PDA

View Full Version : Camera



Matt Pincham
12-29-2003, 09:10
Hello All,

Was just wondering what your views are on cameras. Do you or did you take one on your thru-hike? (or day/section hikes).

I'm thinking of getting a relatively small one and mailing the films home but I'm not sure if I can be bothered with the weight and hassle.
I'm sure it will be great to look back in years to come, but at the same time, surely it would just be even better to hike again :)

I've been browsing a lot of the member galleries etc and some of the photos taken are fantastic. What types of cameras did any of you guys use?

Thanks for your time
Matt

bearbag hanger
12-29-2003, 11:10
Hello All,

Was just wondering what your views are on cameras. Do you or did you take one on your thru-hike? (or day/section hikes).

I'm thinking of getting a relatively small one and mailing the films home but I'm not sure if I can be bothered with the weight and hassle.
I'm sure it will be great to look back in years to come, but at the same time, surely it would just be even better to hike again :)

I've been browsing a lot of the member galleries etc and some of the photos taken are fantastic. What types of cameras did any of you guys use?

Thanks for your time
Matt
I use a Canon S100 digital camera. Had it for about four years now and am very happy with it. It only weights about 8 oz, which is close to the smaller, cheap nonreusable film cameras. It's not waterproof which means I can't use it when it's raining. But there are digital camera's out there now that are fairly rain proof.

I would hightly recommend going digital. Film is, in the end, very expensive. I generally get maybe one good shot out of ten attempts. With digital, you just delete the bad ones and reuse the "digitial film". But, if you go digital, you have a lot of decisions to make, with film not so many. What pixel size do you want (more is better), what type digital film do you want (recommend CompactFlash, stay away from Memory Stick), and so on. Printing digital pictures is easy, showing them at a slide show is a bit more difficult, but if you have the money, not that hard.

This is only a recomendation. I promise not to get mad or upset with anyone who doesn't like my ideas. Please don't yell at me!

c.coyle
12-29-2003, 12:15
Was just wondering what your views are on cameras. Do you or did you take one on your thru-hike? (or day/section hikes)

I've been browsing a lot of the member galleries etc and some of the photos taken are fantastic. What types of cameras did any of you guys use?

I'm an old 35 mm SLR and Kodachrome snob from the 70's, but I've completely changed my outlook on hiking photography since I bought a Kodak DX4330 digital. Most hiking shots are grab shots, so you can usually get away with a point & shoot, built-in flash, and a built-in zoom lense. Much lighter than an SLR. Giving up aperture, shutter, and focus control isn't a problem on 99% of hiking shots I take.

Advantages of digital: No film to buy, develop, load and unload (a pain in the cold or rain). See your pictures immediately and trash the bad ones. Only print what you want printed. Easy to e-mail and upload. 64 or 128 meg flash cards are cheap and hold lots of photos. Don't have to carry filters and polarizers, the software does it for you. Photo quality, at 3.2 mega pixels resolution, yields grain free (pixel free?) wallpaper shots on my 17" monitor. Cheaper in the long run to own and operate.

Disadvantages: Crammed with electronics, so moisture is a constant worry. Battery life in some is short, although the DX4330 lithium battery lasts a long time if you turn the camera off between shots.

hungryhowie
12-29-2003, 12:29
Hello All,

Was just wondering what your views are on cameras. Do you or did you take one on your thru-hike? (or day/section hikes).

Absolutely! I used disposable cameras the entire time and the one thing that I regret about my thruhike is not using a better camera to help capture better photos.

Today, I'd recommend going digital. You can get small, fairly light cameras that are quite suitable for backpacking. Canon makes the digital Elph series (the s400 is the most recent version - 4mp, ~8oz, ~$450, and really really small), Sony's V1 (5mp, ~10oz, ~$600) is still pretty small but adds a ton of creative control. If you want the ultimate in image quality, control, and flexibility, you'll have to invest "heavily" (both ways) in a DSLR and lenses - I'm saving up for Canon's new Digital Rebel (6.3mp CMOS, 19oz, ~$900) and a couple of lenses (17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L - a total of about 3 pounds and $1500) This should finally satisfy my photography needs in the backcountry. I'm having (once again) to slash my packweight and add a sturdier pack to make up for the 5 pound difference.

If you want to stay with film (absolutely nothing wrong with this), I've been using the Olympus Stylus Epic for a couple of years as my hiking camera and have been quite happy. It has a fairly fast and capable lens (28/2.8) and I've captured some excellent landscapes with it. The gold standard for film point and shoots has always been the Yashica T4 - absolutely hands down, the best point and shoot camera EVER. If you go film and don't mind splurging just a bit (~400), you won't be disappointed with this little gem. Of course, you can still go 35mm SLR for less weight and cost than going DSLR, Canon's Elan series or film Rebel series would be a good option here.

For more info than you ever cared to find out, www.dpreview.com is the place to go for anything digital camera.

-Howie

Kerosene
12-29-2003, 12:35
All of the pictures I've taken from the past four years (and posted) were with a disposable Kodak camera (3.5 ounces, plus an ounce if you add a flash which is really only useful if you're taking pictures of the shelter). To save scanning time I order the prints on CD. Here's a recent example, slightly re-touched by the photo improvement software: <click here> (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1734&size=big&password=&sort=1&cat=556)

My biggest gripe is that a third of my pictures aren't keepers, and another third would be better if I took them again. I'd love to go digital but I'm waiting for the weight to drop a few ounces (inclusive of a 3X optical zoom), the battery life to improve, and I'm wrestling with how to keep water out.

chief
12-29-2003, 12:35
I use a canon elph 2. Exactly the size of a pack of short smokes. Like a lot of people, I'm thinking of switching to digital. A friend of mine got a 3 meg digital for xmas that's even smaller than my elph. Sorry, I don't have the details.

What I found after my hike in 2000, I didn't get nearly enough pics of people I met. I got lots of view shots and they are no different than anyone else's view shots. Next time i hike the AT (or any other long hike), I will save my photography for people I meet along the trail.

Kerosene
12-29-2003, 12:37
I have the same problem that Chief does: I take too many pictures of scenery and not enough of people. I was a little better this last trip, but I still didn't take pictures of two companions who I stayed with.

Jaybird
12-29-2003, 12:42
Matt:

good question!

there are as many answers as there are thru-hikers on any given April day on the trail....hehehehehehe :p

i guess, just like your backpack, its a personal preference...

i've used Kodak single-use cameras in the past...developed the film when i got back from my section-hikes....& the photos were always a great reminder of what a GREAT time i had on the trail.....

BUT, this time, i plan on taking my Argus digital 5 mega-pixel camera with me. (section hike April/May 2004) it only weights 8 oz....& on avg.quality setting...i can get approx 700 shots.


there are digital cams now that weigh as low as 3.9 oz. & are credit card thin that fit in your shirt pocket.

good luck....look foward to seeing your photos in the MEMBER GALLERIES!

see U up da trail!

weary
12-29-2003, 13:22
I've gotten a lot of pleasure out of showing my 35 mm slides from my 1993 walk to various groups, and I periodically show slides on behalf of our town land trust, so I continue to stick with film.

A digital projector still costs in the $2,000 range, negating any financial benefit from going digital. For comparable quality, digital cameras, though dropping in price fast, are still significantly more expensive also.

I worry also about recharging batteries on a long distance hike. That's relatively easy along parts of the trail, but towns remain relatively scarce in Maine.

Anyway, my current camera is a 35 mm Olympus Point and Shoot, 35-140 zoom.

Weary

Kyle & Lisa
12-29-2003, 15:09
Matt--

Since you are mainly concerned about the hassle and weight I gather you would just like something that takes decent pictures, but not necessarily professional ones. You could go with the disposable, which is cheap, little hassle, and not much weight.

My suggestion is the digital Oregon Scientific Thincam DS6628. It is only 1.3 Mega Pixel, so it's not a professional camera (but then again, there's only professional photographers, not cameras). It weighs 40grams! It is 86x54x8mm (about the size of a credit card and as thick as three cards stacked together). It holds 91 640x480 shots or 21 1280x1024 shots with its 16MB memory. Has Macro mode, Memory card slot . . .check it out at www.oregonscientific.com. Not the highest quality, but man is it convenient. You can get for about $100 now. Last years version is even cheaper.

Kyle

weary
12-29-2003, 15:33
PC magazine on line has what I found to be an interesting analysis of digital cameras. It can be found at:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1418655,00.asp

Alligator
12-29-2003, 16:28
Hi folks. Santa was good to me this year and brought me a digital camera, the Pentax Optio S. Well, sort of, he didn't drop it off on Christmas Eve, but sent it ground. It should be at my door today or tomorrow. It can actually fit behind a credit card or in an altoids tin, has 3.2 MP and a 3X optical zoom. Found it for $300.00 (Special deal from, please don't get irate, the store with the yellow smiley dude) and it comes with a 256 card and mini tripod. I did get the tripod already, it is lighter than the miniature one I have now. I tried the camera out in the store, it is wicked small and weighs around 4 oz. It does have a proprietary battery, so for a thru-hiker, a spare battery would be necessary, plus the recharger would need to be put in a bounce box. Two memory cards might be needed also. Maybe some of this years thrus could comment on any challenges of digital cameras they had. I also know that there are several other cameras of comparable size and quality around this price, plus better quality cameras for slightly more.

I previously carried a manual SLR 35 mm and beginners favorite Pentax K1000. It takes really good pictures but is, shall we say, f&%#ing heavy. I have a compact soft case to carry it on my chest. It does not have a timer. As others have noted, I have lots of great pictures of scenery but not many of me, or me and my hiking buddy. It's nice to have a camera with a self-timer, which is pretty standard on most non-disposable cameras. I stopped bringing it because of the weight, although I did carry it for years and considered it a luxury item.

Peaks
12-29-2003, 19:50
Just to summarize,

Like all gear, there is no conscentous on which camera or type of camera is best. You see all types out there, including disposables, point and shoot, full size SLR with all the extras, and digital.

The first thing you need to figure out is what type of pictures do you want to take. If all you want is snapshots, then a disposable will work just fine.

Cameras like the Olympus Stylus Zoom are compact and take good qualtity pictures. Because I use slides, that's what I carried. I got the water resistant model. One disadvantage now is that slide film is not readily available. It's hard to find along the trail, so I included film in my mail drops.

Digital cameras are getting better and cheaper. Historically, the problem has been low battery life. However, that has improved dramatically the last couple of years. Certainly if I were to replace my camera today, I would need to consider going digital.

cabalot
12-29-2003, 22:12
i used to carry a disposable, now i have an olympus 400 digital. 4 mega pixel. weatherproof, 6.8 oz.
it only comes with a 16mb card so i ordered a 256mb and a spare battery.
great camera, even comes with a remote to take pics of yourself when soloing.

Matt Pincham
12-30-2003, 05:55
Thanks for all the replies guys.

One concern I have is the cost of mailing films or disposables home. Airmailing all the way to the UK isn't cheap so I'm not sure which option will be best for me. I also, do not intend to use maildrops as co-ordinating them from the UK will also be hassle for my parents.

Kyle, you got it right about not wanting professional photos. My girlfriend took photography so she may want a decent camera but for myself, I'm just looking to get photos for the memories.

I think the cheapest option will probably be to buy a 'normal' camera and mail the films home individually. I love this whole digital idea but it's a bit pricey, maybe in a few years time.

PS Nice shot Kerosene...with a disposable too :clap

Right I'm off to make my first ever Pepsi Can Stove. Wish me Luck :p
Matt

MadAussieInLondon
12-30-2003, 06:21
matt, just get a large enough memory card (a 256 of 512mb card last you all the way!). thats what I plan on doing. 2x256 or 1x512mb card in my digital camera... that is HEAPS of photos.

i usually take my photos as 1280x960. i may downsize that a bit to save more, thats 480 on a 256mb card, or 960 on a 512mb card. saying 6 months, thats 5 per day, every day for 180 days.

in a higher res i get 320 on a 256mb, 640 on a 512mb=>3 per day for 180days. really, thats overkill resolution.

downgrading to 640x480, thats 16mb for 155, 1840 for 256, 3680 for 512mb... anything under 128mb is probably too small i think.

640x480 give fine 6x4 prints
1280x960 gives me awesome 7x5 and 8x6 prints...

Patco
02-09-2004, 22:47
I have a compact soft case to carry it on my chest.

:confused: I really need a quick access, water proof pouch to carry my camera in. I've seen some on the hip belt and some in 'fanny pack' carriers. What's the best and where can I find such a thing? Wildlife moves fast and if you're not quick enough it'll be gone before you're erady to snap the shot.

Happy
02-09-2004, 23:11
I bought my 3oz. fanny pack at the thrift store for $2. Quick access to camera, snacks and other items...or just buy a pouch from REI, etc. and sew it to your hipbelt.

Uncle Wayne
02-10-2004, 02:33
Matt,

Almost all of my photos in the Whiteblaze gallery were taken with an Olympus Stylus 300 Digital camera. It is weather resistant. Last summer during an 18 day trip I took 1400+ pictures using the lowest resolution with only 3 batteries. The proprietary battery is the weakest link in this camera but it is rechargeable. So getting through Maine or anywhere else where you couldn't recharge wouldn't be a problem with a little planning. We emailed 150 of the digital photos to Wal-Mart for 4 x 6 prints and the quality was excellent.

And you don't need a $2000 digital slide projector to share your photos either. I found a shareware version of a slide show that allows me to burn my photos to a CDR or CDRW and show my photos using almost any dvd player over almost any TV.

One things for sure with a digital camera you'll take more photos. You can double check to make sure you got the shot you wanted before you leave the spot, you don't have to pay for the bad shots and in our online world, digital makes it so much easier to share your photos. You can even doctor them with the right software.

Remember your thru hike will possibly be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Do you want to risk the shot of a lifetime and not know until weeks or months later whether you captured it on film? For almost all of my 14 years with the Boy Scouts I used an Olympus Stylus 35mm film camera. But there were several rolls that came back from the developer with bad prints. Some were due to error on my part, some on poor development process and once I lost two complete rolls due to grit being in the gasket around the camera where I loaded the film. The grit let in just enough light to ruin my photos. So there are no guarantees with film cameras either.

IMO, except for the initial investment, there are not as many advantages to film over digital anymore. Good luck with your camera decision Matt and on your thru hike. Whatever you choose, practice with it at home before you take it on the trail. Maybe we'll meet on the trail somewhere this year.

Reverie
02-10-2004, 11:02
Matt
I carry at least one camera when I hike. It really depends upon the length of the hike more than anything. Like a lot of people here I am a convert to digital photography. My camera of choice is a Canon G2. It is ruggad and depednable but it weighs a bit more than a more recent design. If I were to select a digital camera for the trail today I would look for these specifications:

1. At least 4 Megapixels. 5 is better. 6 is fabulous.
2. Compact Flash storage (easy to use, rugged, available) at least 256 MB.
Two Lithium-Ion Batteries. Keep one charged and have someone sending you a charged battery. Alternately, put the charger in your bounce box and hope you can always find a place to plug it in. Wish they made a solar charger...
3. Water proof or at least resistant.
4. A timer (you want to be in a picture once in a while and it always seems like nobody is around to take the picture).
5. Damn good optics. Don't go for a brand-x because their lenses just don't do a good job.

Get your camera and practice, practice, practice. I shoot everyone and everything. I use Photoshop to work with my photos but typically only use it to resize and/or reduce my image quality to email the photo.

Get the National Geographic field photography guide and read it. It really helps.

Reverie

deeddawg
02-10-2004, 12:34
Wish they made a solar charger...

Perhaps a little heavy but...

http://www.youreq.com/outdooreq/camping/power/brunton/solarport-4-4.asp?bhcp=1

or: http://www.youreq.com/outdooreq/camping/power/brunton/solarroll-14.asp?bhcp=1

Matt Pincham
02-11-2004, 11:34
Thanks for the replies guys.

I think I'm going to go for the Olympus Stylus (or MJU as it's called here...the guy in the camera shop gave me a blank look when I said Stylus :-? ). Either the 300 or 400.

One thing I was thinking, was to buy it when I get to the States. Obviously this doesn't give me the opportunity to practice, but these darn things are SO expensive over here. The memory is twice the price also.

What d'ya reckon? Buy the camera in the States and just mess about with it for the first few days? I'm sure working out a camera isn't rocket science...or is it?

Why oh Why does this country have to be so expensive. Dollar rates up to about 1.85 at the moment too so I'll get more for my pounds when I'm out there.

c.coyle
02-11-2004, 13:37
What d'ya reckon? Buy the camera in the States and just mess about with it for the first few days? I'm sure working out a camera isn't rocket science...or is it?

No, it isn't. Buy it here if it's cheaper. You'll figure it out in an hour, tops.

Rain Man
02-11-2004, 14:18
No, it isn't. Buy it here if it's cheaper. You'll figure it out in an hour, tops.

This made me laugh and groan at the same time. I've seen lots of pics by lots of people who seem to have this attitude. NOT that I know if c.coyle does.

Please beware. Good photography isn't something you figure out in a hour. It takes, at least, a lot of astute practice and often luck.

So, buy it here... but practice, practice, practice. You might want to take a photography course over there, even if you're buying the camera here.

Anyway, my two cents. :)

Rain Man

.

MOWGLI
02-11-2004, 14:39
I think I'm going to go for the Olympus Stylus (or MJU as it's called here...the guy in the camera shop gave me a blank look when I said Stylus :-? ). Either the 300 or 400.


What d'ya reckon? Buy the camera in the States and just mess about with it for the first few days? I'm sure working out a camera isn't rocket science...or is it?

I own the Stylus 300 camera. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much a PHD camera (Push Here Dummy).

My first set of photos had a bit of camera shake, but since then, the camera has been great. You can figure out the camera in an hour (easily), although, as Rainman points out, you won't be Ansel Adams.


In other words, buy it in the States, and save the cash for pizza & beer (or ice cream).

knightjh
02-11-2004, 15:25
Lots of good reply's on this topic take it from someone who has taken A LOT of pictures you need to get comfortable with your camera (digitial, "single use" SLR) or what ever. if you do go Digital that allows you to get more comfortable with your camera and only take up batteries, not film and processing / printing expense
Good luck

c.coyle
02-12-2004, 08:36
This made me laugh and groan at the same time. I've seen lots of pics by lots of people who seem to have this attitude. NOT that I know if c.coyle does.

Please beware. Good photography isn't something you figure out in a hour. It takes, at least, a lot of astute practice and often luck.

So, buy it here... but practice, practice, practice. You might want to take a photography course over there, even if you're buying the camera here.


I know I make people laugh. I know I make them groan. I must be getting better. I can now do both simultaneously.

I understood Matt to be asking how quickly he could learn to operate a point 'n shoot camera, not necessarily take good photos with it. An hour's enough.

Matt, if you want to learn to consistently take well-composed, well-lit, interesting photos by the time you shove off, Rain Man is right - it's already too late. But, don't despair. Get a big memory card (and spare batteries), and fire away. Photograph things and people who interest you. Take tons of photos, and don't worry. You won't be Arbus or Stieglitz by the time you hit Katahdin, but you'll end up with lots of good shots.

Matt Pincham
02-12-2004, 09:37
Cheers Guys.

What's the battery life like on the Stylus 300 and 400 then? Where do you get to recharge anyway?

MOWGLI
02-12-2004, 10:39
Cheers Guys.

What's the battery life like on the Stylus 300 and 400 then? Where do you get to recharge anyway?

In cold weather, it drains the battery quickly - really quickly. I had no problem taking 70 photos over a 6 day hike recently. You have to make sure that the lens cover stays closed however. It can tend to open up on you, and when it does, it's eating batteries.



Where do you recharge? In town or in a hostel. You could probably purchase a spare battery in addition to a spare memory card. I use a 128 MB memory card (it comes with a 16 MB ard). At a resolution of 700K, the bigger card holds over 150 photos.

Nightwalker
02-15-2004, 05:12
I understood Matt to be asking how quickly he could learn to operate a point 'n shoot camera, not necessarily take good photos with it. An hour's enough.

Some of it, you may be born with.

In '77, when I was interviewing to get into a photography school. The instructor who was interviewing me picked out one of the shots in my portfolio and explained the creative process involved in getting that shot.

I had no idea what he was talking about!

I'm no great photographer, but I really like to take pictures. That probably helps more than anything.

Here's a few. (http://community.webshots.com/user/franklooper)

Frank

Matt Pincham
02-20-2004, 08:24
Hello Chaps,

Just an update.

I checked prices in the UK and prices in the US and decided there wasnt much difference in price so thought I'd buy my one over here. I opted for the Olympus Stylus 300 (or MJU 300 as it's called here) as recommended by Uncle Wayne and others. I'll probably be getting it sometime next week so will let you all know what I think of it.

Thanks for all your help...now it's time to get some cheap memory off eBay :D

Uncle Wayne
02-20-2004, 16:14
Hello Chaps,

Just an update.

I checked prices in the UK and prices in the US and decided there wasnt much difference in price so thought I'd buy my one over here. I opted for the Olympus Stylus 300 (or MJU 300 as it's called here) as recommended by Uncle Wayne and others. I'll probably be getting it sometime next week so will let you all know what I think of it.

Thanks for all your help...now it's time to get some cheap memory off eBay :D
Matt,

I bought my camera off of eBay and found a good deal with an extra battery and an extra 128 mb memory card. Shipping included for $300. Shipping to the UK might eat you alive though. Good luck.

cabalot
02-21-2004, 03:46
Cheers Guys.

What's the battery life like on the Stylus 300 and 400 then? Where do you get to recharge anyway?

matt,
i have a stylus 400. it is awesome. lots of features. easy to use. great pics at 4.0 Mp.

it only comes with a 16MB picture card. that is about 6 pics at max resolution. not much for a backpacker. i bought the 256meg card i get 90 pics at max resolution.

battery life can vary depending on how often you use the flash and how many pics you take and how long the battery was stored. the camera comes with one rechargeable battery and the recharger that plugs into a wall socket. you can buy a car ciggarett lighter charger separate. i bought a spare battery on the internet for $30. :banana

Footslogger
02-21-2004, 12:32
I have never hiked any distance without a camera. My logic is that if I don't bring one ...that will be the hike where I see something that I want a picture of.

Prior to my thru-hike in 2003 I always carried a small weatherproof film camera (35mm). When I was planning my 2003 hike I looked into digital cameras and got hooked. I bought a digital camera that weighed around 6 oz and carried it in a small (pint sized) freezer strength ziplock bag. I went with several 32 mbyte media cards. I would fill a media card and send it home, where my wife would upload the pics and send back the empty card. That system worked great and I now have a fantastic collection of shots on CD from my hike. I toyed with the idea of carrying a single large capacity media card (say 128 mbyte or larger) but didn't want to have all my cookies in one basket, so to speak. I figured that if the one large media card got damaged or corrupted I would lose my entire photo collection. Then again ...I know several hikers who did carry the larger media cards and had no problems. It's all about what you feel comfortable with.

Batteries are another thought. With a film camera you can most likely get by with a single set of batteries whereas with a digital you go through batteries at a much faster rate. The good news is that the Nimh (nickel metal hydrate) rechargeable batteries have great life and are easy to recharge. I carried a small 5 oz recharger that required around 2 hours to bring the batteries back to a full power level. I did carry a second set of charged batteries with me, just in case. But, I can honestly say that I never needed to change over to the back-up batteries on the trail. I would always reach a town, hostel or restuarant where I could pop the batteries in the charger before they ran totally out of juice.

Bottom line though is that if I had it to do all over again I would still carry the digital camera. You see your shot imediately and know whether to delete and take another one. You don't have to pay to develop your shots and you can print only the ones you really want on paper (after your hike) for around .28 a picture.

Anyway ...just my experience.

nlaing
02-23-2004, 10:33
Matt
I carry at least one camera when I hike. It really depends upon the length of the hike more than anything. Like a lot of people here I am a convert to digital photography. My camera of choice is a Canon G2. It is ruggad and depednable but it weighs a bit more than a more recent design. If I were to select a digital camera for the trail today I would look for these specifications:

1. At least 4 Megapixels. 5 is better. 6 is fabulous.
2. Compact Flash storage (easy to use, rugged, available) at least 256 MB.
Two Lithium-Ion Batteries. Keep one charged and have someone sending you a charged battery. Alternately, put the charger in your bounce box and hope you can always find a place to plug it in. Wish they made a solar charger...
3. Water proof or at least resistant.
4. A timer (you want to be in a picture once in a while and it always seems like nobody is around to take the picture).
5. Damn good optics. Don't go for a brand-x because their lenses just don't do a good job.

Get your camera and practice, practice, practice. I shoot everyone and everything. I use Photoshop to work with my photos but typically only use it to resize and/or reduce my image quality to email the photo.

Get the National Geographic field photography guide and read it. It really helps.

ReverieJust a note to those who are interested. A 3.2 mega pixel camera can take a resolution sufficent to blow up to an 8x10 at photo quality. Anything more, unless printing posters, is unnecessary. Plus, as higher resolution cameras are coming onto the market, these lower resolution (3.2) cameras are showing up on ebay for cheap.

Reverie
02-23-2004, 12:16
The reason I believe that more megapixels is better is that I usually wind up reformatting my picture after I get back. Sometimes I shift the size or the focus of the picture. If you start with a 3 megapixel picture, then crop it, you can get pixellated or jagged results. I do agree that a 3.2 megapixel camera should be sufficient for most shots.

It really boils down to these factors:
What type of shots do you take? (Snapshots, Artsy, Closeups)
What will you do with the pictures? (Just keeping a personal diary, printing them for display)
How much money do you have?
How rugged is the camera?

Just my opinions, your results may vary...

Reverie

Matt Pincham
02-26-2004, 06:23
Hi Guys,

As I said, I went with the 3.2 megapixel Olympus Stylus 300. Been playing around with it for the past few days and I've also ordered a new battery and 2 x 256Mb cards (loads of photos :) )

It seems easy to use and pretty tough too. I'm going on a practice hike this weekend round some lovely scenery so will try it out on nature as opposed to taking pic sin my house.

Also I think I'll take a pic of my girlfriend and myself so I can upload it onto WhiteBlaze. That way you guys will be able to spot my ugly mug on the trail if you see me :D

nlaing
02-27-2004, 08:44
The reason I believe that more megapixels is better is that I usually wind up reformatting my picture after I get back. Sometimes I shift the size or the focus of the picture. If you start with a 3 megapixel picture, then crop it, you can get pixellated or jagged results. I do agree that a 3.2 megapixel camera should be sufficient for most shots.

It really boils down to these factors:
What type of shots do you take? (Snapshots, Artsy, Closeups)
What will you do with the pictures? (Just keeping a personal diary, printing them for display)
How much money do you have?
How rugged is the camera?

Just my opinions, your results may vary...

Reverie
Actually, now that I think about it, sometimes when I've taken pictures in low light situations, and had to use photoshop to push the picture back into the "visible" range by increasing the brightness and contrast, the picture has been of lower quality. The more information (megapixel) you have, the more you can push the picture (or crop it down). The only thing you have to consider is that the higher the resolution, the more room it is going to take up. Memory cards in the 256/512 range, that are needed to hold the larger images, can be expensive. I just bought a cheaper 256 mb card for $70. That can hold around 120-140 3.2 mb shots. Sorry for the rambling.

weary
02-27-2004, 10:51
Please beware. Good photography isn't something you figure out in a hour. It takes, at least, a lot of astute practice and often luck.
Rain Man

I agree with the luck. And with the need for practice. I've been practicing for 65 years and still am not satisfied. I shot up more than 80, 36-exposure rolls on the trail in 1993. Out of the 3,000 slides, I pulled out 240 that I consider worth showing.

That also is the secret to good photography. Thru hikers tend to treasure every shot. Believe me, their audiences don't. The hardest part of trail photography occurs at home, when you have to cull your work to the few that will hold a viewers attention.

I've seen enormous albums at hiker gatherings mostly ignored or looked at with polite boredom because the producers didn't take the time to hone their offerings.

Having said that, let me offer a few suggestions. A great joy of backpacking are the wide open vistas of distant mountains. Most make terrible pictures. On the trail, the eye focuses on the grandeur. Translated to a piece of paper or a projector screen it's mostly lost. The secret is framing to focus the viewer's eye -- a tree branch, foreground rocks, anything that helps the viewer see what you saw on the trail.

Variety. Distant views should be only a small part of an interesting album. Focus on people doing things. Focus on flowers, the turtle crossing the trail, three pigs in a farmers pen, a fascinating rock pattern, a millipede on a tree trunk.

A good trail album or slide show should be a microcosm of what the hiker sees on the trail. Thinking about the variety of images, also adds to hiker enjoyment of the trail. Many complain of the "long green tunnel" that they claim is the AT. It's much more than that. There are an endless variety of fascinating things in the tunnel if hikers only learn to look.

Weary

Rain Man
02-27-2004, 11:14
I agree with the luck. And with the need for practice. I've been practicing for 65 years and still am not satisfied. I shot up more than 80, 36-exposure rolls on the trail in 1993. Out of the 3,000 slides, I pulled out 240 that I consider worth showing.

That also is the secret to good photography. Thru hikers tend to treasure every shot. Believe me, their audiences don't. The hardest part of trail photography occurs at home, when you have to cull your work to the few that will hold a viewers attention.
...
Having said that, let me offer a few suggestions. A great joy of backpacking are the wide open vistas of distant mountains. Most make terrible pictures.

I apologize, but I'm gonna do an "I agree" post. Weary is absolutely right. For a professional photographer to get that fantastic shot that winds up on the magazing cover, he/she takes hundreds (if not thousands) of shots, to get one great one. Amatuers think each shot is supposed to be great.

Also, vista shots do so often make terrible photographs on paper, so just expect that. Not much you can do about it with the lightweight equipment you can backpack. Take some vista pictures for yourself, but don't blame yourself too much when they don't recreate the rush you felt seeing the scene from the mountaintop.

Rain Man

.

deeddawg
02-27-2004, 11:22
The more information (megapixel) you have, the more you can push the picture (or crop it down).Not to nitpick, but higher megapixel count doesn't really affect the degree to which you can fix underexposure issues. Yes, I suppose comparing a 2mp to 6mp camera you would end up with finer-grained noise which would look better, but if you're comparing between 3 and 4mp cameras or 4 and 5mp cameras the ~12-15% differences in linear resolution shouldn't make any noticeable difference (all else being equal). What I think may be an overriding factor in the current crop of 5mp and higher compact cameras is that they're cramming a LOT of pixels into a very small sensor, which is giving higher base noise levels -- look at some of the reviews comparing nearly identical models except for bumping the sensor from 4mp to 5mp to see this.

As for enlargements and cropping, yes you gain some benefit but not as much as the marketing folks would have you think. Printed at the same pixels-per-inch resolution, a 4mp image as compared to a 3mp image will be 15% wider and 15% taller. Comparing 5mp to 4mp, you get 12% wider and 12% taller. While this can make a difference in some situations, it doesn't make nearly as much as many would think. As for cropping, it's usually much better to frame the image correctly before taking the picture.

Weary's advice is golden -- the one thing I'll add to it is that one of the differences between snapshots and good photographs is that the photographer will assess the scene BEFORE whipping out the camera. He or she will look at different angles, how to compose an interesting photograph that will capture the viewer's attention and emotion, and to large extent visualize how the photograph should look. THEN the photographer brings out the camera. More often, the snapshooter whips out the camera, points it around until something looks okay in the viewfinder, then presses the button to take the snapshot. And with twenty-odd years of messing with cameras I still end up with more snapshots than photographs; but I keep working at it. :)

Kerosene
02-27-2004, 12:51
One other point to add to Weary's excellent advice on trying to take a picture of grand view: don't bother when there's a lot of haze or the light isn't right. Unless you have a great camera and are a great photographer, you'll just have to keep the inherent grandeur of the vista locked away in your head. I've always been disappointed with my results in these situations.

Jaybird
02-28-2004, 09:21
...................... vista shots do so often make terrible photographs on paper, so just expect that. Not much you can do about it with the lightweight equipment you can backpack. Take some vista pictures for yourself, but don't blame yourself too much when they don't recreate the rush you felt seeing the scene from the mountaintop.
Rain Man.


Yo Rainman:

i have to weigh in on this one.....a PERFECT example of your "vista shots making terrible photographs..."

is the Grand Canyon!

i spent 10 days there a few years ago....& after seeing pictures, posters, slides, books on the Grand Canyon & its splendor....you just can't capture the "IN-PERSON" view or experience.

I think you're right....enjoy the views from the mountain-tops & vistas...but dont expect the shots from your "throw-away cameras" to be ANSEL ADAMS quality when you get them developed!

Sad butTRUE! :(

schrochem
03-01-2004, 17:05
If you want the ultimate in image quality, control, and flexibility, you'll have to invest "heavily" (both ways) in a DSLR and lenses - I'm saving up for Canon's new Digital Rebel (6.3mp CMOS, 19oz, ~$900) and a couple of lenses (17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L - a total of about 3 pounds and $1500) This should finally satisfy my photography needs in the backcountry. I'm having (once again) to slash my packweight and add a sturdier pack to make up for the 5 pound difference.

Howie,
Don't know if you'll get this, but I was wondering if you went ahead and got that setup. Been thinking the same thing, but then saw the PRO-1 and may, I repeat "may" go that route for an all in one solution. First view review here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/pro1.html
Scott

hungryhowie
03-01-2004, 18:29
Howie,
Don't know if you'll get this, but I was wondering if you went ahead and got that setup. Been thinking the same thing, but then saw the PRO-1 and may, I repeat "may" go that route for an all in one solution. First view review here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/pro1.html
Scott

For an all-in-one setup, it's not a bad solution. It is certainly in the better than average range for digicams. I was into the Sony F717 (and 828) before Canon announced the DRebel, but decided that I wanted the quality of DSLR and CMOS. Likewise, The Nikon D70 has more features than the DReb, and is probably a better camera all around...except image quality. Nikon is much noisier than Canon, and I just don't want that. Otherwise, I'd snap up a D70 in a heart beat.

Have I gotten it yet? Ha! You must not know that I'm a poor working college student, and that when I say I'm saving, that means that the DRebel version 2 or 3 will be out by the time I can afford it. $3K is a big investment for a student (1K for camera, 1K for lenses, 1K for memory/accessories). Maybe by Christmas...

-Howie

schrochem
03-01-2004, 20:19
Have I gotten it yet? Ha! You must not know that I'm a poor working college student, and that when I say I'm saving, that means that the DRebel version 2 or 3 will be out by the time I can afford it. $3K is a big investment for a student (1K for camera, 1K for lenses, 1K for memory/accessories). Maybe by Christmas...

-Howie

1K for the lenses you mentioned I hope would be in the used market. I have the DSC-F707 currently among other cameras. Great camera, I must say. But there are some advanced features I would like to have in a smaller package and the DReb is a contender. Histogram and RAW output are some things I like to see. I would probably take only one lense myself if I went the DReb route. My shooting style is more narrow as opposed to wide angle. I have a LF system that I take backpacking that I have pared down to 13lbs :) Hahahaha around here that is SUPER heavy, but for LF that is pretty darn light.
If you haven't heard of this online store http://www.badgergraphic.com/ , I can vouch for them...good guys with good prices. The Dreb body is $810.
Scott

jec6613
03-01-2004, 21:54
Just a comment, but when going through my grandfather's photo album we threw out anything that didn't have a person in it. It makes the hike far more memorable and the picture more worthwhile if, when you take the picture, in the foreground you have a member(s) of your party off to the side or even framed in the middle. This way, when you flip through the pictures, now only do you remember the natural beauty but you also remember the fun you had on the trip, and this can make even a bad picture into a good one by just putting people in it.

hungryhowie
03-02-2004, 01:39
1K for the lenses you mentioned I hope would be in the used market. I have the DSC-F707 currently among other cameras. Great camera, I must say. But there are some advanced features I would like to have in a smaller package and the DReb is a contender. Histogram and RAW output are some things I like to see. I would probably take only one lense myself if I went the DReb route. My shooting style is more narrow as opposed to wide angle. I have a LF system that I take backpacking that I have pared down to 13lbs :) Hahahaha around here that is SUPER heavy, but for LF that is pretty darn light.
If you haven't heard of this online store http://www.badgergraphic.com/ , I can vouch for them...good guys with good prices. The Dreb body is $810.
Scott

Well, the even three-way split was just a generalization. I'm planning on about $900 for the body, $1500 for lenses (17-40/4=$700, 50/1.4=$300, 70-200/4=$500), and the rest in memory and "others". The first phase of the plan is nearly complete, however: a brand new 12" 1Ghz G4 Powerbook for editing (yes, I'm getting a 19" monitor for expanded real estate), and I already have all of the software I could ever want (except for a few freebee downloads and Photoshop plugins). I hope to never shoot a Jpg file, there's just too much to be had with RAW.

Thanks for the link. I've not heard of them. I'll check it out.

-Howie

Reverie
03-02-2004, 09:52
For what it's worth, my memories are best served by taking photos of a variety of subjects and in a variety of settings. Certainly, the pictures with people carry a heavier emotional weight than plain landscapes. What I try to capture is the beauty of my surroundings. Often that is people but it can also be "things" such as land formations, flora, fauna, structures and sometimes just happenstance. If your point was to not forget to take pictures of people I agree totally. If your point was that photographs without people aren't worthwhile, I respectfully disagree.

There are two wonderful and short guides to photography that helped me become a much better photographer. National Geographic prints a series of guides.

People and Portraits



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792264991/qid=1078234864//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-0824106-7550265?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



Landscapes

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792264983/qid=1078234864//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-0824106-7550265?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I love these guides. They are short and easy to understand and they helped me immeasurably.

Reverie

Nightwalker
03-03-2004, 04:19
I have to weigh in on this one.....a PERFECT example of your "vista shots making terrible photographs..." is the Grand Canyon!

I couldn't agree more. My wife and I, after planning a trip to the G.C. for years, just couldn't say a word when we first walked up to the edge. It's one of those type of things that you look at and smile, and sometimes don't even get out the camera. (Of course, we took lots of photos; knew we'd never get back.)

Nightwalker
03-03-2004, 04:24
Also, vista shots do so often make terrible photographs on paper, so just expect that. Not much you can do about it with the lightweight equipment you can backpack. Take some vista pictures for yourself, but don't blame yourself too much when they don't recreate the rush you felt seeing the scene from the mountaintop.

Another possible way to make a vista-type shot look decent is frame it in the foreground with brush, trees, rocks, or something to give it some perspective. Otherwise it just flattens out.

Frank

Uncle Wayne
03-03-2004, 08:14
Matt,

If you're still following this thread and have been practicing with your camera, you may have already figured this out. I turned the LED screen, if that's what it's called, off to conserve battery power. I only turned it back on to make sure I got a special photo or similar reason. The thing I noticed is looking through the viewfinder doesn't give you the same framed area as the LED screen does. The viewfinder will frame a smaller area than the camera will actually photograph, if that makes any sense. In other words for a group picture, looking through the viewfinder, I could line up 8 people side by side and just barely fit them in the frame of the viewfinder. But when I looked at the LED screen with the same lineup, I found that maybe 2 more people on each side could have been in the photo. Or in other words, my group could have stepped up closer to the camera and still been in the photo. So all my group photos are further in the background than normal because of this trait of the camera. Well, I was afraid when I started this post I couldn't explain this and after reading over it I sure didn't. Hope it's clear enough that you can trial and error it until you figure out what I mean.

Icicle
03-03-2004, 12:21
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_qvr40.asp

This is the camera I bought for hiking! I carry it in a mini disc player case which has a built in belt loop. It only weighs 7.4 ounces. I love it!! Of course I am playing with it still to get the hang of all its features. It has a built in feature that I haven't played with yet... You can take a background pic, then a pic of your buddy, then have your buddy take a pic of you, then you can merge the three pics together. WITHIN the camera. Wicked option when there are only two of you about.

The Old Fhart
03-12-2004, 21:24
There is a lot of good advice here and the most important thing to remember is; what is it that you want to do with the pictures you take. For the hikers who are going to have print photo albums you probably won’t notice any great differences in print quality between digital and film. The initial cost of digital is probably higher but where you don’t have to keep buying film, digital should be cheaper in the long run. Buying a camera is kind of like buying a car. Is a Ford better than a Chevy? It comes down to features you feel are important to you.

For those who want to compare different digital cameras, try these two independent sites that have extensive reviews on almost every camera made. The reviews cover all the pros and cons of each model and show representative shots taken with each of the cameras so you can compare and make an informed choice. Be warned, some of the reviews can be 30 pages long! They are extremely detailed.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM01.HTM
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

From my own personal experience I’ve noticed that point-and-shoot type cameras don’t focus well in foggy conditions. It is kind of like trying to take a photo through a car windshield and the camera focuses on the windshield instead of the subject beyond. Also you are stuck with whatever lens is on the camera so make sure it is a good one. On digital a 4x optical zoom is good. Forget the digital zoom feature, you can always do that on your computer and digital zoom and cropping really affects the image quality. Keep in mind that all digital cameras suck in low-light situations. Because I plan to use my digital in backcountry situations, I chose a camera that uses standard AA batteries that are available everywhere. I use rechargeable nickel metal hydride high capacity AA cells but in a pinch I can always drop into the local store and buy alkaline batteries. Any camera that uses the special lithium-ion batteries will probably be smaller and lighter but if you can’t power the camera up in the 100-mile “wilderness’ in Maine when you see a moose, big deal.

The camera I bought myself for Christmas was a top-rated Minolta S414 which is a 4MP camera that uses 4 AA batteries, has a 4x optical zoom, and weighs 16 oz. fully loaded. I have one 512Mb and two 640Mb compact flash cards for memory, which I can also use in my 11oz. palmtop computer as well. The street price on the camera from B&H in NYC was $270. All this was a compromise and I’m sure that most of you would have chosen otherwise. Some of the other cameras mentioned in this thread were on my list to consider as well and they are great cameras. Just try to decide what you really want to do and weigh every suggestion others have to offer before making your choice.

Having said all that, I generally carry a 35mm SLR film camera with a 28-200mm zoom lens and not a digital camera. With the camera case and 10 rolls of Fuji Velvia slide film I have about 5 pounds of camera with me. Before you call me crazy consider this: I’ve had about 7 ATC calendar photos including the cover in 2003, the cover of the ALDHA/ATC 2003 Companion, 5 photos in the spring LL Bean catalog and posters in their stores that will be up this Tuesday. Neither digital or print film can be used for the color separation process used for these purposes. And, yes, it does pay well. You can see some of my photos in the Whiteblaze gallery.

If you go to Trail Days or the Gathering you will probably see some great slide shows. These are possible because there are some hikers who do still shoot slides film. So bottom line, figure what you want to use your photos for and choose the camera that best fits your needs.

nero
06-27-2004, 20:54
It's not waterproof which means I can't use it when it's raining.

I was given a fairly inexpensive digital camera recently, and it's not waterproof either. Any suggestions on how to keep it dry during a thru-hike?

-Thanks

Nero

hungryhowie
06-27-2004, 21:59
I was given a fairly inexpensive digital camera recently, and it's not waterproof either. Any suggestions on how to keep it dry during a thru-hike?

-Thanks

Nero

Keeping it dry in the rain should be fairly easy - as easy as it is to keep anything else dry that's in your pack. I keep my camera strapped to the outside the pack for quick access in good weather, but at the first drops of rain I stop and put it inside my pack where it is protected by several layers: its case, a ziplock bag, a waterproof pack liner and a waterproof pack cover.

-Howie

Jaybird
06-28-2004, 10:16
I was given a fairly inexpensive digital camera recently, and it's not waterproof either. Any suggestions on how to keep it dry during a thru-hike?-Thanks Nero


Nero

why not use a ZIP-LOCK bag?

i keep my digital camera handy @ all times...(never know when you're gonna need it to get that next "GREAT" shot) so, if it's stuffed in your backpack...it'll take a few minutes to get to it..but if you hike with it in your pocket, or strapped onto your belt...you're always ready for the next photo op.

i'd get a dry-pack too to go along with the camera...even while in your Zip-Lock.

You know they make water-proof disposable cameras now too...as well as waterproof digital cams. ( a bit more pricey...but....)

on my recent section-hike (with "the Model-T crew") i carried my digital camera in it's "leatherette" case most times, in my pocket,...never had any moisture probs.

good luck :D

vggalan
06-28-2004, 10:44
You know they make water-proof disposable cameras now too...as well as waterproof digital cams. ( a bit more pricey...but....)

Funny you should mention waterproof digital cameras. I just got back from my local Ritz Camera, and they had a Sony DSC-U60 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_u60.html) on display. It's a pretty snazzy waterproof digital camera. Based on a quick jaunt around the environs of the store, it takes pretty good pictures. No zoom, and it's $250, but it's well-built and seems like a nice point-n-shoot.

nero
07-03-2004, 17:23
Thanks for the suggestions Howie & Jaybird.

:)

-Nero

Connie
07-24-2004, 22:02
I am using my new digital camera, now.

I was having film ruined by security devices. I have had good photos "missing", from the processor.

I like the fact the viewing LCD screen can be turned all the way around and I can be in the picture and compose the shot: Canon Powershot A80.

I also like the quality.

I have experience with photography and I am convinced having experience helps. For example, ISO 50 1/30 f8 "superfine" setting resulting in 1.2 MB or 1.4 MB photo files looks great printed from digital format and ISO 50 1/30 f8 gave me great photos on film.

I suspect the digital lens has an optimum sharpness f-stop, like film cameras. f8 was safe. I have read more than ISO 100 in digital cameras can product "purple fringing" but there is software that will clean up "noise" in digital images. I am looking into this. I read it works best on RAW format digital files. The only digital cameras I have found, so far, having the RAW format option are heavy and heavily priced, at around $1,000. I will stick with the ISO 50 setting.

I like to use the P setting on the dial: providing familiar territory of a film camera.

The digital camera won't "do it all" for me, but it is hard to totally miss out on any photo opportunity. I do find I am taking more types of pictures than I did before.

I had always wanted to have lighted tent photos, campfire photos, or cooking stove photos at dusk, or dark. Now, I am doing that. I am also doing more macro photography.

I am using my hiking stick as a monopod. I have a "beanbag" foodbag in my pack.

I can also check the sharpness in the LCD viewer "in the field". I can take the picture again, if necessary.

I haven't relied on "flash fill" so far. I am not sure how to get to the setting.

The "menu" learning curve seems steep, sometimes.

There is a lot of frustration, for me. However, I REALLY want to be able to email photos, put photos up on a website, and print postcards and greeting cards.

I haven't got the software to install: everything else from anyone will install. I did download a camera driver that did install.

I use free "bundled" camera and printer software and inexpensive software to improve the digital photos, in my notebook computer.

Connie
07-24-2004, 22:13
I am using my new digital camera, now.

I was having film ruined by security devices. I have had good photos "missing", from the processor.

I like the fact the viewing LCD screen can be turned all the way around and I can be in the picture and compose the shot: Canon Powershot A80.

I also like the quality.

I have experience with photography and I am convinced having experience helps. For example, ISO 50 1/30 f8 "superfine" setting resulting in 1.2 MB or 1.4 MB photo files looks great printed from digital format and ISO 50 1/30 f8 gave me great photos on film.

I suspect the digital lens has an optimum sharpness f-stop, like film cameras. f8 was safe. I have read more than ISO 100 in digital cameras can product "purple fringing" but there is software that will clean up "noise" in digital images. I am looking into this. I read it works best on RAW format digital files. The only digital cameras I have found, so far, having the RAW format option are heavy and heavily priced, at around $1,000. I will stick with the ISO 50 setting.

I like to use the P setting on the dial: providing familiar territory of a film camera.

The digital camera won't "do it all" for me, but it is hard to totally miss out on any photo opportunity. I do find I am taking more types of pictures than I did before.

I had always wanted to have lighted tent photos, campfire photos, or cooking stove photos at dusk, or dark. Now, I am doing that. I am also doing more macro photography.

I am using my hiking stick as a monopod. I have a "beanbag" in my pack.

I can also check the sharpness in the LCD viewer "in the field". I can take the picture again, if necessary.

I haven't relied on "flash fill" so far. I am not sure how to get to the setting.

The "menu" learning curve seems steep, sometimes.

There is a lot of frustration, for me. However, I REALLY want to be able to email photos, put photos up on a website, and print postcards and greeting cards.

I haven't got the software to install. I did download a camera driver that did install.

I use free "bundled" camera and printer software and inexpensive software to improve the digital photos, in my notebook computer.