Digital, Regular, Disposable Camera

[Flash Hand]

I am juggling with decision on what camera to take. I don't want to bring both camera at same time but am having hard time figuring out what the best camera to use. Pleae throw in your experience and idea, and reason why you use that camera.

[Uncle Wayne]

You'll take more pictures with a digital camera. I have carried all of the ones you mentioned and have settled on the digital camera as being more user friendly. When you get home you can make slide shows, save them to a CD, print out the "wall hangers" and delete the ones that didn't turn out. Each type of camera has its own quirks so practice before you hit the trail.
I use the Olympus Stylus 300 digital camera.

[bearbag hanger]

I am juggling with decision on what camera to take. I don't want to bring both camera at same time but am having hard time figuring out what the best camera to use. Pleae throw in your experience and idea, and reason why you use that camera.
I've been using a digital Canon S100 for a couple years now. Would highly recommend going digital. My problem is only about one in ten shots come out as really worth while. With film, that can get really expensive.

[Rain Man]

Pleae throw in your experience and idea, and reason why you use that camera.

I have used a Nikon 35 mm and an Olympus D-150 (no longer works) and a Nikon Coolpix 2100 (daughter's).

I'll definitely use a digital on my next hike that I take a camera on. Much lighter AND you can take oodles of shots, which raises your odds of getting one you want to keep.

Only question is how much money one can afford. If you go digital, make sure it'll take regular size batteries that you can buy anywhere, and not some proprietary battery.

Olympus has a digital that they advertise as weather proof. That looks interesting, but I have not seen one up-close-and-personal. Hopefully someone else can post a review of it?

Rain Man

[Matt Pincham]

Olympus has a digital that they advertise as weather proof. That looks interesting, but I have not seen one up-close-and-personal. Hopefully someone else can post a review of it?

Rain Man

Hey Rainman,

I believe the camera you are after is the one Uncle Wayne uses. It's said to be weatherproof.

[Kerosene]

CNET's reviews of the 6.9 ounce, weather-resistant Olympus Stylus 300 (http://reviews.cnet.com/Olympus_Stylus_300/4505-6501_7-20796907.html?tag=pdtl-list) and 400 (http://reviews.cnet.com/Olympus_Stylus_400/4505-6501_7-20796978.html?tag=pdtl-list) (3 and 4 megapixel, respectively) resulted in a rating of Fair (6.x out of 10).

Here is an excerpt from the reviews:

This camera's impressive all-weather body doesn't make up for its inconsistent images.

The good: Sleek, ultracompact design; solid construction; water-resistant casing; included wireless remote.
The bad: Poor handling of image highlights; inaccurate autofocus in dim light; no sports/action mode.

[Presto]

These are the waterproof cameras refered to earlier. I purchased one recently and do like it specifically for hiking. It is waterresistant which is peace of mind for toting around a camera outside. Good outdoor pics. Lightweight. Long battery life. Uses XD memory - which is one of the fastest cards on the market.

That being said - this is a point and shoot camera. It doesn't offer much flexablilty for shooting modes and the macro photos are only ok. If you want an all around camera or something for more arty photos you may want something else.

This camera also uses its own proprietary battery. Usually I would consider this a bad thing as you can't buy replacements along the way. However, the battery is very light and even with the charger probably weighs less than 4 AA's - which is what most cameras take.

If you want a good general digital camera I have heard very good things from owners of the Cannon A-70. It is relatively compact. Takes great pics, has many manual overrides and uses AA batteries.

So pick your poison.

[tlbj6142]

Assuming you went with a digital camera...

On a thru-hike, how would you plan to dump your flash card along the trail? Seems like a cheapo 35mm might be a better option for a thru hike. Mailers could be put in your bounce box. And, if you use someone like www.snapfish.com (http://www.snapfish.com) (there are several others that work the same) you get email/website "quality" digital photos of each shot.

Just wondering...

[Spur]

Assuming you went with a digital camera...

On a thru-hike, how would you plan to dump your flash card along the trail? Seems like a cheapo 35mm might be a better option for a thru hike. Mailers could be put in your bounce box. And, if you use someone like www.snapfish.com (http://www.snapfish.com) (there are several others that work the same) you get email/website "quality" digital photos of each shot.

Just wondering...

On my last 2 long hikes, I used a Nixvue Digital Album, a tiny, portable, battery-operated 20-gig hard drive which acts as a cardreader. Part of the time I carried it. Most times I bounced it a couple weeks ahead and dumped my memory cards into it when I reached a town. The only downside was the possibility it might get lost in the mail (or get wet during a stream crossing, etc.). Fortunately neither misfortune happened to mine.

Now the technology has gone one step better. A portable CD burner/memory card reader can be bounced ahead, and cards burned to multiple CDs, which could then be mailed home separately, so there's little risk of all being lost. One is available for $275 (MSRP) at:
http://www.jobodigital.com/products/disc_steno_cp100.htm . There are probably others out there also. Next long hike, I'll probably switch to one of these.

Another possibility is the Apple iPod. A 3rd-party vendor now makes a cardreader adapter for it. Another makes a voice recorder adapter for the iPod, so could be used as an oral journal. (All this plus 1000s of MP3 songs...). Oh yeah, a new adapter that uses AA batteries extends the iPod's playtime far beyond what the standard rechargeable battery permits.

In terms of film vs. digital, digital is the clear winner for me. While it involves more upfront costs, there's a huge potential savings in processing charges, which on a thruhike can run many hundreds of dollars (even a few thousand if you're trigger happy like me). I recommend investing in at least a 4 megapixel model if you want to enlarge your best photos. And the bigger the optical zoom, the better. My old camera is a 4x. I'm lusting after an 8x-10x for next time, and the prices are coming down.

Spur
http://www.artofthetrail.com

[TedB]

I knew I didn't want to carry a camera the whole way, so I just used a disposable camera for a ways. Good enough to take photos of your hiking buddies. I wish I had bought a waterproof model, which are relatively cheap. My camera got wet at one point, and I could see little drops of water on the inside of the lens. The photos I had already taken turned out fine, but I was worried at the time.

Now days, I have a digital Canon A60 (cheap version of A70 mentioned above). The biggest appeal to me for this camera is I can take a photo from 2 inches away from an object. See my picture of the tiny (1 inch long) Pacific Tree Frog as an example. Very fun feature.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/data/500/610frog.jpg

[screwysquirrel]

I've used a Minolta Dimage F100 for the last two years, if you get a couple 64 MB's cards or a 128 MB, you can send one home to download the pics and use the other till you get it back. It really didn't stand up to rough treatment because it broke last Sept., I think I flung my pack down too hard too many times. Great camera though, I got a couple hundred pictures out of it.

[Jaybird]

I am juggling with decision on what camera to take. I don't want to bring both camera at same time but am having hard time figuring out what the best camera to use. Pleae throw in your experience and idea, and reason why you use that camera.


F.H.:

i've used Kodak disposables up til my last hike.
i had purchased my latest digital camera (Argus 5 mega-pixel 10 oz.)
& have carried it on a couple of hikes with great luck & great photos.


there's nothing wrong with the "disposables" as they have improved with "flash" & 800 speed film now....& cheeper prices.


this year, i'm going digital!
:D


see ya'll UP the trail in 2004!

[Uncle Wayne]

Here's 33 different reviews of the Olympus Stylus 300 digital camera. Reviews are like opinions, everybody has one so buyer beware! I have had one since May of 2002 and have taken over 3000 pictures with it. Not all of them turned out but the majority of the time it was due to my ignorance and not the camera. Almost all of the photos in my photo gallery were taken with this camera.
I used it on a 15 day backpacking trip last summer and took over 1400 photos and only used 3 batteries. IMO, the proprietary battery is the weak link of this camera, as Presto mentioned, but with access to 120 volt power they are rechargable.
It scores a little higher in these reviews than the one Kerosene mentioned.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=oly_mju300

BTW, this is a great site for all type of photography related info. I guess you could say it is the WhiteBlaze.com of the photography world. :D

[highway]

Camera, Canon, S400 digital, [4 MP, 3X optical]
w/32Mb & 128 Mb cards, 2 batteries (1 in camera, 1/backup), Recharger/lithium batteries; tiny, padded case for all above and total weight of 14.5 ounces for the complete package

This arrangement allows me to take ~163 fotos on MEDIUM resolution and each tiny charged battery taking about 40-50 fotos, almost always using the battery-draining LCD display screen. I guess I could reduce the resolution and take literally hundreds of fotos with it before downloading the cards.

[gravityman]

Assuming you went with a digital camera...

On a thru-hike, how would you plan to dump your flash card along the trail?
Just wondering...

Most Walmarts, Walgreens, and a lot of other places have a machine that will burn your card onto a CD. With a couple of cards you can take hundreds of pics, and burn them to CD every couple hundred miles.

Gravity Man

[Peaks]

Most Walmarts, Walgreens, and a lot of other places have a machine that will burn your card onto a CD. With a couple of cards you can take hundreds of pics, and burn them to CD every couple hundred miles.

Gravity Man

Provided there is a Walmart or Walgreen near the trail every couple hundred miles. Frankly, I wouldn't plan on it.

[gravityman]

Provided there is a Walmart or Walgreen near the trail every couple hundred miles. Frankly, I wouldn't plan on it.

I think you can. You come to a major town every month or so. Without any planning, I pretty much imagine you won't have any problems. And if you run out of space on a card, you can always go back and delete the less desireable pictures. But really, I don't think it would be a problem. Unforunately, I do not have any first hand experience on that one though. In 2001 we didn't have a digital camera with us.

Gravity Man

[radar]

On a thru-hike, how would you plan to dump your flash card along the trail? Seems like a cheapo 35mm might be a better option for a thru hike. Mailers could be put in your bounce box. Just wondering...

A decent 35MM point-and-shoot camera will take great pictures.
If you choose to go with film versus digital go with a decent 35MM
and not one of the cheap disposable varieties. You'll be much happier
with your pictures if you avoid the disposables.

[Peaks]

I would not advise anyone to avoid disposables. What I do suggest is to decide beforehand what type of pictures you want to take, and then plan accordingly.

I totally agree that there are some great point and shoot 35 mm out there. In fact, that's what I carry. But, I also want a better picture (slide) than I get with a disposable. But, for many, all they want is snapshots, and the disposable does a good job with snapshots. So, to each their own.

[radar]

I would not advise anyone to avoid disposables. What I do suggest is to decide beforehand what type of pictures you want to take, and then plan accordingly.

I agree entirely. What I was trying to point out was that a point-and-shoot 35mm takes better pictures than a disposable. I talked to several thru-hikers in 2002 who were surprised at the difference in quality between a 35mm point-and-shoot and a 35mm disposable. They just didn't appreciate the difference in quality until after fact. I just wanted to give a heads up to everyone who was weighing their options.

My personal recommendation would be a 3megapixel (or better) digital camera with at least a 3x optical zoom lens.

[Hikerhead]

What a coincidence to see your post here. I was just over on Trailjournals.com. thinking of shooting you an email. The shot of yours that they run across the top every now and then of the red sunset. Tell me, was that taken on top of the grassy knoll just north of Troutville, Va......I'm betin' Uncle Wayne's hat that it was.

Thanks.

[radar]

What a coincidence to see your post here. I was just over on Trailjournals.com. thinking of shooting you an email. The shot of yours that they run across the top every now and then of the red sunset. Tell me, was that taken on top of the grassy knoll just north of Troutville, Va......I'm betin' Uncle Wayne's hat that it was.

Thanks.

Actually that picture is sunrise at Zeacliff in the Whites.

[Hikerhead]

Actually that picture is sunrise at Zeacliff in the Whites.


:datz My bad, darn if that didn't look like the Tinker Mtn on the left and Tinker Cliffs/Scorched Earth Gap on the right with the ridge line running in between. Nice shot just the same.

Sorry I got off subject.

BTW, shouldn't there be a slot for ABS camera's in the poll?

[pjohnson]

Some very good points were raised for digital and film cameras, whether disposable or SLR. Since I own a professional photography studio I will shed some light on my views and some information.

First of all, I just hiked from the Lyme-Dorchester Road in New Hamshire back to Killington, VT. It is roughly 65 miles. I took my Canon A2 SLR. I have a very neat camera case that attaches to my breast strap, so carrying the camera is quite easy, and readily available for use. I primarily used my 24-55 mm lens, but also brought my 75-300 mm zoom lens as well. Just in case one of the #$%^& moose decided to cooperate this year...they didn't. Anyhow, I love this camera. It is relatively light weight, and it's light metering and autofocus are on the money. I like to shoot film because it gives me much more latitude than digital. At least the low end consumer models. This means I can be off on my expose and still get a high quality print. I always try to over expose my film by one stop so I get nice thick negatives. I only shot professional film, which is way too expensive for your average college age hiker to buy, but, since I take pictures and send them to a stock agency my hikes are a business trip and tax deductable.

As for digital, I love the stuff, but if I'm going to photograph a sunset I want film. Why? Because, unless you have a digital camera that can capture images in raw files, which the consumer models usually do not do, you will not get the latitude as you would with film. If you over expose digital jpeg files you will never get detail back in your hi-lite areas. There's just no information there, (last week we photographed a wedding and the bride's dress cost over $4,000.00, just think how pissed she would be If I took a portrait of her and all of the hand sewn lace and bead work were over exposed and she couldn't see it!). However, the more expensive SLR digital cameras allow you to capture in raw files, which gives you much more latitude, so you can make exposure mistakes and still get some very good results.

I have been looking at buying the canon 10D 6.3 megapixal camera. It simultaneously shoots both jpeg and raw files. And, since I shot a lot of pictures while out on the trail (over 250 shots in five days of hiking), even a one gigabite card will be less expensive for me to use than film. And I can get the quality enlargements I want, whereas, anything less than a 3 meg camera will not produce a decent photograph over 5X7 inches.

I totally agree with the one person that suggested buying a camera with 3 or more megs. Also, optical zooms are much, much, much, much better than digital zoom. Go for the most optical zoom you can find, and the most mega pixals you can afford. I'm in the business of creating memories for people. Thru-hiking the AT will be one of the most memorable events in your life. Do not cut corners on photography equipment that will give you countless memories, and take you back to the trail on those cold winter nights when your sitting by the fire. You'll be happy you paid a little extra in the long run.

If you have any questions about photography you can always e-mail me directly at [email protected] and I will be more than happy to help you out. Happy hiking, and take your camera with you!!!

Patrick Johnson

[Frosty]

I've been using a digital Canon S100 for a couple years now. Would highly recommend going digital. My problem is only about one in ten shots come out as really worth while. With film, that can get really expensive.That's why I went digital, also. So many wasted shots. Now I find I take even more shots than before because it costs nothing.

I bought a 128 Meg card and never wonder if I should take a shot or not. I just do. Easy to cull out the good ones when I get home.

Digital also solves the problem of how to frame a picture and cutting uff heads/feet. You just take too wide a shot, then crop it. SOOOOO easy to do. You always end up with all body parts intact AND just the right background because youk simply crop off excess sky/woods/whatever, and place the subject in just the right part of the picture (cutting out the boring parts and leaving the dramatic rocks/trees/view/whatever in the photo.

I use the Olympus 300 also. I like the clamshell cover and it's very light.

[Pencil Pusher]

I have a friend that always carries one of those jumbo cameras with the detachable zoom lens. I always rib him about it, but he really likes to take quality pictures and is in good enough shape that packing a couple extra pounds doesn't matter. I carry disposables or el cheapo cameras that don't use batteries. Then again, if I could count on the quality of pictures my friend always gets, it'd be worth the weight to carry whatever will create a lasting memory of that one point in time. I have a digital, but don't have enough experience with it to determine what my battery needs would be. Plus it doesn't have an optical zoom... ah, I'm just jabbering now.

[Kozmic Zian]

Yea.....I took single use cheepos on the Thruy.....They work great, but you have to buy a bunch of them and then pay for all the developing later. Since I went digital, (computer, printer, camera + the whole 9 yards) I find that my camera (Sony DSP-32) will take around 150-60 shots (you have to get at least the 128 mega pixtal mem sticks) set on the smaller resolution, smaller pixtal size. The batteries are rechargeable so you can charge it at any AC outlet. You could, presumably, use two memory sticks on a Thru Hike, shuttling one back home, and have almost 300 photos. Then the processing is free in the ole' Puter. Plus the new digitals are quite lite. The only advantage to using single use, is they are lighter.....but digital is sweeter..... Such a deal. No other way to go, IMHO. KZ@;)

[Grampie]

On my thru hike I used disposable cameras to take approx. 300 pictures. The results were very good. I have created a photo album to record my adventure that many folks have commented, very positive about.
The reasons I choose a disposable are: I am not one who enjoys to take pictures so the need for something, other than the basics was not required. They are light weight. , They cost little and are available along the trail, You do not have to be conserned with a delicate piece of equipment. You do not have to deal with batteries. Most of all, they take quite good pictures.
Once I took all the pictures, I would send the cameria home and purchase a new one. My wife would get them developed and have an oppertunity to share my adventure with family and friends. :)

[Bear Magnet]

I used a Pentax IQ Zoom, disposable cameras, and a 35 mm Canon last year. The Pentax took great pics, the others less so.

If/when I go out on another big hike, I will check into a digital. Not because of the quality of pics I got from the Pentax, but because you pay quite a bit at the end of a hike to develop your film. You might pay more upfront with a digital, but you make it up in the long run, I think.

Bear Magnet
Jonathan

[hikerjohnd]

With another year of photo advances what are folks carrying... I received an APS camera that is waterproof and the same weight as a waterproof disposable. I just couldn't fathom spending $ on a durable digital camera.

[dp the wonder dog]

pjohnson on 6-1-2004 above is right on the money. Good advice

i've carried/used everything from a big SLR, to smaller 35's, to digital. The camera I've taken most of my best trail pics with is an old Olympus XA -- fixed 35mm lense, manual wind, manual focus. My best pics with it are partly because of size and availability - i've carried it more trips, more miles, than any other camera. It's small, simple, still works at single-digit temps, and has held up to much use and abuse over the years.

(an point often made on handgun/selfdefense forums, when asked what particular gun/caliber/etc is best for this situation or that, the standard answer is 'the gun that you have with you'.) Find one (a camera) you like and are comfortable with, and keep it easy to access (i like pouch on shoulder strap), and you'll use it often.

You need to first evaluate the end product and usage....if you just want a keepsake album of snapshots to remember your trip(s) by, most anything will do, cheaper digital or disposable film. If you are looking to make 11x14 enlargements for hanging on the wall, then film or very high-mpixel digitals. If you plan to do presentations to groups, i.e. civic clubs, outdoors club, etc, slides work well, digital is better. You can also have film or slides scanned for presentation/show work.

To be published, i'm still a film/slide devotee. To me, the color depth and rendition is just not quite there/right with digital, especially in sunrise/sunsets.

Remember the adage "Film is Cheap" -- shoot lots of pictures...save the best. Easier to do with digital (and one reason I like digital) is you can immediately review your work, delete it if you wish, and try again for the perfect shot.

[Jaybird]

i've posted in this FORUM before....

but have an UPDATE:


i've purchased a NIKON COOLPIX 3200 (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25518) digital camera
which is (according to BACKPACKER magazine) the lightest, best camera for use on the trail, & plan to use it during my 3 weeks section-hiking the A.T.
APr 28-May 21st.

[dp the wonder dog]

jaybird

i, too have the Nikon 3200. seemed to be the best fit of features/mpixels/size/quality for the money. It's now under $200, far cheaper than when I got mine when the 3200 first came out. I just bot another, to give to DW for Xmas.

Takes AA's, too, so no funky batteries. I use rechargeables, haven't tried lithium yet.

[weary]

In '93 I used an Olympus Point and shoot, weather resistant 38-110 lens, and shot 80+, 36-exposure rolls. I weeded the nearly 3,000 slides down to 240 and have shown them to groups 30 or 40 times.

One senior citizen group has invited me back twice, so I guess some people liked them. I was warned the first time not to get upset if people wandered away while I was talking, that "old people have short attention spans."

No one did. But I'm going to check that if I ever get old.

I continue to use 35 mm slide film for most of my photography, though I'm toying with the idea of going digital, now that digital projectors have started to come down in price. Any ideas about a good powerpoint projector at a reasonable price?

My photography these days mostly involves keeping a running record of the various seasons and moods of the 800 acres our town land trust has acquired since I "retired" 14 years ago. I'm a believer in rapid paced slide shows. At our land trust annual meeting I can bounce through an 80-slide tray in 10 minutes or so. I like to leave them curious, rather than bored.

Weary

[hikerjohnd]

I continue to use 35 mm slide film for most of my photography, though I'm toying with the idea of going digital, now that digital projectors have started to come down in price. Any ideas about a good powerpoint projector at a reasonable price?
I work in the media dept at school and agree that projecors have come down in price - Epson and NEC are probably the most user friendly, while Sharp has quality products too. NEC is my personal favorite - small, lightweight, bright, and has a remote mouse so you can advance slides while standing across the room.

That said, the projectors are becoming inexpensive, but replacement bulbs are moving up in price. The NEC bulbs we buy - and we get a volume discount ordering 20-30 at a time - cost us about $300 per bulb. We have found that buying from private suppliers (instead of through state approved facilities as we are a gvt institution) we get this significantly better price. Bulb life can range from 100-400 hours for a portable machine and bulb life is usually printed on the replacement bulb box - so think about how long you are going to use it vs. how cost effective replacement bulbs are.

If there is a university near you, give their media svcs dept a call (normally part of the library) and talk to their media specalist - they are a wealth of info and can point you in the direction of local reps who can usually get you better prices on quality hardware - we got our last projector from a rep for about $100 - a $400 projector that was refurbished and has same warranty as new - it is probably the best projector we have!

Good luck!

[neo]

i have carried one time use camera,s from springer to dalton mass,from may 2001 to may 2004,this year i am carrying a fuji A330 have enjoyed this camea the last few weeks:sun neo

[Anumber1]

Just take a look at the whiteblaze photo gallery and you'll understand why it is always a good idea to bring a camera along with you