Jan 26, 2006 at 5:54 am #1217622
Someone could recomend me one really ligth good quality digital camera? For a SUL pack??Jan 26, 2006 at 6:49 am #1349333
@craig_shelleyLocale: Rocky Mountains
There are many posts discussing this topic.
My recommendation is the Pentax Optio WPi. The i is the newer 6M pixel camera. It can be taken underwater (1 meter) so it works better in wet conditions (rafting, etc.).
Buy an extra battery or two on eBay and at least a 1GB SD card and you will have a very nice lightweight camera for backpacking.
Craig ShelleyJan 26, 2006 at 8:46 am #1349338
You might also consider the all-weather 6 mega pixel Olympus Stylus 600 or Stylus 800 8 mega pixel Digital CamerasJan 26, 2006 at 11:56 pm #1349406
Yes i considered the stylus 600 and the optio wpi but im looking for somehing ligter…. a real SUL digital camera …Jan 27, 2006 at 7:56 am #1349415
I don’t thinky you can get lighter than 5 oz unless you go for those cheapo “pen digital cameras” but the quality is so bad it isn’t worth it.Jan 27, 2006 at 10:12 am #1349419
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
It’s possible to have a subminiature with quality. Here’s one example, regrettably from a company that’s pulled out of the business, but they have all the good stuff (Zeiss lens, etc).
Generally speaking, if you make can do with a small screen and a fixed focal length lens, or at least a limited zoom range, you can find a very, very small camera.Jan 27, 2006 at 9:15 pm #1349461
@pyeyoLocale: pacific northwest
I happened to notice good ol’ backpacker gear guide listed a casio 5 meg sul camera…so going to casio’s website they have a 6 meg coming out in the same configuration in March and another 5 that uses aa batteries.Casio exslim ex-s500 @ 4.6 oz. I have a olympus stylus 800 and you will spend a lot of your time shooting in the middle quality range because SHQ takes up so much memory. Unless you really think you are going to be printing posters save a few bucks and get a 5-6 megapixel unit.Jan 27, 2006 at 11:39 pm #1349465
Lighter??? Ok time to roll up the sleeves…..
How about the Casio EX-S600 6 mega-pixel digital camera with a 2.2-inch LCD screen weighing in at a mere 4.05oz/115g (without battery)Jan 28, 2006 at 7:05 am #1349469
Throw the battery in and it weights 5 oz. Just like the Optio series.Jan 30, 2006 at 12:19 am #1349549
well i spent the last two years trying to build a sub 5 pack ….
For that reason i spent the last year looking for a real SUL good quality (decent) camera .. but as you can see is a very difficult task
contax and minox are two very good options
Minox has the movy d1 and DM1
(digital&video&mp3player) 87 grms (3oz) including batteries and card and use a battery corresponds to the NOKIA 7210 cell phone battery
and contax has the i4r
thats the kind of cameras that im looking for
sub 4 cameras for a sub 5 packJan 30, 2006 at 3:49 am #1349551
Carlos the Contax can produce good enough 4″x6″ prints, at 5″X7″ you will start to see it’s limits. Forget the Minox unless you like the comparable results of a disposable 35mm camera.
I will find you something usable by this week end.
BTW I have tested the above mentioned cameras.Jan 30, 2006 at 8:16 am #1349558
@verberLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
No such thing as a light good quality digital camera. If you are looking for great image quality and light you are still looking at shooting slide film on a small range finder or ultrahigh quality P&S.
There are several digital cameras which have reasonable lens such as the Ricoh GR Digital… but all the small/light cameras have only so/so sensors. When I compare any of the shots from our DSLR to any of the smaller cameras, the smaller cameras always look dull and lifeless.
If you are willing to give on image quality and optimize for size… there are a number of decent chooses. I haven’t used the Ricoh GR Digital, but I used to have the film version of this camera and liked it alot. For small light cameras I would look at Casio Exilim or one of the Canon PowerShot SD (Digital IXUS) line. Second choose would be something like the Sony T, Pentax S5 (though I have had reliability issues with mine) or the Panasonic FX7K.
For this question, I think you would be best served checking out the reviews at http://www.dpreview.com/Feb 3, 2006 at 2:33 pm #1349853
Well I cannot find anything that I would bother using for less than 4.2oz .
The minimum weight at the moment, with batt, is between 4.2 and 4.5oz.
Canon SD/Ixus, Casio S500/600, Pentax S5Z or WPi.
Soon we will have the Olympus 720SW, around 4.4oz with batt, waterproof to 9″ and shock proof!
PMA, one of the largest photographic exibitions, will be on at the end of Feb, we may see something lighter then.
FrancoFeb 6, 2006 at 2:57 am #1349972
:-( thank you franco
may be the 720 could be a better option ¿maybe better than the WPI?Feb 6, 2006 at 9:08 am #1349978
@scottalanpLocale: Northern California
I am not judging, but isn’t finding a sub 4 camera for a sub 5 pack a little like building a ship in a bottle? I kind of start to lose the point when the goal is to be outdoors and take great pictures too. I can understand not wanting to tote a heavy SLR with motorized body etc., but not considering a camera because it weighs an extra 2 or 3 ounces seems strange. The variety of features and quality and price are astronomical in the 7 ounce range. I can only assume that for some folks…it is just the satisfaction of knowing that your pack weighs a certain amount??? Anyway…if you are patient enough 4.2 ounces will probably be a hulking piece of junk in 5 years.Feb 6, 2006 at 10:41 am #1349985
My soul reason for removing bulk and weight from my pack is so I can fill it back up again with camera gear. Although the EOS 350D was considered one of the smallest lightest Digital SLR’s on the market, besides water or food my precious digital SLR is the heaviest thing in my pack. On top of that include an additional lens, filters, batteries, tripod, cleaning kit and case. This photo system may not be the gram weenies 1st choice but photography is one of my passions and I never once regretted the weight.
Regards,Feb 6, 2006 at 10:54 am #1349990
I’m with you.
I cut down my pack so that I can throw in my Medium format rig – 50 plus ounces of pure negative exposing joy.
Of course, I’m pretty spartan with my photo gear too – I use one prime lens (whatever is standard for the format and comes to about 50mm in 35mm) and that is it.
I generally don’t feel the need for anything else besides a trekpole with built in monopod and maybe a red filter on occasion.Feb 6, 2006 at 11:19 am #1349994
I was inspired by another member of BPL Eu-Jin Goh (you have to check out his website pictures, outstanding) to leave the limited point and shoot at home and bring the relatively heavier SLR system. Another inspiration is Andrew Skurka not only the first person to walk the entire 7,778-mile transcontinental Sea-to-Sea Route but the first one to do it with a SLR. When I met him I asked why the SLR he responded it was all about the quality of the photos.
RegardsFeb 6, 2006 at 11:58 am #1349996
@scottalanpLocale: Northern California
I totally agree with your approach, and it probably was not clear in my post. If you have specialized interests or pursuits in addition to being in the wilderness, by all means that is what weight should be saved for. I for one have contemplated taking out the old medium format. Not very weight concious of course, but you will not get the artistic touch from even the most expensive, full feature digital in my opinion.
My only point was that if you are looking to get decent shots, but you are weight concious…I am not certain why you would necessarily just focus on a sub-set of camera offerings that save you 2 to 3 ounces. I suppose that is what everyone terms a “gram weenie”…but to me there comes a point when it is weight savings for no real reason. The camera has so many more function options than a headlamp, or stove, or water filter. To compare them based only on their ability to meet a 5 ounce thresh-hold seems to rule out about 300 other choices that are probably only a mear 3 ounces heavier…and does that weight really matter???Feb 6, 2006 at 12:27 pm #1349998
Scott I couldn’t agree more…Feb 6, 2006 at 3:57 pm #1350024
One area to really focus on is the lens zoom range or macro capability. I can’t live without a 28mm but don’t need much tele range. Others may be different; maybe a macro is desired or a single focal length around 35mm (35mm film equiv) is sufficient. -Point is that you should go first for a camera that can capture the view as you see it.
FYI: I was a photojournalist for about two lifetimes…25yrs+.Apr 16, 2006 at 10:43 am #1354931
@dwambaughLocale: Pacific Northwest
I’ve shot everything from Minox to 8″x10″ and you can apply the same rules to photographic equipment that you do to any of your hiking gear: keep it simple— take the minimum needed to accomlish the goal. Not a bad philosphy for life in general, IMHO.
If you are going to go hiking and want to make images for sale you have a different goal than someone who wants a record or memory of the event. If you want to make 16″x20″ prints, you have a different goal than someone who wants to illustrate a Web page or a book. Fine art image making might find you with an 8×10 view camera or a Diana plastic camera or anything in between– there you are picking the equipment to give the vision you want to present. So take what you need for your purposes and keep your head.
No need for guilt with any of them. I personally find it better for my head and my images if I keep things simple. A day spent with a 35mm slr and a short zoom or a fixed focal length lens is usually more productive than hauling a bag full of lenses and spending too much time fiddling with gear. BTW, I share Ron’s preference in a 35mm focal length lens on a 35mm camera. If I am trying to cover an event, three lenses are plenty.
I haven’t shot much film in the last few years as most of my stuff is for a Web page or just personal records. Digital cameras are doing the job nicely for me. I just got a Canon SD200 Digital Elph and it will take care of my hiking needs nicely– small, light, inexpensive, easy to use– all the atributes that George Eastman tried to build into his Kodak camera 118 years ago (his technological leap was roll film).
Check out the SD200 review at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092102canon_sd200sd300.asp . Mine weighs 4.8oz/135g with battery, memory card, and a bit of reflective cord for a wrist strap. I have a little Z20 LowePro case that I picked up in a thrift store for 99 cents that has more than enough room for the camera and one of the REI UltraPod tripods can fit in the outer pocket. I added a Black Diamond Micron plastic wire gate carabiner to the belt loop rather than use a strap. The whole kit is 8.5 ounces. I could get a couple ounces off by using an Aloksak for a case.
The only thing I don’t like about the mini digital cameras are the batteries. There isn’t much choice though– it you want to get a light camera you have to put up with proprietary rechargable batteries. I ordered a couple spares on Ebay and they are only 0.5oz each. Most of my trips are 2-3 days, so it isn’t a big problem for me. Three fully charged batteries would take me a long, long way.
If you are looking for a light 35mm camera, I like the Olympus Stylus a lot.Apr 16, 2006 at 11:02 am #1354934
I like my Canon Digital Elf SD300 which I believe has been replaced by the SD400.
It weighs 5.4oz
Fits in your palm
3x optical zoom
3.6x Digital Zoom
11x combined zoom
Uses SD Flash
2″ LCD screen
3 Minutes of video can be recorded at a time with sound
The SD400 looks like it is pretty much the same camera except it has 5Megapixel and 12x ZoomApr 16, 2006 at 11:23 am #1354935
@dwambaughLocale: Pacific Northwest
Amazingly they all seem to be available still, so you can fit your budget and resolution needs. I got mine used by trading a collection of old photo odds and ends I had cleaned up.
I wonder how they compare on battery consumption. Getting good information on that is like getting accurate weights on hiking gear :)
Zoom ranges are another rant of mine. Sports drives a lot of the market and both video and still cameras come with really long lenses, but there are very few wide angle cameras. I like to take landscapes and I work for an architectural firm so I’ve had cause to want wider coverage cameras for both. Something like a 28-100mm 35mm equivalent would be nice. Olympus just discontinued a 7MP camera in that range (too big and heavy for hiking– might as well have an SLR). 24-100mm would be to die for, but that is a very difficult and expensive zoom to make. For the record, the SD200 has a 3:1 zoom with a 35-105mm 35mm equivalent.
Sony has some really thin rigs with large LCD’s in the 5MP range too.Apr 16, 2006 at 12:20 pm #1354936
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
The SD400 is a very nice little camera. I bought one for my wife and swipe it pretty frequently. It still sports a 3x optical zoom and has the all-important optical viewfinder, increasingly rare in this size range. I’d like to see RAW mode added, because the optics deserve it.
My biggest problem is getting accurate macro focus, as the view screen isn’t sharp enough to verify focus.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.