Which camera for the John Muir Trail

[tredlie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes that is a consideration. Selling it afterward: no. I think the camera would be kept for such like activities using the DSRL (CANON 20D) for other purposes.

 

As regards weight: yes 200g are two chocolate bars. But if i could get a lighter camera at higher costs I guess I would get it. Thats why I would prefer (at this stage) the X2 and not the X100 - 350 vs 450. Following this line of argument the new Ricoh GT V would be a very strong contender at only 250.

One would have to look at them....

 

Life is soo difficult

 

Gesendet von meinem GT-N7100 mit Tapatalk 2

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tomlianza]

I have a number of "portable" cameras. I always pack the Canon G10. It is rugged, has a zoom that emphasizes the wide angle side. The newer ones have a better sensor. This version empathized pixel count. My X-100 is great for street shooting, but I don't think a fixed focal length is good for hiking. My wife tried the X2 and she didn't think that the camera was worth the price of admission. If you have the money, the X2 might be the way to go, but check on the battery life. You will probably get roughly 200-400 shots per charge as long as you keep peeping to a minimum. You do not want to use a large capacity card in the field. Bring lots of small cards (8 gig or smaller) If you are not taking a computer, data loss can be a real problem. I was recently on a photo trip and one of the guys on the trip suffered the infamous M9 card corruption issue. He lost two days of very dear images. When we got back to civilization, I was able to fix the card so it would mount and then recovered all of his images. It just highlights how careful you need to be in the field with electronic images. Batteries and cards....regardless of which camera you take.

[Peter L]

The Leica X2 is probably the very best out there, small, reliable, IQ on par or better than the fujifilm Xpro1, due to its large pixel pitch. (excellent dynamic range and signal to noise ratio),If you are o.k with fixed 35mm and can deal with the battery issue, this would be the one.

[alan c. davis]

I've been a hiker or bushwalker as we call ourselves Downunder for nearly 40 years. I still cross to New Zealand each year for my annual break to do long multi day walks (in the summer just passed one trip of 13 days, a second for 5 days.) I long ago gave up taking SLR's or Rangefinders with several lenses. These days I use a Fuji X10 which gives me a range from 28 to 112mm plus 4 to 5 batteries which still weighs much less than anything I've used in the past. I've never ever taken a second body as a backup and those who suggest this are either much keener photographers than hikers or don't really understand the concept of "take absolutely everything you need and absolutely nothing else". Or maybe they can lug 18-20 kilos up and down mountains better than me. If you can live with one focal length the Leica X models should do the job as well as anything on the market.

[Ecaton]

The Leica X2 is probably the very best out there, small, reliable, IQ on par or better than the fujifilm Xpro1, due to its large pixel pitch. (excellent dynamic range and signal to noise ratio),If you are o.k with fixed 35mm and can deal with the battery issue, this would be the one.

 

Large pixel pitch?

X2=16MP aps-c size sensor, XPro-1 = 16MP aps-c size sensor. :confused:

Based on what I have seen, I prefer the X1`s output over the one from the X2. Best IQ by country miles over all compact large sensor offerings would be from Sigma`s DP1/2M and Sony RX1.

[NZDavid]

Shame you can't get a solar charger. Spare battery seems like the best bet. Also, don't discount the D-Lux 5 or 6.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

X10 or X20, as already suggested. The optical viewfinder and zoom are huge advantages for what you suggest.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[Peter L]

Large pixel pitch?

X2=16MP aps-c size sensor, XPro-1 = 16MP aps-c size sensor. :confused:

Based on what I have seen, I prefer the X1`s output over the one from the X2. Best IQ by country miles over all compact large sensor offerings would be from Sigma`s DP1/2M and Sony RX1.

 

Pixel pitch refers to the size of the pixels,it does not refer to the number of MP which is actually not so important.

 

Large buckets receive more rain than smaller ones.Larger pixels receive more photons than smaller ones, more photons allow a better signal to noise ratio, hence greater dynamic range and sensitivity.

For example , the Fuji Xpro1 ISO of say, 6400 is the equivalent of ISO 5300 on the Leica X2

measured with a quality light meter.

 

Have you actually made comparisons with the Sigma , Sony and the Leica X2 ?

 

I have both the Fuji Xpro1 and the Leica X2, both excellent cameras for different purposes.

 

There are websites that deal with signal theory, and transmission of light, ,I could give you the physics and math for this, however, you can look it up for yourself.

[Ecaton]

Pixel pitch refers to the size of the pixels,it does not refer to the number of MP which is actually not so important.

 

Large buckets receive more rain than smaller ones.Larger pixels receive more photons than smaller ones, more photons allow a better signal to noise ratio, hence greater dynamic range and sensitivity.

For example , the Fuji Xpro1 ISO of say, 6400 is the equivalent of ISO 5300 on the Leica X2

measured with a quality light meter.

 

Have you actually made comparisons with the Sigma , Sony and the Leica X2 ?

 

I have both the Fuji Xpro1 and the Leica X2, both excellent cameras for different purposes.

 

There are websites that deal with signal theory, and transmission of light, ,I could give you the physics and math for this, however, you can look it up for yourself.

I look forward to learning more about your math teaching skills.

 

Your statement suggests that the X2 sensor`s pixels are larger then the ones of the XPro 1 sensor. Yet both sensors are of the same size and have the same number of pixels. So how can the pixels differ in size?

[tredlie]

X10 or X20, as already suggested. The optical viewfinder and zoom are huge advantages for what you suggest.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

 

You are right, real plusses. I was going to object: Unfortunately too heavy but at 380g thats just 30g more than the X2.

Hard to believe....

 

Gesendet von meinem GT-N7100 mit Tapatalk 2

[Peter L]

I look forward to learning more about your math teaching skills.

 

Your statement suggests that the X2 sensor`s pixels are larger then the ones of the XPro 1 sensor. Yet both sensors are of the same size and have the same number of pixels. So how can the pixels differ in size?

 

Clearly you are looking for an argument, ( I am right , you are wrong, that sort of thing)

this doesn't help anyone including yourself.

 

I am not here to teach you , just an amateur photographer, I also was (now retired) a geophysicist, which gives me some insight in to these matters.

 

Just find some websites that deal with pixel size light transmission and capturing, there are plenty out there, probably more informed than I.

 

BTW. way off topic

[Manashu]

I have not read of any problems with non-Leica batteries in the X1/X2.

Neither do I!

[mrware]

I'm going to make a very un-sexy recommendation. A Canon G1X. Sharp lens and big sensor and flippy screen. AF is not quite as good as the Leica X2, but on a hike, I'm guessing that's not a problem. I keep thinking that for landscapes, the G1X would have been Galen Rowell's choice had it existed.

 

If you can live with a fixed focal length. Hard to beat the X1 or X2 at 35mm equiv. The Ricoh or Nikon would be intriguing at 28mm equiv. A plus for the Ricoh is the 21mm converter. Disadvantage for the Ricoh or Nikon is that they are brand new and may have some kinks to work out.

[tredlie]

I'm going to make a very un-sexy recommendation. A Canon G1X. Sharp lens and big sensor and flippy screen. AF is not quite as good as the Leica X2, but on a hike, I'm guessing that's not a problem. I keep thinking that for landscapes, the G1X would have been Galen Rowell's choice had it existed.

 

If you can live with a fixed focal length. Hard to beat the X1 or X2 at 35mm equiv. The Ricoh or Nikon would be intriguing at 28mm equiv. A plus for the Ricoh is the 21mm converter. Disadvantage for the Ricoh or Nikon is that they are brand new and may have some kinks to work out.

 

Yes, thanks for the suggestion! There are indeed quite a few interesting cameras out there. However, when you go on a long trail weight becomes of paramount importance. The G1 at 534g is likely too heavy, considering the 350g or so wt of the X2 and the even 100g less of the new Ricoh GX. I guess one will have to impose restrictions one way or the other but weight and IQ plus handling (incl manual operation/focussing) will rank highest, in this order.

And then the number of options becomes smaller (which is good as in the end only one will be bought ).

 

As far as manual focussing goes: is this really properly possible with an X2 or something like coolpix A? I find it very difficult to imagine how this works on a non RF camera (like my M9).

 

Tred

[wattsy]

I wonder if someone has an opinion on a suitable camera for hiking the

John Muir Trail in California. The hike will be some three weeks long and

requires food and cooking utensils plus tent etc to be carried.

 

A nice dilemma to have; I envy you the opportunity to spend three weeks hiking the JMT. In your position I'd be debating whether I'd take a film or digital camera. The latter, even with extra batteries, is most probably the lesser weight to carry but, for me, a film camera appeals because I see it as the simpler option. Something like a Ricoh GR1 or, if you can swing the cost, the Minolta TC-1, plus a handful of rolls of film strikes me as less fiddly than a digital camera, sd cards and additional proprietary batteries. I might even be tempted to forgo the extra width of a 28mm focal length (and the associated premium cost of the aforementioned cameras) and take something cheap and plastic like an old Yashica T-4. A fantastic lens in a super simple genuine point & shoot camera with an exposure system good enough to shoot slide film. Perfect for capturing a few memories of the hike.

 

If I had to take digital, I'd probably have the same instinct as you and look at the Leica X1 (I wouldn't personally bother with the more expensive X2).

[earleygallery]

As weight seems to be the primary factor in making your choice I would be inclined to agree with Ian, although my previous suggestion of a Barnack needs a rethink (too heavy?).

 

For superb quality in the smallest/lightest package, you would be pushed to better either an Olympus XA or (my preference) a Minox (GT/ML etc). I'm pretty sure the Minox is the lighter camera and a tad smaller (edit - Minox 180g, XA 225g)

 

I once saw a poster size print of a mountain scene, and was amazed to find that it had been taken with the XA such was the quality. The Minox lens is equally good (the rumor I've heard is that the Minox lens was made by Leica, before their days of branding partnerships).

 

I own a couple of Minox cameras - I previously sold an ML to replace it with a small digital (the Panasonic equivalent of the Clux) and regretted it. A small sensor digicam just can't get near to the quality of a FF 35mm compact IMHO.

 

So I think you either need to allow more weight to take a decent digital camera and associated batteries/cards, or buy a Minox/XA and work out how many rolls of film you can carry to keep within your weight limits.

[NZDavid]

Also as weight is a concern, make sure to weigh all the rest of your gear, too! Do you have to take your own sleeping bag, tent, and food, or just mainly spare clothes? Do take lightweight hiking clothes; don't take heavy jeans. Merino is excellent and light weight. And of course a lightweight Goretex jacket or similar. Do wear the best boots and take the best pack (I am a fan of Red Oxx).

 

When I did the Routeburn in the South Island I took the M6 plus a 24 and 35 (I wanted the 50, too, but found I wouldn't have needed it). My wife had a Ricoh. For the Kaikoura Wilderness Walk I took the same gear but also had the D-Lux 5 which proved very useful. On recent shorter walks this month I took the M9 with the 24 and 35. My wife had the D-Lux.

 

My feeling is that the fixed 35 on the X2 will work out well. I would also recommend an accessory optical finder -- the round Voigtländer one is good. With good quality ISO up to at least 800 I don't think a tripod is really necessary.

[JDFlood]

I have gone through this dilemma, and actually got the X2 for this reason,but found that I needed more lens options. My X2 turned into a street camera... A great one. I researched the heck out of it and got a Canon G12... This was incredibly disappointing... Because of it's really small sensor it is terrible at high contrast and low light... Typically when I take photos. I went back to the drawing board. I ended up with a Fuji XE-1 I either use the zoom 18mm 55mm, or the 14mm, 35mm, and 60mm... They are all small, compact, and relatively light. But the IQ and low light performance rival my nikon D800. I have a little pouch on each backpack arm strap for one lens each and one on the camera (around neck, doesn't weigh much). This is a wonderful combo- I can really get into photography if I want, the IQ is spectacular as is the low light performance... A real no compromise system. JD

 

PS the auto functions on the X2 blow away those on the Fuji, so under different circumstances ( street ), the Leica is a better choice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Peter222]

I extremely recommend the Cannon Insurgent XT it is a fairly old photographic camera and it is ideal for a starter it is what i use it is simple, resilient, and is amazing i am fairly sure it is about $200 or less expensive and i recommend purchasing a used one i guarantee you will drop madly in love with it best of fortune...

[tredlie]

after all that good advice (thanks again!!), I guess it is appropriate to let you know what

this all has lead to, along with my reasoning.

 

An X2 is on the way and should be arriving soon.

 

The reason for choosing the X2 (given having to carry along a tent and stuff plus ones

own food on the JMT trail) was weight. This was followed by the ability to have proper

manual control, along with image quality. As far as weight goes only the new

Ricoh GT and the Coolpix would be contenders but handling and 35mm vs 28mm

spoke in favour of the X2 plus apparently the better battery capacity.

 

So lets see what comes of it.

 

One other question: is there someone out there who has data/experience as the number of

shots that can be taken with an optical view finder vs EVF vs monitor. An Oly EVF comes

along with the package, but possibly power drain is larger than with the monitor?

 

Thanks again for all that good advice! This I always find extremely valuable in particular

when reasons are given for certain preferences. This allows one to decide if those do or

do not apply in ones own situation.

 

One last comment or rectification: some of you have been commending me for going on

such a hike. I have to confess that I shall stay put at home while my scout daughter will

be the actor.

 

cheers

 

Tred