View Full Version : Question about backpacking cameras for photo smart folk
Getting a compact digital for backpacking. Can't carry my chunky DSLR on my hikes this Summer with the food and especially water loads I'll encounter. So.
I'm trying to decide between the Canon G10 and the Panasonic Lumix LX3 which seem to be about it in the high-end-compact-with-manual-control-and-RAW-capability category. (With the exception of the Sigma DP1 which I can't afford anyway.) Leaning towards the LX3, but wanted to get some input from anyone who's used either of these backpacking, or who knows more about this photo business than myself.
My thoughts: I don't like the excessive megapixels on the G10, seems like massive overkill on that tiny sensor, a cheap selling point, and is probably terrible beyond 400 ISO. But I like the optical range, it costs less, I don't often shoot in high ISO anyway, and I like the controls a lot. Has some neat little things like the built in ND filter too.
I like the wider 24mm on the LX3, REALLY dig the F/2 Leica lens and the fact that the resolution is apppropriate for the sensor, but would also like a greater optical range. It's lighter, but also more expensive.
I've only used Canon compacts previously and am a bit hesitant to switch to a unknown company. So anyone used either of these, particularly backpacking? How's the autofocus on Panasonic compacts? Any more input from photo people?
boarstone
03-29-2009, 07:23
don't carry anything you can't afford to lose, wether to weather or theft...
k.i.s.s.--keep it simple stupid theory
dampness will be your enemy
battery life --it's resurrection
bigcranky
03-29-2009, 09:32
I usually carry a Canon G7. I like the easy manual control over ISO and exposure compensation (which is even easier on the G10), and the files are quite good at low ISO values. The G10 appeals to me because of the wider lens (the G7 is 35-200 equivalent, the G10 is 28-135, a more useful range IMO.) Of course the LX3 is even wider.
Both of your choices have image stabilization, both produce good image quality. That said, you also might look at the Pentax W60, which is actually waterproof, has a 28-140mm (equiv.) lens, and is much lighter and more compact. The major downsides are JPEG-only, no image stabilization (big loss), and the battery charger is overly large and heavy with a huge AC cord. I've been carrying my wife's W10 on a couple of weekend hikes, and I really noticed the difference in weight and bulk over my G7.
Finally, you might consider something like a Canon A-series compact with image stabilization. (Not sure the latest model, maybe an A570IS?) These take 2 AA batteries, so there's no charger to carry on a thru-hike, just a spare set of Lithium AAs. Given the number of electronic things that people are carrying on thru-hikes these days, one fewer charger might be a blessing.
I borrowed a camera last year for my hike through the whites. The 'spare battery' pocket on the camera case had nothing but dead batteries in it. :datz
I bought a smaller, lighter camera with a rechargeable battery. I forget to recharge it about half the time. :datz
catfishrivers
03-29-2009, 14:31
I just got a Canon Powershot A1000 IS to take with me in a few weeks once I start. It takes great pics at 10 megapixels, 4x optical zoom, and runs off of AA batteries. I got it from J&R Music world online for $129.88. I was going to bring my fujifilm finepix s700, which I have learned to use really well and takes great shots for the price, but it is bulkier and won't fit as neatly into my stash pocket as the canon will.
Wise Old Owl
03-29-2009, 14:42
Boar Stone wins on his merit of a post, I am on the third digital camera... I didn't look at the models you mentioned because I believe you are over thinking this. Go small, light, shockproof, waterproof if you can afford it. Moisture,cold, extra batteries, are the real issue, not megapixels. On a cold morning after that first cup of coffee an anti shake feature is what I look for.
Bleach
The two cameras you mention are the ones that drive keen amateurs, wanting SLR like results from a compact camera, crazy at the moment.
The Canon does have a lot of pixels however they make it work. Canon have provably the best firmware that can extract from the same sensor other use (mostly Sony sensors) better, cleaner images. See these comments on the G10 :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
At one point Canon, Panasonic, Casio and Sony had the same lens and sensor in their top compact model, but Canon tended to be favoured by the critics (of course most never realised that they shared components....)
My choice (nothing to do with what you should choose) is the Pana because I love that 24mm wide angle and it is more "pocketable".
Here in Australia Pana has had 3 shipments of the LX3 but I still have not seen one on a shop shelf, the are always pre-sold. I have had a test drive of the Leica version. (very nice)
Franco
Franco- I was hoping you'd weigh in, and thanks for the link. Interesting stuff.
I guess my only concern that's holding me up is the potential for higher noise under low light using the G10, which could be a BIG issue for me. From online reviews, I just can't anticipate how badly/well it will perform when I'm in the low light areas I love (slot canyons, for one). When hiking, I often shoot from 200-600 ISO, and this seems to be a threshold area for the G10 in terms of it's low light performance.
In general terms, how markedly better do you think the LX3 would perform in low light considering it's larger aperture and more sensible pixel count? What is the actual physical difference between F/2.8 and F/2.0? If I tried to shoot at 200 ISO or below using the G10, do you think this would mostly eliminate noise?
I know you probably haven't used either of these, but you seem to know a lot about this stuff, so anything further you can share would be appreciated.
Photofanatic
03-29-2009, 17:40
I did it so can you. Yes you have to forfeit something else but when you look back on your pics it is worth it. I carried a compact camera one time and was sorely disappointed. If you haven't hiked on the AT yet you will find soon you can sleep anywhere on anything so you don't need too many bells and whistles for comfort. Fortunately that has stuck with me and I can fall asleep on a rock in about 3 seconds.
You only need two lenses, an 18 to 50 wide angle and 70 to 300 but you won't even use the 70 to 300 much. I am a Nikon fan but found the Sigma 70 to 300 1:4-5:6 DG also serves for macro shots. It lets in lots of light so you can shoot really early and late.
You will want to rig two lines with clips on your pack (boot strings work fine)so the weight is not on your neck and your camera won't be bouncing along the way. After a day or so you won't even notice the weight of it being there.
photofanatic- I understand your sentiments. I've carried my 'real' camera (Nikon D200) quite a bit backpacking and it's great, but often I need to separate "photo taking hikes" from just "hikes." I have not, however, ever backpacked with a 70-300. Ugh.
Most of my hikes this Summer are just not going to be photo-taking trips- Often, I simply won't have the ability to slow down and take carefully metered and composed shots anyway, so the performance difference between my DLSR and a high end compact wouldn't be that significant. But I still want a high quality, more portable camera with which I can still take photos capable of producing decent prints from. I know there's compact digitals out there than can do it, and that's what I'm inquiring about here.
Bleach
The difference between F2 and F2.8 is 1 stop, the same as from 400 to 800 ISO.
At 400 ISO you can already see the difference between the G10 and the LX3, see
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page12.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page12.asp)
Franco
Photofanatic
03-30-2009, 05:57
Bleach,
When you finish with your research and pick one out please let me know how it performs for you. I have tried several but was disappointed in them all.
Powder River
03-30-2009, 10:36
Boar Stone wins on his merit of a post, I am on the third digital camera... I didn't look at the models you mentioned because I believe you are over thinking this. Go small, light, shockproof, waterproof if you can afford it. Moisture,cold, extra batteries, are the real issue, not megapixels. On a cold morning after that first cup of coffee an anti shake feature is what I look for.
Small, light, shockproof and waterproof = poorer image quality. The two cameras he mentioned are high end cameras, which are designed to take better pictures, have RAW capability and full manual controls. No camera manufacturer has yet made a high end camera that is also small, light, shockproof and waterproof. So you have to choose- get better pictures or have a camera you can go snorkling with?
Powder River
03-30-2009, 10:41
I did it so can you. Yes you have to forfeit something else but when you look back on your pics it is worth it. I carried a compact camera one time and was sorely disappointed. If you haven't hiked on the AT yet you will find soon you can sleep anywhere on anything so you don't need too many bells and whistles for comfort. Fortunately that has stuck with me and I can fall asleep on a rock in about 3 seconds.
You only need two lenses, an 18 to 50 wide angle and 70 to 300 but you won't even use the 70 to 300 much. I am a Nikon fan but found the Sigma 70 to 300 1:4-5:6 DG also serves for macro shots. It lets in lots of light so you can shoot really early and late.
You will want to rig two lines with clips on your pack (boot strings work fine)so the weight is not on your neck and your camera won't be bouncing along the way. After a day or so you won't even notice the weight of it being there.
Are you saying clip the DSLR to the straps? Or clip a case for the DSLR to the straps and carry in front? I am holding out hope for the rumored olympus micro 4/3 system: http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/olympus-micro-four-thirds-camera-launching-this-summer/
But if that does not turn out I think the smallest dslr on the market is the Panny G1 right now, which would be way better than any compact.
Powder River
03-30-2009, 11:03
Getting a compact digital for backpacking. Can't carry my chunky DSLR on my hikes this Summer with the food and especially water loads I'll encounter. So.
I'm trying to decide between the Canon G10 and the Panasonic Lumix LX3 which seem to be about it in the high-end-compact-with-manual-control-and-RAW-capability category. (With the exception of the Sigma DP1 which I can't afford anyway.) Leaning towards the LX3, but wanted to get some input from anyone who's used either of these backpacking, or who knows more about this photo business than myself.
My thoughts: I don't like the excessive megapixels on the G10, seems like massive overkill on that tiny sensor, a cheap selling point, and is probably terrible beyond 400 ISO. But I like the optical range, it costs less, I don't often shoot in high ISO anyway, and I like the controls a lot. Has some neat little things like the built in ND filter too.
I like the wider 24mm on the LX3, REALLY dig the F/2 Leica lens and the fact that the resolution is apppropriate for the sensor, but would also like a greater optical range. It's lighter, but also more expensive.
I've only used Canon compacts previously and am a bit hesitant to switch to a unknown company. So anyone used either of these, particularly backpacking? How's the autofocus on Panasonic compacts? Any more input from photo people?
I carried a G9. While I was overall very pleased with the results, I really like that the LX3 has better ISO performance, less pixels and a faster lens. It seems like a nice camera.
However, the ND filter is a huge feature for me. I was able to take 3 second exposures on waterfalls in the middle of the day, and have them come out correctly exposed with that wispy effect. I also liked the telephoto end (although it is less on the G10) which allowed me more than one really good shot of wildlife, but more useful was its effect on the DOF when doing close up shots of wildflowers. I usually had a lot of trouble getting the narrow DOF to hit the spot on the flower I wanted, which took some time but of course is worth when I see the files.
Also the controls on the G9/10 are amazing, and I can't imagine going back. The kicker is Canon's new flash http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032503canonspeedlite270ex.asp which, with the rotating head and 5 ounces now earns a place in my pack. I carried the heavier 420ex for a while and got some priceless pictures from a bluegrass jam in Monson.
So I guess if it were me I would be holding my nose at the excessive megapixels but buy the G10 over the LX3. I don't print my photos, and when one does get blown up to a large size that's where a lot of work on the RAW file can make it look a lot better.
gotta nixon cool pix, it was great, i could still adjsut everything that i wanted to, well untill i stepped on the screen:datz:(
We have the Panasonic Lumix TZ-4, absolutely love it....
Valentine
03-30-2009, 13:50
Bleach
The difference between F2 and F2.8 is 1 stop, the same as from 400 to 800 ISO.
At 400 ISO you can already see the difference between the G10 and the LX3, see
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page12.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/page12.asp)
Franco
2 to 2.8 is not one stop. F2 to F4 is one stop.
The photography term "one f-stop" refers to a factor of √2 (approx. 1.41) change in f-number, which in turn corresponds to a factor of 2 change in light intensity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
Valentine
03-30-2009, 13:56
OOPS!
Standard full-stop f-number scale
Including aperture value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEX_system) AV:
AV-2-101234567891011121314f/#0.50.71.01.422.845.6811162232456490128
Valentine
03-30-2009, 13:57
Franco is correct. Ignore my posts. need more coffee.
gotta nixon cool pix, it was great, i could still adjsut everything that i wanted to, well untill i stepped on the screen:datz:(
i wonder if nixon's cool pix are as cool as my nikon can take? :p
The digital Nikon now use SD cards, the nixon still uses tapes
Franco
Just Jack
03-30-2009, 22:13
Anybody have any trail experience with this phone?
How long is a charge good for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk
I've been using a Nikon D70 with the 18-55 lens for 3+ years on my "-photo hikes."
Then I went decided to lighten my pack, and bought a Canon SD870 IS, because it was the lightest I could find with a 28mm (equiv.) zoom. But no RAW, :(. Plus, I tripped and slammed it onto a rock slab when i was crossing a rocky creek. Since then it has a constant whine, like some motor inside is trying to work, but the gears aren't engaged. Haven't figured it out. But it still takes fine pictures.
So, then I got a Pana TZ3. Love the lens, great wide 28mm (equiv.) plus the 10x zoom. But it does have a little too much noise, no optical viewfinder, and again, no RAW. :(
I like a real viewfinder, so I'm pretty keen on the G10 right now.
Check out dpReview for this review of the G10. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/.
The Pana LX3 is here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/
And take a look at the Canon G1 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/
Powder River
03-30-2009, 23:39
Anybody have any trail experience with this phone?
How long is a charge good for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk
Not very long, but the nice thing is it charges while taking your temperature. :eek:
Valentine
03-31-2009, 08:10
2 to 2.8 is not one stop. F2 to F4 is one stop.
The photography term "one f-stop" refers to a factor of √2 (approx. 1.41) change in f-number, which in turn corresponds to a factor of 2 change in light intensity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
The difference between each of the following is one Fstop
2,2.8,4,5.6,8,11....:p