or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › WANTED: camera for hiking, good long distance lens but still more compact size.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WANTED: camera for hiking, good long distance lens but still more compact size.

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

I do a fair amount of hiking and like to take landscape pics, often they are at distances. I typically do hikes of 8 miles or so I dont carry a pack, usually something like a mountainsmith waist pack (an acceptable new term for fanny pack :D)  so I dont want to carry a ton of equipment and it should be easy to access/stow.  i know very little about cameras  

 

I have been doing research and it seems like the Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ1000 may be a great option.  http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/

 

or something like  http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-digital-camera-optical-DMC-FZ70-K/dp/B00E52ZJDM/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

 

thoughts, suggestions....   


Edited by Finndog - 10/20/15 at 8:22am
post #2 of 12
I have the FZ200, it's my non-ski camera. http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/

The FZ1000 is on my shortlist, as is the FZ70.

I've brought my FZ200 on short hikes. Neither are waterproof or even resistant. I've been happy with the pictures, but I don't use the Auto settings very often and spent weeks tweaking the settings and producing a setting I could assign to a custom button so that what I saw was what I wanted to get as Panasonic tends to be a bit on the blue side. If you don't want to learn how to use a camera, you might buy something with fewer options. Much of photography success depends on understanding your tool.

Personally, I'd rather assign any weight I carry to water on a long hike and go towards something smaller. The FZ200 has a great zoom, almost more than I can stand, and that aspect is underutilized for landscapes. Good for wildlife, however, which is why I got it.

Just some thoughts.
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I have the FZ200, it's my non-ski camera. http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/

The FZ1000 is on my shortlist, as is the FZ70.

I've brought my FZ200 on short hikes. Neither are waterproof or even resistant. I've been happy with the pictures, but I don't use the Auto settings very often and spent weeks tweaking the settings and producing a setting I could assign to a custom button so that what I saw was what I wanted to get as Panasonic tends to be a bit on the blue side. If you don't want to learn how to use a camera, you might buy something with fewer options. Much of photography success depends on understanding your tool.

Personally, I'd rather assign any weight I carry to water on a long hike and go towards something smaller. The FZ200 has a great zoom, almost more than I can stand, and that aspect is underutilized for landscapes. Good for wildlife, however, which is why I got it.

Just some thoughts.

Great info and I do plan to learn (I am a geek) about the proper use of the camera and I didn't want any added weight where there wasn't any value.  I will check out that FZ200 and FZ70 Would you mind helping me out if I go that route?  

 

The FZ70 is the newer model I see, I will dig a little deeper but if you have any thoughts, please let me know. Both are reasonably priced. 

post #4 of 12
There is a great video series on YouTube about the FZ200, which I relied on heavily. Let me check if the guy did one on the 70.... Nope. Too bad. But they might be useful if the menuing is similar.

Remember, I am retired, so have the time to watch lots of videos, and read the user manual end to end.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

There is a great video series on YouTube about the FZ200, which I relied on heavily. Let me check if the guy did one on the 70.... Nope. Too bad. But they might be useful if the menuing is similar.

Remember, I am retired, so have the time to watch lots of videos, and read the user manual end to end.

LOL!  OK, thanks.  I am also looking at the FZ1000. Its big jump in overall quality. Just need to sort out my needs.  

post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 
post #7 of 12
Totally depends on what you want in a picture and how much you care about image quality. The super zoom you are looking at is a good camera for what it is but its a point and shoot and will get you point and shoot quality pictures. The reason is that you can have two of the three qualities in a camera- zoom range, image quality, and compact size- but never all three. So you need to decide what you have to give up. If I were buying a camera is carry in a fanny pack I would get the Panasonic LX100 because it has the m43 sensor, which will give you qualitatively better photos than the FZ. You may also discover the joys of available light photography- i.e. Taking indoor and twighlight pictures without flash.
FWIW, my carry camera is a RicohGR which has an even bigger sensor but no zoom whatsoever. But I hate zooms in general.

Of course Sony RX100 is still a great camera, smaller, and arguably better for someone who always stays in auto mode. Both will give you image quality that would render the FX series irrelevant. Especially if you learn how to use RAW format (essentially a digital negative).
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Totally depends on what you want in a picture and how much you care about image quality. The super zoom you are looking at is a good camera for what it is but its a point and shoot and will get you point and shoot quality pictures. The reason is that you can have two of the three qualities in a camera- zoom range, image quality, and compact size- but never all three. So you need to decide what you have to give up. If I were buying a camera is carry in a fanny pack I would get the Panasonic LX100 because it has the m43 sensor, which will give you qualitatively better photos than the FZ. You may also discover the joys of available light photography- i.e. Taking indoor and twighlight pictures without flash.
FWIW, my carry camera is a RicohGR which has an even bigger sensor but no zoom whatsoever. But I hate zooms in general.

Of course Sony RX100 is still a great camera, smaller, and arguably better for someone who always stays in auto mode. Both will give you image quality that would render the FX series irrelevant. Especially if you learn how to use RAW format (essentially a digital negative).

good info and yes, I do manipulate RAW images.  i will look into the rx100 as well.  i have been reading through digital review. they seem to think the new FZ300 is a great camera. i would like to go to the 1000 or the sony rx10 II but they are getting up there in price.  

post #9 of 12

I have a Nikon Coolpix L840 as my "compact" camera. Meaning compact compared to my DSLR, but that seems to be the gist of this thread with the Lumix etc. It works well for me, and has probably 80% of the functionality of my DSLR. Doesn't shoot in RAW, but I open .jpg as RAW in Photoshop to force my jpg's into ACR. The optical zoom on my L840 is better than my 55-200 lens, and the image quality holds up really well even as I start to push past into digital zoom. I'd recommend it as a possible candidate. 

post #10 of 12

I use a Nikon AW130. This is their "rough" compact with excellent waterproof capabilities (it's been down to 90ft scuba diving with me) and a surprisingly decent image quality for a compact. My main gripe is that it does not shoot raw, for reasons I still don't get from Nikon, but otherwise it's a good all around camera. It's with me almost everywhere now, in lieu of my backpack-full of SLRs and lenses - I'm having a harder and harder time justifying the discomfort of the latter, even though the quality is of course superior. Hope this helps, there are other good options out there as well. 

post #11 of 12

My dad is a professional photographer and he often uses a Canon EOS M3 for that type of stuff. It's a mirrorless DSLR so it's about the size of a point and shoot. The stock lens is decent, but you can attach any Canon lens to it so it gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of size/weight/cost etc. 

 

Edit: Somehow missed that the thread had just been bumped after a few months, anyhow the suggestion is there for future lurkers. 

post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post
 

My dad is a professional photographer and he often uses a Canon EOS M3 for that type of stuff. It's a mirrorless DSLR so it's about the size of a point and shoot. The stock lens is decent, but you can attach any Canon lens to it so it gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of size/weight/cost etc. 

 

Edit: Somehow missed that the thread had just been bumped after a few months, anyhow the suggestion is there for future lurkers. 

Not quite.  It only accepts EOS-M lenses. The M3 requires an adaptor to accept all EOS lenses.   bulky, defeats the purpose of the small body.

 

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-m/adapter-m.htm

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › WANTED: camera for hiking, good long distance lens but still more compact size.