Topic

Stepping up to full-frame in a UL(ish) way


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Off Piste Photography Stepping up to full-frame in a UL(ish) way

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1329700
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    There's nothing wrong with Sony RX100's and similar "very good" compact cameras, or your phone camera for that matter. But when you start messing around with non-midday light, depth-of-field, stars, larger prints, etc., then you kind of need a full-frame camera to do it well. And a tripod.

    I'm preparing for JMT in August. Here is my photography gear including power:

    Sony a7r with FE 35mm F2.8 ZA (21.3 oz.)
    REI Trail 2 Waistpack (4.8 oz.)
    Sirui T-025x Tripod w/ ball head (30.2 oz.)
    Suntactics sCharger-5 (8.6 oz.)
    USB (2!) charger cable (0.8 oz.)
    extra 64Gb SD card (negligible)
    extra battery (1.6 oz.)
    Rokinon 24mm F1.4, packed away for night shooting (23.1 oz.)

    So that's 5.7 lbs., although it would be 4.2 if I dumped the large Rokinon lens. The sCharger-5 will do some non-photography charging too but photography is probably 95% of its job. It's not a terrible amount when added to an otherwise 10 lb base weight, considering it gets me into the image quality range of a National Geographic photographer. Well, that is the potential anyway when some skill is added too. (Note: that is, for all but wildlife photography; for that a gigantic lens is needed and then the a7 size/weight advantage sort of gets swallowed up.)

    I posted some photos using this setup at my brand new domain (yay!): http://www.charliewhitfield.photography. These are all 35mm shots from a test run I made up to the north and east side of Lake Superior last month. I didn't shoot any "stunning landscapes" there (as I hope to on JMT) but there were plenty of interesting small things to photograph.

    I'm bringing the Rokinon mainly to try some astrophotography (Perseids peak during my JMT hike). I know folks really like those stretched out super-wide landscapes with the rock-or-flower-under-your-feet look, but I generally prefer the realism and intimacy I get with 35mm. That FE 35mm is a fine lens, and the lack of f2 is a reasonable trade-off for very small size and weight (and realistically, not a trade-off at all for landscape). And it has the best hood design ever. Seriously, it keeps your fingers, dirt, and even (to a remarkable extent) water mist off the lens. I've heard it compared to a foreskin and that's more or less what it looks like.

    Other than the Sony RX1 (which was a fixed-lens prototype for the a7), the a7, a7r and a7s are the smallest lightest full-frame cameras in existence. The a7II is a tad bigger and heavier (a few ounces I think) and that extra goes to image stabilization. Sony has an interesting strategy here: the series isn't progressing from sub-pro to pro to super-duper-pro. Instead, each one excels in a different way. The r has highest resolution (for landscapes), the s has crazy high light sensitivity (for video or the best astrophotography), and the II has image stabilization (great for hand-held without OS lens). This is brilliant strategy because if you are a pro you end up buying one of each. For the rest of us, pick the one that does what you need and don't get hung up on what you don't need (or go with a7 because it is cheaper by a wide margin and still darn good).

    The camera is super comfy with its 35mm lens in the little REI waistpack I found for it (it's snug with no camera strap). I'll probably get a custom cuben fiber replacement for that eventually but it's too late in the season now. I did quite a bit of night hiking on some difficult trails for sunset/sunrise/twilight shots. The tripod carries well by tucking a leg over the waistpack strap. I haven't had this out on an actual backpack trip yet, but I found that the waistpack works fine with my backpack (strapped around waist under backpack, then drape the camera compartment over the backpack straps). It's small enough that it doesn't block my view of the ground. The tripod is going to live on front of shoulder strap using a couple loops of some sort.

    On charging batteries in-camera with USB: the Sony "box packing department" really screwed the pooch on this. For god knows what reason they included a 0.5 amp USB wall charger unit in the box which takes 5 or 6 hours to charge the battery in-camera. Regardless of what box packing department thinks, the engineers built it to charge at >1 amp. A more typical USB charger (what you probably have plugged in your wall or car right now) will charge an a7 battery in-camera in 2 hours. With good direct sunlight my sCharger-5 charges it in 3 hours. Now you might trust box-packing-department more than the engineers that built the camera, but that is your own decision to make (seriously, all Li-ion battery devices that are not total crap have electronics to control charge and discharge). I think the cable is also a likely problem point here, so I pulled one out of my cable pile that said USB2.0 on the sheath (I may bring a spare for JMT).

    I've only tested solar charging in my back yard so far. I'll experiment with the on-backpack approach sometime soon. If this can work anywhere in the world the JMT is probably going to be fine. And in any case I like long naps in the afternoon, which I need when photographing before dawn and after dusk. I forget exact shots/charge stats from reviews (300+ I think) but the number doesn't mean much when doing long-exposures. It's significantly less than any large DSLR. So I'm bringing an extra 1.6 oz battery and don't plan on taking 1000 poorly thought-out and useless shots.

    Yeah, the tripod alone is as heavy as my backpack. I've experimented with lighter possibilities and it is just a necessary evil. However, as a concession to UL philosophy I'm going to use my tripod as my single tent pole (I've been using hiking poles all winter, and I like them some, but I think they will get in my way more than they benefit me).

    I know some photographers need to view the scene through optics rather than electronics, so will need to stay with larger DSLRs (the good news for you is that Sony is putting price pressure on these). And I know those "beasts" have some other advantages that the Sony mirrorless don't match. But mirrorless have a few advantages of their own besides size/weight. At least for landscapes, focus peeking, clipping zebra, and seeing what the camera sees is an advantage (I wouldn't say that's the case for fast action shots). Most of all, it has almost the same weight and dimensions as the Canon AE-1 that my dad got me back in the 80s, and that gives me a great deal of pleasure.

    Prices: Aghh… this hobby makes UL backpacking look cheap by comparison. The a7 body is now under $1000 new, probably you could find one for $600 used. The a7r still goes for $1800 or so new and I got mine used for $1300. The a7s and a7II bodies are going for $2500 and $1600 new (respectively). You can find the "international" version of the FE 35mm F2.8 ZA for about $600 (some say overpriced for no f2, but it is super IQ in reviews and excellent from a UL perspective). The tripod was $250 and about the best a ULer could find at any price. If I remember right the Rokinon was $550 or so new (it was recommended on several astrophotography blogs). The waistpack was $25 and I nabbed a "factory blemished" sCharger-5 on eBay for $50.

    On zoom lenses: I only partly buy into the hype about primes having so much better image quality. The problem for me is that the "normal" focal length zooms are big and heavy, and they won't get me "good" wildlife shots anyway. (My Rokinon is heavy too but that is due to f1.4 for astrophotography; that big of an aperture is pointless weight for any other landscape photography.) I'm at the stage now where I'd like to start getting a few great shots rather than many mediocre ones. If you are somewhat new but serious about photography, prime lenses help focus you on composition leading to better shots.

    One more link to my new site because it's fun to do it (http://www.charliewhitfield.photography) and some thumbnails below. These blow up to 13×19" prints quite well, which is really the only point of having the a7r over the a7. I think I have maybe 5 or 6 more good shots that I will add over the next couple weeks.

    Little Icebergs 550

    Noojigiigoonyiwe 550

    #2205687
    Ian
    BPL Member

    @10-7

    I really liked your pictures on your website.

    I'd like to get the A7s but that's going to be a ways down the road.

    #2205694
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    Thanks Ian for the compliment!

    I updated post above with some pricing info (2nd to last paragraph) and two thumbnail pictures.

    #2205754
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    Apparently nobody tries to do wildlife photography while backpacking.

    –B.G.–

    #2205764
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    I'll just 8x crop to "document" on the off-chance that I see a big horned sheep on JMT. Unlikely I'd get a good shot even if I carried equipment for it. For most other Sierra wildlife, much easier to find near campground dumpster.

    #2214459
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    This isn't a complete list of FE lenses, but I thought I'd dump my research results here in case it can be useful to others. These are a selection of lenses I was at least considering based on adding some specific capability (long, fast, macro, etc.):

    The primes:
    Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA (4.2 oz.; fantastic carry-around lens!)
    Sony FE 28mm f/2 (7.1 oz)
    Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA (9.9 oz)
    Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS (21.2 oz)
    Zeiss Batis FE 25mm f/2 (11.8 oz)
    Zeiss Batis FE 85mm f/1.8 (16.8 oz)
    Rokinon FE 24mm f/1.4 (20.8 oz; recommended by a couple astrophotographers)
    Rokinon FE 14mm f/2.8 (19.5 oz)

    The zooms:
    Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS (18.3)
    Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS (15.2 oz)
    Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS (27.5 oz)
    Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS (29.6)

    If you're coming from a P&S, you are certainly used to a zoom and probably can't imagine why anyone would ever restrict themselves to one or two primes instead. There's a whole lot of discussion to be had there, both on technical minutia and artistry. For me personally, I was kind of bored with my landscape photos and carrying one prime at a time has helped me overcome that over the past several months. There is also the technical issue that no zoom will get you f/1.4, which (for example) could open up astrophotography (though, to be fair, big aperture isn't used for the vast majority of landscape photography). And, you can carry two primes for less than the weight of one zoom if you are mostly interested in shorter focal lengths. The main argument for zooms in the case of landscape photography is that you can't simply step forward or back to make a mountain bigger or smaller (although cropping can get you a little way in the bigger direction, especially if you have a gazillion Mps and lens with good resolution). There's a whole lot more to it that that, but I'll leave it there for now.

    #2214544
    Garrett McLarty
    BPL Member

    @gmac

    Locale: New England, PNW, Northern India

    Having gone from a full frame down to micro four thirds, I just thought I would point out that you don't have to go to full frame if weight is a big consideration.

    The sony a7r is a great camera and is fairly small/light compared to other full frames. However, you can't get around the physics of the lens size/weight.

    For me, that meant going to Olympus OMD. The OMD is a compromise that I am happy with considering it is weather sealed, uses small lenses, gives plenty good enough picture quality, and has all the manual controls I would want.

    Not trying to start an argument over full frame vs micro fourthirds, but just thought I would offer my experience and throw out another option which saves weight while still allowing for low light photography, astrophotography, manual controls, and tons of lens options.

    Peace,

    Link to comparison between sony full frame, fujifilm aps-c, and micro fourthirds

    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/

    Link to micro OMD photos for reference on image quality

    https://500px.com/DiegoGM

    #2231222
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    I'm way overdue for a post-trip report with pictures. I'll get something up eventually. Here's a shot of Banner Peak during blue hour, maybe half-hour before sunrise:

    #2232231
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    OK, bigger JMT set over in Photo Gallery now. In truth, it's really the tripod that allows shots like the one above (8 sec). But full-frame light sensitivity certainly allows shots that I didn't used to take. And the detail lets me blow them up to 10×15" or bigger prints, which I like to do.

    #2239017
    Uranyl Cation
    Spectator

    @uranylcation

    Locale: PNW

    The only one thing I don't like about the A7 system, apart from the price tag, is how heavy the lenses are built. That off sets a lot of weight saving from the body. They might be of superior quality, who knows, but we have to step down more than a few stops most of the time anyway. In other words, I'm more than happy to trade off some of optical performance, ie fast aperture, to weight saving, but options with the new FE mount is really limited so far. There are plenty of high quality light weight yet long lasting legendary glasses out there, Contax G series, to name a few, all of which won't agree that good glass has to be heavy and bulky. Adapter might be the option, but the weight and comparability of adapter kick in, in addition to the problematic corner thing with wide G lenses. I totally agree with you on the prime over zoom. It helps me slow down a lot, and I can simply leave one or more back home if I don't plan to use focus length or have to save weight. I have a RX100, and recently acquired a Pentax K3 with bunch of prime lenses. I'm really impressed how small, light yet strong those limited are built. Not a fair play to put APS-C and full frame side by side, but pentax has produced some of the most compact and light weight SLRs and lenses before. I don't know how their first full frame would look like, but the total weight of body plus two or three lenses could run into the same league with A7RII. A7R should be still a winner though, maybe by a few ounces. Well, actually, with my paycheck, there's no sense for me to compare the two systems anyway, not in near future :) I've not done photography backpacking yet, but I'm definitely looking into it next year.

    #2239086
    Cameron M
    BPL Member

    @cameronm-aka-backstroke

    Locale: Los Angeles

    "However, you can't get around the physics of the lens size/weight. " +1. Add that many people choose FF for better light capture, but then a FAST FF lens is REALLY BIG.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...