Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Whitney Photo Advice Needed

I am a below-novice photographer. With that said, I would like to ask for advice on purchasing a camera to document my training hikes and subsequent back pack up Whitney MT. I began hiking about three years ago when my son joined a local Scout Troop. I got hooked on hiking. Previous to this, I was raised as an inside-kinda-gal. I and two other women will be hiking Mt Whitney in September. As this is my first and maybe my last attempt, I have been photographing the experience starting with my training hikes. Anyway, I have an automatic 35mm camera, but would like something that will take better shots and will need to be lightweight and easy to use. In the future I want to learn to create a website and these pics will be used.
So many people on this board have taken incredible pictures.
Any advice would be appreciated.

Chris, for light weight, convenience of using the photos for WWW publishing and ultimately lower operating cost, I would shop for a digital camera. Virtually everything on my <a href="http://www.mtritter.org">WWW site</a> shot since 2000 has been with my digital camera (Nikon 990, now discontinued).

General criteria to look for: 1. 3 megapixel resolution. 2. 3:1 optical zoom. 3. Uses standard AA batteries (primary or rechargeable). 4. Uses removeable digital media, like compact flash (least expensive) or secure digital (more expensive but smaller and even lighter) cards.

Where my 990 cost in excess of $700, you can get a 3 Mpix camera with similar features today for under $300 if you shop around. 256 meg CF cards go for under $50 and will hold 200-250 images even at 3 Mpix resolution. Biggest concern is battery life...unlike your 35mm film camera, which will run a couple of years on a set of batteries, you have to be careful to turn off the digicam as soon as you can or a set of batteries will last less than a day's worth of shooting.

Don't let the cost scare you off...I normally shoot Kodachrome slides in my 35mm Nikons, and film plus processing runs about $0.60/slide. I've shot almost 8,000 images with my 990, so it has well and truly paid for itself, even with the add-on wide-angle, telephoto and fisheye lenses plus extra CF cards I've bought over the years. (I have roughly a gigabyte of CF, total, in various sizes, so I can shoot for more than a week without having to upload pix to my computer.)

You can now get regular prints made from your digital images for the same cost/print as from film negatives, so the ones you do want to have in hardcopy form, you can get printed anyway. The rest, you can spin onto CD/R platters and archive for posterity.

Add some software like Microsoft's "Digital Media Plus" (about $20) and you can produce slide shows on your computer.

...yeah, I still carry my film-based Nikon most of the time, but it gets used for maybe 10% of the shots, and a lot of those are high-importance things (like summit photos documenting that I actually GOT there) where I want the backup, or high-contrast subjects where digital still won't reproduce the scene as well as old-fashioned film.

...my $0.02 says that digital is the way to go for point-and-shoot type photographers these days...

I agree with Alan that you should get a digital camera, though think that the 4 megapixel cameras are worth the extra $100 if you want to make bigger enlargements. If you want to further up the ante, think about getting a digital videocamera. Then you can make a real documentary with sound and motion. Many of these are not much different in size/weight from a still camera and several have digital still capability built in. There is some very inexpensive video editing software (free on many machines) that can transform your video + stills into a movie and you can add your own sound track.

Many people think that they will only climb Whitney once, but come back again and again. Hope you have a great experience.

I just bought a new Canon Power Shot A60 on E-Bay for only $150.00. Thats whats I'm going to take with me in the hills.

Chris,

This is a great site to ask your questions. I’m sure you’ll get a lot of responses. Alan posted some great info. From my experience with taking a camera backpacking / hiking here’s what I’d recommend.

1. Most obvious is weight. Lighter is always better.
2. Go with a digital camera.
3. Size, one that will fit into a small pocket on your jacket or pants. You don’t want to have to store it in your pack to where you’ll have to remove the pack each time you want to use it. One that can hang around your neck will work but it does get tiring after it has banged against your body on a long trip.
4. Built in lens cap/cover. Most smaller type digital cameras have some type of sliding lens cap that serves two functions. Lens cover and camera on/off button. Keeping track of a removable lens cap becomes a hassle after awhile.
5. Batteries, rechargeables work great. Shy away from cameras that use only a special battery pack.
6. Optical and digital zooms. A combination of both is desirable. Just an optical zoom will work fine though.
7. Go to the Olympus web site; http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_dseries.asp and take a look at their D-Series cameras. They may fit your need. I have both a C and D series camera. The D series works best for me when backpacking / hiking.
8. The type of eyepiece is important. I prefer one that has a small monitor inside the eyepiece.

For displaying your photos on the web there are several sites (www.webshots.com) out there that allow you to post photos for free. Just cruise the net to find one that works best for you.

Finally, enjoy yourself on the mountain and best of luck.

hiiker

A word of warning about digital cameras--They are pretty fragile, and can go out at any time. I've dropped a rugged film camera a couple times, and it kept working. But digital cameras do seem to be the thing to get, as long as you have a good, updated computer.

I took my Coolpix up Whitney in mid-October, and it performed beautifully. But in making a winter ascent, operation is not advised below freezing temperatures. Or you have to keep the batteries warm somehow.

Memory cards can fail, and without warning, so don't buy just one big capacity one. I'd say to get a few about the same size, so if one goes out, you'll still have the others. I use three 256 MB cards, with smaller spares.

Also there is a chance the camera may erase all your images by some fluky software or download glitch. I had a cheapo one that did that to me. There is no way you'll get your work back if this does happen. Or you may press the wrong button, or click delete, accidentally. Or maybe they will not load onto your computer.

The manuals for these digital cameras are often over a hundred pages long, depending on how many features have to be explained. You may not have the time or temperment to deal with this. Most downloaded images have also to be edited by software. Unless you really don't care how well your pictures look on a screen, you will need to make adjustments as far as brightness, contrast, saturation, and various other things. With a lot of pictures, this takes quite a bit of time. With film, the processor does all that for you.

I usually take a digital back-up camera plus a regular 35 mm film camera on important trips. If I see a great shot that I know I'll wish to print, I'll use Kodachrome. And shoot with the other digital camera, too.

While prices have dropped considerably, I used to have to calculate the savings, without the expense of film, versus the price of digital hardware. The costs have now become comparable, and I love digital. You can shoot and shoot, everything of interest, and delete the bad shots, and simply save the good shots onto CD/DVD or other electronic storage medium, which is pretty inexpensive, and probably easier to keep track of.

You need a printer to make hardcopies of your images, and a good photo printer runs in the hundreds. Paper and ink ($$) are an expense as well. The more megapixels your camera has, the larger the print size can be. My 3.4 MP prints nicely to 8.5" x 11" photo paper, and if you've ever worked in a chemical darkroom, you'll really appreciate the ease of working with good photo software.

I'd say digital cameras are better for the environment. Some enviro wackos say not to get them, or anything electronic, but film manufacture and processing is one of the biggest pollution sources, world-wide. The Sierra Club listed Eastman Kodak as the biggest pollutor, several years ago. The locals here say not to take pictures, but I used to work on wilderness issues, which would be a lot harder to do without showing people, that don't care to hike, the natural scenic beauty of areas under consideration for preservation.

Things to keep in mind using digital cameras are to dispose of the depleted batteries properly and get your computer recycled, once it's outdated or past it's useful life (maybe 5-8 years). Other than the use of landfills, I'd say those are about the only enviro problems going digital.

It's much better to start with a digital image, as scanning slides or negatives, later, runs into time and money. A good film scanner costs hundreds, and watch out for the cheapo models! If you use Kodachrome, the software can't generally, automatically, clear out the dust and scratches. Manual clean-up takes awhile. The total time you can use for scanning is prohibitive for most people.

I'm real big on mountain and scenic photography, shooting tens of thousands of pictures over the years, so make good use of my equipment. One of my biggest regrets is that digital photography didn't come along till recently.

If you don't plan to travel or shoot pictures a lot, those one-time use cameras cost only about $10, then maybe $14 processing for a roll of 36 exposures. I see people use them in the backcountry. They easily survive a drop, and it's pretty simple to use (point and click). They are very lightweight, and easily fit in your pocket.

Most photographers won't be as famous or good as Ansel Adams. Indeed, few will ever care to look at your photos, and in the Sierra Club here, a long slide show on hiking or backpack trips invites your audiences getting up and leaving, or falling asleep. An attorney I know says so many old pictures go out in the dumpster once the person passes on, no matter what their quality. With digital, only a small stack of CDs (CD-RWs can be re-written) will probably be your legacy. Better for the environment, that way!

My advice would be to go to Office Depot and try to get a Canon Powershot A60 (recommended by Trailslug). Price is $199 but there's a $100 rebate. You can't do better on an intro-level camera which is more than sufficient for 4x6 prints and showing pictures on the web.

It meets your criteria for light and easy-to-use and allows you to find out if you need one of those big $1000 cameras without investing much up front.

I've had 3 Canon digital cameras. The first died (since resurrected) when I dropped it when getting back into my car on the road to Horseshoe Meadows, after taking a snapshot of Mt. Whitney. That's just to keep this on topic :-).

A good UV filter is an essential when at higher altitudes. This filter absorbs the more intense UV rays from the sun which would otherwise cause images to appear faded and washed out. I can't honestly say if this is a must for digital, but I've always used one on my 27 year old OM-1 (still hanging in there and taking great shots) and I wouldn't leave home without it. Just keep it on the lens all the time and it also acts as a lens protector against dust and scratches. You might also think about a polarizer filter which will intensify the color of blue skies, and reduces glare. You can stack the filters, but if you happen to take shots manually you should open up the lens a little (overexpose) as the filters may otherwise cause a slight underexposure due to the amount of glass the light has to pass through. Talk to someone at a reputable camera store and they can walk you through some of the basics mentioned here, plus something called bracketing of you decide to go film.

I'm taking a retro approach in this discussion. My wife and I are avid amatuer outdoor photographers. We have used all sorts of camera equipment in our travels. When we went ultra light-weight a few years back the selection of cameras became very important. I went to a major NYC photography shop and asked for the smallest camera with the finest lens and overall best quality/price camera. They recommended a Olympus Stylus 105 or 115. It is easy to use, lightweight, has a great lens, is very durable and weather-proof and is relatively inexpensive. I purchased my latest on http://www.overstock.com for $75. When we share our travel photos the one question always asked is "What kind of camera do you use?" My wife no longer takes her expensive Canon Elan 2 or I my Olympus OM-1 since we couldn't tell the difference in quality of the prints and she needed to reduce weight. Digital offers some advantages, but when you look at expense vs results for a 4+ megapixel digital vs 35mm, film has it. We also own a Canon A80 digital. I'm not confident enough at this point to make that my sole photographic device for an extended trek. I'll probably get there, but I'm not there yet. If you are a beginner and you want professional looking photos I would definately recommend the Olympus Stylus 35mm Series.

Thanks for all of your suggestions. Hope this wasn't too off topic. I'm going to print this out and continue my research. I will admit that I am partial to film cameras. Perhaps it's my age, but I'm a bit intimidated by digital. I collect black and white photographs (mostly of people, not landscape; 1800's to 1960's) and my grandfather was a photographer. I've always wanted to learn the art. Hopefully, I'll find a decent camera, practice framing on my training hikes up San G, Baldy, Mt Islip, etc. and then when Sept rolls in and I make it to the summit of Whitney, I will take some amazing shots for posterity.
Thanks again, see you on the mountain.
ChrisQ

Hey ChrisQ-
have you found your beast already? If you have, do post a link to some of your recent pictures!

If you are still thinking - and are still thinking of film, and not digital - I would recommend the Nikon FM3A. It's as light as SLRs come, all-metal construction, and does auto exposures. Everything else goes back to 70's styles - basic, functional, manual.

Chris,

My photography hobby outgrew itself and I turned pro. The one thing I have learned over the years is that on the important events you want to take the equipment that provides you with the most confidence. Digital is great, but in the space between now and September, you'll want to gain as much experience as possible with a new camera. Yes, I shoot digital myself (Canon 1D) with the best lenses to boot, but I do take film when it's appropriate, especially when battery life is important. Other than the conveniences of digital, the real "magic" occurs in the ability to enhance, retouch and reframe digital pictures through software like Adobe Photoshop.

If you do go with a new camera or stay with what you have, I do have one recommendation that I feel can be worth its weight in gold. Take a small, lightweight tripod with you. I mean the ones that are 4-6 inches tall that have hinged or even flexible legs. This will allow you to easily set up self-portrait or group shots and not have to leave out a member of the party to take a picture (assuming you have a self-timer, of course). You can take the shot you want rather than have to chance it on someone else taking the shot that you'll have to live with, good or bad, especially if it's film.

Hope all this is useful. Just for fun, here's a link to some of my pictures from the Mountaineer's Route in March (http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=iffhnxr.5z4s5baf&x=0&y=-ac59yu). Just bypass the Ofoto registration by clicking on "view photos." I also published a DVD of the climb (www.customflix.com/205683). Have an awesome and safe trip up Whitney!

Go SC!

GoSC:
Any advice for what camera gear to pack when you're trying to keep weight down? I'm taking the NAP route next week for my first summit (hopefully!), and since I really want to make it, I'll probably forgo the weight of a full SLR setup and just take my Canon S400 instead. But I'm bemoaning the creative control I'll be giving up with a point and shoot (though this camera takes excellent shots). When I started adding up the minimum camera gear I wanted to bring (Canon 10D, 17-40/4L, 70-200/4L, 1.4x teleconverter, tripod), the weight got a little scary. And that's leaving out any really long and/or fast lenses. Do you always take 17 lbs. of camera gear with you and how do you pack it all to make sure it stays safe?

Oh, forgot to mention - for those who are worried about the fragility of digital point-and-shoots, here's a story for you. I had my S400 with me on my honeymoon, where I proceeded to drop it in the Mediterranean on a sea kayaking trip. It was in a ziplock, but some seawater did get through. Fired it up and it worked just fine. The next day, I was sitting by the pool looking at pics I had taken the day before when a sudden gust of wind caused a chain reaction that knocked my beer into my lap (yeah, tough life!). In my surprise, I literally threw the camera up and it came crashing down on the concrete pool deck. When I tried turning the camera off, I noticed the lens had jammed and wouldn't retract. With a little poking and prodding, the lens finally retracted and it's been good as new ever since. I was thoroughly impressed by the beating that little thing was able to endure. BTW, my wife no longer lets me touch her camera ;-)

mongoose, I loved my OM-1!

It was my ever favorite camera, but it did not survive the rescue from the bottom of a crossed stream.

I choose a digital camera with a good optical zoom, used mostly for photos of activities, people, otherwise I rarely use the full zoom for outdoors, nature.

One thing I do on any trip, I'll take a movie with the digital camera, turning 360 degrees documenting the setting, the sights, the sound. Knowing it's not really the best video camera, hwever, it's pretty cool to relive the feeling of being there via the motion and sounds.

pediwent,

You can read my trip report (http://www.summitpost.org/cgi-bin/trip_report.pl?trip_report_id=1202&mountain_id=45) for a list of my camera/video gear I used. You are faced with the age old conundrum. The high quality equipment with the cost of the additional weight and handling or the lighter more convenient stuff. I went with the premium route because I was producing a DVD and I needed top-quality pictures. Would I do it again? Of course I would because I believe there is a cost worth paying for to get the great shots.

For protecting my Canon 1D and my lenses, I use Tamrac's Modular Accessory System products. Tamrac has a holster bag (Model 519) that handles the large SLR's with the power rewind or extra batteries. If your 10D doesn't have the extra battery grip, then you could use Tamrac Model 517. With a couple of carabiners, I can clip this holster bag to my waist strap or somewhere on my pack. Tamrac also has lens pouches in various sizes for different lenses and I've used straps and biners to secure them to my pack.

As for lenses, definitely take the 17-40 mm especially for the landscapes. You'll probably end up using this more than the telephoto. Bringing the 70-200 mm will cost weight (2 pounds?) and space.

One interesting scenario is bringing the 10D with the wide angle, leaving the 70-200 mm at home and bringing the S400 which is probably less than half a pound. A UV filter is a must and a circular polarizer can enhance the blueness of the sky and help with contrast. I use a graduated neutral density filter (Galen Rowell) to knock down the sky a stop or so.

The bottom line is that these are all personal choices. However, sometimes no matter how much I have prepared, I find myself in situations wondering why I didn't bring this or that. If you are prepared to put it to use, bring it and use it!

Hope this helps some and ask if you've got questions.

gosc

Another off the topic post:

gosc/tomi,

I've been lusting for a digital SLR for a while now, reading reports/reviews occasionally. I was wondering whether you've read anything about microdrives and high altitude photography. I saw a one-liner in a computer magazine about it not being a good idea, due to the fact that microdrives are mechanical, rather than electronic devices.

Richard,
I too have been thinking about a digital SLR and have had the same concern as you. <a href ="http://www.steves-digicams.com/microdrive.html" target=_blank>Here</a> is a quick article about microdrives with a short blurb at the bottom about using them at altitude, in short, it isn't recommended. Does anybody have any experience with this? I suppose you could always use the CompactFlash memory when you are at altitude.

Jason

I read many articles about Microdrives and problems with them.
I am using Compact Flash cards an by my experience they are working fine on any temparature or elevation. CF cards use less power from camera (no moving parts). Even, if you wash them (accidentaly), after drying they keep the data.
<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Q2f&unified_p=1>CF cards</a> on photo.net

: )