photography

When you have a scene like this in front of you, you don’t want to look down and wish you had a different camera in your hands.

In part one of this series I discussed simple, easy-to-use, point-and-shoot cameras. They are a great choice due to their small size, light weight, ease of carrying, and terrific photos they can produce–particularly if you are going to view your photos primarily on a computer screen.

Last week was all about the advantages of carrying a camera with a larger image sensor. I hope I convinced you that it is possible to carry such a camera, without adding significant amounts of weight, due to the vast array of what is known as mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-cameras (MILCs). Nikon, Canon, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are just a few of the manufacturers with MILCs in their product line.

For some of us, however, neither of these options are going to do the trick. I can think of two types of photographers who might fall into this category.

First, is anyone who truly wants to use nothing but the finest glass available (“glass” is camera-buff jargon for “lenses”). The lenses for MILCs are getting good, but they are not yet up to the standard of the best DSLR lenses. There are specialty lenses that are not available for MILCs, like tilt/shift lenses, and it’s tough to find good prime (i.e., non-zoom) lenses, which produce the sharpest images. Some lenses produced by Canon and Nikon could rightly be described as works of art in and of themselves. MILC lenses aren’t there, yet.

The second group of photographers who may consider hauling a large DSLR up and down the John Muir Trail are people like me, who have already invested a lot of money into DSLR gear, and aren’t particularly interested in starting over with a new format, even if it means less than half the weight.

If you are in either of these categories, you are probably doomed to lug some pounds of camera gear on your back. The question then becomes, what should you take?

The first dilemma many of us will face is full-frame or cropped sensor? (A full-frame camera has an image sensor roughly the size of old 35mm film. They have come down in price in the last couple of years, and many enthusiasts now own one. Cropped sensors are about the same size as the larger MILCs.)

This is a tough question, mainly because of the opposing nature of what we will have the opportunity to shoot: wildlife, which calls for long lenses, or landscapes, which calls for wide ones. Wildlife shooters may want the extra reach of a cropped sensor (a 200mm lens on a cropped sensor will have the effective focal length of 300mm or more). Landscape photographers will want the full-frame body and the coverage of a good, 24mm prime (or the bottom end of a 24-70 zoom).

If you find yourself in this situation, here’s what I would recommend: take the full-frame. Remember, you can still crop the full-frame shots and, in many cases, end up with almost the same resolution (particularly if you are shooting with a Nikon D800, which weighs in at 36MP).

Next, just how many lenses, and which lenses, are you going to carry? I’ve been struggling with this as I prepare for my August thru-hike. I keep vacillating between four options.

1. At the heavy end is two zooms: either a 24-70 and a 70-200, or a 16-28 and a 24-70 (all are 2.8s). I suppose I could carry THREE, but now we’re talking close to ten pounds, just for lenses!
2. Next is just the 24-70.
3. The third option would be to rent a super-zoom for a full-frame Nikon, possibly the Nikkor 28-300, which is relatively light (28 ounces) and comes with pretty good vibration reduction (for handheld shooting).
4. Last–and this would be a photographic challenge–is to just carry a fast 50mm.

Right now I am leaning towards renting the 28-300. I’ll probably change my mind, tomorrow. Why not, I did yesterday!

If you are going to carry a DSLR a camera body and lens (or two), you’re probably going to carry some more stuff, too. That includes a tripod (carbon fiber if you’re lucky), a ball head, L-bracket, a filter or two, extra batteries, a way to recharge the batteries when there is electricity available, some additional CF or SD cards, and possibly a way to back up images while on the trail. It’s a shame you can’t hire a porter or two!

Yes. It’s a lot of gear, but here’s how I look at it: one of the highlights of my photographic life was to train for several days under the great National Geographic photographer, Joe McNally. He said something that I will always remember, although he attributed it another great photographer, Jim Richardson.

If you want your pictures to be better, stand in front of more interesting stuff.

If you have committed to hike the John Muir Trail, and you are serious enough about your photography to have invested in a premium DSLR, wouldn’t it be a shame to stand in front of really interesting stuff, day after day, without your best camera?

Good hiking, Ray

Last week I discussed small, inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras to carry with you on the John Muir Trail. This week, we’re going to step up our game a bit.

The first question you might ask is: why go bigger in the first place? After all, a larger camera is a heavier camera. Great question! There are actually two reasons.

First, a larger camera means a larger image sensor.

In this age of digital photography we have lost sight of this critical element. Back in the good old days, it was pretty easy to see the size of the “image sensor”; it was known as film. The smallish 110* format had an “image sensor” of about 221 square millimeters and produced photos of unexceptional technical quality. The format most enthusiast or professional photographers used was 126* (also known as 35mm) which had an “image sensor” of about 702 square millimeters and was technically quite sufficient. Beyond that there were medium format cameras (like the pricey Hasselblad) and view cameras (like what Ansel Adams used).

Nowadays, few people use film and, therefore, few people see the image sensor. It’s buried within the camera body. A young photographer, who has never used film, might be forgiven for wondering why anyone would want to buy a Nikon D800, for example, which weighs two-and-a-quarter pounds (before you attach a lens) when their iPhone can take a perfectly good photo. What does a larger image sensor do for you?

Lots, it turns out.

A larger sensor will collect more light, which means less of a special kind of distortion known as “noise” and better performance in low-light situations. The best photographs often occur in those low-light situations, like around sunset and sunrise. Photographers call those periods “The Golden Hour.”

A larger sensor will also enable you to capture more dynamic range (the ratio between the darkest and brightest part of the image that still has detail in it). If you photograph a scene with your point-and-shoot camera that has a large dynamic range (bright daylight combined with deep shadows, for example), some of the photo may be pure black or pure white. That is generally less of a problem with larger sensors.

The second advantage of a larger image sensor is that they come on cameras that have better lenses. Camera bodies get all the hype. Their bells and whistles are prominently displayed in the photography magazines and advertisements. What professional photographers know (which new photographers may not) is that image quality is driven far more by the quality of the lens than by the doodads and adornments on the camera body.

Larger cameras mean larger image sensors, which CAN mean a better photo. (Illustration is to scale, but obviously much larger than actual size.)

If you would like to carry a camera with a significantly larger image sensor, and a better lens than your typical point-and-shoot, you couldn’t have picked a better time to do so.

Mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-cameras (MILCs). These cameras are a relatively new development. They incorporate larger image sensors (some as large as a good DSLR) but manage to keep the size and weight of the camera down by eliminating the mirror and optical viewfinder (which, on a DSLR, allows you to compose the shot by looking in the viewfinder and seeing through the lens). Instead, you use the LCD screen to compose the shot.

The smaller MILCs, known as micro-four-thirds cameras, are amazingly light and take technically outstanding photos. For example, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 weighs a pound, with battery, data card and lens. One pound. That’s only six ounces heavier than the point-and-shoot I carried on my last thru-hike! (Oh, and three-and-a-quarter pounds less than the camera & lens I intend to carry on my next thru-hike.)

The Fujifilm X, Samsung NX and Sony NEX cameras are examples of cameras that use even larger sensors than the micro-four-thirds format. You’ll find they weigh a little more, and perform a little better when it comes to dynamic range and low-light performance.

All the new models record HD video, as well.

If you are interested in stepping up from a standard point-and-shoot, but you are scared off by the weight and expense of a top-of-the-line DSLR, MILCs are a great way to go. The micro-four-thirds format has its own website. If you want a larger image sensor, check out the second list on this website.

One drawback to these cameras: you must use the LCD screen to compose the shot. That means more battery use, which means you’ll be carrying more spare batteries. If you have higher ambitions for your photographs and video, it will be well worth the extra weight.

Good hiking, Ray

*Why is 110 film called “110”? Who came up with “126”? Almost all film number designations come from the same place, a little company you probably once heard a lot about, but not much any more: Kodak.