View Full Version : Smaller Digital SLR case?
Over Yonder
02-17-2008, 22:19
I looked through the threads and found a few ideas, but I guess I was just looking for some more. I have decided to take my beastly(to some) DSLR Canon xti on my thru. I really love this camera and am not too worried about the weight... I am worried about a good small case. As of now I am thinking of bringing a long an extra lens. I already have a small dry sack for the camera and plan on using a ziplock as a backup.
so here it is... anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!
Wise Old Owl
02-17-2008, 22:48
Ok please don't get hurt, IT is OVERKILL, I have purchased some (what I thought very expensive cameras) for trail trips and in three years lost all three. And I am frugal and careful, See the problem? A cheeeeeep $140 digital will be 8x and zoom past three x, great for lookouts and closeups of people. what you cannot fix is fixable in Photoshop. Skip the heavy lenses. If I could have afforded it I would have purchased the waterproof/dropproof model. But for the price I could have purchased two cameras of the same quality.
The important thing is taking home a slideshow of memories, not a few Rembrants.
I wrote this and I feel awkward about it, because I am so passionate about the issue. I appologise up front as many will have a different take on the post.
I'll 2nd Wise Owl's advice. Take a light, simple camera. Keep it in a pouch on your shoulder strap. Leave the SLR and the lens at home. I take my photography seriously -- but serious long-distance hiking and serious photography don't mix well. You have to choose.
The Old Fhart
02-17-2008, 23:05
I had thoughts of carrying my Pentax DSLR with 2 lenses but the concern I had was the possibility of dust getting on the imager while changing lenses. The compromise I came up with was to buy a Panasonic 7Mp TZ3(click for video review) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHW6jUM161o&feature=related) with a 10X optical zoom (28-280mm 35mm equivalent) for $241. While it isn't quite as good as a DSLR, the weight saving and true wide angle to zoom range makes it a good choice for me.
kayak karl
02-18-2008, 00:19
I looked through the threads and found a few ideas, but I guess I was just looking for some more. I have decided to take my beastly(to some) DSLR Canon xti on my thru. I really love this camera and am not too worried about the weight... I am worried about a good small case. As of now I am thinking of bringing a long an extra lens. I already have a small dry sack for the camera and plan on using a ziplock as a backup.
so here it is... anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!
get two pieces of styrofoam. carve out both halfs. hold together with rubber band and put in ziplock bag. also works for PDA, eggs or any thing u dont want broken in pack.
Over Yonder
02-18-2008, 00:36
thanks for your advice everyone.. i will try your idea kayak karl.. thanks
88BlueGT
02-18-2008, 02:36
I was really close to buying a Nikon D40x but than I just heard about the new D60 thats supposed to be comming out in about a week or two. My plans are to take the D60 and a 55-200 or 18-250 lens (not decided yet) for my thru hike next March. I'm lightening up everything to try and compromise for the added weight. The new Nikon D60 is the smallest DSLR made by Nikon, its even smaller than the Olympus E-410. Anyway, I also have a 8.2mp Sony Cybershot point and shoot. I plan on taking the D60 but in worst case scenario, I just send the D60 home and have the point and shoot sent out to me. My small point and shoot with case comes in at 9oz's and my total package with my SLR should be under 2lbs so its really only a 1lb 7oz (approx) savings by going with the point and shoot. I think the SLR's advantages will be worth the extra weight if you are into photography.
If you plan on lots of landscape pictures that you want to come out professional quality than the SLR is the way to go. There are certain reasons one may want professional quality besides for themselves.
If you just plan on taking pictures of faces and shelters, etc. I would prob just recommend going with a point and shoot.
Also, another thing to look into, its called Camera Armor from made-products.com. They make armor for your camera I believe. I have no experience with it but it looks nice and I plan on using it with the D60 when I take it on the trail. Its good insurance.
If you plan on lots of landscape pictures that you want to come out professional quality than the SLR is the way to go.
Not so. A professional (like this (http://www.muenchphotography.com/) one or this (http://www.jerrygreerphotography.com/) one) brings a 4x5" or 8x10" view camera. If they're lazy, they bring a Hasselblad or Pentax 6x7.
No offense, but that little 15x21 mm. silicon sensor in your DSLR doesn't earn you the title "professional."
88BlueGT
02-19-2008, 16:07
I agree, I was using the term 'professional' very loosely BUT I can say from experience that a D40x (I guess considered a mid quality DSLR) takes 5x's better pictures on 'auto' setting than my 8.2mp Sony Cybershot Point & Shoot. By no means, I'm sure you guys know a whole lot more about photography than I do but in my eyes, I just feel that the options are worth the weight. And if their not, its not a big deal to just send it home.
rswanson
02-22-2008, 10:03
For sure, check out photography sites as well as asking here. And, if I were to choose one thing I'm 'not supposed to carry' on a thru-hike, a DSLR would probably be at the top of the list. Considering that you'll probably only hike the AT once, I think you'll be happy you have the quality pics.
I would probably be freakishly concerned about protecting it as well. I'd have to go with a top loading case that I could attach to the front of my pack straps. If your camera isn't accessible, you won't use it as much. Distributing the weight in this fashion will help mitigate the weight of the camera. Lowepro (http://products.lowepro.com/catalog/Toploading,8.htm) cases are very popular.
For sure, check out photography sites as well as asking here. And, if I were to choose one thing I'm 'not supposed to carry' on a thru-hike, a DSLR would probably be at the top of the list....
I would probably be freakishly concerned about protecting it as well. I'd have to go with a top loading case ....
A camera that lives in its case is useless. Dead weight. IMO, on a thru-hike, you want a camera that you can access and deploy in seconds, without having to remove your pack. In particular, not a camera that you're "freakishly concerned about."
I'm pretty passionate about both photography and hiking. But in my experience, long-distance hiking doesn't jibe well with "serious" photography. It's just a very different mindset. Day hikes, overnighters -- that's a whole 'nother story.
And then there's this: if you think that photography on the trail is all about capturing fabulous scenic vistas... well, that's been done, beautifully, many times over, by any number of real professionals. For most folks, a thru-hike is a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Consider taking more pictures of the people you meet, your campsites, campfires, hostels, buffets, and the human interactions along the way. You don't need a DSLR for that.
rswanson
02-22-2008, 11:05
A camera that lives in its case is useless. Dead weight. IMO, on a thru-hike, you want a camera that you can access and deploy in seconds, without having to remove your pack. In particular, not a camera that you're "freakishly concerned about."
I'm pretty passionate about both photography and hiking. But in my experience, long-distance hiking doesn't jibe well with "serious" photography. It's just a very different mindset. Day hikes, overnighters -- that's a whole 'nother story.
And then there's this: if you think that photography on the trail is all about capturing fabulous scenic vistas... well, that's been done, beautifully, many times over, by any number of real professionals. For most folks, a thru-hike is a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Consider taking more pictures of the people you meet, your campsites, campfires, hostels, buffets, and the human interactions along the way. You don't need a DSLR for that.
You're veering off into personal opinion with some of your comments. I carry a small point and shoot in an Aloksak, which is stowed in a hipbelt pouch. That means I have to unzip the pouch, pull out the bag, take out the camera, snap my pics, reseal the camera in the bag, and return it to my hip belt. Somehow, I always manage to come home with a 1GB card full of 8mp photos.
If you'd bother to read my entire post you'd see that I recommended a top loading style case that attaches the front of your pack straps, not one that requires you remove your pack. They are as easy to access as just about any method of carrying a camera except maybe stuffing it in your pocket.
And as for if the guy's pics are going to measure up to 'professional landscape photographers'...who cares? If the guy wants to try to take quality pics, let him do it. You seem to be implying that one must be a professional photog to be worthy of even trying to take a beautiful pic. A DSLR will take a better picture than a point and shoot. Sure, not a nice as a medium format camera but still pretty damn good with a little practice.
Your opinon of what constitutes 'professional quality' is just that- your opinion. If the guy wants to carry an SLR, let him do it. If he finds out its too much hassle, I'm sure he'll send it home soon enough. You sound like a guy who knows what he's talking about so stop being such a pill and try to give him some constructive advice, instead of saying it shouldn't be done.
eventidecu
02-22-2008, 11:29
I sometimes carry my Nikon N65 35mm, and I carry it in a thick foam camera case w/ a zip lock liner, laced through the front of my waist strap over the pack buckle / crotch area. It rides very easy there ( I don't think the weight is even noticeable ). It deploys quick also. If it's raining cats and dogs it goes in the the pack somewhere. But I agree that there are several very nice, cheap point and shoots that would more than suffice what you want it too. Just think about "that 1.7lbs", thats like carrying an "extra" sleeping bag! For a thru I'd consider the weight first. At least until I got my trail legs and day to day rhythm / system down. Good luck.
And as for if the guy's pics are going to measure up to 'professional landscape photographers'...who cares? If the guy wants to try to take quality pics, let him do it. You seem to be implying that one must be a professional photog to be worthy of even trying to take a beautiful pic. A DSLR will take a better picture than a point and shoot. Sure, not a nice as a medium format camera but still pretty damn good with a little practice.
Of course it's my opinion. There are no rules. You and the OP may do as you wish. Of course a DSLR takes better pictures than a point-and-shoot. That's not my point. The issues for me are...
the "responsibility" of carrying a fine camera on a thru-hike
the extra weight
accessibility (fancy, large camera inherently less accessible)
the mindset of a thru-hike (not compatible with "fine" photography)
the purpose of the camera: exactly what you intend to captureThat's it. Just my opinion, based on a lifetime's experience of hiking and photography (http://www.terrapinphoto.com/statement.html). Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me. Carry on.
KevinAce
03-31-2008, 23:13
Terrapin I assume since you're so into photography, you probably have an SLR of some type. What type of case do you have? Or where do you store it? I have the standard "shoulder bag" case for my Canon Digital Rebel XTI...but I usually strap it to the back of my pack which makes the accessibility awful (I have to take my pack off to get to it).
It's not really reasonable to hang it around my neck or anything because it bounces all over the place. I'm trying to find the best solution for having my camera easily accessible but yet not in the way too much. Maybe a "belt pack" type setup that I could mount to my pack's belt?
Any suggestions / input would be greatly appreciated!