Cameras Used in Mountain Photography

I used my Dad's old Minolta SRT-101 until I finally beat it into the ground. I used it for years without a working light meter and developed a good knack for knowing light conditions and manually setting exposures accordingly. I went from the SRT-101 to the Minolta X-700 and have used a Samsung Maxima Zoom 125 (unimpressive). I've even taken the Yashica Mat-124G (2 1/4 x 2 1/4 film) into the mountains but it is more suited to tripod work. I now use the Canon PowerShot S30 (digital) almost exclusively. I like the digital because even though the exposure meter can be thrown off by contrasty scenes (though there are ways to fool the camera into your way of thinking), imaging software will allow you to adjust exposures just as if you were in the darkroom dodging and burning. I also like the ability to shoot multiple versions of scenes without worrying about burning up film and money. It's only pixels after all.

JohnL

What's in the picture?

I would echo the old adage "it's not the camera it's the eye of the photographer"

Of course a good lens will make a difference, but an equally important investment may be taking a Art History class or just studying the work of other recognized photographers. I still use a manual Nikon FM10 and don't find much use for longer lenses unless I'm onto wildlife, which doesn't seem to happen often enough.

Hollywood said:

I would echo the old adage "it's not the camera it's the eye of the photographer"

Click to expand...

Only partly true...

True, a fancy camera cannot compose a picture--but I have had a "fancy" camera prevent me from taking a good picture.

A good picture also requires proper technical aspects such as focus and exposure. I have had well composed pictures spoiled or damaged by the autofocus deciding to focus on an object in the background or poor autoexposure.

Unfortunately, the manual controls on my digital are awkward to use and the feedback is poor. (I used a manual SLR for 35yrs.)

The automation found in many of the newer cameras is not as good as a human who knows what he is doing. (But is probably better than a human who doesn't know how to control the camera.)

Doug

I’ve heard great things about IS and it makes a lot of sense for a lot of folks. I think the reason I don’t have an image-stabilized camera is that I look for the largest maximum aperture I can find and don’t care if the zoom range isn’t all that long. I probably pay too much attention to this, but I like the low-light capability -- if somebody made a fixed-focal-length (non zoom) f/1.4 compact digital, I'd be there in a heartbeat. As far as zoom range, I take more pictures of the landscape and my hiking companions than wildlife photos, so I don’t mind moving closer or farther away (walking – or, in this case, hiking) to get the perspective I want. If you are more interested in wildlife, I’d recommend the long zooms.

I still favor AA batteries over proprietary Li-ions, and Compact Flash cards, but that is more for price and other (longer-term) travel than for hiking convenience -- though the AAs are useful for a variety of devices.

If I really need weather-proofness, I have the dive housing for my Olympus C-5050 -- a little bulky, but the camera cost several hundred dollars and I don't want to have to replace it anytime soon.

In the debate of which matters more, camera or photographer, I tend to favor the photographer. Knowing how to use a particular camera is very important to getting good pictures from it. Many auto-everything cameras can be circumvented with a little practice. Of course, no one camera does everything, but (within reason) the limitations of the camera are more easily overcome than the limitations of the photographer. That said, I’m a photographer with plenty of limitations and I feel like I have hardly mastered the simplest of the many cameras that I have used.

I use a Canon S60, a 5 megapixel compact with a 28 - 110(?) mm zoom lens. This is a fairly recent upgrade from my old, trusty Canaon S30. I really love the wide(ish)-angle lens. I'm in the "if it's big and bulky I won't carry it" camp, but have seldom felt I was missing good shots because of my compact camera. I do however feel serious tripod envy of Tim Seaver!

When I first started hiking, I took my little point-and-shoot 35mm with ASA 400 color print film. I would send out for developing and get a CD back (they scan the negatives).

My first digital was a Kodak DC4800. This camera took great pictures (3mp) but was a little large to carry while hiking. That was when I realized just how important form factor was; this camera required a sizable case and was delicate, and I just found myself not wanting to carry it.

And so I got a Canon S230 Elph, which is a tiny 3mp. Although it has the limitations any lens that size would have ... difficult to do depth-of-field tricks, useless 2x optical zoom ... it really images a beautiful picture, is very small and easy to carry, and is remarkably battery efficient. For example, my recent 126-photo, 3-day, cold-weather expedition to Baxter State Park required only one of the three batteries I brought (though I had to warm it back up once). This is my standard hiking camera. I know a bunch of VFTT'ers have the next generation of the same camera, the 4mp version, and are very happy with it.

For special hiking trips, I bring out the good camera, my Canon Digital Rebel. I bought this camera because of a combination of a desire to get back into photography, friends and coworkers who had the camera, and the thought that if I wanted to carry an SLR and lenses on a hike it would produce fantastic photos. And it does - that camera can take a beautiful picture. I use a Sigma 28-90mm f3.5-5.6 as my regular lens, and take either a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 or a Canon 70-300mm IS lens for zoom shots. I have a superlight tripod for it, but it's out in the car so I can't check the make. I am lusting for the Canon 10-22mm IS wide angle, but it's $800.

Papa Bear said:

A couple of you photographers refer to an Image Stabilizer. What is that and how does it work? I would think you would need something massive (inirtia) with a system to isolate the lens from the environment. Wouldn't that have to be pretty heavy to work?

Click to expand...

Only one element of the lens is typically isolated from the camera, and it has some kind of mechanism to move that element up/down, left/right in response to some signal used for feedback. Most cameras/lenses with it seem to work on solid-state gyros which detect changes in pitch and roll. (Panasonic has a marketroid-ish website explaining how theirs works: http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/popup/qp_guide/basic/index.html)

It makes a huge difference -- I forget the rule of thumb, something like you take the product of the focal length in mm (35mm equivalent) and the exposure time in seconds, and if you're taking pictures w/o a tripod, this product should be <1, though smaller is always better (E.g. if you have a 50mm lens your exposure time should be < 1/50 sec) I often take pictures with my FZ20 by hand with the image stabilization on, where the product is 5 or 10, and they're not blurry. If I had a once-in-a-lifetime shot I wouldn't push my luck... but I'd have a hard time giving up IS. (Of course it can't help you take longer-exposure pictures if the subject isn't staying still.)

other options

As far as tripods go; I drilled a hole into my hiking pole then screwed a brass threaded insert into the hole. The brass insert has a threaded hole in it that accepts a threaded rod with the same width and thread size as a standard tripod. By tying my other hiking pole and the pole of a hiking partner I can fashion a tripod that works rather well. What would be perfect is finding a small swivel that I can place on the top of the pole to complete this rube goldberg contraption.

Also, I bring my MiniDV camcorder when we go winter backpacking. It's a bit heavy but for capturing what winter backpacking is all about it can't be beat.

I have used an Olympus Stylus Digital for the last few years, It's very small and weatherproof and takes awesome outdoors photos. I don't like the indoor quality and it doesn't do well with moving targets. But for mountain landscapes, it's incredible. I have the 3.3 mp model, and if I take pics at the highest resolution, I get about 60 on my 128mb card. I can also print up to 8x10 and the quality is excellent. They make a 4 mp model which I'm sure prints all thre better.

I also carry a small tripod that I bought at staples, it's cheap but very light and compact, I use it for Macros and self photos, it's been great. Check out my site if you'd like to see the quality, keeping in mind that I know nothing about photography.

ExploreTheEast said:

.

Today I finally made my decision, NOT to go with a digital SLR. It came down to the same thing that it always has-- If it's too big/heavy, I won't bring it with me.

Are you a hiker that likes to take photos, or are you a photographer that likes to go hiking? Lately, I feel like I've been blurring the line

Click to expand...

I hear you, and agree 100%! I have a DSLR, and got so tired of lugging this thing around with my lenses on my hikes. I now have a Canon A95 that I take with me, and life is so much better. I'm even thinking of selling my DSLR and picking up the G6 as well. I guess I'm a hiker who likes to take pictures....not a photographer.

Well, sapblatt, it is good that you realize that you are a hiker that takes pictures and not a photographer that hikes. It all depends on what you want to do. I enjoying hiking and photography, but I dont do both all the time. I do two kinds of hikes; sometimes I hike to hike and sometimes I hike to do photography.

If I am hiking to hike, then I bring a small digital point and shoot. If I am hiking to do photography then I bring a film SLR or a digital SLR, an assortment of lenses, and a tripod. It all depends on what the goal of the day is.

If you just want snapshots to document your hike, then I'd say go for the digital point and shoot. The money you save in film and processing will pay for a new digital camera.

- darren

Last Saturday I brought along a Pentax Optio S4i compact, 4MP digital camera to take some comparison shots alongside my Nikon D70.

The biggest difference between these two cameras is the size and weight. The D70 with the 24-120 image stabilized lens I use weighs in at 3 pounds - the Optio struggles to nudge over 4 ounces!

One can be slipped into any pocket the other could trip a moose

To try and level the field some I tried to do the comparison shots with as near to fully automatic mode on the D70 so that the images would reflect the ability of the cameras rather than the photographer. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!)

I used images from both cameras on my trip report after doing some composition and correction work using PhotoShop CS. For a direct comparison I have also thrown up a few pages where the images are unworked on other than sizing and saving using identical procedures in Photoshop. They are basically as they came off the camera.

I won't be leaving the D70 at home any time soon, but the Optio turned out some nice pictures. The main complaint would be that the auto white balance lent a slight blue cast to most of the images. This could probably be easily fixed by performing a white balance calibration now and then or just fixing it later in PhotoShop.

So HERE are the comparison images. Side by side the differences are noticable. When viewed as a complete set the Optio pics are a pretty good record of a fun day in the mountains. You can check them all out HERE ignore the lack of titles. Again, the full set of images is as off camera except for sizing and saving for the web.

Getting to know the additional facilities either camera offers would result in far superior images than are presented here.

Bob