Introduction

CAMP is an Italian company that specializes in ultralight gear for climbing and skiing. They have recently expanded into producing ultralight clothing. One of their first garments is the Flash Anorak, a 4-ounce (112-gram) pullover wind shell with a MSRP of $119.95. Randonee ski racing inspired the Anorak’s innovative design, though it also can be used for backpacking and cycling. The Flash Anorak aims to solve the all-to-common “on again, off again” problem faced by wind shell-loving outdoor enthusiasts.

Description

The 2011 Flash Anorak is made of CAMP’s proprietary Araneum fabric, which is a 30 g/m² uncoated nylon. The fabric is claimed to be breathable, windproof, and water resistant. The shell’s hood is very basic – it is quite small, does not adjust, and has no brim. Additionally, the shell has an un-adjustable elastic waist, cuffs, and pinky (yes, pinky) loops.

The shell’s most unusual attribute is that there is no fabric on the back. This allows the user put on and take off the shell quickly without removing their backpack. While not being worn, the shell is stored in the attached front pocket which has a thin nylon belt that allows the user to wear it around their waist. The pullover style forgoes the full front zip of a “jacket” to minimize weight, bulk, and cost.

Performance

I tested the Flash Anorak for three months of backcountry ski tours in the Dolomites and hikes in the French Alps. I found that the shell was great for certain conditions in both sports and seasons, but it also had distinct limitations.

I am 6 feet (183 cm) tall and 170 pounds (77 kg) and normally wear a size medium, but had to move up to a size large for the Flash Anorak. The medium was too short in the sleeves and torso. The overall fit of the large was not great as the torso was too baggy and the hood was too small. To clarify, the hood was plenty big to fit around my large head (with a beanie), but would not fit over any type of helmet, despite CAMP’s claim the the hood is helmet compatible. The loose-fitting torso may be one disadvantage of the backless design. The large was big enough to wear a wool baselayer and MontBell Thermawrap Parka underneath, though I rarely did this in practice. The limited “unisex” sizing of small to extra large means that this shell will suit a limited range of males, and probably won’t fit most females very well.

The Araneum fabric is strong for its weight and windproof, but not very water resistant. CAMP’s website states that the shell offers “protection from wind and even from a light drizzle,” which is accurate, based on my experience. The fabric is untreated and does soak through under prolonged exposure to light rain or heavy snow. Water permeates the Flash Anorak faster than my GoLite Wisp or MontBell U.L. Wind Parka. I have not yet tested Pertex Quantum GL or MontBell’s 7d Ballistic Airlight, the lightest wind shell fabrics currently available, and therefore cannot make a comparison.

During backcountry ski trips, I found that the Flash Anorak works well in dry, windy weather. Skinning uphill, I would typically wear a very light baselayer. If the wind became too chilling for a certain section, as when crossing through a treeless area, I would only stop for a few seconds to put on the shell. The Anorak significantly cut down on wind chill without causing me to overheat. Also, I didn’t have to take off my pack, which can be a safety concern on steep/ exposed terrain. When the wind stopped, I could pack the shell away without breaking my stride.

I also liked having the Flash Anorak for warm-weather hiking trips. If the weather cooled at dusk or when going over a mountain pass, I could easily add the shell. Again, not having any back fabric allowed airflow to my back. I find it quite unpleasant wear any type of shell when my back is already sweaty! Compared to a traditional windshirt, the Flash Anorak allowed better air flow to my back, extending the comfort range by reducing the likelihood of overheating. The shell was also the perfect lunch-break layer on cool days. Instead of adding a long sleeve t-shirt for warmth, I wore the Anorak on top of a short sleeve t-shirt. This kept me warm enough while allowing the wet t-shirt back to dry.

While being worn, the Flash Anorak covered my backpack’s hipbelt pockets. However, I could still access them by reaching around the side of my torso. The shell also covered my shoulder straps, but that was not an issue. The Anorak has a port at each shoulder for a water bladder tube. I use water bottles and thus didn’t use these ports. It would take a bit of time and effort to reach under my shell to feed the tube through the port, making me think it isn’t very practical. When the Anorak is not being worn, and is therefore stuffed into its pocket, it does not hinder access to the pack nor does it require an extra step to remove the pack.

There is an obvious advantage of having this easy on, easy off shell while actively hiking, skiing or cycling. However, the advantage while moving is somewhat offset by the disadvantage when stopped, as there is one extra step to access the backpack. Because the shell covers the hipbelt and shoulder straps, I had to take off the shell first before I could take off the pack. In marginal conditions, like cold, windy mountain summits, this meant heat was lost before I could don an insulating layer. Moreover, heat loss through the back could be an issue if the shell was worn for a long time while inactive, like in the evening at camp.

The Flash Anorak works well without a pack. I’ve used this on numerous runs and a few bike rides. I appreciated the weather protection without overheating or sweating profusely. And in both sports, I was able to easily put on the shell for weather changes (sudden rain on a run, or a big descent on my bike) and take it off when those events had passed. The baggy shell torso is noticeable, however.

Comparison

At 4.0 ounces (112 grams) and $119.95, the Flash Anorak is both heavier and more expensive than many ultralight wind shells. It is not hard to find a sub-four ounce wind shell that costs less than $100.

The lightest hooded pullover is the MontBell Tachyon Anorak, which weighs 2.4 ounces (68 grams) and costs $89. MontBell uses their proprietary 7 denier fabric to achieve such a gossamer weight. The new Pertex Quantum GL is 10 denier and weighs 25 g/m² (as opposed to 30 g/m² for the Araneum). The lightest shell to use this fabric is Montane’s hoodless, full front-zip Slipstream GL, which weighs 2.3 ounces (65 grams).

However, the additional cost and weight of the Flash Anorak are fairly minor and come with increased utility. In terms of design, this CAMP shell is unlike any backpacking wind shirt currently on the market. That being said, the concept is not completely unique. Several cycling vests and shells have a weather-proof fabric on the front and shoulders, with a more breathable fabric on the back. The idea is the same – protect from the weather but allow the back to dump heat and breathe as much as possible.

The design works well in all but the coldest temperatures. At some point (generally well below freezing), some people advocate using a vest with a vapor barrier on the back and breathable fabric on the rest of the garment. This could cause the back of the user’s baselayer to get wet with perspiration, but keep insulation layers dry. Mark Twight writes about this in his book, Extreme Alpinism, and the company 40 Below makes a vest of this nature.

It is beyond the scope of this product review to go into further details on comparing the merits and techniques of such a variety of garments, ranging from CAMP’s fabric-less back to a normal wind shirt to a vapor barrier-backed winter vest.

Assessment

The advantage of the Flash Anorak’s quick use while moving is somewhat offset by the extra step (and exposure) of taking off the shell to access the backpack. The unimpeded breathability along the back is a huge improvement, but the design makes for a loose-fitting torso. The sub-par fit and lack of female sizing is disappointing. The Araneum fabric is quite light and emphasizes breathability over water resistance, which I prefer. DWR can always be added by the user. During several months of testing, I had no problems with the shell construction or fabric strength. Finally, the shell is heavier and more expensive than many traditionally-styled wind shells. A resourceful backpacker might buy a cheaper and lighter wind shell and then modify the back panel to resemble the Flash Anorak.

The Flash Anorak would be a good shell when speed is important, like for randonee ski races, orienteering competitions, and mountain marathons. Backpackers who sweat a lot might really appreciate the unimpeded breathability of the backless design. Outdoor enthusiasts who face itinerant weather will really like the convenience of the Anorak’s design. When the weather demands taking off one’s pack a lot to add/remove a wind shell, then this saves time and energy.

In the end, this is a shell that I will sometimes use for backcountry skiing, hiking, and cycling. Weighing the pros and cons, the Flash Anorak is not overwhelmingly better than my current wind shell. It is just different.

Specifications and Features

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Part 1: Preview

The 17-ounce (482-g) Mountain Laurel Designs TrailStar claims to be the “first shaped tarp with five low-angle sides and no doors that combines the performance of a traditional pyramid shelter with the open and multi-function pitching of a tarp” (manufacturer website on December 20, 2011).

The primary purpose of this review is to push the TrailStar to its performance limits and find out under what scenarios this and other manufacturer claims start to break down.

My first experience with the TrailStar came in the midst of the coldest weather Montana has seen thus far this winter season – a few days where mountain lows dipped below 0F (-18C) and nightly snowfall ranged from a few inches to more than six inches (~5 cm to 15 cm) per night.

I first camped with the TrailStar during this spell on Big Creek in the Gallatin National Forest, west of Emigrant, Montana, where temperatures were low (-1F to +1F / -18C to -17C overnight lows), snowfall was minor (less than 6.0 in / 15 cm per night of low-density snow), and wind was nonexistent.

Summary of Initial Perceptions

Pitching

A lot has been said about the TrailStar’s finicky pitching requirements. When you increase the number of panels of a shelter, two things happen. First, the number of pitching options decreases. Second, tolerance for the geometry of the pitch (stake locations and pole heights) decreases. The TrailStar is no different, but with five symmetrical panels and two (and in some cases, only one) straight pole requirement, it doesn’t require an advanced degree in engineering to pitch it.

That said, when it’s 0F/-18C outside, dark, and there is a bunch of snow atop rock-hard frozen ground (these were the conditions when I pitched the TrailStar for the very first time), trying to figure all this out isn’t exactly trivial. After about 20 minutes of playing with it, I was able to achieve a pitch that offered drum-tight panels, plenty of headroom, steep sidewalls for good snow shedding, and an aesthetically beautiful-looking shelter. This is less a testament of my uncanny ability (sic) to figure things out and more a testament of the manufacturer’s ability to create a shelter that is intuitively easy “enough” to use – assuming you have plenty of experience pitching tarps and pyramids tightly.

Although I haven’t validated it yet, I suspect somebody with less experience pitching tarps might repeat my virgin TrailStar pitching experience, but with no shortage of frustration.

Pitching the TrailStar with an open door (see photo) is significantly less trivial than pitching a four-sided pyramid, which requires only that you insert four stakes into the corners to make a square and prop a pole up in the middle. It turns out that when you add one additional side, you exponentially increase geometric failure potential and thus, effort. Pitching now becomes an iterative, rather than a serial exercise of “pitching with slack,” “inserting the pole,” “resetting the stakes,” “adjusting the pole,” “fine-tuning the stake locations,” etc. During the summer, when temperatures are warm and the ground is soft, it’s no big deal. During the winter, this process is not insignificant.

Snow-Loading

I have not explored the snow-loading limits of the TrailStar at time of writing.

My first experience brought no more than six inches (15 cm) of low-density snow on any given night, and for the most part, it easily slid off the shelter’s slick silnylon walls (I suspect that a Cuben Fiber version would fare much worse, as snow seems to stick more to Cuben Fiber).

As with any poorly structured winter shelter (and the TrailStar certainly qualifies as such, with large fabric panels and minimal pole-structure), heavy snow-loading demands attentiveness to the accumulation of snow during the storm, and requires the usual routine of reaching out of your sleeping bag periodically and banging the snow off the sidewalls of the shelter. The result is that lots of snow accumulates at the bottom of the walls, pushing the walls inward and thus reducing the interior space and, sometimes, the shelter’s ability to resist condensation.

With overnight snows of six inches (15 cm) or so, the amount of snow that managed to accumulate at the bottom of the TrailStar’s walls was significant. However, with me as the only occupant, it was not such a big deal. And, with temperatures so cold, condensation wasn’t a problem either – it just froze to the interior of the tarp and fell down as pretty little ice crystals when the wind blew – hardly an inconvenience in the grand scope of winter camping.

Usability

I really liked the interior space inside the TrailStar, and I’d find it to be entirely suitable for my dog, or my son (probably not both) – in the summer. In the winter, however, given that the sidewalls will be compressed inward in storms due to snow accumulation around the shelter’s perimeter, and the fact that I have more gear to sort, organize, and spread out, I’d want to share this shelter only with an exceptional friend in a situation where we’re serious about saving every ounce in our pack weights.

The ability to pitch the shelter with one panel propped up in a triangle by using a short pole (thus creating a door), while still being able to pitch a symmetrical-to-the-ground shelter (with only one center pole) with full-perimeter wind protection, is nothing short of brilliant. I prefer the door option, obviously, for ease of exit/entry and better views, but I love knowing that a full-perimeter option exists when conditions (mosquitoes, wind) deteriorate from bad to worse. I don’t get this flexibility with any sort of tarp, and to accomplish this with a pyramid requires that you leave its zippered door partially open, significantly reducing the amount of floor area that remains sheltered from precipitation.

First Impressions

I find the TrailStar to fill an important gap for lightweight backpackers. Its 17-ounce (482-g) weight precludes its use as a solo shelter for hikers that spend more time on virtual hikes than real walks in bad weather, but, I suspect, offers a weather-resistance-to-weight ratio that may best a pyramid tarp and easily clobbers any cottage-made solo tent on the market – nearly all of which fail miserably in high winds, interior space, and under substantial snow loads.

What’s Next?

This will be a rolling review, and I’ll add more content (at this URL) as it becomes available. The test methodology for the TrailStar will be based primarily upon reviewing the manufacturer claims (posted at the manufacturer’s website as of December 20, 2011) as follows:

1. “…that combine the performance of a traditional pyramid shelter with the open and multi-function pitching of a tarp.” We’re not sure what the manufacturer means by “performance of a pyramid shelter,” so we’ll primarily consider a conventional expectation of pyramid performance in inclement conditions: wind, rain, and snow. Granted, the manufacturer claims that the “roof angle is moderate…for light snow loads,” so we’ll explore what that might mean in real world use.
2. “BOMBER ALPINE WIND PROTECTION.” You can bet we’ll assess this. Your idea of bomber and my idea of bomber may be different, but we’ll see what the TrailStar can do when it’s pitched at a high alpine pass in a storm, at least.
3. “… tarp pitching ease and multiple [pitch] options.”

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Editor’s note: At the time of writing, the Clikstand T-2 stand sold for $75. The manufacturer has since dropped that price to $60. Corrections have been noted throughout the article, and BPL regrets the error.

Introduction

Alcohol stoves have long been a standard of contemporary ultralight backpackers. Their virtues are well documented. They can be somewhat to extraordinarily lightweight, typically have no moving parts to break, clog, or otherwise misfire, fuel is cheap and easy to purchase, they are silent while operating, and so forth. Aside from cold temperatures, the case for the utility of alcohol stoves need not be made. What might need some justification is an alcohol stove system that costs $127 (*at time of writing, but $112 currently) and doesn’t even include a pot. Considering the popularity of alcohol stoves for ultralight backpackers was built upon the backs of tuna can stoves, which were in essence free, there better be good reason for such a tony unit.

In the case of the Clikstand T-2, there may be reasons to consider dropping that kind of coin on a stove with no moving parts. First, consider that this is the same design which, way back in 2005, was one of the best stoves Will Rietveld tested. The T-2 is virtually identical, with the virtues unchanged: excellent stability, easy to use, compact, and excellent wind protection. The T-2 however, goes to 11. It is, you guessed it, made 100% of titanium and thus lighter and better in every way. The Clikstand T-2 stacks up with leading edge alcohol stove systems fairly well in boil time and weight and boasts unrivaled versatility. The wide range of possible uses may not appeal to all users, however.

The Clikstand is indeed a system and must be evaluated as such. I tested what Clikstand calls their Sierra Titanium combo, which consists of an Evernew titanium alcohol burner, ti Clikstand pot stand, ti foil windscreen, and burner adapter. The ti burner is Evernew’s lightweight version of the classic Trangia burner, a time-tested and powerful design. The Clikstand itself is the centerpiece of the system, and consists of a triangular, four-piece stand which snaps together with authority. It cradles the burner an optimum distance from the pot, serves as a stable, broad based pot stand, provides a rest for the foil windscreen, and serves as the second layer of defense against the wind. The whole thing is quick and easy to assemble or disassemble and fits together well as a unit.

Calling the windscreen “foil” is a bit of a misnomer, as the ti is quite sturdy. The windscreen has a few bends built into it that allow it to hook together at two different widths, to best suit different pots. It then rests on hooks built into the stand. The burner adapter is a pentagonal bit of wire intended to give the Evernew burner better purchase inside the stand. The burner is only just wide enough to sit inside the stand, though my sample was stable enough, and I never found the adapter necessary. The whole thing goes together emphatically and inspires confidence.

Comparison and Assessment

How then does the Clikstand system perform compared to other alcohol stoves? There are an enormous number of stoves available, but at the moment the clear favorite in terms of boil time and wind resistance is the Trail Designs Caldera Cone. The Caldera Cone is by nature built around a given pot, so, to provide as generalizable a comparison as possible, I researched data on the ubiquitous Evernew 1.3 liter ti pot (model ECA 253). Averages from a dozen user tests found in various places online came out to around 4 minutes 30 seconds to boil 16 fluid ounces of lukewarm tap water with a Caldera Cone alcohol setup and the Evernew pot, in “normal” conditions (not too cold, not very windy). My own average with the Clikstand T-2, using the same pot and similar back porch conditions, came out to about 5 minutes 30 seconds over half a dozen trials. That’s as scientific as I care to get, but the consistency of the numbers lend them apparent validity.

Interestingly, things changed quite drastically when I used my new-model BackpackingLight Firelite 900 ml pot, with its 4.375-inch diameter, much narrower than the Evernew’s 5.91 inches. Boil times with the skinnier pot, under the same conditions noted above and with the same volume of water, were consistently 2 minutes slower, again across half a dozen trials. I can think of no other conclusion but that the Clikstand stronger favors the broader heating surface provided by a wider pot. Not a stunning conclusion, but with this stove a demand perhaps particularly stark. Examining the Clikstand’s dimensions further explicate this state of affairs. The diameter of the stand is 4.2 inches. To get the rounded edges of the Firelite 900 to sit comfortably, I followed Clikstand’s instructions and bent the three prongs slightly inwards. This did nothing to fill the large gap between the pot and the windscreen, a gap through which much heat evidently escaped. The Evernew, on the other hand, just barely fits into the wider of the windscreen’s two settings, trapping heat admirably and maximizing efficiency.

The Clikstand boils water a bit slower than a Caldera Cone, or a lot, if you have a narrower pot. It’s a bit heavier, depending on the model, though in terms of stability we can assume the Clikstand equal if not superior to the largest Caldera, and thus weight is a wash (see complete comparison chart, below). So why would you spend all that money? It’s not top shelf efficient, but still pretty fast boiling for an alcohol stove. It can be used with a variety of pots, unlike the Caldera system, which bends the cost curve towards the Clikstand depending on your culinary predilections. It’s also ti, and sturdy ti at that, while the aluminum Calderas have had mixed durability over the long haul. Lastly, the ready heat and outstanding stability make it perhaps the premier alcohol stove to use with a frying pan. Fancy some fried trout on your next backpack? Done. Sautéed veggies with your ramen? Easy. Bacon and eggs? If you want to carry the eggs, no problem. The Clikstand is hot enough to cook them any way you like, and stable enough to keep them out of the dirt.

In summary, the Clikstand T-2 is a durable, functional, easy to use, and expensive alcohol stove system best suited to those who use a variety of larger cookware. As a bonus, it works well with a frying pan.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

The Obi Elite 1P is Nemo’s lightest tent construction yet, and sets a new standard for lightweight double-wall tents with 10 denier nylon fly and interior fabrics and weight-saving design. The minimum weight of this one-person double-wall tent is right at 2 pounds (0.91 kg) measured weight, which matches the weight of many poled single-wall tents (single-wall tents that utilize trekking poles for support are lighter). We have reviewed quite a few new ultralight tents in the past, only to find their weight reduction was accomplished by making the tent smaller; so does the new Nemo Obi Elite 1P really stand out or not?

Specifications

Design and Features

As the word “Elite” in the name suggests, this is a special version of the Obi 1P tent with 10 denier fabrics, which reduces the minimum weight by 9 ounces (255 g) and increases the cost by US$50. The standard Obi 1P tent is the same design, but is constructed of 20 denier nylon fabrics and has a minimum weight of 2.5 pounds (1.13 kg). The Obi 2P version has two doors and two vestibules and a minimum weight of 3 pounds (1.36 kg). All are new models for 2011.

The tent has a fly-only pitching option, but you need to purchase the optional footprint to go that route.

Performance

The Obi Elite 1P is very easy and fast to set up: 1) lay the tent body on the ground in the desired location and stake the four corners; 2) assemble the pole, connect two ends to the Jake’s Feet at the head end of the tent, and other end into a grommet at the foot end of the tent; 3) attach the body to the pole with seven clips, 4) lay the fly over the inner tent, with the vestibule door aligned with the entry door, 5) clip the front corners of the fly to the Jake’s Feet and rear guylines to stakes; and 6) stake the rear guyline and front vestibule. The tent sets up in about 2-3 minutes, less time than it took to write this paragraph.

I endured several mountain thunderstorms in the Obi, and found it to be very storm worthy and wind stable. Its domed design sheds wind very well, although the large vestibule can flap a lot if it’s not well tensioned. The fly at the head end is raised (see photos above) to save weight and improve ventilation, but it comes into contact with the inner tent during rainstorms, so it would be a good idea to guy it out. There are a total of seven guy points on the fly.

Although the Obi does not have a high vent, it does have a large amount of space between the tent body and the fly, and the sides are raised above the ground (see photos above), so there is good air circulation between the tent walls. When there is some air movement at night, the Obi has little or no condensation on the inside of the fly. However, on a calm night with a large temperature drop, the Obi has lots of condensation on the inside of the fly. Under such conditions, especially after an afternoon or evening shower, condensation is unavoidable.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Obi Elite 1P with similar one-person double-wall tents with poles. The table does not include solo single-wall tents because they are not a valid comparison.

Some highlights and observations from the comparison table are as follows:

• The Nemo Obi Elite 1P is significantly more expensive than the Big Agnes Tents and the Tarptent Scarp 1; the Obi 1P is priced closer to these other tents. You pay more for cutting edge materials.
• The Big Agnes tents have a little more floor area, but less vestibule area than the Nemo tents.
• The Tarptent Scarp 1 has less floor area but it has two doors with vestibules, and presumably more vestibule area than the other tents. It also has the best ventilation.
• The lightest tent in the group is the Terra Nova Laser Photon, but it’s very expensive, and headroom is only 35 inches (89 cm) at the center of the tent.

Assessment

The floor in the Fly Creek UL1 is 4 inches (10 cm) wider at the head end, yielding an extra square foot of floor area, but the measured inside height is 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) less than the Obi Elite 1P. The measured minimum weight of the two tents is nearly identical. The big difference between the two tents is the entry type; the Obi Elite 1P has a large side entry and vestibule, while the Fly Creek has a small end entry and vestibule. The side vestibule on the Obi Elite is much larger and more useful; with the inner mesh door tied open, the usable space within the tent is much larger and items in the vestibule are easy to reach. The end entry and vestibule on the Fly Creek UL1 is much less convenient and useful because the vestibule needs to be kept clear in order to enter the tent.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is the small difference in floor area is inconsequential; the headroom difference is more important, and the large side entry and large side vestibule on the Obi Elite 1P is a huge plus. Since the measured total and minimum weights of the two tents are nearly identical, the Nemo Obi Elite 1P emerges as the most convenient and useful tent for the weight. Granted, the Obi Elite costs a hundred bucks more. If cost were not a consideration, I would choose the Obi 1P Elite over the Fly Creek UL1 in a heartbeat.

Nemo’s approach to designing an ultralight one-person double wall tent delivers a tent with extra features, plenty of usable space inside, and easy setup and entry. In contrast, the Big Agnes Fly Creek seems downsized to reduce weight.

What’s Good

• Two-pound (0.91-kg) minimum weight for a one-person double-wall tent
• Free-standing
• Large side entry protected by a large vestibule
• All of the interior space is usable
• Two mesh storage pockets; one overhead pocket is designed to use a headlamp as a tent light
• Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent
• Good ventilation and condensation resistance
• Very storm worthy and wind stable
• Plenty of space for one person plus gear, or one hiker plus a dog

What’s Not So Good

• Expensive

Recommendations for Improvement

• None

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

The new Lightning Flash is the lightest snowshoe in MSR’s Lightning series of snowshoes that have a distinctive vertical flat aluminum alloy frame. These snowshoes have what MSR calls their “360° Traction Frame;” unlike other aluminum frame snowshoes, the frame has teeth on the bottom side, plus two toothed cross-members. The Lightning arguably has the most traction of any snowshoe out there. In this review we compare the Lightning Flash with a lightweight conventional tubular aluminum frame snowshoe, the Northern Lites Elite.

Specifications

Description

Most conventional tubular aluminum snowshoes have a toe crampon and heel crampon, and some have extra lateral crampons attached to the decking to help with sidehill stability. With the MSR Lightning snowshoes, the entire bottom side of the frame is serrated to provide traction, in addition to an aggressive steel toe crampon and two toothed cross-members. Clearly, these snowshoes have no shortage of traction.

The steps to adjust the SpeedLock binding are: 1) unlock the top strap clasp; 2) place the ball of your foot over the crampon hinge and fold the strap over the boot snugly; 3) note the number on the strap; 4) adjust the strap at least two settings smaller, and 5) engage the strap’s teeth, slide the clasp over both straps, and lock. I found it challenging to adjust the binding without directions, and resorted to watching a video on the Cascade Designs website to get the step-by-step procedure. Fortunately, you only have to do it once, if you will be using the same boots with the snowshoes.

The decking on the Flash is similar to Hypalon, a lightweight durable fabric that is standard in the industry.

Performance

I snowshoe with a group of friends who like to do extreme snowshoeing; we call it “plunging” or glissading on snowshoes. On our way down off a mountain, we choose the steepest routes and literally slide on our snowshoes. I gave the Flash a thorough testing on these trips.

I quickly found out that the Lightning Flash does not slide that readily. It does while going down really steep slopes, where the snow simply gives away and you go into a controlled slide. But the Flash locks on when going down moderate slopes and sidehills. The same is true on snowshoe tracks when snowshoeing with a group.

The extreme traction is something you have to get used to. Conventional tubular aluminum snowshoes are smooth on the bottom, except for the crampons, and you can glide along by lifting the snowshoe a bit and sliding it forward. The Lightning snowshoes don’t glide; you have to lift them up more and push them ahead. It’s more like walking with the snowshoes rather than shuffling.

In my testing on steep hills, I found that my boots tended to slide forward in the binding. Tightening the binding alleviated the problem, but it put uncomfortable pressure on the toebox area of my boots. A better solution is to add MSR’s optional Instep Strap, which is an extra strap over the front of the boot. The Instep Strap is not needed for typical snowshoeing in moderate terrain. If you typically snowshoe in more challenging conditions, I recommend getting the Lightning Ascent instead of the Flash; rather than the SpeedLock binding, it has three conventional straps on the front that hold the foot in place more securely.

Comparison with the Northern Lites Elite Snowshoe

While the MSR Lightning Flash is not the lightest snowshoe to be found, it could rightfully lay claim to the title of lightest high-traction snowshoe. The Northern Lites Elite is the lightest snowshoe; so how do the two compare?

Both snowshoes are the same size: 8 inches wide and 25 inches long (20 cm x 64 cm). The Flash has more surface area on the snow because it’s not upturned as much on the front and has less taper on the tail. The difference in traction capability is obvious in the photo above; you can almost climb trees with the Lightning Flash, but the Elite has less aggressive traction and is more comfortable on moderate terrain. One situation where you notice a big difference is when sidehilling on firm snow; the Flash does not slide sideways, but the Elite breaks loose.

The weight difference is not that large: the measured weight of the Flash is 3 pounds 6 ounces (1.53 kg) per pair, and the Elite weighs 2 pounds 6.1 ounces (1.08 kg) per pair, a difference of 1 pound (454 g). Yes, a pound (454 g) is significant if you are carrying the snowshoes, but the choice gets down to whether you need the extra traction or not. In gentle to moderate terrain, the Elite (which has aluminum alloy crampons) is adequate; but in steeper terrain and sidehills, the Lightning Flash is king.

Another factor to consider is the Northern Lites Elite costs a bit more, US$219 versus US$200 for the MSR Lightning Flash.

Overall, the MSR Lightning Flash is the lightweight high-traction king of the mountain. Its SpeedLock binding works well once adjusted, but adjusting it can be humbling.

Abstract

The subject of this review will be to discuss the merits, usability, performance, and suitability of the Sony NEX-7 for wilderness travel. Based on a comprehensive review of the state of the digital camera market today, we hypothesize that the Sony NEX-7 is capable of capturing higher image quality for less weight than (1) any other camera body equipped with a digital sensor smaller than full-frame; (2) any other camera body lighter in weight than the full-frame sensor equipped Leica M9; and (3) any compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera body. Thus, one important goal of this review is to evaluate this lofty thesis, which could have significant implications for the backpacking photographer.

This is a rolling review that will be released in several parts during the review period:

• PART 1: Introduction
• PART 2: Sony NEX-7 in use with manual focus lenses – OLED viewfinder – Focus peaking – Exposure control
• PART 3: Some lightweight and compact lens options for the Sony NEX-7
• PART 4: Shooting HD video with the NEX-7

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

Wilderness travelers who are enthusiastic about saving weight on gear often do so in the interests of adding weight back in order to increase their enjoyment of wilderness travel. In my consulting work with the U.S. Marines, I have discovered that the rifleman cares less about his absolute pack weight and more about the number of bullets that he can carry. In other words, if he can carry less weight in communications equipment, armor, cold weather clothing, and camping gear, then he can carry more weight in bullets. Ergo, the manifestation of lightweight backpacking philosophy for the U.S. Marine is to increasing his killing power (effectiveness), and not in reducing his load stress, per se (it is worth recognizing that bullets might be considered “consumable” items on the Marine’s gear list, resulting in significant pack weight reduction during the course of a combat mission).

It is like that for others as well, including hardshell kayakers, wilderness scientists, and professional photographers. For some, packing along lightweight camping gear is simply greater justification for packing along heavy gear for which substitutes would be considered heresy. I’ve known more than a handful of boaters unwilling to give up their particular model of hardshell, scientists unwilling to give up their chosen field instrumentation, and photographers unwilling to give up their large format camera, lenses, and an eight-pound tripod.

For the rest of us, and in particular, the rest of us that are hikers first and photographers second, the pursuit of a path of reason trumps the need to carry a camera that gives us uncompromising image quality.

Thus we fall into one of two camps.

The first camp is occupied by those who simply wish to carry a camera as a mechanism to document their travels. Image quality is less important than ease of use, weatherproofing, compactness, light weight, battery life, ruggedness, and reliability.

The second camp is occupied by more practiced photographers who wish to maximize image quality in a small, compact, and lightweight package, without compromising those aspects of photography that preserve creative control for the photographer – things like manual exposure control, interchangeable lenses, and large sensor sizes that deliver high resolution images that can be manipulated later during post processing.

Until just a few years ago, the latter group’s only option was a camera system based on a DSLR body and lenses. A typical DSLR kit for wilderness travel might include a medium range kit zoom lens, one or two extra batteries, and a case, resulting in a carry weight in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 pounds.

Then, a few years ago, the game started to change, with the introduction of two distinct classes of cameras: large-sensor fixed lens compact cameras, and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. The former category is characterized by the Sigma DP1 / DP2, Leica X1, and Fuji X100 – cameras that weigh in the range of 11 ounces or less (including lens weight). The latter category is characterized by the Micro Four Thirds systems from Olympus and Panasonic, the Ricoh GXR system, and the Sony NEX system, cameras that weigh in the range of 12 to 20 ounces with a lightweight lens. These “system” camera weights (including the camera body, a few batteries, carry case, and a lightweight lens) range from about 1.0 to 2.0 pounds (depending primarily on the choice of lens), making them distinctly lighter (and more compact) than their DSLR counterparts – but not without cost. These systems suffer from poor or nonexistent viewfinders, slow autofocus speeds, lack of quick and direct manual exposure controls, and, especially for Micro Four Thirds systems (which have smaller sensors than conventional DSLR sensors), substandard image quality (specifically: resolution, low noise at higher ISO, and dynamic range) relative to what is available in modern DSLR systems with APS-C sized sensors.

One of the more recent entries into this market is the Sony NEX-7. What distinguishes the NEX-7 from virtually every other “more compact than a DSLR” camera is not one specific unique feature or performance benchmark, but rather the fact that it includes all of the following:

• High resolving power with an APS-C sized sensor, (suspected) minimal anti-aliasing filter, and the ability to record RAW images at a 24MP resolution.
• Good performance (low noise) at high ISO ranges.
• Direct exposure control with physical dials rather than buttons.
• Built in flash.
• Full HD (60i / 1080p) video capabilities with external mic input.

Considering that all of these features are available in such a compact and lightweight package (the NEX-7 body weighs only 10 ounces), the NEX-7 should be on a pretty short list of cameras to be considered by the lightweight backpacker who is also a serious photography enthusiast.

Thus, the subject of this review will be to discuss the merits, usability, performance, and suitability of the Sony NEX-7 for lightweight wilderness travel. Based on a comprehensive review of the state of the digital camera market today, we hypothesize that the Sony NEX-7 is capable of capturing higher image quality for less weight than (1) any other camera body equipped with a digital sensor smaller than full-frame; (2) any other camera body lighter in weight than the full-frame sensor equipped Leica M9; and (3) any compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera body. Thus, one important goal of this review is to evaluate this lofty thesis, which could have significant implications for the backpacking photographer.

CONTEXT

When evaluating the usability, performance, and applicability of any particular “system,” whether a cooking system or an image making system, one must consider the relationship between the components of that system, and in particular, the performance of the system as a whole – realizing that the performance of the system as a whole is far more important than the individual performance of the system’s separate parts, which in most cases, lacks relevance.

There are several E-mount system lenses capable of being autofocused by the NEX-7 body, and on top of that (with adapters), literally hundreds of legacy lenses that can be combined with the NEX-7 body. And out of those, I’ve selected two as being among the most interesting to lightweight backpackers: the Sony 16/2.8 for its small size, light weight, and wide angle view and the Leica 28/2.8 for its small size, light weight, and high resolving potential.

Thus, in this review, I’ll be taking a look at three NEX-7 centric systems by considering combinations of the NEX-7 body with the following lenses:

• Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 – one of the sharpest (and most compact) lenses made, and thus, a lens that is capable of capturing the true resolving power of the NEX-7 sensor.
• Sony 16mm f/2.8 – the most compact and lightweight of the NEX lenses, and thus, perhaps, an applicable combination for the serious ultralight backpacker.
• Sony 18-55/3.5-5.6 – the standard kit lens shipped with NEX-7 packages, and the lightest medium-range zoom available for the NEX-7. While not as small or as light as other lenses, I expect this to be one of the more popular lenses used with the NEX-7 for its versatility.

One might typically start the usability portion of a review like this by discussing the operation of the camera with a kit lens, or at the very least, an autofocus lens that integrates perfectly with the camera body’s computer. I’ve chosen an opposite route, and have decided to start with a discussion of the camera’s performance with a legacy manual focus lens that requires manual adjustment of both focus and aperture via controls on the lens itself.

The reason for this is twofold.

First, I suspect the NEX-7 will appeal to photographers who have an interest in using the highest quality, smallest, and lightest lenses possible, with the NEX-7 acting only as a necessary, depreciating evil, i.e., the “lens recorder,” if you will. Consequently, because the highest quality, most compact, and lightest lenses are often manual focus rangefinder lenses from the likes of Leica and Zeiss, the operation of the NEX-7 with these lenses will be of the utmost interest to this user niche.

Second, the NEX-7 is the first digital camera body I’ve used, in a long string of what I now consider largely failed attempts, that makes shooting with legacy manual lenses easy, simple, and enjoyable. To establish the entire process that a user must go through with the NEX-7 to capture an image manually provides the necessary foundation upon which can then be laid a discussion of using lenses that automate focus and aperture. This automation is neither special nor unique with the NEX-7, and the NEX-7 behaves like most other bodies when coupled with automatic lenses. In other words, the NEX-7’s ability to integrate with legacy manual lenses is one feature that makes it a particularly special camera.

Using the Viewfinder

The NEX-7‘s OLED viewfinder may be its greatest asset other than its sensor. The viewfinder is bright, has a high resolution, can be used easily for manual focus feedback, is engaged automatically simply by holding the camera up to the eye, and offers a wide array of information, including all of the essential information required for exposure and composition (including gridlines, aperture and shutter speed values, an exposure compensation scale, the mode setting, and a histogram).

A significant benefit of the viewfinder, combined with the camera’s intuitive user interface (which is based on three dials and a few well-spaced buttons), is that most of the settings required for managing the exposure and focus of an image can be manipulated while looking through the viewfinder.

With the Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 lens, I have four settings to consider when shooting with the NEX-7 in aperture priority (“A”) mode: focus, aperture, exposure compensation, and ISO. Let’s take a look at how each of these is adjusted, and what sort of feedback the NEX-7 provides you in response to adjustment.

Focus

Focus with legacy lenses, including the Leica Elmarit-M used in this review, is manual, using the focusing ring on the lens. The challenge of using manual focus lenses on digital bodies is in interpreting the exact point at which the subject is in focus, i.e., the camera’s focus feedback mechanism.

Most cameras use one of two (and sometimes both) types of manual focus feedback mechanisms. The first involves contrast detection at the focus point. For example, on the Nikon D7000, when the subject in the focus point is in a state of maximum focus, a small green dot is visible in the viewfinder. Two arrows on either side of the dot indicate the direction that the focus ring on the lens needs to be turned in order to achieve a state of focus. Other cameras, including a number of Micro Four Thirds bodies from both Olympus and Panasonic, require a very high degree of zooming using the LCD screen (or perhaps, an external electronic viewfinder). The better of these systems trigger automatic zooming upon rotation of the focus ring on the lens. Both of these types of systems suffer from some imprecision due to their subjectivity. Further, “LCD-screen zoom type systems” suffer from slow use in actual practice.

The NEX-7 offers a feature Sony calls “focus peaking.” It works the same whether you are looking on the LCD screen or through the viewfinder.

Focus peaking is enabled in the Settings Menu and offers two settings: Peaking Level and Peaking Color. Peaking Level can be set to High, Medium, Low, or none, and defines the extent to which outlines of subjects in focus are enhanced with the (specified) Peaking Color. Peaking Color can be set to White, Red, or Yellow.

In addition to focus peaking, the NEX-7 offers a Focus Zoom button within easy reach of the thumb on the grip hand. The combination of focus peaking and focus zoom, along with the focus ring of the lens, results in rapid focusing with a highly effective feedback mechanism that has easily given me the ability to properly and very accurately focus nearly 100% of my shots with manual focus lenses.

Aperture

Aperture on a manual focus lens is adjusted normally with the lens’ aperture ring. Objective feedback (the aperture value) is not available – you have to look at the aperture setting on the lens’ aperture ring to know what the aperture is. However, subjective feedback is available on the LCD screen (or viewfinder) by monitoring focus peaking – an increased depth of field is indicated by noting the presence of the peaking color on the edges of in-focus subjects throughout the depth of image.

Shutter Speed

When in “M” (manual) exposure mode, shutter speed is controlled by the left dial on the top of the camera (the right top dial controls exposure compensation), and feedback (as indicated by the shutter speed) is available on both the screen and in the viewfinder.

Exposure Compensation & Histogram

Exposure compensation is controlled by the right dial on the top of the camera (the left top dial controls shutter speed), and feedback (as indicated by the amount of exposure compensation via a pointer on an exposure compensation scale) is available both on the screen and in the viewfinder.

Using exposure compensation is most helpful when the histogram is turned on in the display, which provides feedback for dialing in correct exposure. The histogram can be turned on and off in the Camera Menu and can be viewed both on the LCD screen and in the viewfinder.

ISO

ISO is adjusted with the thumbwheel. ISO feedback is provided on the LCD screen and in the viewfinder.

It’s also worth noting that all of the dials (any many of the buttons) can be customized to control a variety of other functions. My preference is for the dials to be dedicated, and their function clearly labeled. This, of course, is a Catch-22, because it might be helpful for some photographers to assign other functions to dials and buttons that better match up with their style of shooting.

IN USE: THE DETAILED PROCESS OF TAKING A PHOTO WITH A LEGACY MANUAL LENS IN “A” (APERTURE PRIORITY) MODE

I find it helpful to document processes for accomplishing specific tasks, especially digital cameras that are capable of customization. What follows is the process that I use for capturing the vast majority of my images with an NEX-7 and a manual focus lens while backpacking while in “A” (aperture-priority) mode.

1. Remove the camera from its carry case.
2. Remove the lens cap from the lens (it usually gets placed in a pocket, or in the camera carry case temporarily).
3. Turn the camera switch to “ON” using your index finger.
4. Set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens.
5. Hold the camera up and look through the viewfinder, which activates the viewfinder display automatically (and automatically shuts off the LCD screen).
6. Manually focus the lens with your left hand and note the precision of focus by viewing the focus peaking color on the edges of in-focus subjects.
7. If necessary for more precise focus (I find this unnecessary most of the time), press the focus zoom button with your right thumb once to enter focus zoom mode, and one more time to zoom in. Press the shutter button halfway to exit focus zoom mode once you have achieved critical focus.
8. Using your right thumb, while viewing the histogram, adjust exposure compensation (top right dial) accordingly so as to achieve the type of histogram you want (e.g., to avoid blowing out highlights).
9. Note the shutter speed, and if necessary, increase the ISO (using the dial on the rear of the camera with your right thumb) if the resulting shutter speed in the scene is too low for handheld image capture.
10. Press the shutter button to capture the image.
11. Review the image by pressing the Playback button with your right thumb.
12. Switch the camera off, replace the lens cap, and return the camera to its carry case.

Steps #5 through #12 can be accomplished while looking through the viewfinder – a significant benefit in bright lighting conditions. In addition, these steps can be performed intuitively by feel using only your thumb for controlling three dials and one of three buttons that are spaced rather far apart so as to avoid confusion.

Finally, switching modes (e.g., between “M” and “A”) can also be accomplished by looking through the viewfinder, and requires a press with the right thumb on the button in the center of the rear dial, a turn of the dial to change the mode, and a press of the dial button to choose the mode.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW SUMMARY

I have neither the interest nor the experience in writing camera reviews to write a technical review of the Sony NEX-7. My objective here is simple: evaluate the applicability of the NEX-7 in the context of wilderness travel.

To that end, I’m most interested in three things: how to deploy and use the camera while hiking, how the camera behaves with manual focus lenses, and what sort of image quality results from various lightweight lenses. In addition, I’m very interested in shooting HD video with the NEX-7, and will present the next episode of “24” in the context of this review.

Finally, I’m approaching the usability and performance of the NEX-7 from the usability and performance of my primary high-quality / HD video shooting system, the Nikon D7000. I realize that some shooters will be evaluating the NEX-7 as a “step up” from a more compact camera. To you, I have to ask, “why do you want to add pack weight back to your pack?” I mean that question to be only half-cynical. After all, we’re in the business of saving weight, not adding it. Of course, that question is an important one, because perhaps the NEX-7 will open up creativity and quality to the backpacking photographer who has previously shot only with small sensor compact cameras.

I’ve not spent a lot of time with the NEX-7. However, I’ve spent enough time with it to communicate my key findings that are most relevant to my own backpacking experience, and those findings are worth outlining in this interim summary to whet the appetites of those considering the NEX-7 as a backpacking camera before the more comprehensive parts of this review are completed:

1. I am able to assemble a NEX-7 kit that is significantly more compact, and significantly lighter, than any DSLR kit, without sacrificing HD video or still image quality.
2. The NEX-7 provides a better experience with manual focus lenses (including the precision and speed at which critical focus can be achieved) than any digital body I’ve tried, including both Olympus and Panasonic Micro Four Thirds systems, the Ricoh GXR, and the Leica M8/M9.
3. haven’t even begun to scratch the surface to investigate some of the features of the NEX-7, including its panoramic and HDR functions, creative scene modes, and more. However, I’m very pleased to note that all of these things can remain effectively buried in the menu system without getting in the way of basic camera and exposure controls.
4. The triple-dial control system of the NEX-7 provides an effective solution for rapid and intuitive exposure control.
5. Although small (the body of the NEX-7 is only slightly larger in size than my Sigma DP2), the NEX-7 provides a real grip that makes one handed shooting comfortable. Paired with an autofocus lens, and noting that all exposure functions can be manipulated with the thumb of the grip hand, I find this to be a valuable feature for capturing images while trekking, when one hand might be holding trekking poles, or for scrambling / climbing, when one hand might be securing your life.

(Added on July 5, 2012)

When a lens reviewer reviews the quality of a lens, they pixel peep, i.e., they view the resulting images at 100% magnification on screen, so that the sharpness of the lens can be adequately evaluated.

The lens reviewer studies MTF curves, takes photos of wine bottle labels, American coins, and other accoutrements of modern civilization that pixel peepers find fascinating, and then make judgments about how those tiny little pixels translate into the archaic world of viewing – an increasingly strange manifestation of modern day photography – the often elusive “print”.

I’m neither a lens reviewer, nor a pixel peeper. I’m an outdoorsman. I’ve shown my photos in galleries, but rarely, and when I do, I care way more about the composition of the image, and how compelling it is, rather than its sharpness, or how well it compares to the seven other guys in the gallery showing prints from files captured with their Hasselbads and Linhofs.

So, the review you’re going to get here about lenses for the Sony NEX-7 is going to be from the perspective of an outdoorsman in general, and a lightweight backpacker in particular. Yes, I’ll peep at some pixels at 100%, and I’ll let you know what I find. But I’ll try to give you a more practical perspective as well.

A Note About Manual Focus Rangefinder Lenses With the NEX-7

It is well known that manual focus rangefinder lenses, especially those from Zeiss and Leica, offer “better image quality” (some combination of sharpness, microcontrast, bokeh rendering, and color rendering) for the weight than any other class of lenses. There are a few lenses that may be higher in quality than the best rangefinder lenses made by Leica or Zeiss, but they are much heavier. Likewise, there are plenty of lenses that are lighter than Leica and Zeiss’s best rangefinder lenses, but their image quality is inferior (however, even Leicaphiles who only view their images online have to admit that this gap must be closing, no?).

It is no great surprise then, that there is a demand for adapters that allow rangefinder lenses to be used with popular mirrorless formats, including Micro Four Thirds (Olympus and Panasonic), the Ricoh GXR, and the Sony NEX systems.

There are practical disadvantages to using manual rangefinder lenses on the Sony NEX-7.

1. Aperture is controlled by the aperture ring on the lens and that information is not communicated as EXIF data attached to the image. The EXIF doesn’t include the lens make, model, or focal length, either. My conclusion: so what.
2. Focus is controlled by a manual focus ring on the lens, with assistance from in-camera contrast detection (see Part 2 of this review for details). You don’t have access to the camera’s autofocusing features when using manual focus rangefinder lenses. In addition, you can quickly zone focus these lenses – because a focusing scale is imprinted on the top of the lens – something that is missing from nearly every digital lens ever produced. I grew up learning photography with manual focus lenses. While I do appreciate instant spot-on autofocus, focusing manually just isn’t a barrier for me, and with the NEX-7’s focus peaking functionality, using manual focus lenses on it are a joy.
3. Leica lenses are extraordinarily expensive. Zeiss lenses are about one third to one half the price of Leica lenses for image quality that approaches (and in many cases, matches or exceeds Leica). Voigtlander lenses are about one third to one half again as expensive as similar Zeiss lenses, and offer measurably lower image quality – and perhaps, the best image-quality-to-value ratio. In spite of the dramatic differences in prices for each of these major brands of rangefinder lenses, the quality delivered by the lowest end (Voigtlander) – especially its wide angle lenses (12mm to 21mm) – can be pretty good.
4. Most wide angle lenses of focal length 28mm and less (including the Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 used in this review) have a rear element that protrudes through the back of the lens, and when mounted, results in that rear element coming very close to the camera sensor. On the NEX-7, this results in light hitting the sensor at steep angles, causing color fringing at edges and corners. The effect is easily enough fixed by processing your raw images through a correction utility (such as the excellent Cornerfix), but be aware that this is an extra step in your post processing routine when using wide angle rangefinder lenses (and probably many wide angle lenses of other brands and camera types that are not natively designed for the E-mount of the NEX-7). For me, the extra step clutters my workflow and results in images that are less than optimal. As someone who likes to capture the image I want in the camera, rather than “create” the image I want in post-processing, I stopped using MF wide angles with the NEX-7 after the luster wore off. I spend enough time in front of the computer.

Summary of Selected Lenses with the NEX-7

I’ve used four manual focus rangefinder lenses on the NEX-7 (all Leica M-mount, and used with the Voigtlander LM adapter) and several autofocus lenses (including the tiny and light Sony 16/2.8, featured in this review). My lens selection is based primarily upon using the very smallest and lightest lenses at each focal length that I want. For the purpose of this review, I’ll summarize a few notes about my experiences with each of the lenses I’ve used, eventually moving on to the lenses that I now use most often in the context of backpacking.

Obviously, what follows is a sampling of what I’ve used, not a sampling of what is available or what may become available soon. Certainly, you might have differences in opinion or criteria when it comes to lens selection.

1. Voigtlander Super-Wide Heliar Aspherical II 15mm f/4.5

This wide angle lens requires the correction of color fringing (I use Cornerfix), and results in a 35mm-equivalent field of view of about 21mm, making this a good focal length for wide, sweeping landscapes with a strong foreground element. Thus, the feature that I value the most in a wide angle lens for backpacking, because I use it primarily for capturing landscapes, is sharpness. The Heliar is well known for its excellent optics, and the NEX-7’s ability to capture that detail across the entire frame is excellent. Unfortunately, it suffers from severe color fringing and, for most of my photo work, the hassle to correct it simply isn’t worth it. For wide angle applications, I prefer the cheap (albeit lesser quality) optics, autofocus, compactness, and light weight of the Sony 16mm f/2.8 (see below).

2. Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH

With a 42mm field of view (35mm equivalent) on the NEX-7, the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 represents a good focal length for “everyday” use – wide enough to capture a landscape, long enough to capture people at close range without a fisheye effect, and fast enough at f/2.8 to be used in lower light and/or for good subject isolation. Like most wide angle rangefinder lenses, this one requires the correction of color fringing on the NEX-7. Otherwise, the NEX-7 is able to resolve plenty of detail offered by this legendary lens and the resulting images are excellent. I really wanted this lens to work on the NEX-7 without color fringing. It’s one of my all time favorite lenses, and probably the highest resolving lens that I own. On the NEX-7, the resolving power of this lens is extraordinary. Unfortunately, color fringing adds hassle to my workflow, and it usually stays home.

3. Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4

This little gem is one of my favorite lenses on the NEX-7, and is a staple in my kit for shooting low light portraiture (or portraiture in bright light with a neutral density filter attached) and renders beautifully for 24p video. Resolution of this lens is not the greatest, so it stays packed when I’m shooting faraway landscapes (e.g., mountains). The Nokton works perfectly on the NEX-7 and doesn’t require color fringing correction.

4. Leica Tele Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8

I have an older version of this lens (pre-ASPH, thin barrel), which at 225g (8.0 oz) is one of the very lightest 90mm lenses ever made. With a 35mm equivalent field of view of 135mm, it certainly qualifies as a telephoto lens, but it’s too short for wildlife photography. Its image quality and weight drove me to purchasing this lens, but it’s become my all time favorite lens to work with for outdoor photography. It’s not a popular focal length for outdoor photographers, and I think the reason for this is twofold. Most “kit” zoom lenses, especially those on mirrorless systems, offer terrible image quality and small apertures (which require low shutter speeds and poor sharpness when handheld, or high ISO and thus high noise), so the resulting images that are captured may not be so inspiring (especially when the pixels are peeped!). Second, using a telephoto lens requires that more careful attention be paid to composition, which requires more time on the part of the photographer. My favorite images from my outdoor activities consistently come from this lens, and my satisfaction results from the combination of using the longer focal length for subject isolation, its beautiful rendering of out of focus areas (bokeh), and its excellent optics wide open at f/2.8. This lens accompanies me on every backpacking trip, and is a beautiful lens for cinematography as well.

5. Sony E-Mount SEL 16F28 16mm f/2.8

This is the lens you want to love if you are a Sony NEX user.

It weighs an astonishingly light 70g (2.5 oz), has a “pancake”-like thickness of 2.3cm (0.89 in), can be quickly autofocused by the NEX-7, and has the perfect 35mm equivalent focal length of 24mm on the NEX-7 for landscape photography.

Best of all, when mounted on the NEX-7, it makes for an extremely light and compact package.

Thus, the combination of the NEX-7 and the Sony 16/2.8 (small size and weight, landscape-worthy wide angle) is a very compelling one for the backpacking photographer, especially if you enjoy shooting landscapes that have strong foreground elements.

If you are a pixel-peeper, however, you might hate this lens. Especially after shelling out $250 on it. Here’s why:

1. Image quality at low apertures is “mediocre” (mediocre is relative – we’re interested primarily in shadow detail resolution, contrast rendition, and color interpretation when viewing 100% crops here and comparing them to what is possible from the NEX-7 using lenses with known optical quality). Stopping down to f/4.5 results in marked improvement and images that deliver acceptable quality throughout most of the frame – for pixel peepers, that is.
2. Image quality is inconsistent across the frame, and de-centered. Corners and sides of images have bland colors and mushy details with significant differences in contrast between the center and edges. In addition, the effect is not centered, with the left half of the image frame performing noticeably worse than the right half.

But, if you are not a pixel-peeper, and your expectations for image quality are lower, and you post mostly to Facebook or otherwise to the Web, then the lens will deliver images that will look just fine, and you’ll be tickled about its size and weight (I certainly am, and for 2.5 oz, who cares?). In addition, if you are shooting images for a magazine or book printed on cheap paper, or in B&W, then the lens will suit you fine. Just be aware that if the camera drives the lens, this pairing is a bit like putting Dale Earnhardt behind the wheel of a Ford Escort.

I believe wholeheartedly that strong composition, sharp focus, and good technical exposure always outweigh lens quality, and that good images can be captures with bad lenses (even Dale could drive the Escort to its limits, right?). If any one of these three factors is missing, then bad images can easily be captured from the world’s best optics. However, I’m a firm believer that strong composition, sharp focus, and technical exposure are prerequisites to achieving technically outstanding images, and that the difference between a good image and a technically outstanding image, especially in landscape photography, has everything to do with the quality of the file delivered by the lens and captured by the sensor. To that end, the Sony 16/2.8, by nature of its less-than-awesome technical performance, not only hampers the excellent NEX-7 sensor, but limits what the accomplished photographer can do as well.

In that context, I’d rather carry a higher quality lens (along with the extra weight) for wide angle shots (like the Heliar 15/4.5). If saving weight is your primary goal, and rapid publication, web, or mass paper print publishing is your primary display, then you’ll be able to achieve nearly equivalent image quality with a much lighter small sensor camera (like a Canon S100 or Lumix LX5), and better image quality with a competing mirrorless system with a better lens (like the Panasonic 20/1.7 for Micro Four Thirds, or the Fuji X100 fixed lens camera). Unfortunately, the size and weight of the Sony 16/2.8 is too compelling not to ignore, and image quality is good enough for many purposes when the camera is in the hands of an accomplished photographer who understands the limitations of this lens.

That said, the 16/2.8 accompanies me on many trips, for the simple fact that it affords me some neat creative options (like the canoe shot above) for a tiny weight and bulk penalty.

Of course, there is the Sigma 19/2.8 EX DN, which seems to have better optics, but is significantly larger, a little heavier, and of course, not as wide.

6. Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN

This $200 autofocus lens, when paired with the Sony NEX-7, is simply outstanding for backpacking.

The reasons are many:

• It offers a versatile 45mm equivalent focal length with the APS-C sensor (1.5 crop size).
• Small size and weight.
• Excellent optics

This is the lens that spends the most time on my camera.

A Caveat

Of course, the Sony NEX is a young system, so its native lens offerings are minimal. Based on what Sony has delivered for the NEX so far, it’s clear that light weight and consumer grade image quality are Sony’s immediate goals. Zeiss is also making lenses for the E-Mount and early results from lens reviewers suggest that the new Zeiss 24/1.8 is an excellent, albeit bulky lens on the NEX-7. In a similar size, I’ve discovered that the Sony 50/1.8 offers fine optics as well but it’s bulk makes me less than enthusiastic about using it for backpacking. I have no interest in reviewing bulky lenses for the NEX-7, as these types of lenses remove the primary benefit of keeping the kit compact for wilderness travel.

My Backpacking Kit

Now that I’ve used the Sony NEX-7 for several months, I find myself gravitating to a consistent selection of equipment. I think you should find this to be valuable because it represents the process of discarding what I don’t like, preserving what I do, and understanding my photography objectives on trips and how this kit meets those objectives.

I’ll start by summarizing what I don’t take.

First, I don’t fool around with lenses that require additional post-processing when I get home. I just don’t have time for it. If I was a professional photographer with very specific needs, then I might. Therefore, my Leica 28/2.8 and Voigtlander 15/4.5 will stay home and unused until I can mate them with a camera that can take advantage of their optics without undue time tax.

Second, I don’t mess with bulky lenses. They defeat the purpose of what I’m trying to accomplish with the NEX system, which is minimal size (primary advantage) and weight (secondary advantage). Size is more important for me than weight because I like to carry all of my camera gear in a small chest/hip pack worn in front of me while I hike (more on that below). I may allow for one exception to this: The Zeiss 24/1.8 offers image quality and speed not found in any other E-mount lens, and the tradeoff in bulk just may be worth it for the opportunity to shoot wide angle landscapes at shallow depth of field (this is particularly appealing to the videographer).

Third, I don’t need a lens to cover every possible situation. You’ll notice that I did not discuss zoom lenses above. The Sony 18-200 is a fine lens with good optics across most of its range, but it’s a monster. I think this is a great lens for the “one-lens photographer” but it’s not exactly a stealth lens and is generally inconsistent with my personal philosophy of photography which focuses on minimal size. The Sony 55-210 suffers the same bloat as the 18-200. Finally, the kit lens (Sony 18-55mm) simply doesn’t offer fast enough apertures to minimize depth of field or for low light photography at low ISOs, suffers from image softness at wide apertures, and is bulkier than I like. In other words, the versatility of zooms is not worth the sacrifices that I have to make in terms of weight, size, and image quality.

In short, what I do want when I build a camera kit are just a few small, fast, high quality prime lenses.

Therefore, the two lenses I have grown most fond of are the Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 and the Sigma 30/2.8. These two lenses go with me on nearly every trip.

Their small size and outstanding optics on the NEX-7 are the defining criteria for these two lenses. The Sigma 30/2.8 gives me the flexibility to have autofocus for the occasional action shot and for run-and-gun shooting while on the trail. The Leica 90/2.8 simply produces beautiful images and video at small apertures and I can’t imagine that a smaller replacement exists at this focal length.

For each lens, I carry both variable ND and circular polarizing filters (multicoated). In addition, a typical week long trek where I’m shooting lots of video requires five batteries. For sensor and/or optics cleaning, I use a LensPen and a small Giottos Rocket Air Blaster.

I often carry a tripod (mostly when I know I’ll be shooting video). Most often it’s a Gitzo 0541 with a Really Right Stuff BH-25 Ultralight ball head.

For carry, I use a Simms Hip Dry Pack with a foam insert. It has welded seams and a water resistant zipper and I have total confidence in its ability to keep my equipment dry. In particularly wet conditions, I take along some silica gel (desiccant) packs to manage moisture when my camera and lenses do get wet – which occurs when I remove the camera from its case in the rain.

If I’m shooting video, I’ve been adding the Voigtlander 35/1.4 lens with both ND and polarizing filters, and sometimes replacing the Sigma 30/2.8 with this lens. Finally, I’ll toss in the 16/2.8 on shorter trips as a “just in case” lens for more dramatic wide angle shots (and include ND and polarizing filters for it as well).

Generally, depending on the specifics of my kit, I’ll carry about three pounds of camera equipment between the camera body, cleaning supplies, two lenses, and carry bag. Adding a tripod, a third lens, and perhaps some other supplies specific to high end videography (e.g., a follow-focus rig and a panning head), my kit weight is still less than about eight pounds. This is a far cry from the 20 or 30 pounds we used to carry when shooting Super 8, toting multiple cameras, medium format boxes, or today’s pro-level brick-sized (and weighted) DSLRs and lenses.

Summary

This will not be a detailed review of the Sony NEX-7’s movie making capability. I will summarize what I think are the most important aspects of its feature set of interest to the backcountry videographer.

The Sony NEX-7 offers the usual basic specifications for routine HD video capture, including:

• 1,920 x 1,080 (full HD) resolution
• MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression
• AVCHD recorded at 60p, 60i, or 24p frame rates
• Silent autofocus during movie recording
• One button recording in P, A, S, or M modes

For someone who has more than a casual interest in making movies for commercial use, I also appreciate that the NEX-7 offers

• The ability to use my Cosina-Voigtlander and Leica manual focus lenses so I can manually rack focus;
• The ability to attach an external stereo microphone;
• The ability for full manual exposure control for movie recording.

The Backcountry Caveat: No In-Body Image Stabilization

From an “ultralight” perspective, the primary limitation of the NEX-7 is its lack of in-body image stabilization, which limits its applicability for hand held shooting with lenses that lack in-lens stabilization.

This makes for shaky handheld shots when using lenses that don’t have in-lens image stabilization, which for me, are most of the lenses that I want to use with the NEX-7 (i.e., legacy manual focus lenses) for movie making. This limitation is clearly seen in the video vignettes that are presented with this article, and for the backcountry videographer, this is a major limitation. Being able to shoot high quality handheld video without stabilizing paraphernalia (tripods, gyros, counterweights, or chest/shoulder rigs) means that you’ll be able to grab candid shots when they happen, and not when you stage them.

However, if you limit yourselves to lenses that use in-lens stabilization, then shaky handheld shots become less of an issue. Unfortunately, this limits your lens selection significantly to lenses that have poor manual focus control, excessive size, high apertures, and/or less-than-stellar optics. The number of small, light, bright lenses that offer in-lens stabilization and are of interest to a cinematographer is pretty limited right now. I’d propose that the number is zero, with perhaps a consolation prize for the Sony 50/1.8 OSS, which is limited by its poor manual focus control (at least, relative to something like a MF M-mount lens from Zeiss, Cosina-Voigtlander, or Leica).

The Overheating Sensor

Reports about the NEX-7’s sensor overheating in video modes at “normal” room temperatures started popping up shortly after the camera was released. I’ve used two different NEX-7 bodies and both of my bodies have this problem as well.

The practical impacts on my own style of videography have been limited. I mostly shoot short clips less than one minute in length.

However, the overheating sensor becomes an issue in reasonably warm weather when trying to capture clips in excess of three or four minutes. Worse, once the camera sensor overheats, the camera must be shut down and restarted, and the ability to shoot even short clips of a minute or two become seriously compromised until a significant amount of time has passed to allow the camera to cool down.

This is an unacceptable defect in the camera, and although it doesn’t impact me directly very often, it does limit the camera’s flexibility for outdoor videography in warm conditions. Online buzz seems to indicate that the issue has been resolved with the new NEX-6.

HD Video: Conclusion

Image stabilization aside, there’s little to criticize about the NEX-7’s movie making capabilities. For its size, weight, image quality (due to the large sensor), lens flexibility, and manual control, the NEX-7 may offer the most powerful movie-making package for the enthusiast videographer.

However, don’t mistake this for a perfect camera. Lack of in-body image stabilization and a sensor that seems too sensitive to normal ambient temperatures (resulting in overheating and subsequent shutdown) should be considered carefully before investing into a NEX-7 system.

In addition, this is not a professional editor’s camera. The output is not robust enough to handle a significant amount of post-processing (e.g., color correction), so you had better get it right (white balance, exposure, etc.) as you record.

These limitations aside, content is still king, and in the hands of someone with a good cinematic eye, the NEX-7 should be able to create some very compelling movies.

Vignettes

The video below pulls together a series of vignettes that I shot from some of my summer 2012 backcountry trips with my Scout Troop. The topic: food, of course!

Introduction

Like many other backpackers in the last decade, Kristin and I have switched from synthetic to Merino wool baselayers. Merino wool is soft, handles moisture comfortably, and has natural anti-microbial properties. I like that wool is a renewable resource, and therefore prefer it to petroleum-derived synthetics. However, wool is generally more expensive and it doesn’t last as long. I tend to get holes in my lightweight (150-200 g/m²) wool layers after 120 days of use.

Synthetic fabrics have superior wicking ability, quicker dry time, better durability and are generally cheaper. Some companies, like GoLite and Patagonia, have started to address the environmental concern by using recycled content in their fabrics.

So, which one should a backpacker choose?

Well, you may no longer have to pick between one or the other, as Rab tries to bridge these two worlds with their new MeCo baselayers. Rab combined Merino wool and Cocona to create a fabric that wicks and dries like a synthetic, but smells and feels like wool. We tested these baselayers to see if they live up to Rab’s claims.

Description

Rab’s MeCo baselayers are composed of 65% Merino wool and 35% Cocona. They will be available in two fabric weights, 120 g/m²and 165 g/m², in September 2011. The 165g/m² line includes a long sleeve zip-neck tee, pants, balaclava, beanie, and gloves. A long sleeve tee, short sleeve tee, and pants will be available in the 120 g/m² weight. All baselayers have women’s and men’s versions, in a choice of three colors each.

What is unique about these baselayers is the fabric itself. Rab describes MeCo as:

Ethically sourced Merino wool and recycled Cocona yarns have been blended to produce a high performance fabric which combines the warmth and softness of Merino with the fast drying and wicking performance of Cocona. Activated carbon is derived from discarded coconut shells and is contained inside the Cocona recycled fibre and will not wear out or wash off. It is extremely breathable and absorbs odour molecules within the activated carbon. It offers UVA and UVB protection.

Performance

Kristin and I each tested a 120 Long Sleeve Tee and 165 Long Sleeve Zip Tee in the winter and spring of 2011. We used the shirts on a variety of backcountry ski tours, hikes, and runs throughout the Alps.

For winter backcountry skiing, the 165 Long Sleeve Zip Tee was my go-to shirt. It was light enough for skinning up a mountain, yet warm enough for the ski descent. When I became too warm, I simply rolled up my sleeves and vented with the deep chest zip. The shirt fit well and was comfortable.

Like most Rab shirts and jackets, the neck on the 165 Long Sleeve Zip Tee is less snug than the competition. This is likely due to the fact that Rab makes gear for climbers, who need the unrestricted movement. Kristin really liked the loose neck as she feels that collars on some other shirts are too restrictive. I didn’t mind the collar on the Rab, but I do prefer a more snug fit. Not only is it loose, it is not as tall as others. This helps performance in warmer weather, but is something to consider for really cold temperatures.

I really enjoyed the 120-weight MeCo fabric. The gossamer 120 Long Sleeve Tee was a pleasure to wear on days above 60°F (15°). I sweated less with the thin fabric and was comfortable as the moisture was absorbed by the shirt. The Long Sleeve Tee was light enough to wear in the warmest conditions, when I rolled up my sleeves, but also gave me the option of sun protection on my forearms.

How about the smell? We can say conclusively that these shirts have all the odor-fighting capability of pure wool. I wore the 165 Long Sleeve Zip Tee for two weeks straight. I usually hung it up at night to air out, but sometimes I wore it for days on end. There was no discernible odor or oil buildup in the shirt over those two weeks, or at any other time during our testing. Kristin also tested the shirts’ odor-fighting capability. However, her clothing rarely smells, so she is not the best subject for testing. These garments were no exception – her shirts never smelled badly. We only washed the shirts three or four times over the entire testing period. Even then, we usually washed the shirts because of food spills, which were removed without any residual stains.

In another test, I walked under a waterfall and drenched my 120 Long Sleeve Tee. It temporarily had the same distinctive smell that wool has when it is soaking wet. Wool-wearers know what I’m talking about. Typical sweating does not produce this odor.

Throughout the many months of hard use, the only issue we had was pilling on the face of the garments. This happened in all of the shirts and was present throughout the garment, not just the high-wear areas.

The pilling happened after only three machine washings, even though we were very careful with cleaning: the shirts were inside out, all zippers were closed, we used delicate cycle, mild detergent, and line drying. I contacted Rab, who had not seen this issue during their year of product testing, nor were they able to replicate it after my inquiry. Pilling happens when the fabric yarns are pulled out slightly, but not enough to compromise the durability. Pilling happens occasionally on wool garments. [Editor’s update: the testers have now used the baselayers for more than seven months without any issues in durability, so the pilling in this case is merely cosmetic.]

Environmental Concerns

Rab has made a technical line of athletic wear, while lessening the environmental impact of the manufacturing of the fabrics. “Ethically sourced Merino” comes from Australian sheep that are not mulesed (a controversial surgery that removes the skin around the sheep’s buttocks to prevent flystrike). Cocona is made in a bluesign accredited facility and uses non-chlorine wash to save water and energy. Using recycled synthetic fibers reduces the fabric’s carbon footprint by about 40%, as compared to new polyester. Cocona also uses a wider fabric roll, which they claim reduces waste by about 25%.

Weight Comparisons

The lightest 100% wool baselayers are made with 140 g/m² fabric, though 150 g/m² is much more popular. A few synthetics are significantly lighter than the MeCo 120. The most popular is probably the 80 g/m² DriMove Lite fabric that GoLite uses in its Wildwood Line.

A few other companies have recently brought wool/synthetic blends to the market.

Assessment

Rab hit the sweet spot with the MeCo layers, garnering the best of both fabrics. The shirts are soft, comfortable, and odor-free. We sweated less with the lightweight fabrics and the shirts dried quickly when they did get wet.

The success of these baselayers doesn’t just depend on great fabric, though. The shirts are snug yet comfortable, sport a long torso and even longer arms, and a generous zipper. I was pleased with my fit, but Kristin preferred a slimmer cut. The shirts have a no-frills design – there is nothing that we would have (or could have) removed. In fact, the 120 g/m² shirts each weighed about 1 ounce (28 g) less than Rab’s stated weight. The craftsmanship is impeccable. The minor issue of pilling is the only lingering issue. The MeCo line shows that it is possible to make a highly technical product that is environmentally friendly and competitively priced.

Just as we were considering switching back to synthetics, Rab has given us the best of both worlds. Our only hope is that Rab comes out with a hooded version soon!

Specifications and Features

Weights of Tested Shirts

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review this product under the terms of this agreement.