Camera for Hiking

[KobayashiMaru86]

My current 70D is a lump of a thing to hike with and half the time I can't be bothered to take it because of this. I've wanted to replace it with a full frame mirrorless for a while. Camera on phone is crap and then I saw you can get camera holders for backpacks, which maybe better way to go, providing it's not massively heavy. I could go and buy something mid>high end but may not be the most sensible to as things do happen. On hikes, lightness and ease of use is key too. I do want a proper full frame and I'd take the one lens on the hike and stick to it. I'd probably want to stick with Canon as I'm used to it but if it's camera just for this I could go Sony, etc.

[GravelBen]

You can generally get something a lot lighter and more compact (in lenses as well as bodies) with APSC rather than full frame sensor - I currently carry a Fuji X-T3 for hiking etc but would lean toward a Nikon Z50ii if I was buying a new APSC camera now. Carried Nikon DSLRs up and down mountains for years previously and still use a D7200 for other things (mostly motorsport and wildlife) as well as the Fuji.

But I'm planning to go to full frame in the near future too and accept the extra size and weight as a trade-off - everything is a compromise! The Nikon Z5ii is top of my list, the body is 700g (150g more than the APSC Z50ii) and relatively compact but the FF lenses are significantly bigger and heavier than APSC equivalents.

I don't know enough about Sony or Canon options to make any properly informed comment/comparison on those. I think Sony might make the smallest full-frame bodies, but have heard more bad than good opinions about their ergonomics.

For carrying a camera with easy access while hiking I use a cheap aliexpress ripoff of the Peak Design capture clip, super convenient having the camera there on your pack strap. I get far greater variety of photos with that arrangement than having a camera packed away and only getting it out when I stop and take my pack off. I still pack it away for protection in really bad weather or sketchy scrambling etc.

Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 12th August 01:25

[KobayashiMaru86]

GravelBen said:

You can generally get something a lot lighter and more compact (in lenses as well as bodies) with APSC rather than full frame sensor - I currently carry a Fuji X-T3 for hiking etc but would lean toward a Nikon Z50ii if I was buying a new APSC camera now. Carried Nikon DSLRs up and down mountains for years previously and still use a D7200 for other things (mostly motorsport and wildlife) as well as the Fuji.

But I'm planning to go to full frame in the near future too and accept the extra size and weight as a trade-off - everything is a compromise! The Nikon Z5ii is top of my list, the body is 700g (150g more than the APSC Z50ii) and relatively compact but the FF lenses are significantly bigger and heavier than APSC equivalents.

I don't know enough about Sony or Canon options to make any properly informed comment/comparison on those. I think Sony might make the smallest full-frame bodies, but have heard more bad than good opinions about their ergonomics.

For carrying a camera with easy access while hiking I use a cheap aliexpress ripoff of the Peak Design capture clip, super convenient having the camera there on your pack strap. I get far greater variety of photos with that arrangement than having a camera packed away and only getting it out when I stop and take my pack off. I still pack it away for protection in really bad weather or sketchy scrambling etc.

Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 12th August 01:25

Thanks. It was the ripoff Peak Design clips that made me think more seriously about it. I use the Neewer mounts on tripods etc so bought the attachments to make it work with it so I can quick release and switch between bag or tripod as and when needed without changing the base plate.

[Gad-Westy]

If FF is an absolute requirement the Sony A7C options look worth a look.

I have to admit, personally, I like shooting quite long lens stuff when I'm hiking up high and the weight off FF lenses just makes that a total no go for me. It's a compromise, but my hiking camera is an Olympus E-M5 iii and it always has a 14-150mm (28-300mm equivalent) lens attached to it. The reason I went with that was, very light, 700g ish total, USB charging which is massive bonus in terms of keeping overall kit weight down and multi day stuff, rugged and weather proof, never changing lenses regardless of conditions and IQ that is good enough that I never wish I'd had something else with me. The IBIS system helps a lot with that. That said, I use a Fuji camera when I don't need to travel light.

[BrokenSkunk]

No matter what camera body you have, FF means larger, heavier and more expensive lenses. If you want a ligter weight camera, you need to consider a smaller sensor, either APSC or M4/3 are a good compromise.

The modern APSC and M4/3 are very close to the performance of a FF sensor. Low light performance is way better than it used to be. Of course the FF has bigger pixels, (for the same pixel count) so it will always have inherently less noise. You will also have a shallower DoF with a FF sensor for a given focal length & aperture. But that's about it, for 99% of the photos you take you'll never notice the difference in quality between a FF and a M4/3.

[KobayashiMaru86]

It's given me things to think about. Could buy an APS-C again or M4/3 just for this, pick a lens for it that covers most of what I want, then get a full frame for other things. Could then stay Canon with my current lenses too.

[BrokenSkunk]

If you're only ever going to put one lens on it, then could you get away with a superzoom? It would be much lighter & cheaper.

For me, it would be a step too far. But maybe worth considering if only to rule it out.

[tog]

BrokenSkunk said:

If you're only ever going to put one lens on it, then could you get away with a superzoom? It would be much lighter & cheaper.

For me, it would be a step too far. But maybe worth considering if only to rule it out.

I have the Canon RF 24-240 as an easy all in one option for days out with the family, walks, etc. It's not the absolute sharpest tool if you pixel peep, but it's fine for most day to day uses and much easier than carrying my usual fast primes everywhere. I find using it with a non-gripped R5 quite light and easy to carry about, but that's because on a normal working day I'm carrying so much more kit.

[Gad-Westy]

BrokenSkunk said:

If you're only ever going to put one lens on it, then could you get away with a superzoom? It would be much lighter & cheaper.

For me, it would be a step too far. But maybe worth considering if only to rule it out.

That's exactly why I went for a 14-150mm Olympus lens. If you go comparing to a larger sensor camera with a nice lens, you'll find the differences but for me taking large kit on a long hike is simply not one of the options (and I'd want to avoid lens changes too) so my comparisons are really vs. using a phone and that sort of comparison is far more favourable for the M4/3 setup. Vastly more reach (which I love in mountainous areas) and far better IQ. And you still get to use a proper camera with an EVF and full creative controls. I have pondered the Olympus 12-100mm lens as well which is a useful step up in IQ but it's a pricey lump and it's a lot more substantial so for now my little 14-150mm suits me very nicely indeed.

This pic is a nice example. Not because I think it's going to win any awards (though I like it!) but simply because I would not have taken a heavier camera out that morning and very nearly left the Olympus at home too as the weather looked miserable. But as soon as I got up on higher ground the sun poked through and the mist got patchy and some wonderful scenes opened up. A non-tele pic would not have done this sort of thing justice at all.

Weardale in the mist by G.A.D, on Flickr

[KobayashiMaru86]

The clip came yesterday and tried it on my bag with the 70D. Still needs adjustment but it's a bulky thing, even with only a 50mm lens on I had on at the time. But it's a decent idea and apart from the bulk, the camera was secure.

[BrokenSkunk]

Gad-Westy said:

That's exactly why I went for a 14-150mm Olympus lens...

I went down the Panasonic M4/3 route. Originally I bought the GH1 with the first release of their 14-140. I found the lens did almost everything I wanted.

About five years ago I upgraded to the larger and heavier G9 body. A also swapped the 14-140 lens for the newer version of the same thing. The old lens was compatible with the G9's internal image stabilisation, and on top of that the new version was much lighter, so much so that the G9 with the new 14-140 was the same weight as the GH1 with the older lens.

I've not noticed any difference in the IQ from the lens, but the G9 is leaps ahead of it's great-great-grand-daddy. The G9 is also an absolute joy to use.It has everything you'd expect from a FF mirrorless.

Other lenses in the pot are the Panny 20mm f1.7 pancake and the Leica 200mm f2.8, both of which are utterly superb. I have a couple of old Pentax manual prime lenses for playing about (one of which has, somewhat ironically, swalled it's 'Quality Approved' sticker and now won't focus on infinity).

I should really try the Leica 14-60mm. All the reviews say it's lovely.