Which camera to take

I thought about taking the camera into the gents here at work and taking a picture of itself in the mirror - then I thought better of it :)
 
5lb. mmm, well there aint much of that which is the actual XT bit. Pick a lens and console yourself that you'll not need to hump ammo and armor to go with it.
 
5lb is good for an SLR and tripod. Just weighed my Canon along with carbon fibre tripod and it came in at 7lbs

Personally I'd decide what the purpose of the trip is - if its for taking photos I'd go for the SLR. If its for walking I'd take the compact camera and a pocket tripod.
 
Im thinking that im going to take the bigger camera... Its a canon xt and i have an extra lens for macro, with someother adds and ends.. So been thinking im going to leave the extra macro lens at home. Take only the camera with a 18-210 lens and the tripod. Use the smaller bag which is half the size. I should save atlist 2lb. Looking at the map im going to go as high as 12,600ft or so. I never been on that trail so hope to get a few good pics to share. The trip is mostly for the mind and soul to get away from everything. But i enjoy all the pics i take. Even if they dont always come out great. Just looking at them brings back memories..

Sasha
 
I always lug around my big SLR. In part, a major reason for taking most of my trips is to take photographs so as much as a begrudge the weight I understand it is part of the activity. Like going fishing, you'll take your tacklebox with more lures than you use and redundancy in hooks. I like having a good camera. There are benefits to the SLRs. They tend to run much longer on their batteries compared to compacts that will often eat up double AA's. They are fun to fiddle with settings and bracket exposure conditions for those magic sunsets. If you really like the act of taking photos then bring the camera you feel is the better one. Otherwise, you will be cursing like crazy when you are setting up your shots or even worse, when you are looking at the end results on your computer.
 
I'm pretty surprised by all the tripods you folks are taking. The only time I wanted one was for an eclipse of the moon. I'm steady down to 1/30 of sec and if its too dark, I'll bump up the ISO to max, and fix the noise and grain on the computer. They not only add weight but bulk.
 
theonew said:
I'm pretty surprised by all the tripods you folks are taking. The only time I wanted one was for an eclipse of the moon. I'm steady down to 1/30 of sec and if its too dark, I'll bump up the ISO to max, and fix the noise and grain on the computer. They not only add weight but bulk.
Click to expand...

Wait till you're in your mid sixties; you won't be steady at that low of a shutter speed then, sorry to say.
 
Just wanted to show off my new toy, the Fujifilm Z33WP :D

z33wpBlue.jpg


I think this will be the perfect camera for all my outdoors activities, since it is waterproof! Hiking, canoeing, fishing, geocaching...all those activities have two things in common: getting wet, almost inevitably, and hauling a pack, hence the light weight camera. I think Fujifilm should rename the camera the W&SS camera :D

Sorry to be "semi-on topic"... :o
 
I love to take pics more almost as much as the backpacking it self... The SLR is what im going to take yet again lol...
 
I used to carry 35mm SLRs backpacking. First a Nikon FM, then a Leicaflex. But after a while I realized just how much they weighed and how much space they occupy, especially if you want to take a bunch of rolls of film. Once the small digital cameras got to reasonable resolution, I got one and I have never looked back. First it was an Olympus SP-350, and this year I got a Kodak Z1285. With a good sized card you can still take a lot of pictures (the Z1285 is 12MP, and with my 4GB card I can take 1000 pictures, and I have a spare 4GB card to bring with). I find that the dramatic reduction in weight and bulk more than makes up for the sacrifice in picture quality. The only time I really notice a significant drop in picture quality is in low light conditions.
 
dawsonbob said:
Wait till you're in your mid sixties; you won't be steady at that low of a shutter speed then, sorry to say.
Click to expand...

LOL, as I finished reading Theo's post, I'm all set to type, "Wait till you're 63......." and then I saw you beat me to it. :D

Doc
 
DOC-CANADA said:
LOL, as I finished reading Theo's post, I'm all set to type, "Wait till you're 63......." and then I saw you beat me to it. :D

Doc
Click to expand...

We know what happens as you grow older, don't we Doc. These young puppies though, probably think the same way we did at their age "No, it'll never happen to me. I'll stay in shape; I'll never slow down." I don't care how good of shape you're in, you're not hand-holding at one-thirtieth of a second when you're our age.
 
Last edited:
I just got back from the high country in Yosemite this evening...Use a monopod.It makes a great walking stick and a camera mounts on the top...I have two and they were great when you are using a 15 pwr. lens...of course i only use one at a timel....Good luck.........carl
 
When I was younger, I used to carry a tripod, SLR and a couple lenses with me when I backpacked. Got some great photos (although I also drove my companion crazy stopping all the time to set up the tripod and camera and pick the right lens) but even back then when my knees were still good I didn't care for the weight! :rolleyes:

These days, I do find myself more and more reaching for a pocket camera when going into the wild, unless its a dedicated photo trip. It is really amazing what has happened in the "pocket" camera market in the last ten years, and some of the high-end digital pocket cameras these days can do most of what a dedicated DSLR can do. With 10+ Megapixels, 4x to 6x optical zooms, image stabilization and multiple program modes, you can get amazingly good shots with something like one of the better Canon Powershot or Nikon Coolpix cameras. ;)

I'm pretty surprised by all the tripods you folks are taking. The only time I wanted one was for an eclipse of the moon. I'm steady down to 1/30 of sec and if its too dark, I'll bump up the ISO to max, and fix the noise and grain on the computer.
Click to expand...
With modern image stabilization, variable ISO sensors, and powerful image editing software, tripods are not quite a critical as they were back in the day. Still, all things being equal, no mater what the focal lenght or aperture of your lens or the ISO of you sensor, a tripod will give you a better picture. Even with the best software, digital sharpening and noise reduction do results in some small (but quantifiable) loss in picture quality. Now, if all you are after are snapshots or computer slideshows you will probably never notice it. On the other hand if you are into large scale enlargements (say 16x20) then it starts to matter. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top