PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
If I was walking the Camino ... I would not even take a TOOTHBRUSH ... lol
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ultralight hiking setups
- Thread starter LennyLevino
- Start date
PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
Totally agree with those choices. The RX100-VII for good (sun) light, --or--, the RX10-IV for lower light. Note that the RX10-"III" would also be sufficient (and cheaper), but the RX10-IV can be better if you expect (moving) wildlife or birding.
If 400mm is sufficient, another (cheaper & lighter) option could be the FZ1000-II. Note the FZ1000-II may be the best "compromise" -- as may also be the FZ300 for "hiking" with its 600mm-EFL @ f/2.8 (as still smaller/lighter than the FZ1000).
Personally, I use UWA often.
FULLY AGREE with that unless your trip is strictly "photo"-priority oriented, and IQ is the ONLY priority over speed & convenience.
PhotoMac503
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,420
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,422
One more for a Sony RX100 7. I carry mine with a Jellypod.
I wouldn't recommend m43 (former 10-year user).
I also recommend always buying/using OEM batteries. The idea of buying more of cheap knockoffs "for reliable power" means you end up carrying more.
I wouldn't recommend a fishing vest.
I wouldn't recommend m43 (former 10-year user).
I also recommend always buying/using OEM batteries. The idea of buying more of cheap knockoffs "for reliable power" means you end up carrying more.
I wouldn't recommend a fishing vest.
Thank you for the link. I was now able to see actual images made with the Raynox.
It is better than cheaper converters, however the weak edge performance is not to my liking!
I will probably rather pack an EOS M100 with Laowa 9mm instead (~14mm ff).
This combo is sharp in the edges, too. Just bought a slightly larger messenger bag for this. I will test this during our fall holidays at the Costa Brava, Spain...
RX 10 IV and EOS M100 with Laowa 9mm wide angle lens
--
May THE LIGHT be with you!
C U on https://dprevived.com/
PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
No one can argue against super-sharp to the edges.
But I suggest a case can be made that a (slightly) "weak" edge can be artistically beneficial, (in a super-UWA). Years ago we deliberately blurred and darkened (vignetted) the perimeter of many images.
A 12mm @ f/2.4 would be more expensive, and besides not an option on the FZ & RX's.
So the question is if the speed & convenience advantages of the FZ & RX can still be a good compromise ???
I will probably rather pack an EOS M100 with Laowa 9mm instead (~14mm ff).
This combo is sharp in the edges, too. Just bought a slightly larger messenger bag for this. I will test this during our fall holidays at the Costa Brava, Spain...
RX 10 IV and EOS M100 with Laowa 9mm wide angle lens
PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
I have to agree with that ... I have several (many) knockoffs and they indeed don't seem to hold the same charge ...
Now I am curious as to exactly why not ???
I mean you may indeed not need ANYTHING if all you need/want to carry is the "camera" (on a strap).
BUT ... if your choice is a fishing-vest or camera-bag ... I see many advantages to the FV, (with up to 15 pockets), that you can also fold into a (water/dust proof) Pelican case.
It is totally hands free, allows unrestricted body movement for running and climbing.
And with up to 15 pockets, allows for other non-photographic emergency supplies, (compass, mylar-emergency-blanket, fire-starter, first-aid, water purification-straw, knife, fishing line/hooks, etc.)
I can only speak for the NIkon Z5. Instead of the outstanding 50mm f/1.8, consider the much lighter (and cheaper) 40mm f/2. Use it at f/4 or above and be happy. This is probably the lightest general setup in high quality with a nifty-fifty you can get. You won't need two extra batteries. Simply load the camera via USB-C. I always have one extra and rarely need it.
Brian Chichester
Veteran Member
It's clear from this thread that "ultralight" means different things to different people. Maybe two threads are needed.
tbcass
Veteran Member
Maybe change the header to "The lightest possible Full Frame hiking setup".
The weight of this thread is on his shoulders.
Brian Chichester
Veteran Member
...and if it's a full-frame thread that's no joke.
PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
My suggestion would be a discussion of why you would want to carry the additional weight of FF (+lenses) on a hike, (unless Nat Geo IQ is the priority) ???
Ansel used hiked/climbed with 4"x5" -- and I climbed 2000' to the top of Nevada Falls (Yosemite) with a full-backpack of 6x9cm -- back when that was needed for "good" IQ.
But NOW I would only do it with either a RX100xx -or- FZ300 -or- FZ1000 -or- RX10-III or IV, (depending on priorities and if I the "time" often required for best "lighting" etc. to make it worthwhile).
Last edited:
Panasonic G100 (Surprise: it can take good photos)
Panasonic 12-32mm F/3.5-5.6
Panasonic 35-100mm F4-5.6 (it's sharp and light)
There's your ultralight setup, it's not much for shallow DOF but good enough image quality for a lightweight kit.
Panasonic 12-32mm F/3.5-5.6
Panasonic 35-100mm F4-5.6 (it's sharp and light)
There's your ultralight setup, it's not much for shallow DOF but good enough image quality for a lightweight kit.
LennyLevino
Leading Member
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 522
70-200mm f8-11. Why not a full frame camera that can shoot in MFT mode, like the Sony A7rv? In MFT mode it gives you 16mp. So the FE 20-70mm f4 (495g) could be used up to 140mm (f8). Then would only need to carry one lens.
you can just crop in post no need to change as you go.
That way it also allows you to crop any area you like rather than just the middle.
Last edited:
If cost is not an issue you could do that, or just crop in post. But what lenses will resolve enough detail?
tbcass
Veteran Member
Ansel Adams used pack animals to carry his equipment.
Adams' Photo Gear | American Experience | Official Site | PBS
PhotoTeach2
Veteran Member
For my first 50yrs in photography, I never had longer than 200mm, and indeed felt that was "sufficient".
But then I got a "bridge" camera that had 800mm and now will NEVER GO BACK, (to 200mm).
I admit that most of my shots are still taken at less than 200mm, but when you NEED longer, it is now invaluable as I remember how many shots I had to lose then, (because I didn't have any choice at that time).
I even shoot up to 3200mm-EFL (@ f/4) now ... (because its "FUN" ... and I CAN !!!).
The RX10-III & IV can shoot up to 4800mm-EFL @ f/4, (at reduced resolution).
I think most users of the Nikon P950 & 1000 would also agree ... (albeit I do have a problem with those cameras due to their limited f/stop).
Note this is especially true for "hiking" because you never know what wildlife/birds you may encounter, (usually in the distance).
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum