Greetings,

I am a long-time member of this group, and a contributor to the outdoors weekend section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (maybe some of you locals saw my recent piece on Mark Trail...).

I am starting work on an article about camera gear for the outdoors... much of it will be about the pros and cons of lugging heavy DSLR gears/lenses to places such as BWCA vs. carrying light gear. We all know the big gear will get the best photos, but is the tradeoff worth it?

Please post your thoughts on this subject (and if you have info I end up wanting to use, I will email for permission and to get full name). Let me know what gear you carry and why (and what sort of pics you take when you are in the BWCA). If you cary heavy gear, is it worth it? If you have transitioned to lighter gear, are you happy with your choice?

Any thoughts and comments welcome. Thanks.

-- Jeff Moravec

Jeff,

I switch back and forth between a small coolpix point and shoot and a DLSR. The point and shoot when I plan on traveling light and fast and the DSLR when I am not so light and not as fast.

I like a 55-200 for wildlife and a 10-24mm for close ups of everything wild!

Is the trade-off worth it? Sure is when I want it too be. I have never said I wish I didn't bring the bigger camera but I have said I wish I had it at other times. The point and shoot works just fine but it's not the same. I just spent last week in the BW and I was glad I brought the DSLR.

My DLSR is a D40 Nikon, a very light body and the lenses I have are light as well. My biggest struggle is staying safe with it-keeping it dry. It's an inexpensive set up as far as DSLR's go, but I don't want to drop $2k in the water! Dry boxes or bags as extras just adds clutter on portages. I like to have a pack, a paddle and a canoe. No loose ends and that is why I typically do not bring the DSLR.


John

DSLR for me is the way to go. the richer depth of colors. Willing to take on a 26 day Canoe trip on the the Tundra in Canada.

My opinions only:

1. The best camera is the one you have with you. On a canoe trip, this suggests you might want a waterproof point and shoot around your neck. I have a waterproof point and shoot. Thing is, they are so expensive compared to their image quality, that you might be better off with an $80 point and shoot and taking your chances on breaking it. If you want better pictures than the point and shoot, one overlooked option is to just bring a second camera. What kind of second camera you bring and how often you risk having it out in the open depends on how deep your pockets are and how much weight you want to carry.

2. Image stabilization is a must with a long zoom. Some little point and shoots claim a 30x zoom, but really only works with a tripod because the camera shakes too much.

3. Iphones take good pictures, and have built in GPS.

4. Lighting, patience, and thought will generate the best pictures. Not the latest gear.

There was a thread in the last year about the Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera that you might want to read. People seem to really like it (including me). It doesn't take in the light that a DSLR does, but it is a lot less bulky and has a very nice zoom. It is a good example of weighing the trade-offs.

Dan,

Can you tell me what you carry besides the camera? How many lenses and what they are? And do you carry a hard case of some kind to protect the gear? Thanks.

I am an avid outdoorsman, nature lover and photographer. Over the last 10 years or so i have been shooting with the latest and greatest "superzoom" or bridge camera. I have gotten some amazing results and am proud of what I have been able to achieve. The extended range of the zoom gives you opportunities for shots you would miss with all but the most expensive DSLR lenses but unless you are using a tripod unfortunately the image quality is not great. But you get a lot of really nice "decent" shots. The other thing that this type of cameras excel at is macro shooting and in those cases DSLR's just can't compete unless you spend a lot of money on specialized equipment. For those of us who are into wildflowers, mushrooms, etc this type of camera is amazing. Add in convenience, ease of use and relative small size/weight and they are a great option for the BWCA or general outdoors photography. So why then did I switch to a DSLR recently?

I hit a wall on image quality that could only be resolved by taking a step up in terms of sensor size, technology and lens quality. With my superzoom i could get a shot of a bald eagle on a tree branch from hundreds of yards - unfortunately it was not usable for anything. Now i miss some of those shots but still get some that are marginally closer but can crop with much better results and a more usable photo. Grain is much less throughout the ISO range and the wider aperture ranges and slower/faster shutter speeds offer much more versatility in shooting options. Another big advantage for DSLR's is shutter lag - the superzooms just couldn't compete in this area, not even close. I have missed so many shots with my superzoom of fast moving wildlife and especially birds because the shutter doesn't open when you press the button - I have already had much better results and gotten lots of nice shots I would have totally missed with the superzoom.

Since I have only had my DSLR for a few months I am definitely still in the "testing/learning" phase. But already the results on some shots are photos that turned out pretty well and that I wouldn't have even gotten with my superzoom. For example this last weekend i was able to watch a crow harassing a bald eagle for several minutes as it flew nearly over my head. I took some shots and they aren't great but I was able to get them with the subject in the shot - with the superzoom by the time I hit the button and the shutter opened and closed the birds would have been long gone. I also got a sandhill crane taking off from the ground and was able to track him and take a few shots that actually are recognizable for what they are.

I loved my superzoom cameras and still will utilize them as second or backup cameras. But I see the potential for better image quality with a DSLR and less missed shots when nature is moving fast around you. A DSLR also gives you a lot more room to grow and learn; I had hit the maximum potential of my superzoom camera. The tradeoff is obviously more money for the camera and lenses, bigger and heavier and somewhat less convenient and versatile. For now I am pleased with the change, we shall see how I feel after a summer's worth of shooting.

Some samples:




This is the crow harassing the bald eagle. It is not a spectacular shot but I guarantee you that I wouldn't have even gotten the shot with the superzoom.





This is the sandhill crane taking off. Again, not a super sharp picture but with the superzoom I would have had a shot of a nice stand of trees.





This is a shot of a Turkey Vulture perched atop a tree, also being harassed by a crow(nasty birds), This was many hundreds of yards away from me and I was able to take this shot and crop it enough to get a recognizable photo. With the superzoom, despite double the focal length on the zoom, the camera shake and the smaller sensor would have given me a fuzzy and unusable picture.






The ability to shoot handheld at a manageable focal length and your choice of f stop and aperture for desired effect, and knowing you can crop in later and still get a decently sharp photo.





It could be my imagination but after shooting landscapes for years with the superzoom and enjoying it, I feel like the photos I take are sharper and have more detail than ever with my DSLR





I have taken this same shot before, never turned out quite like this.





Superzooms have better macro capability out of the box, unless you spend money on specialized lenses for your DSLR. But my first couple attempts have shown possibilities if you understand your cameras settings and depth of field.

Sorry for the long and rambling response - I am kind of into photography:)

Looking forward to my first BWCA trip in may with the new DSLR!!


All shots taken last weekend in the Whitewater River Valley with a Pentax K50 and a Tamron 28-300 lens, manual settings and all handheld.

There's no blanket rule. Basically, if you know how to use it (with "it" meaning a bigger camera), and actually use it, then it's worth it.

You also should consider the intended use, though. Most online uses (email, Facebook, Instagram, BWCA.com) don't need the file size of a big DSLR camera. Generally, DSLRs do beat iPhones and point and shoots in terms of dynamic range and low-light capability. And if you'll be making physical prints of your images, DSLR wins hands down. iPhones win on ease of use and ease of distributing images where they'll likely go. Though iPhones and P&S cameras obviously win on weight, I see canoeists carrying so much weight elsewhere in their load (cast iron pans, for example), the camera weight argument doesn't hold much water, imho.

As has been mentioned before, the biggest mistake I see people making with "nice" cameras is babying them -- ie, keeping them wrapped up in padding and drybags -- which often means you end up using the camera less, or making excuses for not using the camera or taking a particular image. Pelican cases are good -- easy to get in and out of, yet completely protective.

My typical camera gear for multi-day canoe trips is a full frame DSLR camera, a long lens (135mm) and a short compact lens (40mm). Very streamlined. Just the essentials. Then obviously there's the small things -- extra battery, charger (that plugs in via USB to a solar charger), extra cards, lens cloth, lens case.

For trips where weight is less of an issue, I'll take my Pelican. For weight-conscious trips, I'll double dry-bag my sensitive camera stuff. The latter is slightly harder to get into, so you have to really pay attention to see if that is hindering your picture-taking and minimize/control for that mental hindrance as much as possible.

Perhaps the easiest thing to do, though, is to get a personal articles insurance policy for your camera (not that much $$ if you're an amateur), and keep your camera easily accessible in a regular camera bag. That way you won't baby your camera and you'll reduce the friction between wanting to take a photo and actually taking a photo as much as possible.

I also take a *mini* palm-sized tripod but that rarely gets used.

DSLR's are bloated and heavy. They pair well with an 80-lb Royalex canoe. They are the antithesis of lightweight travel aesthetics. There are 4x5 cameras that are about the same weight and bulk as a full frame DSLR.

For BWCA there are many better options. At the bottom of the heap would be something like a Sony RX-10iii bridge camera. The file quality is about like 35 mm film or a little better. Next would be MFT cameras like Olympus. I think they are weather sealed and the quality is excellent. Next would be an APS-C camera. I am partial to Sony but all of them are good. Finally there are full frame mirrorless cameras. I have a Sony A7rII but any of the A7 series would be fine.

A good option for people wondering is to rent gear through lensrentals.com. The cost is reasonable and you can buy blanket insurance so no worries. They ship Fedex to your house and then you return it in the same box with a pre-printed return label. I have used them multiple times. Great service.

I think for most people, renting a Sony RX-10iii would be a revelation.

After tons of wasted time on research I agree with the size, weight, pack ability and image quality combination of mirrorless digital cameras for backcountry travel. I'll be sporting my new Sony A6300 this year on our 12 days Q trip and hope to have some photos representative of the cameras potential.

Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Available in variety of sensor sizes, many makers, good to huge lens selection, in a much smaller package than DSLR's. I did finally go this route myself, and am impressed.

Olympus 620 and 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 on left, Olympus OMD EM5 and 12-50mm f3.5-6.3. These are both 4/3rd system with smaller sensor, smaller than APS-C equivalents. Compromise is mostly with large (over 8x10), prints.

Early (April 1st), photos right after purchase of my used OMD EM5.

We do have an active forum on photography, check it out.

butthead

PS: Worried about gear on a canoe trip? Get it insured. Inexpensive for what you can cover. bh

So here’s my backcountry photography odyssey. After almost 40 years since my last camera (a Canon FT for those that remember film) and because my wife and I were spending four weeks at a time canoeing in the backcountry of Northwestern Ontario, I decided I’d like to start taking pictures again. I bought a Panasonic fz200 bridge camera, which seemed like the perfect camera for my needs. It looks like a small dslr and sports a Leica zoom 28 – 600 that is an amazing f2.8 through the entire focal length. The fz200 can be used in full manual mode. It is a compact, lightweight camera that allowed me to get back into photography and reacquaint myself with the relationship between ISO, aperture and shutter speed. I was able to take some pretty good pictures and learned a lot. One thing that was obvious to me was that even though I had access to 25X zoom, I almost never used it. Almost all my photographs were landscapes. I knew I wanted to step up my game and that the bridge camera wasn’t really up to the challenge of long exposure landscape and night sky landscape photography. For that I was going to have to go to a DSLR.

This past fall I began to explore the possibility and was set to purchase the Pentax K3, which is a weathersealed mid priced APS-C DSLR but though not a full frame, still much bigger than my bridge camera. But before I pulled the trigger, I discovered the Fujifilm XT1 and completely fell in love. This is a mirrorless crop sensor camera and one of the most sophisticated on the market. While Sony’s A7 series of mirrorless cameras are full frame sensors they are also very, very expensive. And while other lenses can be adapted to fit, Sony doesn’t have a very good array of lens designed specifically for their camera. Finally there is the size factor of a full frame camera and even though the Sony is mirrorless, lenses for a full frame camera, any full frame camera, necessarily have to be big and bulky. There are undeniable advantages to full frame but also some serious draw backs, especially for backcountry shooting.

What the Fujifilm XT1 offers is a small camera with remarkable capability. It is set up like an old style film camera with most of the controls on the three exterior dials atop the camera body, which means I hardly ever have to go into the menu. It is a professional grade camera with a lineup of lenses that are second to none. Indeed, I personally spoke to three professional photographers that had actually sold off all of their Nikon kit and gone completely with Fuji. I purchased the 18-135 mm zoom as my walk around lens. Like the camera body, it is weather sealed, a nice thing to have for backcountry. I also bought a 14mm f/2.8 prime for landscape work. These lenses have proved to be superb, even better than I imagined. And by the way, the EVF (electronic view finder) on this camera is unbelievably good, better, in my opinion than the optical viewfinders on DSLRs.

The XT1 falls down in two areas: video and high speed auto focus. I absolutely don’t use video mode so that doesn’t matter to me at all. As for the auto focus, while it is really quite good, for people who are shooting sports and maybe wildlife this would certainly have to be a consideration.

One other thing I love about the FujiXT1 is that the company provides format updates, some of which include the sort of upgrades that most companies would introduce in a new model instead of giving away for free.

My backcountry kit includes the excellent Sirui T-025X tripod, which folds down to 12” and weighs less than 2 lb. I carry my camera and lenses in a Pelican case, which gives me quick access while on the water.

This summer will be the first time I will have taken this camera into the backcountry but based on my experience shooting with it so far, I think I may have found my perfect camera. I really believe that mirrorless cameras are the future.

Ok. I get that the mirrorless cameras are great - smaller than a DSLR, great image quality. But, they still don't fit in your pocket, and they aren't necessarily inexpensive. Plus what happens when your buddy lands that big walleye, and you need that wider angle lens. Then suddenly 30 seconds later that bald eagle lands in a tree and you need a 300mm+ IS lens. You don't have time to change lenses.

quote NotLight: "
Ok. I get that the mirrorless cameras are great - smaller than a DSLR, great image quality. But, they still don't fit in your pocket, and they aren't necessarily inexpensive. Plus what happens when your buddy lands that big walleye, and you need that wider angle lens. Then suddenly 30 seconds later that bald eagle lands in a tree and you need a 300mm+ IS lens. You don't have time to change lenses.
"

Of course you're right. It all depends what kind of photography you want to do. If you want to have access to every shot, you can't beat a bridge camera. They don't do anything superbly well but they do a lot of things well enough. For that matter I have seen some pretty interesting photographs (much more than snap shots) taken with phone cameras. Small is good if you want accessibility. But those sorts of cameras have real limits. Basically you choose your weapon based on your priorities.

quote NotLight: "
Ok. I get that the mirrorless cameras are great - smaller than a DSLR, great image quality. But, they still don't fit in your pocket, and they aren't necessarily inexpensive. Plus what happens when your buddy lands that big walleye, and you need that wider angle lens. Then suddenly 30 seconds later that bald eagle lands in a tree and you need a 300mm+ IS lens. You don't have time to change lenses.
"

Some very small mirrorless are out, Samsung NX Mini. They are not inexpensive, but have been out long enough to form a decent used market supply, look at Olympus Pen series used. And decent wide to long zooms are available. I am considering a used 14-150mm for my OMD, equivalent to a 28-300mm full frame range at $275.
Not a cure all for everything photographic, but a serious alternative.

butthead

I like my olympus MFT camera enough I sold off my DSLR gear after realizing it had been collecting dust for over two seasons. IMO most of the mirrorless interchangeable lens options are good, depending on your priorities. Mine DOES fit in my pocket with an inexpensive pancake wide angle lens, suitable for quick snapshots (fish). Then I carry a short fixed focal length lens of high quality for most work, and a longer zoom for distant subjects. I don't miss many opportunities in the time it takes to switch lenses.

notlight has it right - your best camera is the one you have with you. I also have my phone in a waterproof case, serving as both another camera as well as a GPS. Always handy and familiar for quick items.

I enjoy intentional photography and controlling the parameters of an SLR to capture the shot I want. This includes wilderness trips, and even when traveling light I don't hesitate to bring a real camera to the BWCA. Part of my muse is low light/night photography including stars, aurora, and light painting; so that means I need a tripod, too.
Here is my wilderness kit:

Nikon D5100
18-55 f3.5 lens
Wireless remote shutter
Plenty of storage
Extra battery
lenspen
Lowepro case
20L drybag
Zipshot ultralight tripod.

Gear, case, drybag: 49.0 oz
Zipshot: 13.26 oz

I intentionally leave the good glass at home and use the standard kit lens because 1) it's actually very versatile and 2) it's very easily replaced if damaged.

I've carried the Zipshot hiking for a few years now. It is made of shock-corded aluminum tent-poles so it packs to less than 14" long and deploys to 48" in seconds. It has a ball mount head that kind-of sucks, but it gets by for limited wilderness use. It is definitely not a rock solid tripod, but works as intended and I like the size/weight. The tripod travels in the pack and the dry bag stays close at hand in the canoe: clipped around a thwart.

quote UphillHarry: "There was a thread in the last year about the Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera that you might want to read. People seem to really like it (including me). It doesn't take in the light that a DSLR does, but it is a lot less bulky and has a very nice zoom. It is a good example of weighing the trade-offs.
"

+1

Based on that thread I picked up an FZ200. Good bundled package with the key accessories(spare battery, charger, filters, filter case, cleaning kit, 64GB storage card, light-tripod, case..) for $300, with a discount netted at $220. An amazing bang-for-the-buck one-size-fits-all camera that's fully automatic to fully manual with many options in between. The learning curve with extensive camera-internal menus and bundled software isn't bad. I'm very happy with it and would buy it again in a heartbeat. Having Houghton's FZ200-specific user manual available is a BIG plus also.

When I compare the FZ200 to where I started (Nikon F2AS..that ran me around $600, with only a 55mm macro lens, in the late 70's)..rather stunning.

I use a Sony Bloggie and a Nikon Coolpix s9300. I have a Gorilla pod and also use a StikPic. I am not too rough on my gear, but I just can't see bringing a nice expensive camera into the back country.