Grand Canyon Hike - 4 Camera Recommendations

Hi all,

I am planning on hiking down the Grand Canyon around Christmas time. I want
to take a good camera along. I have a 2MP camera, and am thinking that
given that I may not do this again for quite some time, I am better off
taking a 5 or 6MP camera along. Based on my weekend research, here are 3
choices that came up:

1. Minolta Dimage G500 5MP
2. Canon S50 5MP
3. HP Photosmart 945 (5.3MP and 8x opt zoom)
4. Canon EOS Digital Rebel (the new Digital SLR)

My questions are:
1. Given that I don't have a collection of SLR lenses, what benefit does a
SLR really give me? Other than going from 5MP to a 6.3 MP. Its
significantly more $ than the other 3 choices, and its not clear to me what
all the performance benefits will be. I went to Canon's site and saw that
the SLR sample photos were simply gorgeous and instantly fell in love.
Then, I saw the sample images for the Canon S50, and instantly fell in love
again

2. Any advice on tradeoffs in the first 3 cameras listed? The benefit of
the HP is the 8x optical zoom, for roughly the same price the G500 and S50
only have 3x optical zoom.

Thanks,
Paul

 

Given that you are asking the question, I would say none for you. Only
someone who after already owning a non-slr digital and not missing the SLR
features would likely use them anyway.

 

Control and image quality. I've seen 5 megapixel zoom compacts that couldn't
compete with the images from a 3 megapixel D30 because the D30 has much
cleaner output, thanks to its larger pixels.

 

My experience taking a camera into the mountains is that a wide angle
lens is a must. My favorite film lens is the 24MM Nikon, and I didn't
comsider a digital camera I could afford until the 300D came out, with
the 18-55 lens. That makes it 30MM, not very wide but wider than any
P&S I'm familiar with. I may keep my Nikon FE2+24MM lens combo.

 

The Digital Rebel is the best, since it has the best output.

However, there's something else you may want to consider: batter life. How
long are you going to be on the trail? Taking a second CF card is not big
deal, but if the battery dies, you have nothing.

 

The first thing you should know about and DSLR, is that compared to other
digitals, they are very large and very heavy, and they require a lot of very
large, very heavy and very expensive lenses. Since you're hiking, the size
and weight issue may be very important to you.

The advantage to a DSLR is not necessarily a greater number of pixels, but
the extreme high quality and versatility of the lenses that can be mated to
it. However, without experience, and between now and Christmas, you won't
be able to get that experience, you would never be able to make use of the
capability of these lenses.

My advice is to pick a more flexible and easier to use non-DSLR. There are
some good ones to consider that will mate with simple and cheap wide angle
and telephoto adapters and have more than adequate pixel count. Here would
be my short list:

Nikon 5700 more expensive, but more pixels, and more zoom with a better
lens. With adapters for wide and tele, expect to pay about $1200 new, but
good used deals are available for way less. You'll need a camera bag.

Canon A80 less expensive, smaller and lighter, way more compact, but with
very good image quality. With adapters for wide and tele, expect to pay
about $650. There's also a neat underwater housing available. This camera
could be carried in a pocket.

 

Take a small digicam, like the A80 mentioned, that you can put into your pocket
and just enjoy your trip. You'll have a much better time and I think you'll
surprise yourself at what you can capture without feeling so boged down. Take
it from someone who has done a fair amount of traveling, the cameras and extra
stuff can get old and often get in the way of simply enjoying yourself.

 

I thnk that is an important factor.

Also the other important factor mentioned elsewhere is the wide angle
capability you may need for where you are going.

You don't need to get the 300D/DRebel to get circa 30mm. The Nikon 5400 is
28mm, the Olympus 5060 27mm and the Minolta A1 28mm. These are all smaller
and lighter than the dSLR option.

You can add converter lenses to the 5400 and 5060 to get even wider (19mm with
the Oly 5060) but they are big thing to carry so defeats the object of going
for these more compact camers in the first place.

Dave

 

From: "P G"

I've hiked almost 1,200 miles below the rim in the Grand Canyon. Sometimes
I've just taken a small camera on a long hard day hike, like rim-to-rim (21
miles, 4,800 ft down, 5,800 ft up), sometimes I've taken medium format with 5
lenses and a tripod when backpacking.

My advice is to take the lightest camera you own, maybe with a light tripod,
and a moderate wide-angle (something like a 35 mm in 35 mm format) and a
moderate telephoto (something similar to a 100-200 mm in 35 mm). Often one
zoom will cover this entire range. You'll probably be exhausted on the hike
out and light gear is the way to go.

Carry something to protect the gear from dust and sweat (and maybe rain or
snow). I usually carry my GC gear in waterproof bags used for river running.
You can get one about the size of a loaf of bread or slightly larger for around
$12 and it's invaluable, especially for dust protection.

If you're overnighting at Phantom Ranch or Indian Gardens let me know and I can
give you some tips on where to shoot. If you're just day-tripping the best bet
is down Kaibab to the river and up Bright Angel, but you'll get pretty tired
doing the entire rim-river loop in a day as this is about 16 miles with 4,800
ft drop and 4,400 ft up at the end.

If the weight is similar go with the 8x zoom.

If it snows maybe I'll see you up there, I try to get there every time there's
foul weather in the winter. The Canyon looks incredible after a fresh snow,
though the first mile or two of the trail heads will get icy so rent a set of
step-in crampons from Babbitt's store.

Bill

 

OTOH, the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye is pretty small and light, and gives
the equivalent horizontal field of view to a 19mm rectilinear lens on a 35mm
camera. I tend to prefer the fisheye projection for landscapes as well.

A 300D with one of these wouldn't be terribly heavy at all. The lack of a
lens cap might be a bit of a pain though.

 

Well, I was there last April, and the first thing you better get is some
warm boots, we had snow. Anyway, I was using a very modest canon A40. I
would say A80 should do fine. Take a tripod and practice panoramic shooting.
I don't think it's easy to capture the beauty of all you can see with one's
eyes but you'll have a lot of fun trying. I like the canon A series, you get
long battery life and it's to carry spares.
Dave Cohen

 

Paul,
Frank Weston said it quite well. A DSLR would give you the best
potential quality but it's also considerably heaver, larger & there is a
greater leaning curve to it than a quality non DSLR.

With that said I would consider something smaller. Canon's A80 & S50
are both good choices & each has some advantages over the other. The A80
easily accepts filters & lens converters with the purchase of an inexpensive
adapter. The S50 offers Canon's RAW mode which may be of interest to you
depending on if you plan on doing much editing of your pictures.

Power is always a consideration when hiking / camping or being away from
the AC power grid to recharge batteries. The A80 runs on 4 "AA" NiMH
rechargeable batteries & has very good battery life. The advantage of "AA"
cells is that there are several small solar chargers available to recharge
them & you may wish to consider this if you will be away from the AC power
grid for several days. You will likely have lot's of sunshine so attaching
a small charger to the outside of your back pack so it can charge a extra
set of batteries during the day might be an advantage.

Lastly, a small quality camera like the A80 or something similar will
likely met most of your every day needs for years to come. Thus the
investment you are considering should be considered with it's usefulness to
you after the planned trip as well.

There was an individual that posted to this news group about 3 months
ago. He also did a Grand Canyon hike /camping trip & he posted his before &
after comments about his picture taking. He expected to be in need of both
wide angle & telephoto but was surprised to find that most of his pictures
were wide angle & macro with very few telephoto shots. Thus you may wish to
consider a camera with a very wide angle lens or a wide angle attachment &
good macro abilities because there are a lot of little things you may wish
to capture as well.

For anyplace as large as the Grand Canyon you can never get it all in a
single picture even with a wide angle lens. So consider taking a small
light weight tripod so you can do a level pan taking overlapping pictures so
you can "stitch" them together for a full panoramic picture. Most digital
cameras offer such modes & the software to combine the pictures. There are
also separate companies that provided reasonably priced panoramic software
to stitch your pictures together better & offer additional features as well.

You may also wish to make sure that the digital camera you select has a
manual mode so that you can take long exposure pictures of sunsets &
sunrises on your tripod. A final note: take a cheap disposable 35mm camera
as well, it's rarely a good idea to have all of your eggs in 1 basket no
matter how good that basket may be!

Hope you find something useful in all of this.

Respectfully, DHB

 

I hiked the canyon with my second digital camera, a Kodak DC240 which was a
bit of a battery hog. At that time I only had one good set of NiMh
batteries so I turned off the LCD completely and only used the rangefinder.
Did the down and up trip in two days, took many many pictures, almost
filling my then big 64Mb card. The batteries lasted the whole time and I
threw away the bad ones the day after when my strenght returned.

If I had to do it over, I would take my Drebel, an extra battery, all the
cards I have as well as my other digicam (S400). No real need for long
lenses because a wide angle is better suited. I would also take some
pictures I could stitch together, up, down, left and right.

Jean

 

Lots of good advice. Some points...my opinion...that are intended to
stimulate your own decision process, not make your decisions follow.

(1) already mentioned is size and weight suggesting that an "all-in-one"
camera might be best, but, don't expect there to be no tradeoffs in
performance. DSLR with appropriate set of lenses/accessories gives maximum
performance with maximum flexibility - and maximum size and weight.
(2) high pixel count may be very useful when you see things you want to
shoot, but can't get to a location for best composition - at home, you'll
crop to compose because in the field, you couldn't compose ideally
(3) long zoom may be important for the same reasons as (4), but 10X without
stabilization could be a problem, though not necessarily in bright daylight
conditions.
(4) for me, macro is always important - the closer the better
(5) as mentioned, the ideal may be tough to get in the few weeks remaining
before Christmas...you may have to settle for less, especially if you are
considering any of most recently released cameras.

I guess that if I had to make that decision with my experience level and
preferences, it would take me a while to do my homework, but my parameters
aren't yours. However, sinc eyou already will have a snapshot camera along
for...well... for snapshots...I'd go for a camera offering more potential
for creativity and for bringing home those few rare shots that will hang on
your wall for a long time. I'd start with a short list of cameras with 5 MP
or more, and with greater than 5X optical zoom, and new enough to have been
reviewed no further back than early 2002.

From Steve's list of cameras with 5 MP or more and greater than 5X optical
zoom, that then includes: Fuji S602 (6X, reviewed April 02); Fuji S7000
(6X, reviewed Oct 03); HP 945 (8X, reviewed Nov 03); Minolta 7Hi (7X,
reviewed Sept 02); Minolta A1 (7x, reviewed Aug 03); Nikon 5700 (8X,
reviewed May 02); Sony F828 (7X, reveiwed Aug 03, but not yet available). I
won't buy an HP, the Minolta 7Hi had terrible reviews on battery
consumption, and the Sony isn't yet available.

My own recent short list was the Nikon 5700, Minolta A1 and Fuji S7000 - I
bought the Minolta. I seriously considered 4 MP cameras, so came close to
buying the Oly 750, and if I wasn't willing to go with the bulk of an
SLR-like camera, that would have been a strong contender.

As always...just my opinions
Optiker

 

Since you were not a SLR user before, the learning curve that goes
with the SLR to produce above average photos is steep. So you may want
to stick with the prosumer cameras. Also, a DSLR is an invitation to
more spending. A good lens, an extra battery, before you know it you
have increase your initial cash layout tenfold.

Since you will be out in the wilderness, you might consider batteries.
The Canon Drebel if I am not mistaken uses proprietary batteries. I
would prefer to take a camera that accepts size AA batteries if
possible. Proprietary are just too expensive to maintain, you are
better getting a camera that uses the normal NIMH batteries.

There are a lot of choices out there and they can rival shot taken by
a Rebel if done right. My choice would be the following:
1. Minolta Dimage A1 (5MP)
2. Fuji S7000 (6MP)
3. Olympus E-20 (5MP)

The Sony F717 will be a good choice but they also do use proprietary
batteries and memory. But in image quality, they are the best among
what is on offer right now.

The Nikon 5700 has some issues about batteries according to some
users. Check out dpreview.com and there you will be able to compare
cameras that you like.

 

<stuff deleted>

Batteries for DRebel are available at Walmart for $25. They are even
higher in mah capacity than the Canon ones.
(1300mah vs 1100mah) Plus, the rebel will take a CR2016 Battery as well.

Steve m... (got one today)

 

Hi everyone, thanks for the wonderful replies. AFter reading and thinking a
bit, here are my thoughts:

- Image resolution is important to me as I do plan on enlarging, maybe to
11x14 if I get a worthy shot

- The most important thing everyone has replied here, other than accessories
such as batteries/tripod is getting a wide angle lens.

- A worthwhile digital camera with wide aperture and high pixels would be
upwards of $500
- Anything upward of $500 would be hard for me to justify,

SO...
(drum roll)

- I am thinking of falling back to good old Film!
I am now leaning towards a film SLR such as the Minolta Maxxum 4 which my
local Costco has for around $200 (I went after work today!), with a 28-80 mm
lens (they also have a Canon EOS, but that one has a 35mm minimum focal
length).
Weight, sure, that would be a downside, but if all other requirements are
met...

BTW, without spawning a film vs digital debate, I am assuming that a good
film (ISO 100) will at least equal 5MP. Since I don't take such photos
often, this will be my specialist camera, augmenting my 2mp snapshooter for
"mundane" use.

The cheap disposable is a very good idea, BTW, thanks for reminding me. We
ran out of batteries in our last vacation and boy was I sorry we didn't have
a backup.

As always, comments welcome. And thanks again everyone!

-- Paul

 

A canon A80 with a wide angle adapter will weigh in at about $500 and will
deliver excellent 11x14 prints.

Do you really want to juggle rolls of film for a week or two. Wouldn't you
rather know you got the shot right when you take it than to wonder for
weeks? How will you feel if all the shots are bad when they come back from
the lab a month later? Do you want to rely on a photo lab to determine the
correct exposure and color balance of your images?

Given that the image quality of the A80 will be roughly equivalent to what
you could get from a $200 film camera, the issues of portability,
convenience, and image manipulation weigh very strongly in favor of digital.

You did post to a digital newsgroup after all.

 

I have done the hike a couple times. Last Month I did South Kiabab to Phantom
Ranch and back up the Bright Angel Trail as a day trip. 18 miles in 12 hours.
At 63 I am a slow walker. I brought my Canon PowerShot S230 and took
120 pictures. Two factors to consider. I do not like a weighty camera
suspended
from my neck. It is a hazard on more hikes that are more challenging then GC.
I would not have taken as many pictures if I had to stop and get equipment out
of my pack. A pocket camera is a real plus hiking.

Second factor is with a digital camera and good stitching program MP becomes
less of a factor on wide scenics. Take a lot of pictures, stitch them
together,
and you have a lot of MP. I have done panoramas with camera vertical in
telephoto
that turned out great. I have a picture that has 35 images of me taken on a
mountain
top that is a 360 degree panorama.

A third factor is with a less costly camera you don't have to be as cautious
about
damaging it. A small pocket camera is less likely to suffer damage than a
larger
one.

 

"Frank Weston"

Your advice is probably very sound, but the most importains difference
between digicams and dslr's has not been mentioned, and it is rarely
mentioned . No it is not the lens selection, no it is not the pixel or that dslr
are heavier or bulkier. One thing nobody talks about is image - they produce
two very different kinds of images. Digicams make tv like images, where
everything is more or less in focus, good for landscape and macro photography,
and documentary if only they did not for the most part have the long responce
time from when you press the shutter to the picture is taken.
Dslr images are photographic in nature, the images look like photographs as
they used to look or as they look in magazines, fashion, sports, advertisement
and portrait, where ever you want a selective focus point and a blurred fore-
and or background. No matter some digicams are labled prosumer or they
are built into a mobile phone, they make the same kind of image. The reason
is they all use a small image chip, whereas dslr's use a bigger one.
That is what one should consider when moving into digital photography IMHO.
I'm just a happy amateur, but I think my images illustrate what I mean with the
use of shallow depth of field, if you're interested. ;o)-max-
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=129447