Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Camera Hauling

[quote=RoguePhotonic I do wish I had a macro lens though because I like flower photography.
[/quote]

grab a close up filter, +2 diopter - works well enough for flowers, cheap, weights near nothing.

re batteries - just shoot the camera for an hour or two and see how long they last. Most DSLRs are very good with batteries unless you enjoy watching your pix all the time on the LCD or you use a built-in flash a lot.

Well when it comes to shooting movies the 5D mark II has full 1080P so can't beat that

With battery life when I was on an 8 day hike I took over 400 images and now that I will be on an 8 week hike I can only imagine the number of shots I will take so I doubt any battery is going to help me.

Gary R:

No, by "quality" I specifically meant the optical quality, not the composition or content quality. Both of the latter are subjective and I certainly agree that I can take shots of equal compositional quality with my old 3 Mpix Coolpix 990 or with my 10 Mpix D200 DSLR. No argument there...and whether a particular person happens to like what I chose for content and how I composed it is a matter of taste.

However, if I shoot the same scene from the same vantage point with the 990 versus the D200, especially if I'm shooting wide with the 24mm add-on for the 990 and the 12~24 zoom at 16 mm (24mm equivalent on the D200), there is a world of difference in objective optical quality. Part of it is purely in the improvements in sensor and data acquisition technology over a 5 or 6 year period but much of it has to do with the relative sizes of image sensors and the quality of glass in front of them. It's not that I didn't shoot some very pleasing images with the 990, it's just that if I shot the same subject at the same time with the D200, the result is (technically, not artistically) visibly better.

Am I an image-quality snob? Yes, admittedly so. If I'm using the image for more than a memory jog, whether that is an exhibition or for sale, the objective quality of the image absolutely matters. Why else would I have bought a huge boat anchor like the RB67 back when I was in grad school? Simple...while it doesn't make me a better photographer (far from it), it means that when I'm paying attention to HOW I'm shooting as well as WHAT I'm shooting, I can get better results out the far end of the process.

Wander through the photos on my web site, especially in the "State Highpointing," "Mt. Ritter" and "Travels" sections. The pre-2000 stuff was shot on Kodachrome and either commercially scanned or run through my HP or Nikon slide scanners, depending on when I converted it for web use. The stuff starting in late 2000 or early 2001 was shot with the Coolpix 990 and in about 2004 or 2005, with the Coolpix 4500 (with the same add-on lenses as the 990, which is why I bought it when the 990 died). The later stuff, starting about 2006, was shot with the D200. There is a visible difference in the results, even at reduced web-appropriate sizes.

It would be an interesting exercise for me to go through a series of comparable shots that my son (shooting a Canon 600-series point'n'shoot) and I shot (using the D200) on, for instance, our trip last December through Cambodia and Vietnam. Pick shots that are as close as possible in composition (enough of them are because we were shooting from similar vantage points) and then look at the objective image quality on like shots. Maybe I'll do that one of these days...

Can (and do) I shoot bad stuff? Oh, yeah...look through my file of underwater slides in particular for all the shots of the tail end of fish! Can (and do) I occasionally get a spectaular shot, regardless of equipment? Once in a while. Will I expend the extra effort to schlep the D200 so those occasional great shots are also the best optically? Absolutely!

For the most readily-visible differences, take a look at the Mt. Whitney panorama (990 and FC-E8 add-on fisheye, shot in July 2001) versus the Tooth of Time pan shot out at Philmont in 2007. (If you have Quicktime, look at the QTVR version. I wouldn't even attempt to show the Mt. Whitney pan at that size...wouldn't be pretty. Specialized application? Yup, but the difference between the add-on glass and the 10.5mm primary lens is obvious.

As I said before, "fit the tool to the job." Want quick-and-easy shots with adequate quality for most things? Save the weight and buy a good point'n'shoot. Want superior quality and the flexibility that a DSLR offers? Be prepared to haul a few extra pounds. (For that matter, do I still shoot "snapshots" with the D200? Of course...I don't expect summit "brag shots" to ever show up at 16x20 on a gallery wall, nor do I expect family candids to do so, either, but I'm not going to carry TWO cameras instead of one...and I haven't yet seen a point'n'shoot with an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens like the 85mm or 50mm SLR glass I already owned before I bought the D200, and the "fast" lenses definitely make it easier shooting available-light candids)

Look at the shots that list member Moosetracks shoots...she has a great eye and gets super images with a good point'n'shoot. Gallery-quality (optically)? Probably not, but we still get to enjoy the fruits of her treks.

Well as an example I suppose of the issue raised with dust here is a set from my first hike with this camera:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguephotonic/sets/72157616352215193/

Even though I made an effort to keep my lens as clean as possible nearly all images where you see sky have dust spots, most you can only see if you view the pics in their full size but I notice a couple images with a bad dust spot you can see in smaller sizes.

So the lesson learned is I will just have to learn to use one of these programs that removes dust spots from images because it seems unavoidable.

I am actually amazed at the ability of this lens to see these dust specs because it's not something I have ever seen on my Canon A640 point and shoot I have always used, it even has quite a large spec of dust inside the lens I cannot get out but it does not show up in images.

Well, I wasn't necessarily suggesting he sign up as a commercial wedding photographer using a pocket camera. I was talking about finding the best compromise for what he was doing with the camera (and they're ALL compromises, even the finest and biggest...you give up some things, gain others). Certainly if you prefer hauling the baggage and accepting the compromises, you've made a good choice. I did, incidentally, have a look at your photos before I replied the first time, and you have some very fine photos there, but at least a majority of them I don't see anything that would have not been possible with a capable ultrazoom, for example. (point and shoot is somewhat of a condescending term, implying there are 'serious' cameras and anything else is for 4x6 snapshots, and there just is no such dividing line; your little Nikons are old and dated, and should not be used to evaaluate what can be done with current digitals).

I've been known to take a photo or two myself, over the years, with at least the hope of more than a "4x6 snapshot", and in general I prefer to stay free of the equipment lust that photographers tend to get involved in. A good photo, or gallery of photos, can be made by a talented individual with a Holga, a pinhole camera, a "point and shoot" or a fine full-frame SLR, and whatever's in between.

Certainly, along with the disadvantages, the DSLR has advantages...the larger sensor will produce smoother images with less inherent noise, especially at higher ISO's; and the dynamic range is somewhat improved over smaller sensors. Should you like blurred backgrounds, (I don't particularly), the larger lenses will produce more blur and more pleasant bokeh (blur quality). BUT, as I said, that's along WITH the compromises...the dust, the cost, the weight, the bulk, the inconvenience of having the wrong lens on at the wrong time; shallower depth of field can be a disadvantage; so it'a not all a clear cut "if you want snapshots, or if you care about your photos" decision.

Since the original question was about hauling camera gear, I was presenting options to consider when using a camera along with hiking. There's no "right" answer, and no one is relegated to snapshots by their choice. Your quest for ultimate technical quality has found the answer for you. I've found an ultrazoom works well for my needs, as the best compromise for the many and varied situations that arise; others may find their own answers, but it's not always a climb up the DSLR gear ladder to find the best answer.

Which was meant to be the point; there's more than one way to get quality artistic photos, trail report shots, memory snaps, or whatever you're after; you don't necessarily HAVE to start hauling heavy equipment unless you choose to.

Gary R:

I'd have to say we agree on much more than we disagree.

Yes, you can take satisfactory images with a wide range of cameras.

Yes, there is a wide range of capabilities from very simple (fixed-focal-length, very limited if any overrides) through mid-range (zooms of varying degrees, increasing levels of user controls) to high-end (sky's the limit priced DSLRs and a whole spectrum of lenses).

I will admit that I haven't done an exhaustive study of the current crop of "ultra-zoom" digital cameras but the ones I am familiar with all suffer the same limitation of not going "wide" enough for some of the shots I like taking, both interiors and scenics. (Barring taking cylindrical pans and stitching on the computer back home.) They seem to take their extremes on the telephoto end of the zoom range, which I find of limited use in the mountains. (Personal preference, I admit) Plus, once you get out to something like 300mm in 35mm equivalent focal length, you start to need a tripod at even reasonably-fast shutter speeds or the motion blur eats your sharpness.

Correct me if I'm wrong but do any digital cameras (other than DSLRs) come with a wide end of the zoom shorter than 24mm in 35mm equivalent focal length?

(I hope we're all dinosaurs enough to still think in 35mm equivalent...the absolute focal length of lenses on any of the digital cameras is obviously related to the image sensor size so isn't a useful direct camera-to-camera comparison.)

(No, this isn't all academic even for me...one of the things I'd like to do in the long run is find a digital camera I want to risk putting in an underwater housing for my other hobby. I don't really feel like putting the huge $$ into a housing for the D200 and 12~24, although that would be a sweet underwater setup, provided I could also put a different dome on the housing to work with the 60mm macro lens for night dives...but that's a whole other can of worms...and lobsters...and shrimp...)

Anyway, I'll keep hauling my "boat anchor," even knowing that for 95% of the stuff I shoot I could do quite adequately with something lighter and smaller but for that final 5%, well, that's life...

All,

I've hiked with both the point-and-shoot and the top of the line DSLR's (Canon Mark II's and Nikon D3's). It's sure nice having a little camera you can pop in your pocket and shoot a photo when you want, Canon has some very nice cameras in this range, but I'm always disappointed when I know what I could've shot. Of course that's with a camera that weighs 7 pounds. For me it's worth it. Especially when it's for my employer, The Orange County Register.

Here's last years story: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/trail-feet-down-2074073-snow-control

I will wear just the camera, no cover or case, around my neck and under one arm. A lot of times I'll just use it as an arm rest. It gets banged around a bit but many people are surprised at how sturdy these cameras are. In 20 years of shooting I've never had a camera in the repair shop because of banging into a rock or anything like that. It stays pretty secure against my body and it's there when I want to take a photo.

Just my two cents. Paul Bersebach

I carry a point and shoot digital most of the time these days. Like Paul, however, I am always disappointed when I see the results - not what I could get if I had my "real" camera. If I carry the SLR (not digital) I get better images.. the trade-off is 6 lbs of camera. But again, I'm disappointed with the images - still want my "real" camera. I took the real camera (4x5 w/3 lenses, film holders and filters) one time on a week long trip. Great images, but the extra 45 lbs of camera, etc. limited me to no more than 8 miles per day. I felt like I was "working" the whole time. Always a trade-off. I'm going to switch to a DSLR and ultra-light tripod. Then I can feel like I'm enjoying myself and still get decent images.

I saw the tracks in the snow left by them and could only think how crazy it was to glisade right there!

Been reading some of this and find the discussion about quality photos from P&S cameras interesting. Have a look at digitalalpine.com for a look at what a newer P$S can do. (And I do agree that he could be getting better "quality" from a DSLR.)

For me, I've decided that the benefits of a smaller, lighter camera outweigh the benefits of the DSLR "on technical terrain." So I ordered myself a TZ5 last night. (Now that it's "last generation," it's pretty easy to find a really good deal!)

BTW: I have one of the Tamrac holster type camera cases that I carry under my left arm and slide over my stomach when I need to get it out of the way. I use a short sling to connect the camera to one of the cases outside buckles so I don't have to use the camera's neck strap.

I don't know of any; even though they're starting to include better wide angle in zoom cameras, 26-28mm is what the current ones offer. The 24mm of my LX-3 is the widest that I know of, and it seems extremely wide to me, but if you need wider, you're pretty much limited to using multiple shots stitched, or an interchangeable lens model. Of course the full-frame (35mm) models give you the most wide angle options since there's no multiplication factor for focal length, but of course they're the most pricey and the largest to carry.

One thing I noticed in this thread is a tendency to categorize into two categories: pocket point and shoot, or "real" cameras. That's what I've been trying to point out...there is no such solid dividing line unless you compare the extremes. Models are made in-between, that take respectable quality photos, offer easy to use manual control when desired, and at 8-10-12 megapixels can produce good prints at whatever size you wish. Many shoot in RAW, for those who prefer it, and also offer adjustments to how jpg images are processed...the amount of sharpening, contrast, saturation,and default noise reduction, all controllable by the camera's setup menu.

But if you walk into Target to the photo counter, and think "hmm, Canon makes good cameras, here's a Canon, I'll get this", you'll probably get the pocket point and shoot that leaves you wishing you had your "real" camera. If you put in some effort, do a little research into what you need and what verious models "really" produce (beyond what brand it is), it's possible to find something that allows creative photography combined with something not so burdensome as a full fledged set of lenses and DSLR to carry along the trail.

There are all sorts of things to consider; do you need very wide angles, like long telephotos for birds or wildlife, do you ever use manual settings, how easy is it to set them on the camera, do you want a viewfinder (unfortunately a lot of pocket models have nothing but the LCD, which some find OK, others not), and what type (a simple optical or an electronic viewfinder). Is the camera responsive when focusing at the telephoto end? Is the aperture decent at telephoto, or does it diminish to f/5.6 or worse? (Alan; most ultrazooms have stabilization now, which is very effective in being able to use the long zoom end; it still requires care, but makes it possible to shoot remarkably low shutter speeds and still have 400mm or more).

Automatic features have become so advanced that even long-time photographers are finding them handy at times. They can recognize high-contrast situations, night scenes, faces, fast motion, follow a subject, and set themselves accordingly; very handy when you're just not ready to deal with manual settings but still want the photo. And, if you want that sunrise macro backlit photo of the orchid and its dramatic lighting and sky, you can use the manual settings and viewfinder to get exactly what you want..provided you did the work when choosing the camera, and picked one that will do the job.

So for those who choose something other than the multi-lens DSLR option for a traveling or hiking camera, don't just pick up something and figure they're all "point and shoots" so it doesn't matter. That probably WILL leave you wishing you had your "real" camera with you, but if you choose carefully, that may happen seldom or never. DPReview and many other online sites give reviews, specs, and opinions on different models, along with user forums that can give some insight. Even among the interchangeable lens (usually SLR) type, there are many options; the smaller 4/3, the APS-c or the full-frame, so before taking out an escrow for the 400mm lens for that MKIII, consider the options. There are also new models that have eliminated the age-old mirror of reflex viewfinders, using instead a high resolution electronic finder, which offers a pleasant silence instead of the 'car crash' you get from a DSLR shutter, and genuine live view. Lots to choose from.

I've found the M-Rock holster bags by far the best choice for carrying heavy DSLR's and pro glass in the backcountry. I strip them down with a knife until only the straps & padding I absolutely need are left to cut weight. You can attach these to your pack's sternum strap, or to your pack's waistbelt. The waistbelt in particular is a good place to carry, as you're keeping a 5-10 lb load off your back that way.

<technical discussion on>

In the "megapixel wars," more is not necessarily better. The sharpness of a digital image is governed by several factors.

1. Image sensor size.
2. Lens quality.
3. Image sensor pixel count.

The best (reasonably affordable, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, pick your poison) fixed-focal-length lenses will resolve about 100 line pairs/mm. In rough terms, that's two pixels...one for the "black" and one for the "white" half of a line pair. (This is not exact but for purposes of this discussion, quite close enough.) Less-sophisticated glass and zoom lenses give lower results than this but we'll use the 100 lp/mm (or 200 pixels/mm) figure for the rest of the analysis.

Image sensors range from 6x9mm in the lower-end point'n'shoot to 16x24mm in half-frame DSLRs like my D200 to 24x36mm in the high-end "full-frame" (in 35mm terms) high-end DSLRs. The upper end non-interchangeable-lens digital cameras fall somewhere between the low-end and half-frame dimensions and you have to pay close attention to detailed tech specs to figure out where in that range a particular camera falls. (You can look at the actual lens focal length range and compare to 35mm-equivalent focal lengths to figure it out. 35mm-equivalents would be on a 24x36 frame. If the absolute focal length(s) on a given camera is/are half that, its sensor is 12x18, etc.)(For example, my ancient Nikon Coolpix 990 had an actual focal length range of 8-24mm that mapped to a 35mm equivalent of 38~144mm, so its sensor was a bit over 1/4 of a 24x36mm full frame, about 6x9mm)

If the pixel count (1536x2048 in the example of my 990 or 3872x2592 in the case of the D200's 16x24mm sensor) exceeds 200 pixels/mm, the image sharpness will be limited primarily by the lens optics and not by the megapixel count. The 990 is at or beyond that limit, and I would bet that its little 3:1 zoom lens won't come close to 100 lp/mm. The D200 isn't that far off, at about 160 pixels/mm or 80 lp/mm. So for either of them, the practical limiting factor is the quality of the glass, not the megapixel count.

Integrated circuit technology can pack a lot of pixels into a small sensor but if the optics can't use that pixel count, building a 20-megapixel 1/2-frame sensor (D200) or a 10 megapixel smaller sensor doesn't buy anything in terms of usable image quality. Indeed, the higher noise floor and lower sensitivity of the smaller sensor pixels hurts quality.

Now, before you jump on the simplification and tell me that real scenes aren't composed of uniformly-spaced black/white test patterns, yes, I agree but when the lens can't lay down an edge (of a mountain, a twig or a feather on a bird) that sharply, adding more pixels across the same fuzzy edge isn't going to help final image quality.

<technical discussion off>

The above tech-geeky explanation is applicable to anything in the optical spectrum from the $9.95 "VGA" keychain cameras from Wal-Mart to the $5,000 high-end DSLRs and equally-expensive lenses. Our ability to carve out smaller and smaller pixels has passed the (practical) point of diminishing returns.

This is certainly one of the more frustrating aspects of today's POS cameras - marketers realize consumers equate megapixels with quality, and so push 10, 12, and even 14MP compact cameras with lenses that can't resolve half that number. You get a much more expensive camera and giant, storage-hogging image files in exchange for...nothing. Or maybe there's some esoteric advantage to interpolating chromatic aberrations and such.

All this technical stuff makes me want to join a photography forum for more detailed discussions.

For me it hasn't been until more recently that I have wanted to try more complex or artistic photography where I need the options of a better DSLR such as I would like to do an open shutter of the stars for a few hours but my point and shoot does not have the ability to leave the shutter open for more then 15 seconds so what it came down to in the most simple way was I just plain wanted the most crisp, clear imagine I could possibly take in the mountains.

I do not print many photos but I love to be able to zoom WAY into a photo to examine details in photos and that is where I want my quality, I have plenty of times looked through images just to zoom in on plants that happened to be in the photo to try and identify anything edible.

I have never had a complaint about the Canon A640 I have always used but if all I wanted was a point and shoot and I used my 5D on full auto 100% of the time the images are always going to be far better then probably any point and shoot I can get.

What point and shoot can give me full frame 21.1 effective MP?

Dude, you've got a 5D. A lot of us are drooling! You better learn how to use it, or we're going to come take it away from you.

hmm - a used $50 film body can do that - just a thought... also got tons of megapixels with velvia loaded up.

Lol I am working on it!

And just what is it you do with that 21 megapixels?

With all this top of the line equipment around now, we should be getting photos from everyone that will send Ansel's and all the other old-time photogs work to the basement. That's what it takes for good photos, right? A good, big, expensive camera, the best that money can buy.

8x10 at 300 ppi takes about 7-8 megapixels to produce. Anything you can print well at 8x10 should print at whatever size you want, unless you're printing murals for people to examine with a magnifying glass.

More pixels gives you more cropping room, but it gets a little like wanting a car that can go 200mph when you only drive around town.

Gary, I think most of us get it that there are only a few people in the world who consistently get gallery quality (and I'm not talking sharpness here) photos. People like Adams, Rowell, etc had/have a gift that I've been jealous of all my life. But, putting high quality glass on a high megapixel camera, using proper technique will get me photo that I couldn't get with a P&S. And you seem to be arguing against this point.