Great Article about small, lightweight awesome cameras.

[Megan P]

Thought I would share. Great comparison of perfect backpacking cameras! Awesome info!

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/photographing-the-milky-way-with-a-point-and-shoot/

[Michael L]

Thanks for sharing that.

[Ralph Burgess]

Thanks for that.
I have the first generation of the RX100, and in the hands of a photography novice, I'm really impressed with the results.
The one important thing missing was the viewfinder, because it's hard to see the screen in bright sun – and they added that on the later models.

[Ian]

Good stuff.

Oh yes RX100iv. You will be mine. Probably about the time the RX100xxii is released but someday.

Either that or the Ricoh GR….

Or there's the….

[Charlie W]

Looks like Panasonic is the only company even trying to challenge Sony in the market of "small with good image quality" cameras. I really like the Panasonic LX100 for putting more and better control on the top of the camera than Sony (even compared to Sony's non-P&S cameras). That and its brighter lens make it really attractive for doing creative work with depth of field. More megapixels in Sony RX100mk3 probably tip the balance in that direction if you primarily do landscapes.

I actually rented (didn't buy) Sony's RX1r camera to try out for a week. Now this is serious photographer's UL camera! It's 18 oz., and as far as I know it's impossible to have full-frame goodness in any other setup for less than twice that weight. It's fixed 35mm focal length but I think that's about where you are with RX100 at its widest (equivalent; someone correct me if I'm wrong). It can also be charged by 5v solar panel just like RX100, but sucks though battery faster due to full frame. It's basically pure image quality with OK controls in the smallest possible package with nothing extra: no zoom, no evf, no tilt screen, nada. Damn things still sell for $1800 though, even after it's been out for 3 yrs now. (RX2 will be my next purchase if it ever comes out and is not much more astronomically expensive…)

[Peter S]

I'm waiting for a Ricoh GR with a viewfinder. That would be my dream backpacking camera.

[Franco Darioli]

Sony Rx 100 and 100 mk 2 28mm
Sony Rx 100 mk III 24mm

[Mark Parry]

First, I have no doubt the RX100III is a great small camera. I know many people use it and love it, they're probably not giving bad advice there. I also have much love for Canon (I spent many years shooting only B+W 35mm film, film and prints all by hand, on a 1960s canon, wish I understood what amazing glass I had back then) and a couple other brands on the market and I'm not trying to bash any camera even though I single Canon out below.

Otherwise, the premises of the review are all mixed up bassackwards, and the parameters of the review do not add up to the best backpacking cameras at all in my opinion. They started by saying that it couldn't have a certain sized sensor…. Okay. What if you could have a certain sized sensor in nearly the same weight, form factor, and price? That one should be thrown out because it's higher quality? No, it shouldn't, the review should address whether that item was able to yield noticeably better results for the better specs instead of just saying "we're only going to review the low quality cheap ones, if there's a higher quality cheap one, throw it out, none of the good stuff for us."

This review doesn't cover the item weights, as far as applicability to backpacking, that is a miss, it even seems to mislead people into thinking these are good choices which is probably a bad idea considering the entire premises of the review seem confused.

They reviewed "Canon G1 X II" which weighs well over a pound, and it didn't win the review. But it was included in the review because a company sent him some cameras to review that they would like to sell, if they send it to enough people somebody will say something good, they just didn't send it (on this round anyway) to a big enough Canon fanboy who would talk up the canon like crazy over the controls familiarity or something to their DSLRs.

I use a Sony a5100 right now (interchangable lens), originally I bought for mid-grade quality aerial photography projects but we put it to work like crazy before I even got it on an airframe. It's several ounces lighter than that reviewed "Canon G1 X II" with the a5100 kit lens included, I think it uses the APS-C sensor that was excluded from review, I'm not really sure why the review was targeted at lower quality camera sensors, I paid WAY LESS than their price limit, and also got a reasonably good telephoto lens in the kit at Costco that gets used at home on backyard wildlife–this is a huge deal for my wife and daughter, they use it more than I do. I don't know why I thought my seven year old daughter would love photography any less than I did.

Because I already owned this camera, and it does have a reasonably low weight (about 40% more than that RX100III so it can also be said that it has a significant weight penalty), it will go along with me for camping style trips, photography trips, family backpacking, etc. If I try to go "ultralight" or I'm pushing myself on miles, I know to leave my extra pound of camera at home (the Note II smartphone camera is amazing in this case). The a5100 is at 14oz with 16-50mm lens and battery.

There are a ton of good things to list about that a5100 but, some basics…
– Good battery life (what does this mean? I use it for a long time and don't charge it. Sorry for the lack of data.)

– Recharges with standard microusb cable (so just plug it into a phone USB battery pack)

– Interchangeable lenses–May try a "prime lens", lighter weight and sharper images but no zoom capability. Most likely closer to 12oz overall instead of 14oz, clearly less versatile than RX100III with built in zoom.

– More versatile because it can take a telephoto lens, if I do a photo intensive trip… Which is better than some junky spotting scope adapter by the way. I just wish that telephoto lenses and my camera were as waterproof as a spotting scope!

BAD THINGS ABOUT THE a5100:
– No viewfinder!!! You use an LCD only! It has an amazing "selfie screen", too bad I do not include myself in my photos, so by all rights I should own a different camera than this one for this reason alone. The reason I did buy it is because I was planning on a lot of aerial photography, which I do not need a viewfinder for. I can frame shots by sending the HDMI output to the ground using an RF video link, and use an RF triggered shutter control.

– The camera controls are dumbed down consumer menus instead of a fast good pro wheel interface like every SLR has, another big reason to not buy the a5100.

– There is no microphone line-in jack. This becomes a big deal when you realize how amazing the a5100 is at videos, it is absolutely amazing, except for the sound. The built-in microphone is "okay", but people are doing impressive "prosumer" level video production on this camera because of its' top of the line video codecs, high quality image sensor and high quality proven image processor taken from more expensive sony cameras. Those people use an external audio recorder and bring the audio tracks in at post-production to replace the audio captured directly on the a5100.

As alternatives, I also own a Fuji waterproof that is about two years old, point and shoot, probably a few ounces lighter than a RX100III. It gets left at home in favor of the Note II smartphone camera because things just don't come out as great on the Fuji, it basically gets used for underwater only.

[Franco Darioli]

To some size is important
RX100 III (24-7omm) vs 5100 16-50 (24-75mm)

[Justin Miller]

Mark,

I believe you did miss their point. They intend it to focus on small point and shoot, 'pocketable' camera. Their entire site is devoted to photographing the night sky and primarily talk about large sensor interchangeable lens cameras. That was the one article that decided to dip into the non-interchangeable lens realm but did so focusing on high end 'pocketables'.

Despite that, thank you for your review on the 5100. That definitely is an intriguing camera for it's size/weight/prices. I've gone back and forth between it and the Fuji XT-1, which of course would double or triple the cost. But Fuji's glass for it's APS-C line appears to be one of the best on the market currently.

[Ken Bennett]

"I've gone back and forth between it and the Fuji XT-1, which of course would double or triple the cost. But Fuji's glass for it's APS-C line appears to be one of the best on the market currently."

I have a Sony RX100ii, and a host of Fuji cameras. I owned an RX1 for a while, but after careful side-by-side testing and comparing very large prints, decided that the Fuji with the 23mm f/1.4 lens was just as good for my needs, and a better "user" camera.

The Fuji lenses are indeed superb, especially the primes. But there is a weight penalty to carry a metal camera and lenses, no getting around that — though an X-T1 and the 18-55 set is far lighter than the Canon 5D Mark II and the 24-105 that I have taken backpacking once or twice.

All that said, the RX100ii is my current trail camera, and if I ever decide to replace it, I'll get the iii model for the pop up viewfinder.

[Mark Parry]

Megan: I saw a note on the blog about trying to set the aperture/f-stop manually, was that from you? On a power zoom lens, the f-stop you are told about is the lowest f-stop that it can only achieve at one extreme end of the zoom. As you change focal lengths I believe it often also increases the minimum available f-stop number so that you can't use that advertised f-stop number you expect to be able to use without zooming out I believe. Can anybody confirm more specifically if the f-stops available change on Sony RX100III as you zoom?

That's a great comparison Franco, definitely shows the big dimensional size difference with the kit zoom lens sticking out of the front on the a5100, I assume that's the difference between dashpoint 10 and dashpoint 20 case sizes. What site is that showing the comparison?

It looks like the 16mm lens is the most compact Sony prime lens that is pretty well liked, and it yields a 24.5mm focal length on this camera. Makes the lens much shorter but you don't get to zoom in at that point. As I admitted before, I agree the RX100III is not a bad winner for the review, but not certain the right candidates were reviewed overall.

[Mark Parry]

Thank you for the references to the Fuji camera bodies and lenses. I have no doubt their interchangeable lenses are pretty nice and hope to try one in the future. I have used Fuji films and papers and never been disappointed but never tried a good Fuji camera (our junky point/shoot waterproof digicam might be a Fuji which does not count).

The "pocketable" form factor does not matter to me personally, my camera pocket will be sized to the camera and just as reachable as your pant pockets while backpacking. So if you want to attend family birthday parties with a camera in your pocket and then wander up the mountain not carrying any water or gear after the birthday party for some astro photography, this is the camera review for you. The ultimate backpacking camera review for people who think they are going to carry the camera in their pants pocket? With absolutely no details about whether it was comfortable to carry in a pocket long distance? Hmm…

That's also not a reason to exclude cameras based on their sensor size, if they want to exclude them based on the body/lens dimensions, I guess they could start by defining what they think is a pocket-able dimension? Instead it's "a review of 5 point and shoots I was sent for free without regard for why these would be the go-to cameras for this review". Except that you must be able to walk somewhere with it and do astro-photography. Something tells me many other cameras in the same form factor would probably work just as well as most they reviewed if they didn't use some kind of selection criteria as a starting point.

I just figured out what an X100T is–Fuji, prime lens built in, so no optical zoom, $1300, while not cheap I am really intrigued and would love to try one. Makes me even more interested in putting that 16mm lens on my a5100 to see how it turns out, it works out to 24.5mm effective focal length in combination with this camera body.

Franco, I'll respond with the RX100III to a5100/16mm comparison if you tell us what website you used to compare those sizes, the text is too blurry in the screenshot to get the URL. Does it include a top down view also? It's especially relevant when comparing integrated/interchangable lens styles, the lens doesn't span the entire body width but the screenshot you posted doesn't explain where one stops and the other begins?

[Franco Darioli]

http://camerasize.com/compact/

[Ken Bennett]

"I just figured out what an X100T is–Fuji, prime lens built in, so no optical zoom, $1300, while not cheap I am really intrigued and would love to try one."

The X100s is the previous generation, and widely available in good used condition for about $650. The X100t has a couple of new features like wi-fi, but the sensor and lens are the same. Files are excellent. I wouldn't use it for astrophotography, but for candid people, travel, etc., it's a fine choice for fans of the ~35mm equivalent lens.

I have an X100s along with several interchangeable lens Fuji bodies, and i's very enjoyable to shoot. Haven't tried it hiking, but may give it a try next month.

A highly biased assessment of Fuji cameras (http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-1-cameras/) and lenses (http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/) lots of good info in there.

[Ian]

"I'm waiting for a Ricoh GR with a viewfinder."

After owning the A6000 for not quite a year, it'd be difficult for me to go with a camera that doesn't have an EVF. It really made switching to manual settings a relatively easy process for me. It's also great for reviewing pictures and changing menu settings for my failing eyes when it's bright out. I realized that there's an optical view finder attachment option for the Ricoh but other than framing a shot on a bright day, it wouldn't do me a lot of good.

[Peter S]

Yes, I'd rather have a built-in EVF than an attached OVF with zero information. Also, I really think the attached OVF on the GR destroys the esthetics and the small form factor. But I'd be happy with a built-in OVF.

I've shot some fine pictures with cameras without OVF or EVF, but it's just no fun.

[Author]

Posts