View Full Version : UL Cameras On Trail.
PottedPlant
10-19-2015, 16:31
While certainly among the equipment that many people will insist we leave at home, I would not dream of hitting the trail without a camera that would give me photos of a quality I'd be proud to hang on my own wall. Towards these ends, I'd love suggestions from those of you who do bring cameras, beyond an Iphone, and what you use? Low weight and quality of the picture are far and above my biggest concerns, though if somehow there's an option for less than several thousand, that's my hope :p I've looked into go-pro's for their fantastic size/weight and reasonable price, but I'm open to options that give me better photo quality.
Thanks for the suggestions UL hiking camera goers!
If video is your priority , the GoPro is a good choice.
Not that great as a still camera because it was designed for "action" videos , so very wide fixed lens with no choice over focus, aperture and shutter speed.
Sony DCS-RX100 for pro capabilities in a (relatively) small package or iPhone 6+.
Check out the Sony A6000.
Sony DCS-RX100 for pro capabilities in a (relatively) small package or iPhone 6+.
Well, for image quality, yes, that camera is just amazing.
But I can't endorse it any more -- mine is in the shop at the moment. It's sensitive to moisture and began turning itself on by its lonesome. First saw this behavior on a wet hike on the Long Trail this summer. I managed to get it working again but the problem kept coming back after a while. Decided to send it in for repair while it was still under warranty.
If they've fixed that in the successor models (Mk-II and Mk-III) then I stand corrected. Mine was the original (ca. 2013 I think.)
For a high-end point & shoot I'd look at the Canon G7 or G7x.
donthaveoneyet
10-19-2015, 18:04
My Lumix is lighter than either of those and happens to be waterproof. Lower MP rating but it takes darn nice pics. The Canon S110 is even lighter and used to be sort of the gold standard for point and shoot cameras for backpackers... at least if my old memory serves me. Never felt like spending the $300-plus to get one, the Lumix was cheaper and, as I said, waterproof. I bought it for kayaking, but use it for hiking as well.
32376
Dochartaigh
10-19-2015, 18:15
Been researching this myself for literally the past year (my Canon G9 is ready to be retired). In a small package, nothing much seems to beat the Panasonic LX100 and it's beautiful Leica lens (unless you're looking for like 12x zoom in a compact package or something).
Olympus, Pentax & Panasonic all make very nice, affordable water and shock proof cameras. What good is a camera if it is inside a zip lock bag inside your pack when the rain stops and a rainbow pops out? Hey!
Wayne
For something relatively light and OK quality I would look at the Pana TS6.
Water and shockproof so you don't have to worry about storage , the 28-128mm covers a decent range and the 60 sec min shutter speed lets you take night shots.
Decent movie clips too.
A bit under 8oz
Old Hiker
10-19-2015, 20:24
To all the responders:
Please mention the shutter pause - the noticeable (if any) pause between the time you push the button and the shutter clicks. My first light weight camera was VERY slow. I kept getting blurred pictures.
My next one: Samsung TL105 is VERY fast, plus did decent photos and videos. I wasn't looking for pro-quality, although I didn't see much difference between "pro" and "my" photos. I got it in 2012 and probably need to upgrade, as smallish things are going wrong.
Thanks for any input. Sorry for any thread hijack.
Heliotrope
10-19-2015, 21:22
I used a Pentax optio w90 last year which was great for durability and high pixels. However, the lack of view finder limited my ability to compose images because I couldn't see the screen well enough in bright conditions. My hiking partner was getting nicer quality images with his iPhone. And the images I took lacked something when it came to capturing the color of the scene accurately. I am looking into the new iPhone which has a 12 mega pixel camera. Rumors say the next iPhone will have a 24 mega pixel camera of dslr quality. So I may hold out for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Vegan Packer
10-19-2015, 23:11
I don't have experience with anything beyond my camera phone, a great but old film camera that weighs about as much as a brick (so old school that the housing is brass), and my GoPro Hero 4, which I bought just before my recent backpacking trip to Washington state. However, here are my findings regarding each of these options.
The size and weight rule out the film camera. Besides, it doesn't take video. These days, there are digitals that do both, but I can't really comment on those options.
The camera phone is okay for shooting where the light is great, but it is terrible in low-light situations. It doesn't have enough memory for shooting any kind of extensive video, and using the camera eats up the battery. My phone weighs more than a GoPro, and since I don't get reception in the back country, I no longer carry it.
The GoPro in a skeleton housing (minimalist, not waterproof, but protects the lens and camera), a battery, a memory card and the base to connect it to a mini tripod weighs 5.8 ounces. Each additional battery weighs .8 ounces, and it provides about an hour's worth of video. As a rule of thumb, I typically allot one battery per day of my backpacking trip, and then I throw in one extra to consider the extra setup footage of the first day and ending footage of the last day, and for a reserve. I take a lot of footage, but I ultimately end out with a lot of great footage, and I don't have to worry about using up memory or running out of battery.
As mentioned above, the GoPro is not the greatest for taking all around still pictures. I do get some great stills with it, but that is usually only in bright light conditions. In lower light, if I don't put it on the tripod, the slightest movement will cause the photos to come out blurry. You can't do macro/extreme close-up shots with it. It is best for shots in the range of three feet or greater away from the subject.
This being said, there is a fix for most of the still shot issues. For example, instead of taking your chances with still photos, the best thing to do is to shoot video. The software allows you to pick out any individual frame of footage that you want, and you can then save that as a still photo. I get really sharp, excellent results by using this method. Using video, I also get very good results in low light conditions.
As another fix, I bought a mini tripod (Goby GorillaPod for GoPro) that only weighs 1.5 ounces, and that takes care of the blur that I was getting with stills. The tripod also doubles as a selfie stick. A third great use for the tripod is to wrap its articulating legs around things like branches, which brings the camera to the right level for shots that would normally call for a full sized tripod. Since I am mostly backpacking solo, I have been able to get some excellent results with the addition of this little powerhouse tripod.
Another plus of the GoPro is that they update the firmware for it, and you can update the camera with a PC. I have no idea how far this will take me, but it is nice to know that this will keep the camera current enough to make it rewarding to use until the next generation of cameras arrives.
There are a million aftermarket devices on the market for the GoPro. This keeps the pricing of things competitive, and there are some brilliant ideas out there, such a tripods, connectors to things like hat brims, harnesses, etc.
In the end, sure, I want to reduce the weight that I carry, but I want to have some great memories of my experiences. Documenting my trips in high definition (the Hero 4 even shoots in 4k) will allow me to re-visit these great memories for the rest of my life. I am pretty happy with my decision to get the GoPro. I imagine that battery life will continue to improve as battery technology improves, and that will bring the weight of this package down even more.
In case you haven't seen it, here is the video from my trip to Washington. I know that it is long, but if you watch the entire video, you will see daylight, lowlight and other conditions, all shot in 1080p.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtlSbaAY7o
Modern smartphones do a pretty good job, at least in daylight conditions. However, I've come to appreciate the benefits of a true optical viewfinder. Having an LCD or OLED screen with which to compose your shot is all well and good, except when the sun is shining directly on the screen, and then it's nearly useless.
I really liked my Canon A620 with its tilt/swivel display. Bit it's an antique by now.
My rule of thumb has always been to take along the best lens I can carry and afford to purchase. The chance of passing that way again and encountering "The Picture" again are nil and none.
colorado_rob
10-23-2015, 10:36
Not UL, but fairly light for what you get, I carried my trusty Canon DSLR for the 100 mile wilderness and Katahdin AT finish and took some really nice photos. It "only" weighs 23 ounces with lens, really not bad at all for a full DSLR with a decent 18-55mm optically stabilized lens.
For the rest of the AT, I carried my canon S110, really one of the finest point-shoots out there in terms of image quality for a reasonable price, about 7 ounces, maybe $250 these days. One battery lasts about 3 weeks, I carried two extra batteries.
Don't be fooled by pixel count. It really is about two things: sensor size and lens quality. Too many pixels in too small a sensor fails two ways: they tend to be noisier, plus more fundamentally, the laws of physics (optical physics) preclude sharp, high resolution images in small sensors (even with a zillion pixels). For relatively small sensors, 12MP maxes out the physics, for larger sensors, maybe 20MP. For huge sensors (10's of thousands of dollars) the story changes. But for phone cameras, the sensors are tiny, probably 10MP maxes out the optical physics, anything more just creates noise, but makes sales because the general public doesn't understand all of this.
Modern smartphones do a pretty good job, at least in daylight conditions. However, I've come to appreciate the benefits of a true optical viewfinder. Having an LCD or OLED screen with which to compose your shot is all well and good, except when the sun is shining directly on the screen, and then it's nearly useless.
I really liked my Canon A620 with its tilt/swivel display. Bit it's an antique by now.
Precisely why I continue to enjoy using my M5, EF, A-1, 501c & Pentax 6x7. However, if I find a suitable Money Tree and get a harvest from it I do see some sort of small-ish digital camera with a real (even if it is an electronic facsimile) viewfinder. A built in level/artificial horizon will be a big plus.
Wayne
Odd Man Out
10-23-2015, 12:55
I've been using my canon SX260. Has a 20x optical zoom which is nice. Can't say it's all that trailproof or UL, but I've been taking short hikes and being careful. When I forgot to take it on outings I use my cell phone Galaxy S4 camera and had lots of pics ruined so while I haven't found the perfect trail camera yet, I still want to have something better than a cell phone, despite the extra weight..
Shutterbug
10-23-2015, 13:59
I just switched to a Nikon 1V3. It is about 1/3 the weight of my Nikon D300 and does a great job.
colorado_rob
10-23-2015, 14:08
I see that I forgot to mention the model number of the 23 ounce (with lens) DSLR, it's Canon SL1. It's also cheap, I think around $499 with lens, maybe less these days. Lighter than most mirrorless cameras, bigger sensor than most point-and-shoots, full finder, of course, take a decent movie clip. Again, not UL, but with a decent strap (included in the 23 ounces) hanging around my neck, I don't even notice it's there. Ken Rockwell (folks either love the guy or despise him!) has a review here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm
Apropos my earlier post (#5) in this thread: it took 2.5 weeks, including shipping, to get my RX100 repaired, and the repair looks good, so far. Got the camera back Wednesday and it's been with me on two walks so far. Still lots of foliage to capture!
Hmmm....
I've been using a canon power shot SD1400 for many years now, and it seems about bullet proof. It's been dropped (many, many time.... on rocks and concrete), slung a time or two, been in rain quite a lot, and just keeps on working. Not just working, but working well.
It takes pretty nice photos, and video. With battery and SD card it tips the scales at 4.6oz. It is smaller than a pack of cigarettes, for a size reference.
Here's a few photos from my last hike a few weeks ago (finished VA), showing some of the fall colors in the leafs.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5704/22230121130_61bb8926e2.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5808/22230121190_ebcdec6525.jpg
and a couple taken well after sunset, of a full moon from the beach here (night of the "blood moon", lunar eclips)
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5714/21202529983_b4d6436220.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/728/21202530043_6d884c259c.jpg
It ins't a pro camera - it is a "small point and shoot"; but it seems to works pretty darn well, and can take a heck of a beating. It's small, and pretty light. I get four days of photos and video off one battery (or about 6.4Gig worth off one battery), while hiking.
Lastly, you can pick one up for 'bout fifty bucks off e-bay (I do not think the model is still in production - but, don't quote me on that).
HTH,
u.w.
For something relatively light and OK quality I would look at the Pana TS6.
Water and shockproof so you don't have to worry about storage , the 28-128mm covers a decent range and the 60 sec min shutter speed lets you take night shots.
Decent movie clips too.
A bit under 8oz
Gotta be kidding. This sort of thing does not take photo, but rather internet image. You would probably end-up having better pics with your iphone, although with no zoom. These UW compacts are allright UW for lack of other picture taking device, overwater they are not even worth their weight.
having a waterproof , shockproof, dust proof, crush proof camera while hiking has its own merits. The new generations of these cameras are getting better in image quality. I have missed some great shots during the years of my hiking just because the camera was not waterproof and so was inside my pack.
Gotta be kidding. This sort of thing does not take photo, but rather internet image. You would probably end-up having better pics with your iphone, although with no zoom. These UW compacts are allright UW for lack of other picture taking device, overwater they are not even worth their weight.
The OP is after a LW compact camera not a Full Frame DSLR....
Some samples from the TS cameras :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mutovkin/sets/72157633413512171/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmcts5/sample-photos
32428
here is a video clip :
http://youtu.be/AEnim6FO9Bc
Cotton Terry
10-24-2015, 20:42
My iPhone works great for me.
poolskaterx
11-17-2015, 20:07
Being a photographer for my job I use Nikon gear with multiple interchangeable lens for the job and shoot RAW large format; that being said... I honestly NEVER bring my fullsize camera on hikes now. Technology has gotten so good and the small electronics are using darn good sensors utilizing pretty amazing pixel counts, my iphone 6 is pretty hard to beat and is always ready and serves multifunctions. I only repeat what I have been told by my photography mentors " It is more about the photographer than it is about the equipment."
I've worked as a pro photographer and have had thousands of dollars of pro DSLR gear. The best camera is the one you ALWAYS can have with you. For travel and street photography it's a Panasonic Lumix Lx5. For hiking it's my iPhone 5 in an Otterbox Case. Resolution is not an issue unless I am planning to make huge prints, which I almost never do. The iPhone will do it's version of exposure compensation and AF lock (where you hold your finger on the image to lock focus and lighting). The pano feature is nice for the big views. The picture below is all iPhone. The slanted horizon is the crappy photographer's fault! (Approaching McAfee at dawn)
32686
cmoulder
11-22-2015, 14:28
I was for a few years a newspaper photographer and then used photography as one of my primary tools in law enforcement for 30 years, so I also am not interested in carrying around heavy systems.
I have a Nikon AW110 (up to 130 now, lol!) and its waterproof feature has come in handy a couple of times while hiking.
However, the image quality of the camera on my Samsung Galaxy S5 is good enough that even the AW110 stays home most of the time these days. My nephew has an S6 Edge and it's even better! I strongly agree that most of the time the photographer's skill trumps equipment. More important is knowing how to use post processing (i.e. Photoshop) to tweak photos so that they look like what you remember actually seeing.
(This is the first time I've attached a photo here at WB so I hope it is sized properly!)
Olmstead Pond, Adirondacks
Tipi Walter
11-22-2015, 17:06
Been researching this myself for literally the past year (my Canon G9 is ready to be retired). In a small package, nothing much seems to beat the Panasonic LX100 and it's beautiful Leica lens (unless you're looking for like 12x zoom in a compact package or something).
I would in no way consider the LX100 to be an ultralight camera or fall into that category.
http://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/12/18/05897e48-3d8c-470e-b1d0-eb5b594a17bb/thumbnail/770x433/f765eef21fcbdb265b0c677650b87ecd/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-product-photos-01.jpg
Here is the LX100 in action. Huge, as Donny Trump would say.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TzgGiLZLb1g/maxresdefault.jpg
Here is the Lumix LX 7, my particular camera. Slightly smaller but still very heavy. Great quality cameras THOUGH. Show me a point-and-shoot with such high ratings that weighs 2 oz---
Pana came out with the LX100 to satisfy the "wanting a bigger sensor" brigade, as Canon did with the G7 X but of course the size and weight shot up.
The Pana LX 7 is a very good compromise between size and quality output.
Tundracamper
11-22-2015, 18:15
I normally shoot with a Nikon FX camera, but wanted a smaller camera for hiking. I recently purchased a Nikon Coolpix A. It came out around $1,100 but was recently discontinued and can be found for under $400. It has a DX sensor and will take clean images at a relatively high ISO. I like the singe focal length and high image quality. Got a Nissin i40 flash to go with it. Hiked 18 miles last weekend with the set. I also considered the Ricoh GR, but really liked the ability to maintain my NEF workflow. I also considered the X100, but felt it was on the larger side.
I did add the WiFi dongle, which weighs nothing. It allows me to take "selfies" on the trail. You can't change any settings with it, but it makes framing the image and triggering the camera easier.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I purchased my Fujifilm Finepix F550EXR 24mm wide 15X optical zoom with GPS specifically for backpacking.
I have no complaints.
Recently, I got an announcement of ACDSee software for iPhone and iPod Touch. It is an awesome software.
Not the newest iPhone has addon lenses. There is a "steady-cam" type device available for iPhone/iPod Touch.
In my opinion, what makes it all great is that new ACDSee software. Check it out. No false claims.
I used that software back in the 90s!
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Tipi Walter,
I checked the specs on the Pan LX7 & according to the info on their web site, it weighs: 296g / or 9.48oz. That's without battery and SD Memory card.
Am I misreading your post where you say, "show me a point-and-shoot with such high ratings that weighs 2oz--" ?
u.w.
Tipi Walter
11-23-2015, 00:22
Tipi Walter,
I checked the specs on the Pan LX7 & according to the info on their web site, it weighs: 296g / or 9.48oz. That's without battery and SD Memory card.
Am I misreading your post where you say, "show me a point-and-shoot with such high ratings that weighs 2oz--" ?
u.w.
Not sure of your question. My LX7 is heavy and somewhat bulky although I can store it in my shorts pocket for quick access. Is there a similar camera at 2 ounces? Doubtful. 4 ounces? 9.48 ounces becomes 10 ounces with the batt and then I throw in 5 extra batts for a long winter trip and there's some weight.
Hardly an original thought, but I'll put in a good word for a late model smartphone. Mine isn't even that current (Galaxy S4) but I've been amazed, at times, at the images it can produce.
In particular if you hold it in vertical format and then take a pano going L->R or R->L, you can get photos with humongous pixel counts.
In terms of objective image quality, a dedicated camera is likely to do better, especially in low light. But you can't beat the phones for convenience, and almost everyone is carrying one nowadays.
Hardly an original thought, but I'll put in a good word for a late model smartphone. Mine isn't even that current (Galaxy S4) but I've been amazed, at times, at the images it can produce.
In particular if you hold it in vertical format and then take a pano going L->R or R->L, you can get photos with humongous pixel counts.
In terms of objective image quality, a dedicated camera is likely to do better, especially in low light. But you can't beat the phones for convenience, and almost everyone is carrying one nowadays.
That attached photo is amazing. Did you use your smartphone?
Not sure of your question. My LX7 is heavy and somewhat bulky although I can store it in my shorts pocket for quick access. Is there a similar camera at 2 ounces? Doubtful. 4 ounces? 9.48 ounces becomes 10 ounces with the batt and then I throw in 5 extra batts for a long winter trip and there's some weight.
I wasn't sure if you were saying the LX7 weighed two ounces.
I don't know of any at that weight (2oz) that would compare to your LX7, not even close or by a long shot.
u.w.
Tipi Walter
11-23-2015, 09:26
Hardly an original thought, but I'll put in a good word for a late model smartphone. Mine isn't even that current (Galaxy S4) but I've been amazed, at times, at the images it can produce.
While I'm sure the new phones are taking outstanding pictures, I'm not so sure any of them would work for me as I need the ability to carry several spare batteries as any camera or phone camera must last at least 3 weeks with spare batteries and with no chance of a charge.
I wasn't sure if you were saying the LX7 weighed two ounces.
I don't know of any at that weight (2oz) that would compare to your LX7, not even close or by a long shot.
u.w.
When I did my research for the "best point-and-shoot" about 5 years ago, three stood out and one was the Lumix LX3. Then I upgraded to the LX5 and now have the LX7. Are they perfect? No, the LX3 stopped working with a blank screen if the flash plate was pushed in and so it died. I had a Sony die too.
In a perfect world there would be a waterproof shockproof camera with the quality of a Lumix LX7---but nothing I have found so far. The Olympus WP seems crude in comparison.
Tipi -- Typically, smart phone power consumption is minimal in airplane mode. Easily three or four days on a charge. These days a lot of hikers are carrying external power packs for their phones. A typical internal battery is 2700 mAh, while the external packs go up to 15,000 mAh. I have a 4800 mAh external pack that weighs about 4 oz.
You can also (with some phones) get a 2x or 3x-capacity internal battery; these come with an alternate back for the phone. I've seen this for the Samsung Galaxy S4, so presumably others as well.
On the AT, a hiker is never more than 5 days from a place to plug in to recharge (maybe the HMW). That said, my iPhone 6 Plus an Anker Astro lipstick size external 3000 mAh battery at 2.5 oz. is more than enough.
perdidochas
11-23-2015, 13:28
While certainly among the equipment that many people will insist we leave at home, I would not dream of hitting the trail without a camera that would give me photos of a quality I'd be proud to hang on my own wall. Towards these ends, I'd love suggestions from those of you who do bring cameras, beyond an Iphone, and what you use? Low weight and quality of the picture are far and above my biggest concerns, though if somehow there's an option for less than several thousand, that's my hope :p I've looked into go-pro's for their fantastic size/weight and reasonable price, but I'm open to options that give me better photo quality.
Thanks for the suggestions UL hiking camera goers!
Iphones take a pretty good picture. The main downside is no optical zoom.
MuddyWaters
11-23-2015, 20:30
Iphones take a pretty good picture. The main downside is no optical zoom.
Main downside is battery life if you leave it on, and boot up time if you dont.
Dedicated cameras are ready to shoot almost as fast as you can push the ON button.
MuddyWaters
11-23-2015, 20:51
Main downside is battery life if you leave it on, and boot up time if you dont.
Dedicated cameras are ready to shoot almost as fast as you can push the ON button.
A real shutterbug doesnt mind carrying 5-10 lbs of camera weight. Its one of the main reasons they go out.
Im not a shutterbug at all. My 4.5 oz Point and shoot does fine for me. Mostly. It is very lacking sometimes.
I have no problem carrying a good amount of equipment if I'm going to a specific place to shoot, and then leave. Not too keen on carrying all that equipment for miles and miles.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Tundracamper
11-29-2015, 14:08
I consider myself a real shutterbug - as I sell what I shoot as stock. No way am I carrying 10 lbs of camera gear on an 18 mile weekend trip. Right now I'm just over 2 lbs for a camera and flash. That is fine for me. 28 mm fixed lens on my Coolpix A works great.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jshannon
01-16-2016, 21:09
Rugged cell phones are getting more and more popular.
rmitchell
01-17-2016, 17:14
What about auto focus? I have used an older Pentax digital but have missed some wildlife shots because the camera chose to focus on a tree. That wasn't a problem with my Olympus OM1 (35mm).
Vegan Packer
01-17-2016, 19:58
What about auto focus? I have used an older Pentax digital but have missed some wildlife shots because the camera chose to focus on a tree. That wasn't a problem with my Olympus OM1 (35mm).
The GoPro is great for this, except for really close up shots. There are aftermarket lenses that resolve this, but then that is more weight to the kit.
after much research and many reccomendations i bought a Sony RX100. Loving it so far for day hikes. Haven't had a chance to overnight with it yet but for the weight the quality is amazing and i got it $100 off on sale for the holidays. Still use my phone for some shots, and my goPro for video clips. You can view some of the photos at my blog below if you wanna.
NewHeart
01-20-2016, 15:58
What about bluetooth capabilities, I need one to connect to laptop to download to my blog. Any suggestions?
The GoPro is great for this, except for really close up shots. There are aftermarket lenses that resolve this, but then that is more weight to the kit.
Yes the GoPro give everything pretty much in focus BUT if you want to take birds with it they would have to be about two feet away.
Those clip on lenses for it are not going to give you a decent enough tele because you are starting with a VERY wide lens.
Vegan Packer
01-20-2016, 18:03
Yes the GoPro give everything pretty much in focus BUT if you want to take birds with it they would have to be about two feet away.
Those clip on lenses for it are not going to give you a decent enough tele because you are starting with a VERY wide lens.
Actually, there are kits out there so that you can attach almost any kind of lens to the GoPro, and get even excellent telephoto shots. However, everything adds weight, cost and size, so it then becomes a question of tradeoffs. Nonetheless, they are out there. For example, take a look at the Back-Bone Ribcage Hero4 Mod Kit (http://www.back-bone.ca/product/ribcage-hero4-mod/), or you can buy a GoPro from them with the kit already modded for you.
jshannon
01-20-2016, 21:37
Apple Ipod Touch, 6th generation.
jshannon
01-20-2016, 21:38
I realized you wanted cameras other than cell phone like, but there is no delete on this website that I can find.
Actually, there are kits out there so that you can attach almost any kind of lens to the GoPro, and get even excellent telephoto shots. However, everything adds weight, cost and size, so it then becomes a question of tradeoffs. Nonetheless, they are out there. For example, take a look at the Back-Bone Ribcage Hero4 Mod Kit (http://www.back-bone.ca/product/ribcage-hero4-mod/), or you can buy a GoPro from them with the kit already modded for you.
Yes, well...
the GoPro Back Bone Rib cage kit is just a mount, does not include a lens.
You need to modify your GoPro (voiding the g/tee) then yes you can add lenses but you have a small square box to hold with a long lens sticking out, a lens that you need to focus and set the aperture manually as well.
Very practical for backpacking and particularly bird photography, or maybe not.