Cameras again, a great compromise

[DPS]

Has anyone used a Nikon 35Ti? I think this would be the ultimate climbing camera; light, compact, optics second to none. The only drawback would be the cost: $1,350.00

[rayborbon]

I got a POS point and shoot Elph LT. I get my film developed at Ritz. They do the best job so far that I have come across. I am making some slides of recent photos. They turned out awesome.

I am learning that it takes timing and lots and lots of shooting to get good photos. Waste your film in a sense and learn where to take photos is what I am discovering.

My camera is 140$ or something. To each his own but I am pleased with what I have now. Digital cameras are heavy for backcountry use..

Mine is 5.7 oz. Has 3 modes of pictures including panoramic. A good zoom too.

http://www.sureshotelph.com/elph/lt260/specs.html

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: rayborbon ]

[slothrop]

I've got a Canon PowerShot S300 Digital Elph, which has worked well on the few outdoors trips I've used it. I haven't had any problems with it freezing up when I keep it in the chest pocket of my jacket, and it takes pretty good photos. I need to get a new memory card, though, since the 8 MB it ships with is way too small. According to Canon, it weighs 8.5 oz. + battery and memory card. The metal case has a solid feel, but it remains to be seen how much abuse it will put up with, especially with the LCD screen. It was a Christmas present... I think it costs around $400.

These photos, from an overcast day, were taken with the camera.

[Dru]

I use an old Pentax Zoom90WR. I dont think they make it anymore. Takes great pix, fairly compact, pretty heavy for an automatic but light for a SLR I guess. The main reason I got it was cause it is quite weatherproof (aside from dropping it in a lake it will not mind getting wet) and I like to take pix of people on those rare occasions when it is pouring rain, lots of spindrift, or ice shower and Im actually there instead of at home drinking hot chocolate and reading the guidebooks. Those mini cameras may be nice and compact and all but most of them are sucky in the wet. also they dont zoom much so good luck taking anything other than close ups.

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rbw1966:[QB]Does it work without batteries?

Can you override all the auto settings, i.e. set everything manually?

QB]

---

It doesn't work w/o batteries; very few new SLRs do. No Canons or Minoltas, three Nikons, one Olympus.

Here's Popular Photography's review of the Maxxum 5:

http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=52

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Alpine Tom ]

[willstrickland]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpine Tom:

It doesn't work w/o batteries; very few new SLRs do, mostly in the upper ranges (in cost, features and weight.)

---

He's right, doesn't work without batts, and everything can be set manually. The comment on mostly high end stuff working without batts is not entirely true. NO autofocus (excluding a fixed focus duh) works without batts. No P/S that I know of works without batts (unless you call some of the old med format rangefinders p/s). A basic, no frills older slr will often expose without batts, but the meters work off batts. The batteries in these things are tiny (but expensive) so carrying a spare isn't a big deal.

Everything else that was mentioned, especially the APS (read: advantix etc) just doesn't cut it on optics. The few p/s that do have superb optics (i.e. the yashica, contax T2/T3, and Rolleis) are either featureless with regards to exposure control, or cost a fortune (Contax street price is around $750).

I'm actually looking for an old med format rangefinder...p/s size, much bigger film format (yielding better resolution and absolutely stunning slides), and interchangable lenses that are generally very sharp across the spectrum of manufacturers. And many of these also allow operation without batteries. Just kinda heavy and tough to find a great deal on a used one since the pros snap them up.

[willstrickland]

So you want a small, light, sharp and fast camera?

You would buy the Yashica T4 because the lens is superb and it's fast for a p/s, but there's no exposure compensation/control.

You would buy the Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm fixed lens because it's fast, cheap, and weatherproof, but the lens isn't sharp enough.

You would carry a beater SLR, but it weighs too much and you have to focus.

Solution: Minolta Maxxum 5. The smallest/lightest autofocus 35mm SLR made. The body only weighs 11.8oz. The new lens, made to pair with it, a 28-80 f3.5-5.6, is sharp and the lightest/smallest 35mm zoom made. Lens mounts are metal. 3fps continuous advance. Autobracketing to +/- 2ev in .3, .5, .7, or 1.0 ev steps. User accessible custom functions. Eye-start means the camera turns power on when you put your eye to the viewfinder. TTL flash metering, built in fill-flash.

This thing is freakin' loaded with features (useful features, not frilly crap) and runs the bargain price of about $300 WITH the 28-80. Accepts the standard Maxxum lenses with a superb, inexpensive 1.7 50mm that runs about $70. I've found my solution, after checking one of these out over the weekend, I'm sold.

By comparison, the Olympus fixed lens weighs 5oz, the T4 weighs 6.7oz, and the Olympus with a 28-115 zoom weighs in at 8oz.

[beefcider]

I use a Nikon F100 and the N80, not especially cheap but both are solid cameras. There is a lithium battery adapter for the F100 and it makes it much lighter. I have heard very good things about minolta's cameras but because they lack the marketing capital of canon or nikon they don't get the press they deserve. The maxxum 7 is one of the best cameras ever built.

The question really comes down to what you want. Lightweight P&S or APX type cameras all offer about the same quality of image respectively. I have a Yashica T4 and am not that impressed. It's well built but the images are so-so.

If you are out there to climb and just grab a few shots the P&S works fine. If you want enlargements and lack of grain, then you'll have to start using larger formats, sharper lenses, tripods, better film or a combination of all four. Technique plays a huge part as well. The drawback of a Meduim format camera vs. a 35mm (slr or p&s) is that it has less depth of field. This is a huge pain in the ass if your images have alot of near-far relationships. MF cameras are expensive and the ones light enough to climb with are horribly expensive. The Mamiya 7 or 7II rangefinder comes to mind. Very, very sharp images but several thousands of dollars just to get one. There is no precise control of depth of field due to the rangefinder contruction. There are alot of twin lens reflex cameras for very reasonable prices, such as the Mamiya C330 or the C220 6x6 TLRs with interchangeable lenses. Also very sharp leaf shutter lenses but close focus can be an issue.

So again, it really matters what you want. Unless you are out there to get stunning shots don't worry too much about which camera you use other than the basic features. Until you get to the pro level of SLRs, all cameras within a class offer the same basic features and image quality. Once you get to medium and large format it's get really diverse due to the wide range of applications.

As for batteries, unless you are shooting 40 rolls a day in any camera, the only problem will be weight. Be smart, change your batteries before heading up the crag. Lithium batteries are light and stand up to cold temps very well. The only camera that I have battery issues with is my digital one and thus I never take it.

Sorry for rambling...

[rbw1966]

Does it work without batteries?

Can you override all the auto settings, i.e. set everything manually?

Thanks

By the way, how was the ice on Illumination?

[freeclimb9]

As you wrote, it's all a compromise.

I'm currently using a Kodak POS that uses Advantix film and has some exposure control. It's not all automatic. What I like about it is the small size (about 4.5 x 2.5 x 1.5"). It fits in a small bag that I can clip to my harness. It's inexpensive, too.

I checked out the Minolta Maxxum 5, and though light for an SLR, it's still not especially small (5 x 3.42 x 2.38"). And doesn't the lens extend the depth more than 2.38?

I've been scheming to get a Yashica T4 because it's small as well (4.6”W x 2.6”H x 1.6”D), and the photo quality --I presume-- is much better than the Advantix/Kodak combo. And the lack of exposure control is a huge downside for snowy areas. (BTW, there's a weatherproof one available.)

So, I'm thinking there might be another point and shoot camera out there comparable in size to a box of cigarettes that allows some exposure control and takes high definition photos. Maybe even digital (though I'd want the thing to work in the cold). There's gotta be more options.

[Juneriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beefcider:[QB]I use a Nikon F100 and the N80, not especially cheap but both are solid cameras. There is a lithium battery adapter for the F100 and it makes it much lighter. QB]

---

I'm not a camera expert, but I just got a Nikon N65 and am very happy with it. Excellent optics, a few less features than the N80 but it is a lot lighter.I don't know how the battery will hold up to the cold however...

[willstrickland]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beefcider:

The drawback of a Meduim format camera vs. a 35mm (slr or p&s) is that it has less depth of field.

Hmmm, that's the first I've heard of that. Why would that be the case? Depth of field is a function of the aperature, and even at a given f-stop value, say f8, the med format would have a larger opening (I assume anyway) than the same setting for a 35mm...is that why? It's like shooting a wider (say f5.6) equivalent in 35mm? Seems reasonable enough. That reminds me...Maxxum 5 had a depth of field preview button.

The Mamiya 7 or 7II rangefinder comes to mind. Very, very sharp images but several thousands of dollars just to get one. There is no precise control of depth of field due to the rangefinder contruction.[/QB}

That's when I start looking used, Mamiya 6 (a 6cm x 6cm format rather than the 6x7 of the "7") can be had for a decent price if you can find one. Is the depth of field issue in the rangefinder because you're not actually viewing TTL and can't see the change when composing? I thought that 35 SLRs used a mechanism where when composing the aperature is set wide open to allow a brighter viewfinder and stops down when you hit the shutter release?

[QB]Until you get to the pro level of SLRs, all cameras within a class offer the same basic features and image quality.

I'd dispute this, especially in the case of the Maxxum 5. This thing is squarely positioned to take on the entry-level SLR's likemthe Rebel G, or N65. The feature set is almost the same as their Maxxum7 or 9 level pro rigs. 3fps advance built-inpredictive AF, Depth of field preview, autobracketing...those are features I actually use and the AF system is the same thing they're using for the 7. Image quality is (generally) much more a function of the film and (even more so) the glass than the box (unless you've got problems like light leaks/bad meter).

Sorry for rambling...

---

Good info, thanks.

[Rodchester]

The advantix film sucks. It is easy to get a good shot with it and many of the cameras are lightweight and compact. However, I find the quality of the advantix prints to be lacking. Good yes, but not great. It is impossible to get truely great shots.

I think 35mm is far superior.

2 cents......

[willstrickland]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juneriver:

I'm not a camera expert, but I just got a Nikon N65 and am very happy with it

---

Juneriver, you are actually the consumer the Maxxum 5 is targeted at...it's supposed to compete with the N65, Cannon Rebel (it actually blows them outta the water). Just curious if you checked out the Maxxum and if so why you chose the Nikon over it.

[rbw1966]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beefcider:

MF cameras are expensive and the ones light enough to climb with are horribly expensive. Sorry for rambling...

---

Get a Holga. Its medium format and runs about 25 skins. Sure, its plastic and a toy camera but you'll be surprised how good the pics turn out.

Thanks for the info

[Alpine_Tom]

The basic problem is that exactly those features which make a good camera make it heavy, and bulky, and so make it a poor piece of climbing gear.

One example is the prism. Inexpensive and lightweight cameras (like the Maxxum 5, Rebel 2000, etc) use mirror prisms, which are inexpensive and light. However, they’re not as bright, so the manufacturer compensates for that by restricting the field of view in the viewfinder, so your pictures end up with a lot more on them than you saw when you took it.

And, of course, the smaller and lighter it is, the more plastic and less metal, and more likely it is to get damaged when you bang it on a rock. Smaller cameras use smaller batteries, which require changing more often, so you’ve got to carry extra spares and be prepared to change the batteries in mid-climb.

And, there’s the whole world of medium-format cameras, which are bigger and bulkier yet. My own personal judgement is that, if 35mm is good enough for Galen Rowell it’s probably good enough for me. After all, the ASA 400 film you buy today has tighter grain than the ASA 50 that Ansel Adams used.

I’ve been vacillating for a long while between the Rebel 2000, Elan 7, and Nikon N80, and as soon as I decide on one, I look back at the others, then the Maxxum 5 came out, and probably Canon will be releasing an updated Rebel soon and... In the mean time, I keep using my old, banged-up-but-still-works manual-focus Olympus with no pop-up flash, and haul along both a f 1.7 50mm lens and an old Tamron 28-200 lens.

[hikerwa]

I think I've participated in many of the "camera" discussions. I have an N70, N90 and a Minolta Srt202 fully manual camera.

the N70 is light and works great with good lenses, it doesn't focus as fast as the N90, but it is (relativly) cheap and therefore if I drop it on the rocks and it shatters, I won't cry over the body, just the lense.

the N90 is heavier, and also works great. has a few extra features (including DOF preview). The body is built from magnesium so it is really stout. If I drop it it will probably survive to shoot again, although I will miss the lense.

The SRT-202, relatively light for an all metal chasis, only takes one small battery for the light meter and lenses are way cheap used, but manual focus. If I drop it, it will survive, and has, even the lenses are more durable.

I guess what it boils down to for me is I'll take the extra weight for the quality of pictures/ and equipment that I need. I'll usually take my N70 and a 50mm and a 70-300 tele on glacier/snow slogs, and the N90 on rock climbs with the 70-300 and a flash.

the SRT goes backpacking with a tripod and flash.

I guess I'm not a weight freak and will gladly carry a few extra pounds if I think I'll need the equipment.

sean

[philfort]

quote:

---

Originally posted by willstrickland:

Originally posted by beefcider:The drawback of a Meduim format camera vs. a 35mm (slr or p&s) is that it has less depth of field.

[QB]Hmmm, that's the first I've heard of that. Why would that be the case? Depth of field is a function of the aperature, and even at a given f-stop value, say f8, the med format would have a larger opening (I assume anyway) than the same setting for a 35mm...is that why? It's like shooting a wider (say f5.6) equivalent in 35mm?

[/QB]

The larger the focal length of the lens, the less depth of field. To get the same image on a medium format camera, you need a lens with focal length 2 or 2.5 times that of a 35mm camera. I think that's how it goes anyway. Maybe your explanation is also right, talking in term of aperture.

[Juneriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by willstrickland:

Juneriver, you are actually the consumer the Maxxum 5 is targeted at...it's supposed to compete with the N65, Cannon Rebel (it actually blows them outta the water). Just curious if you checked out the Maxxum and if so why you chose the Nikon over it.

---

Actually, I'm probably just an uninformed consumer, a tool of the marketing machine.

When I talked to the local camera shops (I mentioned I'm not a camera expert), they all presented the Canon and the Nikon as the only two plausible options. Pentax, Minolta, etc. were not even taken seriously.

I suppose I should have done more research than just talking to a coupla stores, but I figured that these guys knew what they were talking about. Just like the REI guys are always experts, right?

Anyhoo, I've had good experience in the past with Nikon with a SLR and my digital so I didn't mind sticking with them. I truly wanted the N80, but it was more camera than I need and heavier. I'm pretty happy with the N65.

Jamie "The Tool"

[willstrickland]

Thanks for all the feedback and info ya'll.

Re: the mirror versus glass prism comment is right-on, but I think the Maxxum 5 has good viewfinder coverage, not 100% (it's 90%), which is really only available in high end stuff. That 28-80 lens weighs 6oz for a total rig weight of about 18oz.

FWIW, I'm looking at some medium format fixed lens AF rangefinders (specifically Fuji) that are essentially a point and shoot medium format with extremely sharp lenses (not as fast as I wish they were though). If anyone has seen med format slides compared to 35mm, WOW! The difference is amazing.

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juneriver:

When I talked to the local camera shops (I mentioned I'm not a camera expert), they all presented the Canon and the Nikon as the only two plausible options. Pentax, Minolta, etc. were not even taken seriously.

---

Unfortunately, a lot of this sort of "brand preference" is due to the spiffs and incentives manufacturers give to retailers. It's the same in the stereo business, and probably in the larger volume segments of the outdoor gear industry too (backpacks, boots, etc.)

[Fairweather]

Nikon N-80 is 18oz plus 8.5oz for a 50mm 1.4 lens.The metering is flawless. I dont even bother bracketing anymore. The built in flash is WEAK.

Ricoh GR1. Point & Shoot. I take it everywhere! 7oz. Exposure comp. Viewfinder tells you where it is focusing. Lens is as sharp as an SLR. Kind of $$$.

Olympus XA. The best used camera you can get for under 200 bucks. +1.5 exp comp and a paralax screen in the viewfinder to tell you if you have the focus right. 8oz.

....My two cents.

[crack_addict]

for a cheap medium format rangefinder that makes super sharp images, check out the lubitel 166. it is/was (not sure they are still being made) a soviet-made camera that would make a great first camera for someone new to medium format. you can find them on ebay for $50.00 or less. it is also pretty darned light.

[beefcider]

1)Medium format cameras have less depth of field due to the increased distance between the film plane and the rear lens element, the difference causes, like you explained, a higher aperture to be needed but still the compression will not be the same. This goes eben more so for large format cameras, the DOF just plain sucks. That is why you can get a nikon 50mm f1.4 lens for any nikon 35mm slr, but the equivalent focal length for medium format, roughly 80-105mm leneses usually start at f4. Why? because an f1.4 80mm lens that had to cover even a 6x6 would be huge and heavy. go pick up a mamiya 80mm f2.8 and compare the weight to a nikon 50mm f1.8 and you'll see what I mean. Most lenses for a 4x5 camera start at f8. the smallest apertures are also increased in scale. my nikon f1.4 only goes up to f16, the mamiya 80mm to f32 and the 4x5 equal, a 210mm goes to f128. there are huge and boring mathematical explanations for all of this and it really doesn't matter. The fact is, MF cameras suffer from a lack of depth of field, Take any 35mm slr and a Pentax 6x7 and shoot the same subject with equal focal lengths at the same aperture, you will notice that the 6x7 has almost half of the DOF. I went through alot of MF systems before I abandoned them all except my 645 which I use for weddings. For landscapes I use a 4x5 because of the tilt/shift movements and for everything else I take a 35mm.

2) as I said before, all 35mm p&s and SLR cameras offer the same basic features within a class. the Maxxum 5 may be the camera of the century but it's the optics that get the image onto the film. It's going to compete with the entry level market but will take the same images as any other minolta with the same lens. If I put the same lens on my nikon F100, N80 and my bros N65 I get the same image quality all around. The only advantage of a pro SLR is the build quality. There will be many more F5s around when all of the N80s are dead. THat doesn't mean I'm going to buy one.

That said, I'm not knocking anyones camera setup, in fact, just the opposite. Minolta makes fine cameras, so does olympus, pentax, mamiya and leica. I went with nikon because all of my camera bodies can use all of my lenses, even my old manual focus ones. It's just a preference. I shot Canon before that and before that I used an Olympus rangefinder.

There is more useful info on cameras at www.photo.net

[allison]

Olympus XA, only camera you need. Greatest pocket camera ever.