PDA

View Full Version : Cameras



Doctari
11-18-2003, 02:52
So, what do you use? Are they worth it? Any regrets from those that didn't take pics? etc.

I have at times: taken way too many scenery pics. Not taken enought scenery pics. not taken enough pics of those I meet on the trail. and other mishaps.
I have however ALWAYS carried a camera. My current one is a $6.00 110 film camera I got at Family Dollar. Weighs about 4Oz and has a flash.

Blue Jay
11-18-2003, 08:47
I really like the quality of the disposable camera pictures. You have to carry at least a $300 or $400 or digital or film camera to match them. Why risk a first day rain fall disaster?

Kerosene
11-18-2003, 09:07
I also have successfully relied on disposable Kodak cameras for my last 4 trips. At 3-4 oz. for 27-36 pictures, they do a great job in good lighting conditions. The rainy day or early morning pictures of the dark shelter don't work very well. Try to get a disposable with 800 ASA film.

If you do go this route, then get your pictures delivered on CD so you can further enhance the color.

DebW
11-18-2003, 10:04
I think 35 mm should be divided into SLR (the kind with interchangable lenses) and Point-and-Shoot
(the compact kind without interchangable lenses). There are good quality point-and-shoot cameras,
they are not all "el cheapo". And many film cameras these days use APS film rather than 35 mm.

I"ve gone from a 35 mm SLR camera to a compact camera. It's an old Olympus XA that I bought
used. Not really point-and-shoot because the focus is manual and the apperture setting is manual.
Has a good quality lens and fits in my pocket, so it's always available. But it's semi-automatic
exposure system doesn't always do a good job and I sometimes get refraction off the lens. So I'll
probably be replacing it with either a modern point-and-shoot (though I hate the noisy motorized
film winders in these new things) or a digital.

Patch29
11-18-2003, 10:26
I have been looking for the right camera to hike with. I work as a photographer so I am looking for the best quality, but do not want to pay a huge weight penalty. The camera I am currently looking at is the Contax T3 (http://www.kyoceraimaging.com/product.asp?itemnum=311050). It is fairly light for a professional quality camera 8.2oz from the manufacturer. It has a 35mm f2.8 ziess lens which is where the image quality comes from, the price may hold many back. Very good used models could save some money, most have only light use. I hope to purchase and test one soon.

The now discontinued Yashica T4 (fixed lens) is a great camera if you can find one. It has a lesser quality 35mm f3.5 ziess lens and is weatherproof, still very sharp. They sell for around $160 used. Yashica still makes the T4 zoom which would also be a good camera.

JimSproul
11-18-2003, 12:05
110? I have not seen one of those in a while.

On the trail I use an APS camera. The film loads from a cartridge, like a 110, instead of the need to mess with a leader, like 35mm. Also, you can rewind a cart part way through on some camers so you can change mid-roll if you want a different speed. I usally take about 4 times as many 200 speed as I do 800 speed. On rainy days and around the campfire the 800 is nice to have. I am partial to Fuji Film.

I have used several but my current camera is a Nikon Nuvis S (weight with file 8 3/4 oz.). You can find them on-line for about $35 - $50. I has pretty good glass with zoom and flash. Although not as weather resistant as some it closes inside a stainless steel case. I carry it in a backpack strap pouch with the cord anchored to the strap. It is always ready. I can get it out and getgood candid shots, hardly breaking stride. It has a standard tripod mount as does my trekking pole, good for long exposures.

I shoot more pictures at home than on the trail with my 35mm but always get a few shots I want any given day. Just to play it safe I replace the battery after about 5 rolls, but that may be overkill.

MDSHiker
11-18-2003, 12:11
I use an inexpensive Kodak APS point-n-shoot camera. It takes good pics. I haven't been happy with the disposable cameras mainly because of the flash/lighting situation. I bought a small camera holder/case at a flea market for a buck and it clips to my hipbelt. I always have a ziplock bag handy in case the weather gets wet. A camera with a timer is nice too...so you can get those self-portraits when no one else is around. When you run into people on the trail, don't forget to ask them to take a shot of you with your camera. What the heck? At road crossings and other touristy areas, people have always been nice about taking my pic and offering snacks and drinks. :)

Doctari
11-18-2003, 12:38
There are so many options out there, camera wise. Back in the day, when I rode an average of 1,000 miles a year on my bicycle, I carried a 110 camera. then they "went out of favor" & the camera makers stopped making them. Granted, the pic quality is somewhat low, but they are "OK" and so very light. So you can imagine my joy at finding a 110 camera in the Family Dollar store, and many of the places that sell film on the AT still have 110 film.
I would love to be able to carry a high end SLR, too expensive & heavy for me, sigh.
My 110 gives as good a pic as a medium priced digital (under $100.00) at only 4 Oz.

A camera I am thinking of carring is a very small poloroid, that prints stickers. I would take the pic, then stick it to a page in my journal. I may carry that in addition to the 110 as it too is faily light.

BTW; with flash, one roll of film, carry strap AND battery, my camera cost $6.00. Granted, it ain't waterproof, but it do dry out with no damage, and since I learned that I now carry it in a "snack size" Zip lock, so no problems.

Doctari.

RagingHampster
11-18-2003, 12:57
I use a Sony DSC F-707 five mega-pixel digital camera. I bought it a couple years ago, it's the predecessor of the newer DSC F-717.

Takes some real nice photos, but weighs about a pound and a half with the polarizing filter I have. It has an integrated Carl Zeiss zoom lens that adjusts from 38mm to roughly 190mm after converting the numbers (5x Optical Zoom). I keep the digital zoom off so the pictures are razor sharp.

http://akamaipix.crutchfield.com/products/2002/158/h158dscf717-o_flas.jpeg

bearbag hanger
11-18-2003, 13:01
I use a digital Canon S100 camera. Film is just way too expensive anymore and I tend to only use about 1 out of every 25 or so pictures I take. The S100 weighs about 8 oz and with a 512 MB card, I can hold 400+ 1600X1400 pixel pictures. I can print out up to 8 X 10 on photo paper and you really can't tell the difference from a 110 or APS camera. As mentioned above, the 35mm cameras tend to be too big to carry on a backpacking trip anyway. Some of the newer digital camera have much higher resolution, but then you get into the problem of storage space and how much your willing to pay for it.

My biggest limitation is showing them to a group like I would with slides. You can have digital pictures made into slides, but it cost is really high, although maybe cheaper that throwing out the 24 slides I don't use for every one I actually use. It can be easily done, but the projectors cost several thousand dollars, but those prices are coming down. I think the lastest I've seen is $1,500, but I think by the time I'm done with my through hike next year, I'll be able to pick up a new one for $500 or less.

highway
11-19-2003, 07:35
Canon Elph S400 with battery, card/100+shots, and case & still only weighs slightly more than 9 ounces; works great for me!

slabfoot
11-19-2003, 10:04
small light water resistant great pictures, $80 at B&W in new york

bill

Footslogger
11-19-2003, 11:35
Used a digital this year on my thru and was very happy I did. Went with a small Panasonic model with rechargeable AA batts. Never had a battery issue. Kept it in a small freezer strength zip lock and moisture was not a problem. Bought several 32Mbyte media cards and sent them home when they were full and then they were returned to me. That way I was never carrying my entire photo collection with me on the trail. I could get around 37 shots per media card so for me it was like using a roll of 35 mm film.

Nice thing is that now I've got them all on disc and can e-mail them at will or print one or more out as necessary to have a paper copy.

I will carry a digital camera with me from now on ...without exception. You can see your shot seconds after you take it. You can take another sot if the first one didn't come out OK.

Moon Monster
11-19-2003, 14:27
Olympus Stylus Epic 28mm fixed lens point-n-shoot (35mm film) -- weighs a scant 6.00oz. with film and battery.

Out of 15 rolls of 200 ASA film, it has never under any lighting given me an over or under exposed shot, and the only slightly out of focus pics were self-portraits when I held the thing too close to my face. It is water-resistant and the lens is protected with a durable sliding cap that acts as the power switch. I can pluck it from my pack, open the cap, shoot, close, and restowe one handed. I never keep it covered--it gets very wet in my mesh pack pocket, but has never failed.

Best of all, it was only 50 bucks including shipping, 1 roll of film, and battery as a refurbished unit off an amazon.com vendor.

I'd extrapolate that all Olympus cameras including digital and those with zoom would be as durable, weather resistant, and comparably light.

I wish I'd take more shots of other hikers, especially candid ones like at shelters or hostels. Other people are always photogenic, even when the weather is bad and there are no scenic views, and it's the photos of other people that friends back home will actually pause and look at when flipping through the album.

The Solemates
11-19-2003, 15:34
My Cannon Elph 2 takes the funny film and weighs in at about 10 oz.

Two Speed
11-19-2003, 18:51
I was using an Olympus Stylus until I realized a disposable was more use to me on the trail. The Olympus lays down a great print, like almost all of the 35mm cameras out there and the one I've got is "splash resistant," whatever that means. The big advantage I've found is that the disposables are lighter and smaller than my Olympus. Being smaller and lighter, I could carry the disposable in my front shirt pocket which meant I took more photos. The fact that if I trash the disposable I really haven't lost anything lets me carry the disposable in a more exposed fashion without worrying about the camera. Less worry, less weight, decent prints is what converted me.

I probably will convert to digital at some point or another. They just keep getting lighter, smaller, cheaper and better. Just haven't hit my price point for the features I want yet.

Presto
11-20-2003, 11:34
APS cameras are great for snapshots. However, if you have any intentions on blowing up a photo larger than standard size (4x6) I have heard that the resolution of the APS cameras do a very poor job due to the film size. 35mm can be blown up to very large photos without losing much quality. Wish I had more technical detail to post regarding this subject. Maybe someone else can add to this?

Jumpstart
11-24-2003, 07:45
So, what do you use? Are they worth it? Any regrets from those that didn't take pics? etc.

I have at times: taken way too many scenery pics. Not taken enought scenery pics. not taken enough pics of those I meet on the trail. and other mishaps.
I have however ALWAYS carried a camera. My current one is a $6.00 110 film camera I got at Family Dollar. Weighs about 4Oz and has a flash.

We used the Olympus Stylus, and juding by the extremely positive responses I have gotten from my photo gallery, it was a good choice. I am not a professional (nor even amateur) photographer and our pictures came out great. The camera is water-resistant, held us very well to several rainstorms and droppings on rocks, etc...didn't need a battery replacement the entire trip and successfully took 18 rolls of great pics. It's just a little point-and-shoot model, costs about $150 bucks, and weighs only 8 ounces with battery and film (by my scale). I'd highly reccommend it to anyone.

Lilred
11-27-2003, 14:14
My Husband bought for me a Samsung Fino 120 35mm camera. It has automatic film loading, advance, and rewinding. It has a zoom lens, timer for self portrait shots and a continuous shooting feature for bears or moose on the run. ;)

http://www.samsungcamerausa.com/Camera/products/products_view.asp?material_id=101120&material_type=camera&material_subtype=zoom&old=0

I've only used it once on my last section hike and haven't gotten my film developed yet. I'll let y'all know how the pictures turn out.

Oh, and the weight ..... 7.2oz.

Peaks
11-28-2003, 09:28
Just to state the obvious, part of your decision on which camera to take along depends on how you plan to use your pictures. If you just want snapshots, then a disposable works fine. Compact 35mm cameras are great for those that want to do something more. Myself, I'm still using slides, and have made up a slide show with my better slides.

Full size 35 mm are for the serious photographer who wants to use multiple lenses, different film speeds, etc. (And all the weight)

Digitals are getting better all the time. If I were in the market today, I'd seriously consider one.

Jaybird
01-05-2004, 06:52
i've used a Kodak disposable for 2002 & 2003 section hikes..but have purchased a new Argus 5mp digital camera (8oz) with loads of "bells & whistles" & look foward to getting lots of scenery shots & fellow hiker mugs in 2004 with it. (will be posting lots on this website in PHOTOS section)

plan to section hike Clingmans Dome to Hot Springs April/May.

most all disposable you now purchase use 35mm, 800 speed film so, the quality in just the past few years has skyrocketed! ;)


Soooooooooooooooo....if you see the Jaybird out on the trail....SMILE! :p

Mr. Clean
01-05-2004, 08:49
I use two cameras now, an automatic 35 mm and my Minolta 35 mm SLR which is 25 years old. The auto is much lighter but I really like the control I get from the SLR with zoom lens (70-150, I think). I've been thinking digital but I'm not sold on them yet. How well do the zooms work on them? Also, I love 3x5 pics - can the digitals be easily printed onto good paper for the photo album? I do like the idea of being able to discard pics you don't like, though. Did any of you folk use a zoom often, or wish you had one, on the trail? I like the zoom here in the Whites to get far off mtns closer, or wildlife that is farther away than I'd like. Still thinking about digital, but not sure yet...

MedicineMan
01-06-2004, 05:00
I resisted carrying a camera for a while, went digital and had the thing not work below 10 degrees, went with a Canon Elph sport and am very very disapointed with the pics....also have an Epson Stylus regular 35mm format and am very very satisfied with it...but not waterproof or even resistant though they make a model that is...oldest daughter got a Nikon Coolpix 3.something megapixel and this thing is very light...I dont know what I will carry on the next hike :(

Jaybird
01-06-2004, 06:15
Did any of you folk use a zoom often, or wish you had one, on the trail? I like the zoom here in the Whites to get far off mtns closer, or wildlife that is farther away than I'd like. Still thinking about digital, but not sure yet...

Mr. Clean: I used my digital on my Nov. 2003 section hike in the mtns of East TN (Big South Fork Nat'l Recreation area) & used the 3x (optical)zoom often for scenery shots...(it also has a 5x digital zoom) didnt use it much for "people shots" with a memory card of any size you'll get hundreds of shots to choose from when you get ready to post them or print them.

see photos @: www.ModelT.homestead.com (look in PHOTOS)

I've been pleased with both my digital purchases. (my first was an HP215 PhotoSmart 1.3 mega-pixel) it took great pictures but it wasnt quick to recoup for next photo, my current Argus 5 mega-pixel does...& its lighter

I've been very pleased with my shots & prints.

Dont get me wrong...around the homeplace...i still use the Canon AE-1 & the Canon Rebel along with the digital cam...for now. ;)

kate
01-06-2004, 07:55
I am going to be carrying my Olympus Stylus 400 digital this year. On my last trip I took a Kodak disposable. It was light and easy to use. However out of 40 some pictures taken only a few were ones that looked good. In the end it felt like I spent over a dollar for each good photo when I added up the cost of the camera, plus developing. The Olympus is weatherproof so with a lot of care and a freezer strength ziplock it should be fine.

Now I just need to decide on a good combination of memory cards and batteries...

Kate

Kozmic Zian
02-12-2004, 09:41
So, what do you use? Are they worth it? Any regrets from those that didn't take pics? etc.

I have at times: taken way too many scenery pics. Not taken enought scenery pics. not taken enough pics of those I meet on the trail. and other mishaps.
I have however ALWAYS carried a camera. My current one is a $6.00 110 film camera I got at Family Dollar. Weighs about 4Oz and has a flash.

Yea, Cameras......I bought this year, after using single use cameras for years, a nice digital Sony DSP-32. The least expensive in the Sony Line of mini-cams. It does everything the Big Bros do for a lot less mulah. Just dosent have the digital zoom. You can zoom everything in your CP photo processor. Man, if you guys got computers, and you surely do, then you owe it to yourselves to get a digital camera....They(dig cams) open up a whole world of experiences you can't get any other way. I mean, you can edit your photos in the camera! You can determine what paper to print on, what size, how many. You can download, upload, share with friends and relatives. It's great and I highly reccomend. As far as quality.....if you're real picky....the SLRs are better, but too heavy , as far as I'm concerned for backpacking. The digital gets the job done, period. I have a 128mb memory stick, gives me 'bout 120 high quality, high contrast pics, then I just download into the ole' PC, that clears the memory stick, and we're back in business. One downfall, though, is you have to carry the charger(not too heavy, 'bout 3oz) and of course, the two rechargeable batteries(AA's). The whole outfit in a cary case, weighs less than 15oz. Good shooting..............................KZ@

eyahiker
05-24-2004, 20:26
A lightweight Canon digital, which can also handle Mpgs up to 5 minutes. Worth taking, but find I am usually not getting it out and turning it on fast enough for some great shots.....

Tha Wookie
05-24-2004, 22:29
I use a Nikon F3 manual SLR. The more I hike, the more i realize that the quality of my photos is probably the mosts important factor for me, as I look at them in some form or another virtually every day.

This year, along what I'm calling the West Coast Trail, I'm bringing even more gear than I did on the PCT www.trailjournals.com/wookie , including a wide-angle lens, circular polarizer, some color correction filters and a lightweight 54" tripod.

As I hike more and more, I find that I've pretty much got my gear "dialed in", understand how to do maildrops and all of that logistical stuff, and that leaves me time to focus more and more on capturing the experience to share with others.

On a certain level, a camera can become a tool of expression rather than an image storage device. For me, a film SLR is still the way to go because the image can be manipulated in a way that challenges my skills and produces a very-high end product, capable of being used on the internet of rthe journals, my scrapbook at home, a published book, or to make very large and incredible prints that bring out every flare of detail (www.thawookie.com/print (http://www.thawookie.com/print)).

Of course, it takes a bit of learning and investment, but at least the learning is something I really enjoy and look forward to. I love the challenge of it, as an amateur trying to push my limits. But what i love most is making art on the trail -honoring the trail.

I do note that digital cameras are on the verge of taking over completely. They already have 11-meg cameras, but they are very expensive. Eastman Kodak has halted it's film research and development completely. Soon those big-pixel cameras will come down in price. But until then, I'll be lugging around a beautiful mechanical camera.

By the way, it all fits in a Ray Jardine style pack.

Tha Wookie
05-24-2004, 22:33
Sorry, that link was www.thawookie.com/print.htm (http://www.thawookie.com/print.htm). Have fun shooting!


Anyone else doing the AT photo project next weekend?

MedicineMan
05-25-2004, 01:43
should I get my old Nikon F2 out of its dust blanket and see if it still works? carried it many a year on the AT....

also Wookie-----GO DAWGS, got out of UGA in '85

Jaybird
05-25-2004, 05:27
I am doing the AT photo project. Wapiti Shelter to Pearisburg Va. I will be dueling between digital and film for the project. ................blah,blah,blah...............L. Wolfe aka Fotofantic



L.WOlfe

with 16 EXTRA lbs in your pack you'll be "dueling" more than what film to use! hehehehehehe! ;)


i used my ARGUS 5mega-pixel on my recent section-hike (with "the Model-T crew") & shot about 250 frames....about 210 or so...great shots.....

i've shared some here on WhiteBlaze.net (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/656) (PHOTOS), others on my trailjournals.com (http://www.trailjournals.com/Jaybird) page & still a few more on Model-T's website! (http://www.ModelT.net)

Enjoy!

hungryhowie
05-25-2004, 16:56
L. Wolfe (any relation to Art?),

What are you carrying that would add up to 16 pounds in camera equipment? Your D100 only weighs about 1.5-2 pounds, right? So where's the rest?

For myself, I'll be getting my first DSLR soon, probably the Canon Digital Rebel. I'm sacrificing about 5 pounds for the body, three lenses (17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L), filters, hoods, extra batteries, etc. I'm still torn on whether to bring a full-blown tripod, and am looking at alternatives that would integrate my trekking poles for an additional 1-1.5 pounds. All in all, my setup should still weigh nearly 10 pounds less than yours...so what ARE you carrying?

-Howie

lobstergrrrl
05-25-2004, 19:18
I went from a Nikon SLR to Canon S-400 digital in Feb. No regrets. 4 mega pixels, takes great photos. Smaller than a pack of cigarettes, weighs around 6 ounces. Works well at -35F on ski trips if you keep it in your inside coat pocket. I'm figureing it will work well in the heat of the summer from what I've read. Seems to be the camera of choice in my NE hiking web group.

hungryhowie
05-26-2004, 00:29
Don't worry, I know all about that kind of stuff... Canon's consumer DSLRs use a 1.6x FOV factor. It really works both ways. While my 17mm effectively turns into a 27mm, my 200mm turns into a 320mm and I can use smaller and less expensive filters for everything and really never worry about vingnetting (i.e. the 17-40 is a 72mm thread, 70-200 is a 67mm thread, and 50 is a 58mm thread and I need only purchase a 67mm polarizer and step-up/ step-down rings for the others). Canon makes a rectilinear 14mm lens, but I haven't $1500 sitting around burning holes in my pockets.

-Howie

java
07-24-2004, 16:00
I think I'm the only one on the trail I've ever seen on the AT with a Rangefinder (although I hear someone is hiking with a Leica M6 this year). On all of my hikes I've carried a Contax G1, with 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm lenses plus a TL140 flash. While I do own large Nikon SLR's, I find the quality, ease of use, manual and auto focus settings, price and size of the Contax to be superior. I shoot slide film, and the quality of the Zeiss lenses is amazing, to see for yourself check out this month's Backpacker! :D If you're looking for SLR quality, in a much smaller package rangefinder's are well worth checking out! IMHO...

bearbait2k4
10-28-2004, 00:21
Had I not gone out on a couple of previous trips with a disposable camera, I would have taken a disposable.

However, after taking 2-3 rolls of film with disposable cameras in NM and CO, and having the pictures turn out horribly, I decided to stick with something of better quality.

I would say I could have just had a bad batch of cameras, but I bought 2 in separate purchases. I could have said that the developer screwed up, except I dropped 1 off at a different location.

I also had a roll of film come out horribly out of about 4 rolls in CA.

I've taken lots of other trips with disposables with no problems, but didn't want to chance it w/ the AT.

Whatever you get...just make sure it's waterproof.

orangebug
10-28-2004, 06:05
I just purchased a Pentax 44WR in prep for my section next month. It is Water Resistant, uses 2 AA bateries, has a built in zoom and flash, and is pretty small and light. It is about 4 inches square and one inch thick. I haven't weighed it, but think it is near 4 oz. With a 1 Gig SD memory card, I can carry over 500 photos.

I'll let you all know if I still like it after Thanksgiving.

walkin' wally
10-28-2004, 10:29
I hope that this has not been covered yet in this thread but does anyone have any info on what to expect for rechargeable battery life for a digital camera? My camera goes through batteries very fast. They go dead just sitting unused in the camera. The recharger is relatively large and bulky. Are the newer cameras better for battery life?

The picture quality and weight for this camera is quite good.

I have a Olympus Brio Zoom Model 150 1.3 MP. It is lightweight but not dependable to take a picture at any moment. Sometimes I have to close and re-open the camera lens cover to get the shutter to work. I have missed many good shots because of this. Do I need a new camera or is this a battery problem?

Any one have any more opinions or suggestions for a point and shoot weather resistant or weather proof digital camera? I have noted the suggestions in the posts above.

Thanks,

Walkin Wally

Bloodroot
10-28-2004, 10:55
I just purchased a Pentax 44WR in prep for my section next month. It is Water Resistant, uses 2 AA bateries, has a built in zoom and flash, and is pretty small and light. It is about 4 inches square and one inch thick. I haven't weighed it, but think it is near 4 oz. With a 1 Gig SD memory card, I can carry over 500 photos.

I'll let you all know if I still like it after Thanksgiving.
I also have a Pentax 44WR. Excellent digi with all the specs previously mentioned. I also have the 1 gig SD memory card. I have used this camera the whole time in Iraq in the worst possible weather conditions. Nevertheless this camera has been abused to every extent, and is still going strong. Very durable and highly recommended for any outdoor sport...minus scubadiving.

Pecan
10-28-2004, 19:31
Way too complicated for me. I'm still usign the same yard sale camera I bought 10 years ago for 2 bucks. Don't even have a name, but it shoots every time.

grrickar
10-28-2004, 19:40
I hope that this has not been covered yet in this thread but does anyone have any info on what to expect for rechargeable battery life for a digital camera? My camera goes through batteries very fast. They go dead just sitting unused in the camera. The recharger is relatively large and bulky. Are the newer cameras better for battery life?


Walkin Wally
Wally,
I recently got back from a 10 day section hike and I used a Fuji Finepix A205 2MP camera, and while it did not have all of the features of many more recent camera offerings, it did use standard AA batteries. I took that a step further and used some Rayovac rechargeables that recharge in 15 minutes with their charger.

I put a full charge on the batteries, and used them for the entire trip - about 430 pictures, some with flash and some without. The batteries died when we got to the NOC (the last day) with only 11 pictures remaining on the 256MB picture card remaining. So, with that said, I almost filled the entire picture card in this camera before the batteries died. My hiking partner went through several sets of alkaline batteries.

I only buy digital cameras that use standard batteries, so that wherever I am I can usually pick up some replacements if I need to. Plus, the batteries are cheaper. In this case I picked up the camera used on ebay for like $50.

I think it is a good idea to shop for a used digital camera to take hiking, because mine got wet and dirty along the way even though I put it in a ziploc most of the time. If I had bought a new camera, it would have been broken in quite a bit by the end of my hike.

U-BOLT
10-29-2004, 03:26
A bit off topic, but I don't carry a camera at all. Not a weight issue, but a hassle issue. Have to take out the camera, focus the damn thing right, then after all is done, you forget to enjoy the view. I prefer to just hike and enjoy the views, and take pics with the internal film in my hard drive upstairs.

walkin' wally
10-29-2004, 05:52
Thanks for the info Grrickar.

I think my camera is outdated. The batteries take hours to charge. I like the idea of taking a lot of pictures without having to replace batteries so often like you have done. I think 430 pics is impressive.

I am using Energizer accu-rechageable batteries.

I am limited on storage capacity becauase I am using Smart Media for memory and the only goes up to 128MB I believe.

I need a reliable shutter mechanism.

I think I will look into a newer model and maybe a different brand.

Thanks

theurbansuburban
06-01-2005, 00:41
I've always used a mid-range 35 mm camera but found myself not taking pictures because I thought they might not come out good and whats the point of developing bad pictures. Because of this I'm saving up to get a "weather proof" olympus digital (found here (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=16&product=902)) that way I can choose which pictures I want developed. And I also like playing around with digital pictures in photoshop. Like making a dancing banana on top of Mt Springer :banana.

UCONNMike
06-01-2005, 00:59
camera specific question....did you carry and extra battery for your digital camera? if not did you carry the charger or put it in a bounce box

Heater
06-01-2005, 02:09
I have an older Olympus CamMedia C-700 Ultra Zoom that I use for taking pictures around here. It is only 2.1 Megapixel. 10x Zoom.

I won't be taking that on the trail with me. I'll get a newer, lighter, more rugged and preferably waterproof camera for the AT or PCT.

Peaks
06-01-2005, 07:49
While I carried a pocket 35mm camera on my thru-hike, if I were to replace it now, I would probably buy a digital camera. I recently read that 90% of cameras sold last year were digitals.

MOWGLI
06-01-2005, 08:23
In 2000 I was a digital camera skeptic. The batteries have come a long way in just a few short years. I couldn't imagine hiking with anything but a digital today. Film processing is expensive, and I can edit and crop my pictures easily with a digital.

Today I use a 2 year old Olympus Stylus 300 - weatherproof and 3.1 megapixels. I only push it to 2 MP. You can see alot of my shots at the BLOG link below.

Anyone interested in my Nikon N70 35MM SLR?

hiker5
06-01-2005, 09:09
Today I use a 2 year old Olympus Stylus 300 - weatherproof and 3.1 megapixels. I only push it to 2 MP. You can see alot of my shots at the BLOG link below.

This is something I never understoood. Why wouldn't you use the best resolution your camera offers? If you don't need the resolution why didn't you just buy a cheaper camera? When I bought my camera I decided to invest a little more money in buying a large compact flash card so I would never have to sacrifice quality for quantity. Unless it is under unusual circumstances (such as a hand me down camera), I just don't see why someone wouldn't want to get the most out of their investment.

MacGyver2005
06-01-2005, 09:53
I use a newer Canon Digital Elph PowerShot s410. It's 4MP, very light and compact, and takes amazing pictures. With the cost of a decent 35mm, all of the film, and development, I don't see any cost savings in not carrying a digital instead. There are plenty of places along the trail that have computers for you to review your shots, and places like Rite-Aid and Wal-Mart where you can get the pictures put on CD and send it home or to friends, without the high cost and time of making tons of reprints. I've taken over 500 pictures so far, and I'm not even half-way through the trip!

If you are going to carry a digital camera, and do not yet have one, do your homework! Don't be fooled into believing that mega-pixel ratings are the most important part. The processor of the camera is by far the biggest factor in getting good pictures. Nikon has some of the best out there, and Canon is respectable as well. Fuji is decent, but most other cameras skimp on the processor, so you don't get the best photos possible. I highly recommend the Canon PowerShot series, or the Nikon CoolPix series. Get a good sized memory card for the camera so you don't have to worry about running out of space for your pictures, and I recommend a spare battery just in case. If you shop around online you can get both for very little extra cost, and it is well worth it.

Regards,
-MacGyver
GA -->ME 2005

Footslogger
06-01-2005, 10:07
Get a good sized memory card for the camera so you don't have to worry about running out of space for your pictures, and I recommend a spare battery just in case. If you shop around online you can get both for very little extra cost, and it is well worth it.

Regards,
-MacGyver
GA -->ME 2005============================================
Just an alternate thought on the large memory card. If all goes well ...a single, large capacity memory card is a great thing. The downside is when the card gets damaged or becomes corrupted and can't be read. Then you can potentially lose your entire collection of pics from the trail. I weighed both options before my hike in 2003 and went with 6 of the smaller capacity media cards. I would mail them home where my wife would download them to the computer and burn a CD. She would then send the emptied card back to me. That system worked well and I never lost a shot.

Just another twist on the whole media card topic.

'Slogger
AT 2003

MOWGLI
06-01-2005, 10:08
This is something I never understoood. Why wouldn't you use the best resolution your camera offers? If you don't need the resolution why didn't you just buy a cheaper camera? When I bought my camera I decided to invest a little more money in buying a large compact flash card so I would never have to sacrifice quality for quantity. Unless it is under unusual circumstances (such as a hand me down camera), I just don't see why someone wouldn't want to get the most out of their investment.

It all depends on the application really. If I have a 128 MB flash card - which was all I had until a week ago - and I'm on a 5-day backpacking trip, shooting at the highest resolution will only allow me to take about 40 photos. I like to take more than 10 shots a day.

Also, if I'm only using the images for 4" x 4" posting on a website, why would I want or need to shot at the highest resolution? I rarely if ever print out my photos.

The need for a high resolution shot comes into play when I have a glorious scene worthy of an 8.5" x 11" photo - or a great PowerPoint slide. Or when I'm looking to zoom in on a flower and get some amazing detail. Otherwise, I have little need to push things to the max.

As for why wouldn't I have purchased a cheaper camera? I used some $$$ my former co-workers gave me when I resigned from Verizon after 19 years. So it was found money. The camera I bought was marketed as "weatherproof". That was the feature that sold me. Little else mattered to me at the time - cause frankly - I didn't know squat about digital cameras. I was an analog guy living in a digital world.

I hope that answers your question. It was a good one. BTW, I just purchased an extra battery and 256 MB flash card. Between my backup battery and card, that'll hold me for my planned 60-mile hike of the Colorado Trail this summer. I intend on shooting lots & lots of photos.

Lumberjack
06-01-2005, 10:43
I hope that this has not been covered yet in this thread but does anyone have any info on what to expect for rechargeable battery life for a digital camera? My camera goes through batteries very fast. They go dead just sitting unused in the camera. The recharger is relatively large and bulky. Are the newer cameras better for battery life?


Walkin Wally

This tends to happen when the camera gets dropped.....happened to my old one...no known fix for it , sorry

MacGyver2005
06-01-2005, 11:02
============================================
Just an alternate thought on the large memory card. If all goes well ...a single, large capacity memory card is a great thing. The downside is when the card gets damaged or becomes corrupted and can't be read. Then you can potentially lose your entire collection of pics from the trail. I weighed both options before my hike in 2003 and went with 6 of the smaller capacity media cards. I would mail them home where my wife would download them to the computer and burn a CD. She would then send the emptied card back to me. That system worked well and I never lost a shot.

Just another twist on the whole media card topic.

'Slogger
AT 2003
I understand that opinion, and to me it's six one, half-dozen the other. More cards may mean more security, or it may mean more chance of losing one. You would have to try pretty hard to damage a memory card, or be incredibly neglectful. And I trust myself more than I trust the Postal Service, as things getting lost in the mail scares me more than the chance of something getting broken. But a lot of folks have several cards, then send each one home when it is full and get it back down the road. It works well for them, I just have my reservations with the mail. I mentioned one large card, as it is, in most instances, cheaper to buy one large card than several smaller cards, and it is lighter. I should have mentioned this other option, and thanks for bringing it up!

Regards,
-MacGyver
GA -->ME 2005

Footslogger
06-01-2005, 11:29
I mentioned one large card, as it is, in most instances, cheaper to buy one large card than several smaller cards, and it is lighter. I should have mentioned this other option, and thanks for bringing it up!

Regards,
-MacGyver
GA -->ME 2005====================================
The more I think about it, if I ever hike the AT again (or any long distance trail for that matter) I might go the large capacity route and just have them downloaded to a CD as I went along on the trail. I personally never lost a card but I have to admit that sending them through the mail was taking a big risk.

'Slogger

Alligator
06-01-2005, 11:35
(Seems 'Slogger beat me to the draw.)

If you are concerned about losing cards in the mail while long distance hiking, keep a couple of blank CDR in the bounce box. I suspect that it is getting easier and easier to burn CDs along the trail, judging from the number of hikers checking in to WB while thru-hiking;). Most newer computers have a CD burner these days. Burn two disks and mail separately. With a spare battery and about 512MB of storage, it shouldn't be too difficult to get between resupply points and your cards are always with you.

Buckingham
07-11-2005, 15:55
I carry a digital now, but I've always carried a camera of some sort, usually whatever I could get my hands on. I've always hoped to get a great shot of a bear, but everytime I encounter one, my legs turn to Jello. By the time I escape the paralysis, and reach for my camera, the bear is always long gone. :datz

Kerosene
07-11-2005, 22:15
I purchased the Pentax Optio S5i (5 MP, 3X optical, 2" LCD, 3.5"x2"x0.75", 4.1 oz, $399) with a 1 GB SD card. Great little camera, with the sole exception of the LCD screen which tends to wash out in bright light. This thing is tiny and light enough to keep in a pants pocket. I got some great pictures on my last hike, and my daughter had some remarkably good pictures from her choir trip (of course, she took over 1,000 pictures and is subjecting me to viewing all of them with color commentary :().

hambone
07-13-2005, 11:25
I enjoy the process of taking pictures as much as viewing the results. I still use a 35 mm SLR; Minolta XG-M circa 1982. I carry it hiking, usually with a 70-210 mm zoom. If I am after wildlife shots I take along the big 300mm lens, which generally requires a tripod. I don't even want to think of the weight, but I tend to carry a lot of weight. I like hardcover books and full size binoculars as well.

I am after good shots that I enlarge and frame for my own amusement. I also have a small Olympus point-and-shoot 35 mm that is good for snapshots of the family without the hassle with lenses and such.

At work I use a new Nikon D70 digital SLR. The results are usually viewed on a computer, posted on a website, or used for illustrations in printed documents. A great camera, but I would not take it hiking.

I have actually taken some good shots with a Kodak disposable camera, but I find no joy in using disposables.

If you are looking for used camera equipment there is a good web-based company that I have used with satisfaction: http://www.KEH.com You can also sell equipment there.

Tha Wookie
07-13-2005, 13:00
I have posted some digitized slide photos on my website to sell archival quality large prints if anyone is interested.

http://thawookie.com/Limited%20Edition%20Prints/OregonCoastTrailWindows.htm

justusryans
07-13-2005, 13:34
I use a Sony Cybershot DSC-P200 6oz and will do either photo's or movie's. Is's 7.2 mega pixels. takes a good photo.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-04-2005, 19:36
We used a Pentax 35 mm with all the bell$ and whi$tles for many years. It did an excellent job. It lived in it's own little padded, waterproof case on the male dinos hip belt - meaning many shots were lost because of the time and movement involved in getting it out. We now use a weather resistant Olympus Stylus 300 digital - pretty much a point and shoot, but with a few nice features (auto settings for macro, night shooting, panoramic shooting, a remote so you can photograph yourself and a movie mode should we ever see a really nice bear or snake) It has a 1 GB DX card - that's enough memory to take about 1300 photos so we don't ever have to worry about taking as many shots as we want of all the beauty that is the AT. It lives in the male dino's front pocket most of the time while we are hiking, but has a waterproof case for bad weather.

jackiebolen
08-05-2005, 00:50
I have the new Pentax Waterproof 5 MP camera and really enjoy it. Check out the link below for some pics I've taken with it.

Stale Cracker
08-05-2005, 13:30
This is a question that I struggle with everytime I pack. Should I carry the Minolta 35 mm with its tripod or not? How many lenses should I take? As Peaks says it depends on what sort of pictures you want to take. If you are looking for a simple record of places and people that you run into along the way then the simpler the better. Digital should save you money on film processing and I would certainly say that as much digital as you have taste and budget for would be a good deal. On the other hand if you imagine (as I only "imagine" at this point) that you are going to bring back an image that captures all of the experience - emotion, texture, taste and smell, then you will probably end up, like I do, dragging 3 or 4 pounds of gear up the trail. I mean you need slow film so you need a tripod. The Tamron compact telephoto zoom is a compormise that I usually make so I only carry one lense but nevertheless, it adds up. I just got back from Rainier National Park and it was, I think, worth it. I'll post photos soon.

Right now I am trying a case that will fit on my waist belt and not be too much in the way. I usually carry the camera in my pack which limits impromptu shots with the Slick light weight tripod strapped on the outside.