EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › What are you carrying your camera in when you ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are you carrying your camera in when you ski?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 

How/what are you carrying your camera in when you ski?  Just got a DSLR....must keep it protected!

post #2 of 25

I moved this post to its own new thread rather than have the off-topic conversation in the Picture of the Day.  I'm sure there are several good ideas out there.

post #3 of 25

I use a Lowepro Slingshot 102AW. It carries a Nikon D7000 with 18-105 mounted and a 70-300vr, circular polarizer, battery, waterproof compact, etc. It's my "grab-and-go" bag.

 

Strictly for skiing, there may be better choices. I wanted something that carried on my back that I could access while paddling a sea kayak, which eliminated various holsters and similar cases. When I swing it around front, I can use it as a work support for changing lenses. I also ride the chairlift with the bag in front. The extra strap that wraps around opposite the main strap stabilizes the bag well for skiing. The strap configuration may be uncomfortable for some women, however.

 

Sling bags in general carry the camera on the back but easily slide around front for access to the camera. Unlike a backpack, it is not necessary to remove the bag for camera access. Kata, Lowe and others make a variety of this style of bag in various sizes.

 

There is always a risk when carrying a DSLR while skiing. No matter where you carry it, there is some possibility that you will fall on it, which may damage the camera, or you, or both.


Edited by jhcooley - 1/2/13 at 1:23pm
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks for info!  Yes, I understand the need to be careful.  I may stick to iphone photos when skiing.  But some of the best scenes, I come across are while skiing or otherwise moving.  Anyway, so much to learn with this new camera....

post #5 of 25

You are either carrying an SLR or skiing.  A good point and shoot camera (e.g. Sony RX100) will do almost as well as a DSLR these days and can fit in your pocket.  iPhone is an increasingly fine substitute anyway.  I gave up and got a helmet cam.  That plus an iPhone covers my imaging needs.  When I need to shoot seriously (rarely), I take an SLR with a good telephoto in a backpack.  Obviously hard skiing for that day is written off.    

post #6 of 25

I mostly use my iPhone and it works well for taking outdoor pictures, and also doing other things smartphone while at the ski area.

 

If we're planning to do some video sessions I tuck a very small Samsung HMX-U10N video recorder (HD) into my pocket. The new model is under $100 and waterproof. It's easy to use for taking video, and then later does one button uploads to youtube. Sometimes we will meet in a lodge after the video session. We store a flat screen monitor and my cable there, and we hook the camera up so the coaches can critique us live - while we cringe...

post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 

Wow!  Some highly specific and very helpful responses!  Very much appreciated!!!

post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post

No matter where you carry it, there is some possibility that you will fall on it, which may damage the camera, or you, or both.

 

That's my huge fear.  The investment is too much for me to risk.

So, I carry an Olympus Tough point-and-shoot.  Works well enough for snapshots and tolerates a degree of abuse....so far anyway.  

Mine is a 2-3 years old, but I think you can add a couple of different lenses to the newest one.  I'm not 100% sure, though, so you would have to check...if even interested.

post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

You are either carrying an SLR or skiing.

Exactly! I have no problems getting down the Streif (or any other World cup track) with 15kg of photo equipment worth of $20.000+ in my backpack, but that doesn't really qualify as skiing. So when I go skiing, I leave all that stuff at home (or car, or hotel room), and go skiing. I take my phone with me, and in nice weather photos from phone are perfectly fine. Sure there's no action photos, but when I go skiing, I'm not looking for great photos, but for great time on skis. DSLR cameras are just too big (and mostly also too expensive) to be carried around when doing something like skiing (or cycling or anything a bit more "extreme" then hiking). So you have to decide what you want to do... take photos or have fun skiing. Both doesn't work... at least not for me.

post #10 of 25

I use the thinktank holster bag attached the sternum strap of my backpack...

 

The vast majority of the time I'm out is in the backcountry so I have a backpack anyway.  I've never really taken my SLR lift-riding, but I don't see a lot of shots I really care about getting while riding lifts.

 

I'd agree that an SLR is a lot to lug around skiing on a typical lift riding day; I'd disagree that you can get the same shots with a point and shoot.  There are a lot of P&S's that can do a decent enough job of taking a snapshot but if you have any desire to control the exposure of the photograph, an SLR is a much sharper knife.  An Iphone or the like is a super-reasonable replacement for a P&S and I'd rather have my iphone 5 then my old P&S in any situation that I don't need my SLR.

 

In regards to how I carry, with the holster attached to my sternum, the chance of me falling that particular spot is very low (compared with cartwheeling and landing on my backpack.

 

But if you are unaccustomed to skiing with a backpack, nevertheless a chest pack attached to the sternum pack, it's a lot to take on for some snapshots on the hill.

 

Think of it like choosing a lens.  You should have an idea of what you hope to shoot.  You should be able to visualize the photo you hope to get.  At that point, choosing a lens is relatively easy.  True, something might happen that changes your vision, but pre-visualization is a good habit for good photographs.  If you know you are out when the light is good and you have willing subjects, then photos can become a viable goal and carrying any camera, even an SLR, becomes easy.  If you just want to grab a camera and go and hope the camera makes a good shot rather than your photography skills, then lugging around an SLR while skiing makes neither activity fun. 

post #11 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by splitter View Post

 I'd disagree that you can get the same shots with a point and shoot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying P&S is same as DSLR. It's not, by far not. Autofocus capabilities of DSLR are there, where P&S won't be for decades, image quality (depending on lens, sensor, and in-camera algorithms) is far superior with DSLR. So DSLR and P&S can't compare, and there's no way you get same photos with P&S as you would with DSLR.

What I was trying to say was, that when I go skiing, I primary ski, not shoot. For those few snapshopts I would take during ski day, phone (Samsung galaxy s2) is good enough. But it certainly doesn't compare with P&S and even less with DSLR.

post #12 of 25
Guys, do check out the Sony RX100. It's a bit if a different beast than a regular P/S, because it has a 1 inch sensor. while it is still not DSLR image quality, for an average consumer it's seriously close enough. AF speed is quite fast too. Again, not 1D level, but still fast enough.
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 

Great info provided!  Splitter -- especially appreciate your feedback and see your points!  Have used a P&S until now but excited about the small amount of experimentation I've done!

 

If I want to do reference photos (potentially to attempt to paint) and I'm seeking the maximum amount of detail, any recommendations?

post #14 of 25

I have a Nikon P310 point & shoot that I carry when skiing. It doesn't take as nice a shot at my DSLR but still affords me the creative control I want. Beyond that, my phone camera is good enough. When I'm skiing I hate to make others wait while I compose a photo; it's usually a quick snapshot or two and off we go. You might also consider the 4/3rds cameras like the Nikon 1 series.

post #15 of 25

The Nikon 1 is not a 4/3 camera. It has a 1" sensor, like the RX100.

 

In any case, most people find changing lenses a bit of a chore while on skis. The Nikon 1 is an interchangeable lens system.

 

As for phones vs. point-and-shoot vs. 4/3 vs. DLSR: Sensor size is generally directly proportional to image quality (IQ); i.e., IQ gets better as the sensor gets bigger.

 

Big caveat: For many (even most) people, it doesn't get enough better to matter all that much, especially for web display. Witness the number of posts saying the photos from the phone are good enough.

 

Why then do people bother with big clumsy DSLRs or even mirrorless system cameras? In many ways, they're kind of a pain. They're big, they get dust or moisture inside when you change the lens, true DSLRs have lots of moving parts to break, they're expensive, etc.

 

Well, image quality is still a big reason for critical or challenging images. I have one over in the "Photo of the Day" thread that definitely didn't come from an iPhone, or even an advanced P&S. My DSLR captures 14 bits per color, and I needed 'em all! Of course, the JPEG still has 8 bits per color, but I at least captured more information so that I could better control the final JPEG image. Of course, whether I did a very good job with it or not is a matter of opinion.

 

Another big reason is control and choice. Although many P&S cameras (especially long zoom "bridge" cameras) offer manual control of aperture, shutter speed, etc., none offer the control of depth of field offered by a large sensor. Without this control, it may be difficult to isolate the primary subject from its background. A phone may not even offer exposure compensation. You push the button and get what you get.

 

Another reason: Focus speed. Many advanced P&S cameras, as well as mirrorless system cameras, are getting better in this department. My little waterproof P&S can crank off 4.5 frames per second, if I'm not asking it to follow focus on a moving subject. A number of cameras are significantly faster than that. Many different types of cameras today can achieve accurate focus on a still subject in good light in a fraction of a second. However, no P&S, and, so far, no mirrorless system camera, can repeatedly focus on a moving subject as quickly and reliably as a DSLR. Even the expensive mirrorless Olympus OM-D E-M5 (US$1100+, body only) has difficulty focusing on moving subjects. This issue tends to greatly reduce the number of "keepers" if you're trying to get action shots. You'll get some good ones, and maybe that's enough, but you'll get a lot of out-of-focus ones, too. And entirely too often, one of the out-of-focus shots would have been the best shot if it had been in focus.

 

For DSLRs, some mirrorless system cameras, and long-zoom bridge cameras, the eye-level viewfinder is an advantage. First and foremost, you can use such viewfinders (even the electronic eye-level finders on bridge cameras and mirrorless system cameras) in bright sunlight. Second, you can hold the camera steadier if it's braced against your face rather than being held out at arm's length. This yields sharper pictures at slow shutter speeds. Third, some of us older folks actually need reading glasses to see an LCD clearly. An eye-level finder with a diopter adjustment solves this problem. Fourth, (and this doesn't apply to electronic viewfinders) the optical viewfinder on a true DSLR shows you what's going on in real time, which makes it much easier to follow action. LCDs, in general, show the picture just taken, even when the camera is in continuous shooting mode. The image you see is behind what's actually happening.

 

Still another reason, less applicable to skiing, is the ability of a large sensor to function reasonably well in poor light. In conditions where a small P&S will go dark, or grainy, or both, the larger camera can give you a decent image.

 

As for me, I don't carry a phone when I'm skiing. There is no cell service where I usually ski. I do carry the previously mentioned waterproof P&S. It's pretty good for what it is, and I can bring it out no matter how miserable the weather is. But it doesn't begin to compare to the DSLR.


Edited by jhcooley - 1/3/13 at 11:00am
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski Spirit View Post

 

If I want to do reference photos (potentially to attempt to paint) and I'm seeking the maximum amount of detail, any recommendations?

Shoot raw and learn to process your raw files. That way, you can enhance the detail you're interested in at your leisure in front of your computer.

post #17 of 25

All good info. SOme reality check is in order though.  Yes, it is true that a DSLR has better AF speed.  The caveat is that it is true for a high-end DSLR.  Shooting moving skiers with a 1D camera is a delight, it's unbelievably fast.  Shooting skiers with a still expensive 5D is a lot less pleasant.  A consumer-level DSLR may not have such a hot AF system after all.   (BTW, OM-D is known for a faulty continuous AF, so it may not be the best example).    Don't forget that that a lot of people now prefer to use their SLRs in the LiveView mode (regardless of what you, I, and primoz may think about itwink.gif), and in that mode DSLR-AF just stinks. 

 

I am a big fan of the RX100 because it is the first truly compact P/S that can approach DSLR-like IQ (because of the relatively large 1 inch sensor and a decent bright lens).  And you do get some depth-of-field control with it as well (Sony specifically stated that their main goal for designing that camera was to give people background blur).   

 

A waterproof P/S maybe the best compromise for skiing.  Although the last time I looked at those camera the IQ universally sucked.  Of course the phone quality would be much worse.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post

The Nikon 1 is not a 4/3 camera. It has a 1" sensor, like the RX100.

 

In any case, most people find changing lenses a bit of a chore while on skis. The Nikon 1 is an interchangeable lens system.

 

As for phones vs. point-and-shoot vs. 4/3 vs. DLSR: Sensor size is generally directly proportional to image quality (IQ); i.e., IQ gets better as the sensor gets bigger.

 

Big caveat: For many (even most) people, it doesn't get enough better to matter all that much, especially for web display. Witness the number of posts saying the photos from the phone are good enough.

 

Why then do people bother with big clumsy DSLRs or even mirrorless system cameras? In many ways, they're kind of a pain. They're big, they get dust or moisture inside when you change the lens, true DSLRs have lots of moving parts to break, they're expensive, etc.

 

Well, image quality is still a big reason for critical or challenging images. I have one over in the "Photo of the Day" thread that definitely didn't come from an iPhone, or even an advanced P&S. My DSLR captures 14 bits per color, and I needed 'em all! Of course, the JPEG still has 8 bits per color, but I at least captured more information so that I could better control the final JPEG image. Of course, whether I did a very good job with it or not is a matter of opinion.

 

Another big reason is control and choice. Although many P&S cameras (especially long zoom "bridge" cameras) offer manual control of aperture, shutter speed, etc., none offer the control of depth of field offered by a large sensor. Without this control, it may be difficult to isolate the primary subject from its background. A phone may not even offer exposure compensation. You push the button and get what you get.

 

Another reason: Focus speed. Many advanced P&S cameras, as well as mirrorless system cameras, are getting better in this department. My little waterproof P&S can crank off 4.5 frames per second, if I'm not asking it to follow focus on a moving subject. A number of cameras are significantly faster than that. Many different types of cameras today can achieve accurate focus on a still subject in good light in a fraction of a second. However, no P&S, and, so far, no mirrorless system camera, can repeatedly focus on a moving subject as quickly and reliably as a DSLR. Even the expensive mirrorless Olympus OM-D E-M5 (US$1100+, body only) has difficulty focusing on moving subjects. This issue tends to greatly reduce the number of "keepers" if you're trying to get action shots. You'll get some good ones, and maybe that's enough, but you'll get a lot of out-of-focus ones, too. And entirely too often, one of the out-of-focus shots would have been the best shot if it had been in focus.

 

For DSLRs, some mirrorless system cameras, and long-zoom bridge cameras, the eye-level viewfinder is an advantage. First and foremost, you can use such viewfinders (even the electronic eye-level finders on bridge cameras and mirrorless system cameras) in bright sunlight. Second, you can hold the camera steadier if it's braced against your face rather than being held out at arm's length. This yields sharper pictures at slow shutter speeds. Third, some of us older folks actually need reading glasses to see an LCD clearly. An eye-level finder with a diopter adjustment solves this problem. Fourth, (and this doesn't apply to electronic viewfinders) the optical viewfinder on a true DSLR shows you what's going on in real time, which makes it much easier to follow action. LCDs, in general, show the picture just taken, even when the camera is in continuous shooting mode. The image you see is behind what's actually happening.

 

Still another reason, less applicable to skiing, is the ability of a large sensor to function reasonably well in poor light. In conditions where a small P&S will go dark, or grainy, or both, the larger camera can give you a decent image.

 

As for me, I don't carry a phone when I'm skiing. There is no cell service where I usually ski. I do carry the previously mentioned waterproof P&S. It's pretty good for what it is, and I can bring it out no matter how miserable the weather is. But it doesn't begin to compare to the DSLR.

post #18 of 25

As with others, I usually leave my DSLR at home when skiing and rely on a compact camera that can fit in a pocket for photos on the mountain.  If I'm heading out to photograph something, I'm either hiking/snowshoeing or very carefully skiing with the DSLR in a backpack.

 

I use the Canon G12, which is an excellent compact camera with full manual control. I've gotten some pretty remarkable pictures out of it's 1" (10 megapixel) sensor. The built-in zoom is 28-140 (35mm equivalent) f2.8-4.5 which is good for landscapes and portraits. (The newer G15 sports a 28-140 f1.8-2.8 zoom which should give it much better low light capabilities.) I have gotten a few decent action shots, but the zoom reach and the autofocus speeds make this camera less than ideal for capturing your friends in motion.

 

When packing my DSLR, I use an F-Stop Internal Camera Unit in a Gregory Z-35 pack.  The Z-35 has a front zipper on the pack to give you access to the camera and the ICU provides padding as well as additional protection against dirt or snow.  I can pack a D7000 and a couple of lenses, compact tripod and some camera accessories along with gear and clothing and a full water bladder into the pack.  I love the F-Stop backpacks, as they are purpose built to carry camera gear, but their price is probably double the equivalent Gregory/Osprey/North Face pack.  The combo of the ICU and a mediums-sized Gregory pack has served me well.  I can also use the Gregory for light overnighters or longer hikes if I'm not packing camera gear. 

post #19 of 25

My "walkabout" bag is a Lowepro Slingshot 100. It'll carry my D7000, an 18-200mm lens and a spare lens or TTL flash and a couple of filters. The sling bag lets me work quickly when changing lenses etc.  I've not had it on skiing but I've worn it on my motorcycle. My only concern with stability is the lack of a hip strap - which means some side to side flopping when skiing. For more serious assignments I use a bigger backpack with larger capacity for extra gear, mono/tripod straps etc. but I would never consider carrying that while skiing.

post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldEasternSkier View Post

 

I use the Canon G12, which is an excellent compact camera with full manual control. I've gotten some pretty remarkable pictures out of it's 1" (10 megapixel) sensor.

The G12 is indeed an excellent camera. The sensor is 1/1.67", not 1", though. It is bigger than the 1/2.3" typically found in a P&S, and has better image quality.

post #21 of 25
Thread Starter 

As I originated the thread, just wanted to say THANKS for all of the excellent information provided!!

post #22 of 25

My posts were off-topic in this thread.  I apologize and have deleted them.

post #23 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks Cirquerider.  Some of us have little sense of humor too much of the time!!!

post #24 of 25

I've skied with a DSLR a few times.  

 

My suggestion is the Rapid Strap.  It holds the camera down low at your side.  Put it under your jacket.

 

http://www.blackrapid.com/products/classic

post #25 of 25
I ski with my D3000 once per trip. Last time I brought a WAL. Its a cropped sensor so its a bit smaller. I carry it in my camelbak and have no problems. It weighs nothing, I still ski trees, bowls, and aggressively. Backpack is the best way imo.

A point and shoot is not as goos as an SLR, but an SLR is only good as the person holding it. People who say that just dont know how to use the camera. I have taken unreal pictures that no point and shoot could come close to getting. Also these cameras can take a beating, only worry about messing it up if your a noobie. A shovel will do more damage in a fall...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › What are you carrying your camera in when you ski?