PDA

View Full Version : Camera Buying - should I sacrifice zoom or picture quality?



sdisser
02-07-2013, 14:05
I'm shopping for a pocket-sized digital camera with superior quality for my thru-hike, but I'd also like to have decent zoom. Unfortunately, you get one or the other in this market. Quality is more important to me.

I am considering the Canon Powershot S100, but it only has 5x optimal zoom. So, my question is, for someone looking to shoot better quality photos than a regular point and shoot, will I miss having a better zoom quality on the trail if I buy this camera or one similar? I mean, do I need zoom enough that it would be worth sacrificing some quality?

I realize that I'm probably going to get some "to each his own" replies, but I'm asking your opinion because I don't really have one yet. haha!

Thanks!

Mobius
02-07-2013, 14:32
With the caveat that I haven't thru-hiked...

When I'm out in the woods hiking or trail running I've been using a Panasonic Lumix TS series (I have the TS1. My wife has the TS4). My criteria were: water proof, drop proof (impact resistant), and hard to break. The lens is entirely internal so there are no moving parts to break (or get water/grit in). That sacrifices the zoom capability. It could be my shooting style but I find that I generally want wider angle shots (landscape), not zoom shots. The only thing I want to zoom on is wildlife and no point and shoot is really sufficient for that.

It's pretty light too, all things considered. It shoots pretty nice HD video as well and the battery has pretty good staying power. My wife's model has GPS built-in. We have that turned off (privacy and battery life) but for a trail hike that might be handy to know where you were when you took the shot, assuming you get GPS reception). There's a smaller/lighter model as well though I forget the designation.

RCBear
02-07-2013, 14:38
I would take photo quality any day. if the picture quality is high, then manipulation can be done in software like photoshop later. if you start out sacrificing quality at the outset then you are limited immediately Most point and shoots these days have an optical zoom that isn't bad. forget about the digital zoom length because as soon as you cross over from the built in optical to digital zoom you get significant quality deterioration and image stability becomes difficult.

Feral Bill
02-07-2013, 14:43
Really long telephotos need a tripod. At that point you might as well carry an SLR or other interchangeable lens camera.

bigcranky
02-07-2013, 14:48
Picture quality. Super zooms are generally not great, and not really necessary in my experience. I prefer a moderate wide angle lens with a fast aperture. For most hiking I take a micro 4/3 camera with the 20/1.7 lens. Great image quality, small carry size, just the right focal length for my style of shooting. Not the lightest in the world, but not too bad.

I'd look at the Canon S100, the Fuji X10 or X20, the Olympus XZ-10, the Panasonic LX-7, etc. All will have excellent image quality for a point and shoot (i.e., not terrific high-ISO images but still usable.)

Ender
02-07-2013, 15:50
Get the S100, it's the best P&S camera out there (or the S110, the newer version of that camera). Don't worry about the zoom, just crop and zoom after the fact on your computer.

GoldenBear
02-07-2013, 15:50
You said you planned to use this camera on a thru-hike. That latter phrase clarifies, at least for me, the advice I'll give.

First off, let me make clear that I'm a photo-taking freak, and have been for over thirty years. When I see a beautiful scene, just about my only thought is whether or not I can photograph it. If I can't capture the scene in a photo, then it's as if the view or experience wasn't worth having.

Nevertheless, the longer I spend time on the AT, the less has become my desire to have a camera with me.
It's not that I no longer enjoy taking good photos
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=47362&catid=member&imageuser=13863
or that I don't want to record my unexpected discoveries
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=47489&catid=member&imageuser=13863
or that I don't consider a photo a good way to convey information
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=51233&catid=member&imageuser=13863

It's just that these tasks have become so much less of a priority during a long hike.
When I'm on a day-hike, I can take the time and effort to get a good shot. On the other hand, when I've been drudging along for days, my thoughts turn to avoiding another knee injury, or tick bites, or melanoma, or sleepless nights, or blisters, or cuts on my wrists, or socks that never seem to get dry, or getting drenched in the rain, or heat exhaustion, or any of a dozen other hazards I've ALREADY EXPERIENCED -- without ever hiking for more than five days! At this point, the effort needed to get a good photo becomes a luxury I've decided I just can't afford. I've never considered taking the SLR that served me for over 25 years -- just too much weight. Even the point-and-shoot digital camera I now use has evolved from a necessity around my neck to an albatross around my neck. Plain and simple, I'm finding it's just not worth it to have a good camera -- the importance of a good photo has been eclipsed by the importance of dry socks.

So, what I'm saying, don't worry about either a large zoom OR a high number of pixels. Find a camera that's light and durable, and can be kept out of the rain while still being easy to reach. It's fun to get photos of shelter buddies, stream crossings that look impossible, and bears that pop out from behind trees -- they create memories that will last longer than the Lyme Disease anti-bodies in your blood, and allow to accurately share those memories in a delightful way. But, on a thru-hike, your main concern isn't the TECHNICAL quality of your photos, it's (1) surviving the hike and (2) having a camera that survives the hike as well.

leaftye
02-07-2013, 16:38
I'll take zoom every time. I've missed too many wildlife pictures because I couldn't get enough pixels on target. All the image quality on the world doesn't matter if animals are only 3 pixels wide. If image quality was really important, I'd carry nothing less than 4/3rds, but would more likely go with APS-C, and even full frame if I had lots of money to spend on a camera. Even then, I'd still carry a second compact super zoom camera to catch quick pictures that the big sensor camera isn't ready/equipped for.

Feral Bill
02-07-2013, 17:04
As always in photography, the camera is only as good as the photographer. Read a book or two, and practice, practice, practice. Not just with shooting, but with Photoshop (or equivalent).

tds1195
02-07-2013, 17:10
I use a Samsung w300 - weights about 4.8 oz, is waterproof, shockproof, and dustproof. I got it for $50 (newegg refurbished)...zoom sucks but it has good enough quality. I love the little guy! It's a video recorder first and camera second, though. If you want something simple and durable I would go for it. Can't beat it for the price!

swjohnsey
02-07-2013, 17:56
Yep, the S95-100-110 is a great P&S (really not a P&S as it has most of the manual features of a DSLR).

FarmerChef
02-07-2013, 18:42
I too take pictures and often with my iphone. I've carried a P&S and gotten good photos with that as well. This next hike I will take my SLR and see how that feels over 180 miles.

It's the person behind the camera not the camera that takes great pictures. Megapixels and zoom don't matter. It's what you do with it that does. So really, the answer to your question is...it depends. Personally, I find that I tend to take more macro photos and wide area photos that I later stitch together into panoramas in Photoshop. Rarely do I use the zoom. But I'm not on a wildlife safari, trying to sneak up on unsuspecting animals where closeness and a long tele really matter. If I'm too close I backup. Too far away, I'll get a bit closer. Or as another poster put it, I'll crop it later in PS. One other consideration I would give is that having a more detailed and sharp picture means it will be easier for you to crop/zoom later in PS before it gets too grainy to be useful. That said, if animals are your game and you really think you will take the time to zoom way in then go for the zoom. Otherwise people can move and you can move to get closer. My two cents.

Slo-go'en
02-07-2013, 19:07
I agree a good maro is more important then zoom. There will be a lot of wild flowers you'll want to get in close too and not all that much wild life to have zoom in on. Just about any shirt pocket PS camara on the market right now will have 12 to 15 mega pixels and a 3X or better optical zoom anyway. 99% of your pictures will be of landscape vistas or people at vistas.

fredmugs
02-07-2013, 19:37
Most people on here would not carry a camera as big as the one I use but I wanted something better than I had for my JMT trip last fall.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-HX20V-Digital-3-0-inch/dp/B006K551WQ/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1360279979&sr=8-13&keywords=sony+camera

18.2 MP. 20X Optical Zoom. Full 1080P video. Weighs a little more and the body is thicker but the quality is superior to the Nikon Coolpix I used to use. If you plan on taking video make sure you have a Class 10 card to write to.

hikerboy57
02-07-2013, 19:47
taken with my nikon coolpix from app 50 ft
would have been even clearer with a tripod
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/2/8/4/8/1/054.jpg (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showimage.php?i=53908&original=1&catid=member&imageuser=28481)

Wise Old Owl
02-07-2013, 20:12
Nikon Cool Pix for me....http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/1/5/5/2/dscn0339.jpg

nitewalker
02-07-2013, 20:30
if you want to get a clear pic then you need to have a steady hand or a tripod. i dont care how good the camera is that you have. if you shake at all the shot is blurred to a degree. if your trying to zoom in it becomes even harder to keep a steady shot. i take all my shots by hand and i make 100% sure that i am super steady when snaping the pic. sure it doesnt always come out super clear thats why i take several pics of the same subject. i have a sony cybershot dsc-h55 14.1 megapixels and a 10x opticalzoom and 25mm wide angle lens. i went with this camera for the zoom over the mega pixels, although i do belive 14.1 mp is plenty...i just need to master the art of taking better pictures using the setings provided by the camera. diferent scenes and lighting come out better using different settings...

Wise Old Owl
02-07-2013, 20:44
Nitewalker good advice, but from a "got to have caffeinated drinks to function in daylight... one only has to turn on "STEADYSHOT" works every time!

nitewalker
02-07-2013, 20:47
Nitewalker good advice, but from a "got to have caffeinated drinks to function in daylight... one only has to turn on "STEADYSHOT" works every time!


i still forget about that freakin steady shot. slips my mind everytime i use the camera, lol....

colorado_rob
02-07-2013, 21:04
I've owned a Canon S90 for a couple of years. Ken Rockwell (check out his web site sometime) calls this series the best of the compact, pocketable P&S cameras. The pic quality is really very, very decent from the S90. I plan on buying an S100 for my AT attempt here in two months. The S100 has a wider zoom range, 24-120mm (35mm equivalent) vs. the S90 (28-90mm). the extra wide angle (24mm vs. 28mm) is what prompts me to get the S100, and the extra long end is a bonus. I'm more of a wide-angle shooter than a tele shooter, so this P&S is perfect for me. Hard to find a small P&S (maybe impossible) that gets wider than 24mm (again, 35mm camera equivalent).

By the way, the S100 sells for $250 on Amazon. The S110 is pretty much the same camera for $100 more, and includes WIFI, if that's important to you (it is not to me).

Furthering what is said below, and though I never carry a tripod, whenever possible I do brace the camera against a handy tree, rock, whatever to get as sharp an image as possible. The S90 takes some remarkably sharp, clear, vibrant images. I've owned a lot of cameras, including a DSLR, and my S90 is the camera I now always reach for. (except situations where a big tele is necessary, weddings, events, etc then it's a 480mm lens on my Canon DSLR).

Matjok
02-07-2013, 22:29
Take a look at this Canon.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_320201_-1#bvtips

50X optical zoom in a compact camera. I haven't used it, and know nothing about the picture quality. However, the best compact cameras I have used are Canon G series. I have DSLRs, but my Canon G12 is the the camera I always reach for when I go hiking.

swjohnsey
02-07-2013, 22:47
I have a G9 and S95. I think I would take the S95.

moongoddess
02-07-2013, 23:44
I think Olympus has discontinued it, but I love my Olympus XZ-1 as a travel camera. It's wonderful to have a truly fast lens (f1.8) at the wide end of zoom range. And when shooting outdoors, 90% of the time I find myself wishing for more wide-angle coverage, not more telephoto capability.

HooKooDooKu
02-08-2013, 12:27
Blurry shots is my biggest culprit to creating bad shots in the woods.

I would suggest that you find a camera with Image Stabilization technology that is designed for low light. That generally means looking for cameras with small f-stops (the smaller the number, the less light is required). F-stop is NOT a linear thing. The 'steps' are f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0. Each step up means the camera needs twice as much light to take a picture. I personally prefer a point-n-shot with an f/2.0 or small, and would consider an f/2.8 or smaller. When you see two f-stop numbers, that is for zoom lenses. The smaller number is the f-stop when zoomed out, the larger number is the f-stop when zoomed in.

Ender
02-08-2013, 13:22
Something to keep in mind, is that the 5X zoom or 10X zoom is relative based on the initial mm of the lens. So you can have two 5X zoom lenses where one lens magnifies the image much more than the other lens. The S100 is a 5.2mm-26mm lens, which on a normal SLR is the equivalent of a 24mm-120mm lens, and gives you fairly decent reach. It also still gives you a decent enough wide angle, not super wide, but decent enough. I'd be fine with those specs for most situations.

peakbagger
02-08-2013, 16:14
I have talked to many thruhikers who carried a lof of extra weight and spent extra time taking really great view shots and the majority of them say that they wish they had taken more campsite shots and had more pictures of themselves and the folks they met along the trail. They generally recomended going with an easy to use lightweight camera and keep it handy as those campsite shots were what they usually looked at in the years after a thru hike. This tranlate to weather and shock proof camera. I have a Olympus Tough shot that seems to fit the bill

Liminal
02-08-2013, 16:27
I have a Powershot and it is good but I wanted waterproof and went with Olympus Tough Tg-1... and small tripod.. I am very happy with quality

((not sure if this photo will show))

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/seamster/th_IMG_00091024x768-1.jpg (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/seamster/?action=view&current=IMG_00091024x768-1.jpg)

fwish
02-08-2013, 16:53
Having lost a Canon Point & Shoot that decided to take a swim in the Buffalo River, I have decided to go with the Nikon Coolpix AW100 and so far it seems to be working out fine. I decided that I needed a waterproof/shockproof Point & Shoot if it was going to keep up with my clumsiness.

hikerboy57
02-08-2013, 17:01
I have talked to many thruhikers who carried a lof of extra weight and spent extra time taking really great view shots and the majority of them say that they wish they had taken more campsite shots and had more pictures of themselves and the folks they met along the trail. They generally recomended going with an easy to use lightweight camera and keep it handy as those campsite shots were what they usually looked at in the years after a thru hike. This tranlate to weather and shock proof camera. I have a Olympus Tough shot that seems to fit the bill

this is true. even on my section hikes i wish i had taken many more shots of the people i met rather than hundreds of shots of woods that all look the same.

vtrek
02-08-2013, 17:30
Take picture quality over long zoom. You can easily blow up a picture to get a "closer" view

Another Kevin
02-08-2013, 18:16
On the other hand, when I've been drudging along for days, my thoughts turn to avoiding another knee injury, or tick bites, or melanoma, or sleepless nights, or blisters, or cuts on my wrists, or socks that never seem to get dry, or getting drenched in the rain, or heat exhaustion, or any of a dozen other hazards I've ALREADY EXPERIENCED -- without ever hiking for more than five days! At this point, the effort needed to get a good photo becomes a luxury I've decided I just can't afford.

You know, comments like this one are what keep me a clueless weekender. All the Real Hikers seem to tell me that they get totally absorbed in making the miles and avoiding the hazards. I think that long before I decided that photography was a luxury I can't afford, I'd be asking myself, "why am I out here?" I concede, I don't carry a DSLR - that much weight, I won't go for - but I carry a decent P&S (Canon SX20IS with CHDK), and get fair if not stunning pictures.

Maybe I'm reading you as being more negative than you intended - since you go on to suggest features to look for in a camera (lightness and durability). Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot. I've had at least one outdoor shot where a good photographer asked me, "what kind of lens did you use to get that?" and I pulled out my cell phone, pointed to its lens, and answered, "I don't know, whatever this is. It's all I had on me that day."

leaftye
02-08-2013, 18:21
Take picture quality over long zoom. You can easily blow up a picture to get a "closer" view

Please, for those saying this, post up your wildlife pictures taken with short zoom cameras. Emphasis on "wild".

FarmerChef
02-08-2013, 18:59
Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot. I've had at least one outdoor shot where a good photographer asked me, "what kind of lens did you use to get that?" and I pulled out my cell phone, pointed to its lens, and answered, "I don't know, whatever this is. It's all I had on me that day."

I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon. :)

hikerboy57
02-08-2013, 19:04
I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon. :)its so true and with a bit of luck that you happen to notice the light will never be the same and you happen to snap the shutter and capture the moment

fredmugs
02-08-2013, 19:18
19546

This is with my Sony camera from maybe 50 yards away. Camera has a 16X optical zoom. Pics are soooo much better.

fredmugs
02-08-2013, 19:20
BTW - That's a marmot just as I was getting ready to climb Forrester Pass on the PCT.

GoldenBear
02-08-2013, 19:26
> Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot.

Yes, I agree. A smart-phone can capture that smile on your hiking mate just as well as a super-duper DSLR with all the bells and whistles.
I even agree that, for day hiking, a good zoom and wide angle are essential to getting those shots you really want to get -- whether it's a wide view of a cliff in British Columbia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr77x/3789015145/in/set-72157621866244008/lightbox/
or a zoom of the climbers on that cliff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr77x/3789045615/in/set-72157621866244008/lightbox/

Which is why I still carry my SLR for these shots -- I hate having the camera decide when the shot is in focus, or taking even half a second to do so.

But that wasn't the question asked, and it wasn't the one I answered.
As I tried to make abundantly clear, I tried to give advice for what camera to use on a THRU-hike -- not a weekend hike.

For the former, durability and weight are what counts. And that's because, if you're trying to complete a thru-hike, your focus will have to be on doing the miles and avoiding hazards.
Not that you can't possibly get great shots -- you very likely will. But, if you make THAT your focus, then you won't complete your thru-hike. And the latter, after all, is why the OP is out there.

Me? I'll continue to have my SLR camera on easy day hikes, a digital camera on weekend hikes, and a smart-phone on longer hikes.
That way, I'll keep getting the shots I hope to get when THAT is my focus, and doing the miles when THAT is my focus.

That way, all those minor inconveniences I mentioned (Lyme Disease, knee surgery, removal of melanoma) won't keep me from completing the AT all the way to Kathadin.

leaftye
02-08-2013, 19:56
BTW - That's a marmot just as I was getting ready to climb Forrester Pass on the PCT.

Here's a PCT bear.

19547

That's all the pixels I got on the bear, even with 10x zoom. I wasn't very far from the bear either. Nevermind the quality. I brightened the image horribly for another purpose and I can't find my originals now. If I did post the original, you'd be looking at the picture for a while before you found the bear.

NotYet
02-08-2013, 21:20
A nice all around pocket-sized camera is the Canon SX260. It has a good cmos sensor and a 20X optical zoom. Its picture quality isn't rated as high as the S110, but it's much less expensive and has that great zoom on it. The Canon SX50 that Matjok posted a link to above is a fabulous camera. It does have a 50X optical zoom, and uses RAW and/or jpeg format, BUT it is NOT a pocket-sized camera...it's quite large has a similar $400+ price tag as the s110.

I'd be willing to lug around the SX50 if I could afford it, but I'm probably going to buy the SX260 for myself due to the price. (p.s. I get to play around with these all day, ever since I started working part-time job Best Buy!)

Another Kevin
02-08-2013, 23:11
Please, for those saying this, post up your wildlife pictures taken with short zoom cameras. Emphasis on "wild".

None of these was taken with a DSLR: they range from phonecam shots to a Canon SX120IS. And I excluded ones with long zoom.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7881531226_3518046cdf_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7881531226/)
IMG_2519 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7881531226/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7881548524_77ebbf0687_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7881548524/)
IMG_2505 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7881548524/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5236/7082872507_c0857b8a50_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7082872507/)
IMG_2158 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7082872507/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4079/4961104709_d7b6a513c6_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/4961104709/)
Red-spotted purple (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/4961104709/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4076/4961104239_49aafae887_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/4961104239/)
Red-spotted purple, underside (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/4961104239/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8456669307_3210ba8bd5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8456669307/)
Fawn off Perkins Memorial Drive, Bear Mountain (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8456669307/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

Another Kevin
02-08-2013, 23:21
its so true and with a bit of luck that you happen to notice the light will never be the same and you happen to snap the shutter and capture the moment

Yup. This one was shot with a phonecam. Magical light. It really looked like that, that isn't lens flare.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8330/8092852963_2ee2dcb862_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8092852963/)
Plotterkill in the mist (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8092852963/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

And this one on a disposable. I loved the symmetry of green trees and black shadows, white clouds and sunlit rocks, the upper and lower cascades. And the feel of coming out of the dark chasm to the sunlit falls.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/32949408_41e4c1fefc_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/32949408/)
Kaaterskill Falls (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/32949408/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

GoldenBear
02-09-2013, 00:44
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/393736_110890785732549_873190389_n.jpg
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/577087_110891675732460_1930853470_n.jpg

BradMT
02-09-2013, 02:04
Please, for those saying this, post up your wildlife pictures taken with short zoom cameras. Emphasis on "wild".

Couple of mine taken on cheap P&S's...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/Rams.jpg

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Animals/IM000725.jpg

BradMT
02-09-2013, 02:05
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Animals/elksies12-6-12.jpg

leaftye
02-09-2013, 08:27
Brad, those pictures are amazing. How are you getting close enough to fill up so much of the frame with little 3X zoom cameras? Especially with the mountain goat. You only had 3.2 megapixels to work with, so there's not much zoom by cropping you could do.


None of these was taken with a DSLR: they range from phonecam shots to a Canon SX120IS. And I excluded ones with long zoom.

Kevin, the SX120IS has a pretty long zoom. It's nowhere near the current superzoom leaders, but it's far beyond the compact cameras recommended for high quality photos. I also noticed your animals pictures were all at full zoom. I think your camera was a good choice.

Turtle'13
02-09-2013, 09:00
These posts all give you excellent advice. Even as a professional photojournalist with 45 years experience, I'm still up in the air about which camera to pack on my upcoming thru-hike. I suppose it all comes down to "how much good photography means to me." For some, the effort required to complete the hike makes it difficult to think about serious photography. For others, the hike is a once-in-a-lifetime event, so photos (both historical as well as artistic) are important.

For the time being, I think I'll carry my beater Canon G10 in a waist pouch, in a plastic bag. I have 16x20's hanging on the wall from this little jewel of a camera. It's got a decent zoom with good range, nice macro capabilities and terrific movie mode. Bring a little tripod like the Gorilla because, as others have said, motion ruins a lot of pictures. Besides, you can get in the picture with a tripod.

Good luck, and remember, you can always send the camera home if it turns out to be too much weight, bother, etc.

OzJacko
02-09-2013, 09:03
I have a Powershot and it is good but I wanted waterproof and went with Olympus Tough Tg-1... and small tripod.. I am very happy with quality

((not sure if this photo will show))

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/seamster/th_IMG_00091024x768-1.jpg (http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/seamster/?action=view&current=IMG_00091024x768-1.jpg)
I have gone with exactly the same camera.
I'm counting on it being ready to use even when it's raining to make up for its lack of zoom.
i.e. I'll be taking the photo a few seconds faster than a non waterproof.
It doesn't have the highest zoom of the "tough" cameras but reviews on camera sites rate it as clearly the best lens.

OzJacko
02-09-2013, 09:05
I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon. :)
My wife entered a pic taken on my Nokia in a photography competition and got second prize. Rusting old cars on a farm at dawn.

colorado_rob
02-09-2013, 09:07
I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon. :) ... Spot on.

rocketsocks
02-09-2013, 09:38
Bought my wife a Nikon cool pix 4300 6x zoom for x-mas. She likes it fine, it takes great photos, and was pretty cheap $109 rings a bell on sale. I know this was already mentioned, but if you don't have a rock solid base, zoom won't mean squat. Without a cable release like on our SLR at some point you have to press the button, there is a certain amount of dampening that takes place on board, but zoomed way out...pics still blur. Many of my subjects are in close quarters when out and about, even a butterfly can be not disturbed and captured with just a couple x zoom..but jm2c happy shutter bugging.

I too chase the light like Farmer Chef mentions...fun stuff.

1234
02-09-2013, 10:41
Waterproof, shockproof, and dustproof and FREEZEPROOF. ARE TO ME far more important. I hardly ever zoom, I actually take more macro pictures of mushrooms fungus and flowers. I had a camera that always on wet day took foggy pictures when it was not foggy and flat out did not function on cold days. That was a nikon coolpix, great camera but did not work on cold or wet days. I now use an Olympus tough. I have placed in 2 photography contest with photos from this camera. I think it is more the photographer than the equipment, however you must have a camera that works and is tough!

Feral Bill
02-09-2013, 14:19
Old P+S 19568 Shiny new micro 4/3 19569

If you are not doing big enlargements, go either way.

rickb
02-09-2013, 17:05
It's the person behind the camera not the camera that takes great pictures.

Not to mention what you are taking photos of. My best shots were of critters, and I think the optical zoom made all the difference. None of them could hold a candle to the photos this most talented hiker took, however. I think they are worth a look. And provide something of a lesson on the kinds of pictures one can get on the AT without a zoom.

i think the are something special:


http://benbenvieblog.com/tag/appalachian-trail/

rocketsocks
02-09-2013, 17:23
19580195811958219583just a couple from my Olympus stylus cheapy

tnhiker13
02-10-2013, 21:21
I use a canon power shot sx260 hs. It is a pocket camera with a 20x optical zoom 4x digital =80x has 12.1 mega pixels. It also takes 1080 full HD video. The camera takes great pictures from micro bug shots to full zoom at a distant object. I bought mine from Best Buy and bought the extended warranty. I was standing in a river taking a pic of a fish and slipped. The camera and I went in. I dried the camera out and it would not work. I returned the camera to Best Buy and they just gave me a new one. No questions ask. So for outdoor use I highly recommend the warranty.

BradMT
02-11-2013, 23:06
Brad, those pictures are amazing. How are you getting close enough to fill up so much of the frame with little 3X zoom cameras? Especially with the mountain goat. You only had 3.2 megapixels to work with, so there's not much zoom by cropping you could do.

I took that picture at less than 10 feet. I found the old boy sound asleep one day elk hunting... he woke up, stretched like an old Labrador and posed for me.

Nutbrown
02-12-2013, 08:18
Not sure if you got a camera yet, but I just got an Olympus sz-12. It's 14mp and 24x zoom. Fabulous pics so far and the zoom is better than a lot of those big slr's, at least the 1st gen of them...

Portie
03-13-2013, 22:00
The Canon SX50 is new and expensive. You can find the SX40 and SX30 for a lot less. Canon's web site sells essentially brand-new refurbs of these models for around $200. While they are big (bulky) they are also pretty light compared to my DSLR and they are great cameras.

Odd Man Out
03-13-2013, 22:57
My wife entered a pic taken on my Nokia in a photography competition and got second prize. Rusting old cars on a farm at dawn.

My version from backpacking on North Manitou Island, Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, MI. This must have been taken with my old Canon 4 MP.

20353

leaftye
03-13-2013, 23:11
The Canon SX50 is new and expensive. You can find the SX40 and SX30 for a lot less. Canon's web site sells essentially brand-new refurbs of these models for around $200. While they are big (bulky) they are also pretty light compared to my DSLR and they are great cameras.

The SX40 refurb is going for $350 with a 90 day warranty. With the propensity of Canon's to have the infamous "lens error", I think the extra $25-40 for a new SX50 with a full warranty is well worth the cost. I don't think I'd rely on a Canon though. Panasonic is looking good, it doesn't zoom as far.

Harrison Bergeron
03-14-2013, 09:33
One feature nobody has mentioned is recharging. The only decent waterproof cameras I could find that can be charged with a simple USB cable are Olympus and Sony. From what I read, the Olympus requires a proprietary USB cable, so it was out.

Right now, the Sony TX20 is $200 direct from Sony, including an 8G SD card. I just ordered it. It's got 4X optical zoom and only weighs 4.2 oz.


By the way, for me the main reason to take a camera as well as a smartphone is boot-up time and waterproofness. Waterproof is a requirement. I've already ruined a nice Canon Powershot hiking with it. And I hike with my phone turned off to save the battery, so by the time it boots up cold, whatever I'd want to take a picture of has already wandered off. If I carried my phone where I could get to it, it would be ruined the same as that Canon.

Bencape4
03-14-2013, 12:32
as for the samsung w300, looks really nice, but does it have a screwy thingy to mount it to a stick pic or tripod or something?

Odd Man Out
03-14-2013, 14:00
as for the samsung w300, looks really nice, but does it have a screwy thingy to mount it to a stick pic or tripod or something?

I got one of these for Christmas - It's all plastic so it is very lightweight, but I'm not sure how much it weighs.

http://joby.com/gorillapod/original

Dogwood
03-14-2013, 14:07
WOW, I've learned so much on this thread. Thanks all for sharing. I'm a aspiring novice photographer but when on a long distance hike I'm always trying to find the right balance in a camera being super compact(it has to fit in my hipbelt pocket on my pack for super quick access, what's the use of a camera if you can't get it out and up and running in time to capture pics, especially when shooting wildlife, although I know I can't get the detail of long range shots of wildlife with all my other camera considerations so I've settled for less of this ability with a long distance hiking super compact camera, I'll entertain suggestions in this regard), super light wt, easy for me to understand without a lot of features I'm not going to use(I do want video and panoramic features and much prefer vid w/sound), decent battery life, decently large memory card, decent(quick) start up time, short lag/recycling time between pics, at least 5 x optical zoom although my current Nikon CoolPix S6300 has a 10x optical zoom which is damn good in a light wt compact camera, image stabilization, and decent pic quality although I know pic quality isn't just about the camera it's also about the user. I think I got that right balance in my camera although I also will entertain all comments. HELP me understand! Feel free to correct anything wrong in the way I'm currently thinking about my long distance hiking camera! Again, thanks all for your input.

Popnfrsh24
03-15-2013, 16:49
awesome thread..this is going to help me pick out a camera for my thru hike!

Popnfrsh24
03-15-2013, 16:58
would you say the s100 series cameras are durable enough for a thru hike? How important is it to get a waterproof or shockproof camera if it is going to be stored in a dry bag in my pack?

Odd Man Out
03-15-2013, 22:57
I got one of these for Christmas - It's all plastic so it is very lightweight, but I'm not sure how much it weighs. http://joby.com/gorillapod/original

BTW, on my kitchen scale it came in at 1.5 oz.

Harrison Bergeron
03-16-2013, 20:36
Update on the Sony TX20. It's a great camera. Very light, 4.8 oz with battery and SD card. It takes absolutely stunning pictures and has every bell an whistle imaginable except for GPS.

But I was wrong about one key point. It does use a USB charger and can be charged from a computer but it has a NON-STANDARD USB connector on the camera side. So it also requires a proprietary USB cable, same as the Olympus. I don't know why every company insists on re-inventing the USB standard, but for some mysterious reason it's important to them. At least a cable weighs less than an entire charger. I'd still recommend it as a great hiking camera.

One outstanding feature is the user interface. It has a touch screen menu that's much easier to understand instead of the usual assortment of incomprehensible icons. And the manual is built-in, so you can leave the paper version at home.

Slo-go'en
03-16-2013, 21:34
I was debating whether or not to buy yet another camara, but my current one is starting to become flakey. I was checking out the selection at my local Wallyworld, which seems to be cleaning out the camara department. I ended up buying a Samsung ST66 for $62, a pretty good deal. I'm just hopeing I don't regret getting a camara with a li-ion battery which needs to be recharged.

leaftye
03-17-2013, 10:05
Update on the Sony TX20. It's a great camera. Very light, 4.8 oz with battery and SD card. It takes absolutely stunning pictures and has every bell an whistle imaginable except for GPS.

But I was wrong about one key point. It does use a USB charger and can be charged from a computer but it has a NON-STANDARD USB connector on the camera side. So it also requires a proprietary USB cable, same as the Olympus. I don't know why every company insists on re-inventing the USB standard, but for some mysterious reason it's important to them. At least a cable weighs less than an entire charger. I'd still recommend it as a great hiking camera.

One outstanding feature is the user interface. It has a touch screen menu that's much easier to understand instead of the usual assortment of incomprehensible icons. And the manual is built-in, so you can leave the paper version at home.

One option is the Cottonpickers charger (http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?240304-gt-FS-Cottonpickers-Chargers-incl-Worlds-smallest-Li-ion-charger-with-display). It's a very tiny usb charger that will charge any lithium ion battery. Using its magnetic clips, you can charge the phone, camera and headlamp batteries if those devices have removable lithium ion batteries. The reason that's nice is that you can have a backup battery and charge the depleted battery while still using the device.

If the Cottonpickers charger is too expensive for you, you can get a Tindie charger (https://tindie.com/shops/Rager/liponano-1/) that's also very tiny, but you have to source your own magnetic clips for it. Unlike the Cottonpickers charger, the Tindie doesn't have adjustable charging rates or a screen, and it's also slower. It's only $11 though.

Odd Man Out
03-17-2013, 10:46
would you say the s100 series cameras are durable enough for a thru hike? How important is it to get a waterproof or shockproof camera if it is going to be stored in a dry bag in my pack?

I had an S95. Sorry to say, I dropped it once (in Quebec City) and it was toast. I really liked it and would get another if I could afford it. I replaced it with an SX 260 (their best long zoom pocketable P&S). This time I got the extended warranty and promised to myself to be more careful.

So the answer, I would way yes, the S100 series are plenty durable for a thru hike, as long as you don't let it get wet, don't drop it, and you get the extended warranty.

Bear168
03-17-2013, 14:44
I would put value in the optical zoom (not digital zoom) over Mega pixels. 8 to 10 mp is good enough to print some decent sized photos.. If the main point of inertest of the photo is small because you could not zoom in you will gwt alot of pixelation of the photo. Having hiked wth my film SLR and the DLSR and several lences for many years I looking for less weight to. Plus don't want to carry battery charger either, so AA batteries are in my plans. That being said I still want best of boyh worlds so I'm looking something like this



Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H200 Digital Camera and a small gorilla pod.
little heavy but works on AA batteries and has both high optical zoom and MPs.
20.1MP 1/2.3" Super HAD CCD Sensor
Sony 26x Optical Zoom Lens
35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 22.3-580mm
3.0" 460k-Dot Clear Photo LCD Monitor
HD 720p Video at 30fps
Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization
Picture and Beauty Effect
360° Sweep Panorama
Face Detection and Smile Shutter
Uses AA Batteries

Portie
03-17-2013, 20:01
Do AA batteries really save you anything? They seem to weigh a lot and my old Canon used four AAs and my old Pentax DSLR also used four AAs. Very heavy. I always liked AAs until I got my newer cameras.

My newest camera is a Canon SX30 (which was way below $200 as a Canon refurb back in December and a great camera). It uses a tiny LI battery. That battery seems to last forever. I'd be comfortable buying a spare LI battery to carry with me, and then put the charger in a bounce box and charge both batteries every 2-3 weeks in a town. I suppose someone from home could also mail you a couple of these spare batteries every few weeks and you could mail home the expended batteries in a very small padded envelope. On Ebay the spare batteries are pretty cheap.

leaftye
03-17-2013, 20:09
It doesn't help that AA's are usually in bulky cameras.

Alkaline AA's shouldn't be used. Only lithium or nimh. My experience shows that both offer incredible battery life. With a Canon a720 (2AA) I've taken over 700 shots on a single charge of nimh Eneloop AA's. With a Fujifilm S9000 (4AA) I've taken over 2000 shot on a single charge with nimh Eneloop AA's. Lithium AA's should have performed even better at a lower weight, and doesn't require recharging. Not requiring charging is one of the big advantages of lithium AA's. Eliminating charging means getting out of town more quickly. There's a AA cell phone too.

http://www.amazon.com/SpareOne-Emergency-Mobile-Cellular-Phone/dp/B008B291SQ

Dogwood
03-17-2013, 21:02
Me likee likee this thread. Still reviewing some of the pics some of you have submitted. Enjoy so much of what I've already seen. Brad some nice stuff. Another Kevin, I almost enjoyed the way you described the waterfall shot more than the shot of the waterfall. Ahh! I actually feel like I"m there with all of you with the way some of your shots have been taken! PLEASE keep taking me beyond my current photography ignorance level. Feed me!

Odd Man Out
03-17-2013, 23:04
Another bit of advice my uncle (professional photographer) gave me is not to chase MPs. 10 good megapixels is better than 16 crappy megapixels. In general, the bigger the light collecting chip, the better. These were from South Padre Island with my Canon S95. Can you find the nighthawk in the last pic?

20475 20476 20477 20478