they make, while not wildly sharp, are maybe about he same level as a digi p&s, maybe less, but they do it in a cooler way, and have a really cool effect. they also weigh very little. another option is a tlr, not that light, but opens a lot of options. or you could go ansel adams, and bring an 8*10 monorail with you. pm me or ask here if have any questiones
if u use high quality slide film(velvia) and drum scanned, the only thing better, as far as image quality would be a medium format digital back. this is only if you blow it up by a lot, but still.
camera choice matters on several things. one is goal. if you want to take snapshots, a p&s digi will be great. if you want to make artistic, interesting photographs, that is diffrent. i would suggest in 35mm land, either a quality rangefinder, as they are lighter, and have interchangeable lenses, and are well built if you get a good one. or a slr, but not a newer one, look for older, all manual, easire to use if you are using manual controls, which help if you want to control everything, and also they are built a lot stronger than the new ones. on the medium format end, i must plug holga's. they cost 15 dollars, made completely of plastic., the pictures they make, while not wildly sharp, are maybe about he same level as a digi p&s, maybe less, but they do it in a cooler way, and have a really cool effect. they also weigh very little. another option is a tlr, not that light, but opens a lot of options. or you could go ansel adams, and bring an 8*10 monorail with you. pm me or ask here if have any questiones
Well, my desires don't fit most of betic4lyf's options. I'm not especially into art. For years I took photos to illustrate stories I wrote for a newspaper. I was fundamentally a reporter, but my stories often involved the back country (some called it wilderness) of Maine. I had hard enough time persuading my editors to allow me to do such stories. I had zero chance of persuading my bosses to pay a professional photographer to accompany me. So I did my own photography.
Today I am into showing slides that illustrate the trails I walk and the lands my town's land trust has preserved. My goal is to entice more supporters and more donations as we seek to preserve even more lands.
I know more than most casual point and shoot photographers. 50 plus years ago I pondered photography as a profession. But I am not a professional. I've even long since forgotten a great deal of what I once knew. Think of me as a semi-proficient amateur.
I'm kind of skilled at composing a photograph, and choosing diverse subjects. Probably, that's why I'm occasionally, invited back to show my AT slides a second time. (I even keep hoping the PA Ruck will ask me back.) But I've long since forgotten the subtlities of exposure and shutter speeds.
Because no one now pays for my film and processing, I'm thinking of investing in a moderately-priced digital projector, and a moderately-priced digital camera.
All suggestions are welcome. But please rush. Christmas is my only chance of persuading my wife and kids to contribute.
Weary
Tha Wookie
12-01-2005, 21:44
if u use high quality slide film(velvia) and drum scanned, the only thing better, as far as image quality would be a medium format digital back. this is only if you blow it up by a lot, but still.
That's not really true. The digital top end digital and nikon SLRs are "better quality" than 35mm film. I didn't believe it myself, but I've seen the difference.
As I said above, it's not just about how big you make it! There is a HUGE variance in the quality b/w different cameras and lenses.
But you are right, that drum-scanned velvia is about the best.
I use a different kind of film, though, called "Velvia Slayer"
really!
betic4lyf
12-01-2005, 23:25
I am not sayng it has to be incredible, just that point and shoots dont give any controls, so that you can make pictures that are interesting and jump out at you. it is like the diffrence between ansel adams and somerandom picture of trees. I am not saying that you will be ansel adams, or that you wont, just that the more you put into it, the better quality images, the more interesting they are, even out of context
grassyknoll44
02-25-2006, 22:13
A good lightweight digital SLR is the Canon Digital EOS Rebel XT at under 2 lbs.
I have this camera and it is very good. It is one of (if not the) lightest and smallest digital SLR camera out there. It is also very expensive (about $1000) and one of my concerns is taking such a high quality camera out into the elements with rugged use) The CMOS 8.0 MP sensor is also delicate and you don't want to get that messed up. So if I choose to bring this camera with me I will most surely buy a waterproof bag for it.
Digital SLRs are known to have better battery life than regular digital cameras. This is because you do not use the LCD screen to view pictures as you are taking them. Using the preview feature will drain more battery life. Also, when the battery is in this camera, it will slowly drain- even if it is turned off. So there are a lot of little things you can do to prolong the life of the battery. You cannot use disposable batteries with this camera. Never having backpacked the AT, I am concerned with how often I will be in contact with a power source to charge the battery.
When buying a digital camera, 2 major things apply... 1. the optical zoom capabilities. (the higher the better) and 2. the CCD. this is the camera's "eye." The larger the CCD, the better quality the picture, no matter how many megapixel. I have 2 8MP cameras. One Canon Powershot Pro1 for work. I also have extra zoom lenses and filters for it as I enter many photog contests. It also has a proprietary battery. Not a bad thing if you are not away from a power source for extended times... Its an SLR body camera and quite heavy.
And a Polaroid i832 for hiking. It is much smaller and lighter than the Canon. While it does have some good features, it doesnt have all the bells and whistles that the Canon does.
The higher the megapixel, the better quality enlargements you can make.
While I would like to take my Canon on my Thru, its weight does not make it feasible.
The Polaroid is not a feature-packed but just to document my Thru, it will do.
If you find a camera with the features you like, please shop it first. You will almost always find a better deal than what you'd pay for it at a camera store such as Ritz or Wolf. Sears has a price match policy for same make/model. And a 1G memory card, no matter what the style (SD, CF...) is only about $60 nowadays.