EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Ski and Camera Suggestions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Powder Ski and Camera Suggestions

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Fellow Epic Fellows,

 

I'm going to be reconfiguring my current ski quiver of 3 into a new quiver of 2.  I have the narrower one settled...it's an FX-94 in 176.  Now I need a powder ski for deep days and the several days of cut-up and chopped soft(ish) crud afterward.  I don't care how it handles hard-snow or groomers, because it won't be used for that...other than to get back to the lift at times.

 

I've been using my 179 Codys for that this past year.  They are mucho fun for most soft snow apps, but when the snow gets deeper (8" or more) and heavier, they get overpowered.  If I put the pedal down at all, they have a nasty habit of rocketing me over the handlebars...to the tune of about 10-12 times this past season.  A few of those times put me on the couch for a few days (my blown disc didn't like it).

 

I ski lots o' trees here at Schweitzer and most of our steeps.  I ski bumps if I run across them, but I don't usually look for them.  I use groomers to get back to the lift.  I would like a ski that combines the nimble and maneuverable playfulness of...say... an S7 with the stability in variable snow of...say...an Abrams tank...a nimble crud-crusher that beats up on heavy, chunky crud, yet whips around effortlessly in tight spots.  Does such a ski exist?  If not, what is the closest thing to it?  

 

I've searched here, TGR, and Blister Gear for the last few days, and I've come up with these possibilities:

Moment Bibby Pro in 184  -  Mixed reviews mostly say playful charger

Moment Deathwish in 184  -  The weird triple-camber thing gives me pause

Prior Overlord in 183  -  A wider Husume?

Elan Chainsaw in 182  -  Cheap right now

Elan 1010 in 183  -  Also cheap right now

RMU Northshore in 185  -  sounds interesting, but not much feedback on it.

Viole Charger (?)  -  definitely more AT-oriented...too light to slay crud?

 

BTW, I'm 5'10 and 170-175 lbs depending on recent junk food consumption.  I'm moderately aggressive, but I don't think of myself as a charger.  I don't huck cliffs or ski backwards on purpose.  I ski 85% of the Mt. comfortably, 10% tentatively, and the last 5% in survival mode with butt-cheeks firmly clenched and whimpering like a young schoolgirl.

Soooooo, thoughts?

 

Also, on an unrelated note, I wanna get a pocket camera that has more reach and better IQ than my older 5X Olympus Tough.  NO DSLR's or ICL's, as I want to toss it in my backpack for jaunts out in the boonies or even put it in my pocket.  I'm right-brained as all-get-out, so I don't like a lot of techy things..the easier to use the better.  I was thinking a Canon 20X SX-280 or a Sony 30X HX-50.  I'm leaning Canon, as I'm not sure the extra 10X reach of the Sony is worth nearly double the price.  IQ seems about the same.  Thoughts on this?

 

I know these are 2 entirely different topics, but it's summer, and I thought combining the 2 might make for some interesting responses.  Such as..is there a nimble, burly ski that also takes good quality pictures at long distances?  If so, can it be delivered by a raven-tressed bikini model riding a unicorn?

 

Don't be bashful, as I would truly like input on either or both recs.  On the skis, I'm ever so slightly leaning toward the Bibby Pro or the Overlord...but I can be easily swayed.  Chronic indecisiveness contributes to that...

Anyoo, Fire Away...and Thanks!

post #2 of 16

Camera suggestion: Sony RX-100.  No other point and shoot comes close to the IQ.  Still small and easy to use.  Compact super zooms are not good in the IQ department.  If a monster zoom lens illuminates a tiny postage stamp size sensor, nothing good comes out of it.  

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Camera suggestion: Sony RX-100.  

 

Good choice, but it has even less reach than my TG-610.  

The primary reason for getting one with long reach is that I've been missing out on some good wildlife shots with my 140mm equiv. Tough.  Landscapes and critters is what I'm after mostly.  The RX would be GREAT for landscapes but Moose 500 yards away across a bog (I cropped that one, but then they look like Wildebeasts...or Buffalos...or brown smudges) or a huge Red-tailed Hawk perched in a tree 200 feet above me?

 

Can the RX-100 crop well to an IQ that matches the reach of 20X...or even 30X on the HX50?

So, I guess I'm wondering what is the best of the compact superzooms...while understanding their limitations. 

post #4 of 16

More for your list...

 

Atomic Automatic

Solly Quest 115

Line Influence 115

ON3P Jeffrey (110) or Caylor (120)

post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

More for your list...

 

Atomic Automatic

Solly Quest 115

Line Influence 115

ON3P Jeffrey (110) or Caylor (120)

 

Ha-Ha, thanks for contributing to the indecision, Jay!

 

I did try the Automatic expecting to love it...I hated it.  I could NOT find my fore-aft balance point on it.  This is a common problem cited by the fine young lads at TGR, and the solution is apparently to mount them +1 to +3, and all is right with the world.  I suspect that would probably work, but I don't know if I wanna gamble several hundred bucks on a fix that will "probably" work, though.

 

I also once gave the Line 105 a try, and it was my least favorite 1-oh.  I ruled out the 115 thinking it may have similar characteristics.  Is that wrong, though?

 

Caylor seemed a little much, but no real reason other than that.  I don't know why I didn't consider the Jeffrey and the Quest.  I haven't been crazy about Sollie skis in the distant past...maybe that's why.  Will check the specs on the Jeffrey again.

post #6 of 16

I probably wouldn't have listed the Jeffrey previously, but I took a few runs on them in some spring slush at Squaw and liked them so much I ended up buying a pair.  I already have the Cochise so it's fairly redundant, but I wanted something more playful and mounted closer to center (and a twin-tip) that also wasn't a noodle.  I found them to be exactly that - a jibby ski with a real back-bone.

 

I read somewhere next year's Cody is going to be slightly stiffer, btw.

post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

 

Good choice, but it has even less reach than my TG-610.  

The primary reason for getting one with long reach is that I've been missing out on some good wildlife shots with my 140mm equiv. Tough.  Landscapes and critters is what I'm after mostly.  The RX would be GREAT for landscapes but Moose 500 yards away across a bog (I cropped that one, but then they look like Wildebeasts...or Buffalos...or brown smudges) or a huge Red-tailed Hawk perched in a tree 200 feet above me?

 

Can the RX-100 crop well to an IQ that matches the reach of 20X...or even 30X on the HX50?

So, I guess I'm wondering what is the best of the compact superzooms...while understanding their limitations. 

Well, if you undertsand their limitations, then you surely know that there is no small camera that would give you good moose pictures, period.  That's why wildlife photogs lug those monster lenses around.   Superzoom pictures will be noisy and blurry as the lens and the sensor push the limits on what they can do.  if you are seriously after that, get an SLR or an Olympus ILC (the only one that has decent telephotos).  The image quality difference between RX100 and TG610 will be day and night, here is a comparison crop from a studio test shot done by dpreview.com at a pretty moderate ISO400.   (Its not TG610 but rather TG810, but close enough.  See for yourself:

 

 

 

The truth is the waterproof cameras are essentially garbage when it comes to pixel-level IQ at anything but lowest ISO, and even then they are pretty bad.  So, even any superzoom will be a big improvement over a waterproof.   A high end point and shoot like the Sony RX100 will leave the superzooms in the dust.  RX100 is really competing with entry level DSLRs.    

post #8 of 16
I have a pair of 191 Caylors in great shape with 4FRNT (Tyrolia) 15 DIN bindings that you could have for $310 + ship. That's about as cheap as you'll find for great pow sticks. PM me if interested.
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 

 

 

 A high end point and shoot like the Sony RX100 will leave the superzooms in the dust.  RX100 is really competing with entry level DSLRs.    

 

I actually do understand all that, and you should be impressed to know that I already went to dpreview and compared the 3-coin shot you posted.  I think the 810 is just a 610 with wi-fi or something, but even the difference between the 810 and the SX-280/HX50V was...startling.  I actually compared the HX50v to the SX-280 at cameralabs.com, since dpreview didn't have the Hx50V in their file yet.  They're about the same, but much better than my 610.  I compared a few others also...the latest Panasonic was one.

 

I'm genuinely not arguing that the RX-100 isn't better.  I know it is.  I got the Tough to keep in my pocket while skiing so it doesn't freeze to death (my last film P&S did!) and to withstand falls.  It does that job well and takes O-K snapshots around the hill.  All I want now is a P&S that has more than a puny 140mm equiv. zoom.  If the IQ is better than my Tough, that's so much the better.  It's gotta be easily packable for backpacking, though.  DSLR's aren't, and I don't want to fidget with multiple lenses out in the woods.  Even the "Bridge" cameras, like the FZ-200, are too bulky for what I want out of it.  If I wanted to spend extra dough, I might get an RX-100 for around the house, but I want the zoom capability where there be Moose and other critters.

 

You're evidently a photographer, Alex.  I'm not, but I like to get as good a snapshot as I can get.  If you gave me a DSLR for free, it would likely gather dust in my closet somewhere.  

A 500mm equiv. zoom on 1/2.3 processor may be noisy, but it's better than not bothering with a bulky camera and not getting any shot at all...to me anyway.  Those 3 Moose would have made a better snapshot closer up than farther away.  I would post the shot, but my backwoods wireless internet is running slow tonight.  On that note, I've only blown a shot up to 8 X 10 I think 3 times in my life...with a film SLR.  Anything I take is E-Mailed to others, posted on social media sites like this one, or maybe printed to 5 X 7.  

 

So, maybe I should have phrased the question as which of those 2 is the least crappy, or is there another one that does the same thing but is even less crappy.  I'm also interested in build quality, as whatever I get will be getting semi-tossed and dropped into a pack of junk quite often.  Is the HX50V worth the extra 200 bucks?  Can one of them crush heavy crud?  smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post

I have a pair of 191 Caylors in great shape with 4FRNT (Tyrolia) 15 DIN bindings that you could have for $310 + ship. That's about as cheap as you'll find for great pow sticks. PM me if interested.

 

Nah, but Thanks anyway, Dino.  A 191 Caylor is more than I want.  It'll likely be one of the ones I listed...or the Jeffrey...

post #10 of 16

Sounds to me like you already have 2 out of a 3 ski quiver. Why only a 2 ski quiver? No room in the garage? I have yet to get up the courage to sell any of my babies on the black market. 

post #11 of 16

Ok, so sounds like you know what your choice is going to be.  Seems like the Canon will fill your needs just fine and won't break the bank.  I seriously doubt there will be any material difference associated with extra reach, and there is enough pixel to crop a little. 

Enjoy.  I often ski with RX100 in my pocket, pretty cool cam.  What I really like about it is that AF and "drive" are fast enough to capture motion sequences.   Here is a couple from the US Nationals mens slalom run. Pretty cool for a point and shoot.  

 

 

 

 

Yes, the surprise is how abysmal the weatherproof point and shoots are.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

 

I actually do understand all that, and you should be impressed to know that I already went to dpreview and compared the 3-coin shot you posted.  I think the 810 is just a 610 with wi-fi or something, but even the difference between the 810 and the SX-280/HX50V was...startling.  I actually compared the HX50v to the SX-280 at cameralabs.com, since dpreview didn't have the Hx50V in their file yet.  They're about the same, but much better than my 610.  I compared a few others also...the latest Panasonic was one.

 

I'm genuinely not arguing that the RX-100 isn't better.  I know it is.  I got the Tough to keep in my pocket while skiing so it doesn't freeze to death (my last film P&S did!) and to withstand falls.  It does that job well and takes O-K snapshots around the hill.  All I want now is a P&S that has more than a puny 140mm equiv. zoom.  If the IQ is better than my Tough, that's so much the better.  It's gotta be easily packable for backpacking, though.  DSLR's aren't, and I don't want to fidget with multiple lenses out in the woods.  Even the "Bridge" cameras, like the FZ-200, are too bulky for what I want out of it.  If I wanted to spend extra dough, I might get an RX-100 for around the house, but I want the zoom capability where there be Moose and other critters.

 

You're evidently a photographer, Alex.  I'm not, but I like to get as good a snapshot as I can get.  If you gave me a DSLR for free, it would likely gather dust in my closet somewhere.  

A 500mm equiv. zoom on 1/2.3 processor may be noisy, but it's better than not bothering with a bulky camera and not getting any shot at all...to me anyway.  Those 3 Moose would have made a better snapshot closer up than farther away.  I would post the shot, but my backwoods wireless internet is running slow tonight.  On that note, I've only blown a shot up to 8 X 10 I think 3 times in my life...with a film SLR.  Anything I take is E-Mailed to others, posted on social media sites like this one, or maybe printed to 5 X 7.  

 

So, maybe I should have phrased the question as which of those 2 is the least crappy, or is there another one that does the same thing but is even less crappy.  I'm also interested in build quality, as whatever I get will be getting semi-tossed and dropped into a pack of junk quite often.  Is the HX50V worth the extra 200 bucks?  Can one of them crush heavy crud?  smile.gif

 

 

Nah, but Thanks anyway, Dino.  A 191 Caylor is more than I want.  It'll likely be one of the ones I listed...or the Jeffrey...

post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Well, if you undertsand their limitations, then you surely know that there is no small camera that would give you good moose pictures, period.  That's why wildlife photogs lug those monster lenses around.   Superzoom pictures will be noisy and blurry as the lens and the sensor push the limits on what they can do.  if you are seriously after that, get an SLR or an Olympus ILC (the only one that has decent telephotos).  The image quality difference between RX100 and TG610 will be day and night, here is a comparison crop from a studio test shot done by dpreview.com at a pretty moderate ISO400.   (Its not TG610 but rather TG810, but close enough.  See for yourself:

 

 

 

The truth is the waterproof cameras are essentially garbage when it comes to pixel-level IQ at anything but lowest ISO, and even then they are pretty bad.  So, even any superzoom will be a big improvement over a waterproof.   A high end point and shoot like the Sony RX100 will leave the superzooms in the dust.  RX100 is really competing with entry level DSLRs.    

Actually there is a small camera that will take a great shot of a moose assuming you don't have a lot of reach with the lenses for your current camera.  Unfortunately, it has a small sensor so it primarily has less IQ for most anything else.  The Pentax Q has a 5.6 crop factor, meaning you can stick a 300mm lens on it and have a 1,680mm 35mm equivalent (or put a 100mm on it and have a 560mm equivalent)!  The camera is the smallest interchangeable camera produced, and I spent a weekend playing with one.  The good news: 1) You can get decent photos with the stock lenses; 2) It is tiny; and 3) It has applications for extreme telephoto use when your current lenses don't have a whole lot of reach.  The bad news: 1) For street photography the FUJI X100 and others with larger sensors will kill it for IQ all day long; 2) I hate LCD screens in sunlight (all of them on any camera) and prefer the FUJI's through the lens viewer; and 3) The small sensor means you can kiss depth of field goodbye.

 

alexzn has it right.  Nobody makes a great zoom with extreme focal lengths despite the hype, so photos end up being a compromise (kinda like having one ski that "can do it all" but does little superbly well).  This is why I like the concept of a tiny interchangeable lens camera.  Perhaps someone will come up with one that has a regular viewer (not an LCD) and a much larger sensor than the Q.  If they did I'd buy one and stick it in the backpack despite the loss of DofF, which doesn't matter much on the mountain..

 

Note:  I recently rented lighting equipment at BorrowLenses.  They also have in stock a lot of cameras and lenses, mostly pro-grade stuff.  The place can be a cheap way to try out rangefinders, micro 4/3s, and the usual professional quality cameras and lenses (Cannon, Nikon, Leica, SONY, Pentax, Olympus, Hasselblad, etc.).  The outfit is worth checking out.


Edited by quant2325 - 6/12/13 at 11:38am
post #13 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Ok, so sounds like you know what your choice is going to be.  Seems like the Canon will fill your needs just fine and won't break the bank.  I seriously doubt there will be any material difference associated with extra reach, and there is enough pixel to crop a little. 

 

Thanks.  I do appreciate good photography, and those are good pics you posted, but it's just not a hobby of mine.  I take snapshot pics exclusively so I can say, "Hey, Alex, check out this cool pic of 3 Bull Moose in a bog I stumbled across!"  

 

It's the curse of truncated interwebz communication.  I'm more interested in the ski question, and the camera thing was more of an afterthought.  I should have simply added, "Based on my own priorities, I've decided on 1 of these 2 cameras.  Other than the extra reach, do any of you Photogs know of a reason why the Sony would be worth twice as much as the Canon despite having (lowish) similar IQ?"  Ahhhh, yes, that would have been much clearer.

 

Thanks for pondering it, though.  I'm 90% sure I'm going to go with the Canon...$265 on Amazon!

post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 

I guess I'll bump this to see if I can get any input on the ski comparison question, but I also wanted to post this link:

 

FS: New MOMENT BIBBY PRO sz 184 - Teton Gravity Research

 

It is hilarious (but betrays which way I'm slightly leaning).  Only about 25-30 posts, but I had tears in my eyes by the end of Page 1 (of less than 2).

I prefer Epic, but TGR cannot be beat for such hilarity on occasion!  Warning: harsh language ahead...

post #15 of 16

I am roughly the same size as you, and I ski the 191 Charger, and for a ski that is 8 lbs/pair, it really rocks in crud.  I would probably actually recommend the 181 Charger for you.  Also, the 190 Bibby has a fairly short turn radius, I know I wouldn't want the 184.  Look at the 186 Billy Goat from ON3P, I think you will like it. 

post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsdrifter View Post

...I know I wouldn't want the 184.  

 

Yeah, but I ski a lotta techy terrain.

Plus, I'm quite the girlie-man, so I'm just more comfy with mid-180's.  wink.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Ski and Camera Suggestions