camera for long distance backpack what do you suggest?

[DavidNH]

Hi,

Personally, I always like to have a camera with me when hiking. Thus far I have only used film cameras the smallest being an olympus stylus compact.

For those of you who take a camera with you backpacking long distances what do you like to use and recommend? film or digitial? and what model?

I am thinking the SLR camera would be out as it is to heavy and cumbersom. I want the camera to be light and compact as possible yet still be able to take quality pictures. Am i perhaps asking a bit much? How can I have my cake and eat it to so to speak?

NHhiker

[RITBlake]

Hi,
Am i perhaps asking a bit much? How can I have my cake and eat it to so to speak?


Not at all...If you're willing to go digitial...This was a great year for digital cameras. There are now dozens of small, light, compact digital cameras that shoot over 5+ megapixels. That will offer you more then enough resolution while still meeting your weight/size requirements. You will probably be suprised by the low cost of these cameras too.

The SLR is an AMAZING camera, just not right for a long distance hike.

Throw in one of the new 2 gig flash cards that can hold thousands of images, and you are good to go.

The only problem w/ digital cameras are the batteries. If you're willing to go w/out the LCD preview screen you will save your battery life tremendously. You could always but a bunch of high end batteries made for cameras and put them in a bounce box. When you need fresh ones, just grab some from your BB

[RITBlake]

For my thru hike I will be carrying the Canon EOS Digital Rebel w/ a Canon wide-angle lens. (different then a fish-eye) This camera weighs 19 oz. Certainly not light by any standard, but I'm very interested in photography so I didn't want to cut any corners.

NH Hiker I was poking around the Canon site, they have several 5+ megapixel cameras that weigh less then 5 oz's (w/ out batteries) check them out

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="586"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">
</td><td rowspan="2">
</td><td rowspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td><td valign="top">lhttp://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/eos/digital_rebel_68x68.gif</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[hungryhowie]

I, too, use a eos Digital Rebel (300D), but I carry three lenses :D

...and a 2 pound tripod...and a 1 pound ballhead...

So that's 10 pounds of photo gear.

But...it takes purty images

http://www.newsushi.net/images/lrc-sunset705_RT82a.jpg

If you want to go film, you'll get much better for much lighter. I recomend the Yashica T4 (excellent Ziess optics), or the Hasselblad XPan, a straight 35mm camera that allows you to shoot true panoramic with the resolution of a medium format. Both excellent cameras.

-Howie

[chris]

The T4 isn't made any more. Personally, unless I was going to haul at outfit like Howie's, I wouldn't bother with an SLR on the AT. You are under a canopy most of the time and a point-and-shoot will generally get the metering right. Sure, the lens on a Olympus Stylus Epic (what I used to use) isn't the greatest. But, neither is the glass that comes with many SLR kits.

I have two cameras that I currently use: A Nikon SLR and a Olympus digital point and shoot (lowest model they make). If a trip is all about hiking or climbing, the digital comes with. If the purpose of the trip is to take pretty pictures, then I'll bring the SLR.

One tip, however, if you bring a film camera. Think about what you want to do with the photos later on. Slide film, even in a point-and-shoot, is world's better than print film. Don't believe me? Go to

http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/faculty/cwillett

and look at some of the pics on the PCT page. Then, look at some of the pics on the GDT page. Same basic camera. The PCT are taken with bad print film. The GDT pics are with a mixture of slide film. The pics on the AT page were also from the same camera, but this time with more reasonable print film.

Take slide film if you think you might do a slide show some time. If you want digital copies, most photo places will do this at development time for you for a few more dollars. A 4 by 6 (standard size) print from a slide will cost you about 70 cents.

[flyfisher]

After trying several alternatives I went for the Olympus Stylus 300. I have taken several thousand pictures with it. It's battery is good for about 250 shots, as is the memory card that I carry.

http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Cameras/Digital/Olympus%20Stylus%20300/Owner%20Review%20by%20Rick%20Allnutt/olympus300.jpg

I wrote a report on that camera here:

http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Cameras/Digital/Olympus%20Stylus%20300/Owner%20Review%20by%20Rick%20Allnutt/

[Footslogger]

I would suggest you consider going digital. Lots of compact, lightweight models out there. No film handling/devleopment and substantial post processing available.

Unless you plan on printing/enlarging your pics though you don't have to chase the high end Mpixel crowd. I shot my entire thru-hike in 2003 using a 2.1 Mpixel camera (Panasonic) and my shots are great. Pics in the 2 Mpixel range are more than adequate for computer screen viewing and e-mails. I have printed up to 4 x 6" sized pics from the digital media card and the quality is great.

That said ...if you plan to generate enlarged prints after your hike you would want to look at the 3 Mpixel and higher models. One consideration, regardless of the camera you choose is battery size/life. My camera used AA sized rechargeables and I carried a small, lightweight recharger. Nowadays, with the advent of the Lithium AA's you would probably be wiser to just go that route and carry a spare set or two and not hassle with the recharger. Media cards are the next consideration. I personally went with several of the smaller capacity variety (32 Mbyte). Reason being, I didn't want my entire hike's worth of pics on one card, just in case the card would get damaged or lost. I would send a full card home, where my wife would download the pics to our computer and then erase/send me back the empty card. Worked great for me.

Hope that helps ...

'Slogger
AT 2003

[The Old Fhart]

Chris-"You are under a canopy most of the time and a point-and-shoot will generally get the metering right." Actually point-and-shoots do quite well on metering but one thing to keep in mind is that some autofocus cameras, especially point-and-shoot models, won't focus properly if you have a foggy scene. At least with the SLRs you can see this and switch to MF. There are also time you might want to use spot metering or exposure compensation. This photo (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2098/sort/1/cat/500/page/3) of mine (which appeared in an L.L.Bean catalog) was taken with an SLR. Similar fog shots I've taken with my Pentax 928 high end point-and-shoot are out of focus.

But it all depends on what you want to use the shots for and whether you are just going to just have 4x6 prints made. I normally carry a (heavy) Pentax PZ-1 SLR with a sigma 28-200mm lens and use Fuji Velvia slide film. I have also carried a tripod and a shutter release but it has payed off, quite well, in fact. Click here (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2946/size/big/sort/1/cat/500) for another example that it was worth it for me to carry several pounds of camera gear.

I recommend you consider what you want to do with the photos you take and find a camera that matches your needs. All the posts here give good solid reasons to take one type of camera, or other.

[dje97001]

I really want to get the Pentax Optio 43WR... 4 megapix, all-weather (can be submerged in 3 ft. of water for 30 minutes) and seems to really have a happy consumer base. epinions.. etc. If I can convince my wife to let me spend the $350 bucks (well, a little more to get a larger SD card too) I am definitely wanting this one. Oh.. it weighs 7.3 ounces with batteries and SD card included!! And the best part? It uses AAs!! This seems like the lightest I can find that doesn't use a proprietary Li battery (which requires adding the weight and inconvenience of a charger).

Other benefits? This thing can take video clips with sound too!! (even at 30fps--as opposed to the 15fps typically found; also at 640x480 resolution) So with this puppy, you can actually record the video of you summitting the big K.

Okay, the only drawback that I've experienced with Digital Cameras is that sometimes the shutter speed is too slow and you can't keep your hands (well, I can't keep mine) steady long enough to capture the highest number of pixels sharply. I'm sure advances in this area too have been made since my RDC-5000 brick was built! BUT, I was at staples yesterday and was browsing their stock... I bought a tripod for $8 that is only going to extend up from the surface about 8-12 inches, but it only weights 1.5 oz. I figure you can always prop it up on rocks or other things for landscape shots, but for macro stuff, this thing is ideal.

Again, if I can swing the price, I'm going to get the Pentax Optio 43WR.

[BlackCloud]

I, too, use a eos Digital Rebel (300D), but I carry three lenses :D

...and a 2 pound tripod...and a 1 pound ballhead...

So that's 10 pounds of photo gear.

But...it takes purty images

http://www.newsushi.net/images/lrc-sunset705_RT82a.jpg

If you want to go film, you'll get much better for much lighter. I recomend the Yashica T4 (excellent Ziess optics), or the Hasselblad XPan, a straight 35mm camera that allows you to shoot true panoramic with the resolution of a medium format. Both excellent cameras.

-HowieHowie baby, nice shot. Gauley River I suppose. Do you have the XPan? I do, and ALWAYS hike w/ it. Although I don't yet have the 30mm lens, it does what I want - records exactly what I see onto film. A word of caution to people on this though - you need to know how to do everything manually w/ this one.
As for the orignal Q, well, I'd go w/ a small digital likethe Sony Cybershot, but I'm not digitaly in-the-know; too in love w/ my XPan to care......

[chris]

Actually point-and-shoots do quite well on metering but one thing to keep in mind is that some autofocus cameras, especially point-and-shoot models, won't focus properly if you have a foggy scene. At least with the SLRs you can see this and switch to MF.

In places like the AT in main hiking season, this is completely true. However, trying to take a picture with a lot of snow in it is an exercise in frustration. I'm just not good enough with a point and shoot to get the exposure right. Or, taking a picture in the desert. Most of my PS photos are terribly washed out. These conditions generally are not met with on the AT, so I think a PS will do very well. Put in some Velvia, and you've got the potential for some great shots.

[hungryhowie]

Howie baby, nice shot. Gauley River I suppose. Do you have the XPan?

Thanks. It's actually Little River Canyon in north Alabama. Nice little area. I'd love to go back up there and explore along the banks. There's some great boating in there, too. I don't have an XPan, but I've been pretty impressed by what I've seen of and from it.

-howie

[weary]

My current trail "compromise" is an Olympus !S-5 35 mm film camera. It has a reasonably fast 28-140 zoom. It weighs about 26 ounces with film and carrying strap. I see it advertised recently for under $250, which is a $200 discount from such high level point and shoots of a few years ago. A digital with a comparable lens and print quality runs in the $700 range.

Eventually I'll probably switch to digital, but I don't have $500 for a good camera and another $2,000 for a digital projector.

When I did the trail in 1993 I carried an 11-ounce Olympus point and shoot, 38-110 zoom, and shot up 80+ 36-exposure rolls of slide film, which I weeded down to 240 for a slide show. I enjoy reliving my hike while showing the slides to groups.

I currently do a short slide show of our town land trust preserves at the annual meetings, and take photos to illustrate the newsletters I do for the Maine Chapter of AMC, and MATC.

PC magazine recently reviewed a $1,400 digital camera with an anti shake mechanism, something I would find increasingly more useful. But I struggle by with my homemade wooden hiking pole/monopod.

Weary

[The Old Fhart]

chris-“However, trying to take a picture with a lot of snow in it is an exercise in frustration. I'm just not good enough with a point and shoot to get the exposure right. Or, taking a picture in the desert. Most of my PS photos are terribly washed out.”Snow can be a real problem because if everything is white, your camera metering system is calibrated to render that as 18% gray which is what they figure the "average" scene would be. With snow in bright sun you would have to give 1-2 stops more light to make the scene look right. I’ve found closer to 1 stop works for me to make it look more real while still retaining some shadow detail. Check this photo (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/s.../sort/1/cat/500) to see a snow shot on the summit of Mt. Washington that is about what I wanted. In 1995, which was a very high snow year in the Sierra Nevada mountains, I got some good shots of the sun-cupped surface of the snow with an extremely bright sun. One trick that helps is to shoot under overcast skies but that is much easier on the A.T. than on the JMT.

In 1996 when I did the JMT I had some shots that didn’t look that great. The rock is light colored and highly reflective (like snow) and I should opened up a stop and kept the polarizer on most of the time to improve contrast. Any shots with trees and other non-reflective surfaces looked great. Check here (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2830/size/big/sort/1/cat/500) to see a photo on the summit of Mt. Whitney taken with a 16mm full-frame fish-eye lens that looks about right.

In a few weeks I hope to be going up to Mt. Washington for a week-end to kind of help with a photo trip so maybe I will get some more good snow shots.

[The Old Fhart]

Something messed up. If clicking on "this photo," in the post above doesn't work, try here. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2089/size/big/sort/1/cat/500)

[DavidNH]

Hungry howe..that photo you placed in your reply..it's gorgeous!!! where is this scene? you must be a better than avg amateur photographer no?

NH hiker