Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Cameras, AGAIN

OK, so I bought the Panasonic LX3 as a lightweight compromise to an SLR. It has been very good. I am going to get a new camera in the next year. I am told that there are a new category of cameras now that are an upgrade over P$S cameras, but not as big as SLRs. They are essentially a mirrorless SLR, with interchangeable lenses, etc. Two options are:

Olympus Pen EP2 and
Sony NEX-5

These look like a substantial upgrade from a P&S, and in the case of the Sony, not too heavy/bulky. Does anyone have comment on this?

Many thanks.

Having given my P+S Nikon Coolpix (which I was happy with) to my daughter (who's rather rough on cameras), I recently decided I wanted a replacement that was approximately the same size but better zoom capability and more options. I think I scored, having just ordered a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR3K. Didn't need 14 mp resolution, but wanted 10x zoom without going over $300. It has 8x zoom to 10x with what's called Intelligent Zoom (supposedly better than digital zoom), 25mm compact ultra-wide angle Leica lens, true HD movie recording with good sound quality, and optical image stabilizer. Reviewers speak highly of it. One person calling himself a semipro photographer says he's found himself using this more than his SLR because of the image quality and being easier to carry around than an SLR. $232 at Amazon today.

(After looking at the other cameras you're considering, looks like you're looking for a more serious SLR-type than what I'm buying.)

I read this review about the Sony NEX-5 (and NEX-3) a few months ago. Looks like a decent compromise between performance and weight versus a digital SLR.

Pros: Same DX-format image sensor as typical DSLRs, so the image quality will be substantially better than a typical point'n'shoot at the same number of pixels.

Interchangeable lenses, so you have the option to go with a simple wideangle (16mm, equivalent to 24mm on 35mm full-frame film or sensor) or a couple of different zooms.

A lot smaller and lighter than the typical DSLR (comparable to the medium-sized point'n'shoot models). (I haul a Nikon D200 plus two or three lenses as my "lightweight backpacking camera.")

Cons: No optical viewfinder, so you're constrained to use the LCD on the back of the camera. On my older point'n'shoot cameras (ancient Nikon 990 and 4500), I had a magnifier with an opaque shroud that went over the LCD so I could use it in daylight. Something like this or this could probably be adapted if you don't mind carrying the extra piece around. The second (Photosolve) link is the big brother of the magnifiers I used on my 990 and 4500.

I'm not ready to give up lugging my D200 but I could easily see an NEX-5 plus the 16mm wide-angle and maybe even the fisheye over-converter as something I'd put in a housing for my other hobby (SCUBA). For someone looking for a more-compact alternative for backpacking, it'd make sense, as well.

Want good photos and full flexibility in how you take them - you will have to bite the bullet and get a DSLR and good glass (becasue sharp pictures don't just have lots of megapixels), otherwise bring a cheap light camera for memory snap shots. Anything in between is just stuff invented by marketing researchers who feel they can make users believe they are getting something no other camera at that price point can do. The size of the lenses on these new bodies with larger sensors show you that there's no real magic - physics require those dimensions and the small body in the back doesn't do much other than sacrifice a decent through-the-lens view finder and ergnomics to save a few ounces.

I've used camera gear you can pay your mortgage off with, and once you've seen what is possible, anything you can afford to haul out on a hiking trip becomes a concession to weight and cost. Only you know what exactly you do when you take photos and if any of the DSLR advantages are even needed. If weight is paramount, go for the point and shoot that serves your needs best. Personally, once I elect to go light, I don't care about quality any longer so I take a cheap durable camera and accept that the pictures will be flat.

reviews of the cameras you mentioned:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5nex3/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEPL1/page18.asp

here's something to ponder - three shots of the same tree on Bighorn Plateau, taken with three totally different camera systems.

One is over 20 years old and was scanned from film (Nikon F3HP with 50mm f1.8 nikkor), one is from a brand new Nikon D90 12 megapixel DSLR wtih fancy 18-55mm VR image stabilizer lens, and one is from a 4 year old Canon A590 $100 point and shoot - you name which is which. bummer the light wasn't the same all three times, but the greens and browns have to suffice to compare color saturation. Contrast and resolution is really where you will find differences.










you can click on each image for full resolution to see if there's differences in detail, but that only matters if you print or do other high rez stuff (crop a lot, deep zooms, etc)


For online use, though, you have to agree that there is only a small difference between these images, and your monitor may be the biggest factor in how good these pictures look to you. Once you open the full resolution you'll see there is extra detail to be found in the tree branches on two of them. The point and shoot also displays rather awful chromatic abberations around the edges of the branches.

so it boils down to how bad your current camera is and how much you're willing to spend to get improvements similar to the levels you see above.

I thought there are only two ways to zoom in - optically and digitally (crop and scale). But you gotta love this explanation they give:



I prefer to crop and scale in Photoshop if the camera lens can't deal with it. You're not going to get pixels the lens at max zoom and the sensor can't record, no matter how often you use the word intelligent

OK--so what I am looking for most is the ability to take the marginal pics, such as pics of the Milky Way from Bishop Pass, and things like that, that I believe a P&S just can't do.

So, does anyone have any siggestions for the following:

1) A DSLR that is moderately priced yet powerful (bang for the buck); and

2) A method of carrying it that leaves it available but is not banging me while hiking, etc.

Fishmonger, you're exactly right...it depends a whole lot on how you intend to use the images, and the number of megapixels is (almost) irrelevant, at least above some lower limit that isn't even an issue these days.

If you're like my wife and take your memory card down to the local Walgreen's to have 4x6 prints made, it's hard to buy a "bad" camera these days.

If all you use your photos for is web-based e-publishing, ditto. Even a 3-megapixel camera has enough pixels to fill most monitors at full screen or nearly so. (My 22" monitor is 1680x1050 or only about 1.8 megapixels. My laptop with a high-rez display is 1920x1200 or 2.3 megapixels.)

If you want to print stuff bigger than 8x10, the limiting factors (as you noted) are the glass and the image sensor size, not the sensor resolution. We can easily create ICs with more pixels than the best camera glass can lay down an image, so having a 10+ megapixel imager that is only 8x10mm in actual dimension may be technologically simple but can't compare to the results from the nominally-the-same 10 megapixel imager that is 16x24mm like my D200 or (even better) 24x36mm like the full-frame D3x or equivalent Canon DSLRs. Of course, you had better win the lottery to buy one of those toys.

Depending on steelfrog means by "moderately priced," the new Nikon D7000 would be a good choice. Over a grand for the body but it has several advantages, especially if (like me) you have some older Nikon glass that you want to re-use. It's a lot lighter and smaller than my D200 but has the same ability to use all of the autofocus Nikon lenses (not just the ones with internal motors) and has the old AI aperture tracking tab so you can even use it with manual-focus and manual-aperture lenses as well. Obviously, it also benefits from four years of improvements in electronics and firmware.

Yeah, I'm a Nikon geek...have been shooting Nikons since college (and still use some of my 70s-vintage Nikon glass). The Canon evangelists may choose to push 'C' over 'N' but I think we'll agree they both work quite well enough for most of us.

A DSLR that can do star tracks, isn't too heavy, doesn't break the bank and records good images? A used Nikon D40 is my first pick, because that is exactly what I bought when i first looked for a light and semi-capable DSLR. I keep using it even though I have a D90 now - it's super compact and the images look just fine. Probably one of the lightest DSLR bodies out there, and you can remote trigger it with a near weighless $5 wireless remote, so your star track images turn out crisp. It can't do auto bracketing, so if you're into the HDR craze, this is not the right camera. No video, not the greatest LCD screen, but it runs for 1000 images on one battery charge.

All images here are Nikon D40 with 18-55mm lens, bought for $300 combined as factory refurbs with warranty, less if you buy used from private sellers. I have used filters on lenses that cost more than this combo...

The new D7000 is pretty sweet - better than my D90, but at almost twice the price(D7000 = $1200 body only at B+H), and other than the improved but still very basic video features and a slightly more rugged (but heavier) body, it's not much different. Dual card slots, 1/8000th of a sec shutter, and 1.5fps faster are gizmos you will not really need on the trail. 14 megapixels versus 12? I doubt my light hiking lenses will resolve the difference.

Put the extra money into glass - lenses doesn't depreciate anywhere near as fast as the bodies, some even appreciate.

re carrying - I use a shoulder strap and put that over my head and right shoulder. the camera, even with bigger lens and battery grip in my case will not bounce at all. Did that for 250 miles this summer. I use no camera case - too heavy, slows you down and in some cases may just keep you from taking the photo because you're too lazy to unpack it - if it rains, I just stuff the camera into my pack.

Another reason not to buy a high dollar camera. They all can handle dust and some sprinkles just fine. My D40 adn D90 are not "weatherized" but neither has had any problems being in the mountains for weeks at a time without any cleaning.

Take a look at this binocular harness

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0027666711764a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntk=Products&QueryText=binocular+strap&sort=all&Go.y=8&N=0&Nty=1&hasJS=true&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&Go.x=15&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form23

I use one for my Sony DSC-F717 and it works great. The weight of a standard neck strap gets old in a hurry. This harness spreads the weight across the shoulders and it is elastic. So, the camera is held fairly tight against the chest, but is easily brought up to eye level.