Camera Buying - should I sacrifice zoom or picture quality?

[sdisser]

I'm shopping for a pocket-sized digital camera with superior quality for my thru-hike, but I'd also like to have decent zoom. Unfortunately, you get one or the other in this market. Quality is more important to me.

I am considering the Canon Powershot S100, but it only has 5x optimal zoom. So, my question is, for someone looking to shoot better quality photos than a regular point and shoot, will I miss having a better zoom quality on the trail if I buy this camera or one similar? I mean, do I need zoom enough that it would be worth sacrificing some quality?

I realize that I'm probably going to get some "to each his own" replies, but I'm asking your opinion because I don't really have one yet. haha!

Thanks!

[Mobius]

With the caveat that I haven't thru-hiked...

When I'm out in the woods hiking or trail running I've been using a Panasonic Lumix TS series (I have the TS1. My wife has the TS4). My criteria were: water proof, drop proof (impact resistant), and hard to break. The lens is entirely internal so there are no moving parts to break (or get water/grit in). That sacrifices the zoom capability. It could be my shooting style but I find that I generally want wider angle shots (landscape), not zoom shots. The only thing I want to zoom on is wildlife and no point and shoot is really sufficient for that.

It's pretty light too, all things considered. It shoots pretty nice HD video as well and the battery has pretty good staying power. My wife's model has GPS built-in. We have that turned off (privacy and battery life) but for a trail hike that might be handy to know where you were when you took the shot, assuming you get GPS reception). There's a smaller/lighter model as well though I forget the designation.

[RCBear]

I would take photo quality any day. if the picture quality is high, then manipulation can be done in software like photoshop later. if you start out sacrificing quality at the outset then you are limited immediately Most point and shoots these days have an optical zoom that isn't bad. forget about the digital zoom length because as soon as you cross over from the built in optical to digital zoom you get significant quality deterioration and image stability becomes difficult.

[Feral Bill]

Really long telephotos need a tripod. At that point you might as well carry an SLR or other interchangeable lens camera.

[bigcranky]

Picture quality. Super zooms are generally not great, and not really necessary in my experience. I prefer a moderate wide angle lens with a fast aperture. For most hiking I take a micro 4/3 camera with the 20/1.7 lens. Great image quality, small carry size, just the right focal length for my style of shooting. Not the lightest in the world, but not too bad.

I'd look at the Canon S100, the Fuji X10 or X20, the Olympus XZ-10, the Panasonic LX-7, etc. All will have excellent image quality for a point and shoot (i.e., not terrific high-ISO images but still usable.)

[Ender]

Get the S100, it's the best P&S camera out there (or the S110, the newer version of that camera). Don't worry about the zoom, just crop and zoom after the fact on your computer.

[GoldenBear]

You said you planned to use this camera on a thru-hike. That latter phrase clarifies, at least for me, the advice I'll give.

First off, let me make clear that I'm a photo-taking freak, and have been for over thirty years. When I see a beautiful scene, just about my only thought is whether or not I can photograph it. If I can't capture the scene in a photo, then it's as if the view or experience wasn't worth having.

Nevertheless, the longer I spend time on the AT, the less has become my desire to have a camera with me.
It's not that I no longer enjoy taking good photos
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863
or that I don't want to record my unexpected discoveries
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863
or that I don't consider a photo a good way to convey information
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/show...mageuser=13863

It's just that these tasks have become so much less of a priority during a long hike.
When I'm on a day-hike, I can take the time and effort to get a good shot. On the other hand, when I've been drudging along for days, my thoughts turn to avoiding another knee injury, or tick bites, or melanoma, or sleepless nights, or blisters, or cuts on my wrists, or socks that never seem to get dry, or getting drenched in the rain, or heat exhaustion, or any of a dozen other hazards I've ALREADY EXPERIENCED -- without ever hiking for more than five days! At this point, the effort needed to get a good photo becomes a luxury I've decided I just can't afford. I've never considered taking the SLR that served me for over 25 years -- just too much weight. Even the point-and-shoot digital camera I now use has evolved from a necessity around my neck to an albatross around my neck. Plain and simple, I'm finding it's just not worth it to have a good camera -- the importance of a good photo has been eclipsed by the importance of dry socks.

So, what I'm saying, don't worry about either a large zoom OR a high number of pixels. Find a camera that's light and durable, and can be kept out of the rain while still being easy to reach. It's fun to get photos of shelter buddies, stream crossings that look impossible, and bears that pop out from behind trees -- they create memories that will last longer than the Lyme Disease anti-bodies in your blood, and allow to accurately share those memories in a delightful way. But, on a thru-hike, your main concern isn't the TECHNICAL quality of your photos, it's (1) surviving the hike and (2) having a camera that survives the hike as well.

[Another Kevin]

On the other hand, when I've been drudging along for days, my thoughts turn to avoiding another knee injury, or tick bites, or melanoma, or sleepless nights, or blisters, or cuts on my wrists, or socks that never seem to get dry, or getting drenched in the rain, or heat exhaustion, or any of a dozen other hazards I've ALREADY EXPERIENCED -- without ever hiking for more than five days! At this point, the effort needed to get a good photo becomes a luxury I've decided I just can't afford.

You know, comments like this one are what keep me a clueless weekender. All the Real Hikers seem to tell me that they get totally absorbed in making the miles and avoiding the hazards. I think that long before I decided that photography was a luxury I can't afford, I'd be asking myself, "why am I out here?" I concede, I don't carry a DSLR - that much weight, I won't go for - but I carry a decent P&S (Canon SX20IS with CHDK), and get fair if not stunning pictures.

Maybe I'm reading you as being more negative than you intended - since you go on to suggest features to look for in a camera (lightness and durability). Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot. I've had at least one outdoor shot where a good photographer asked me, "what kind of lens did you use to get that?" and I pulled out my cell phone, pointed to its lens, and answered, "I don't know, whatever this is. It's all I had on me that day."

[FarmerChef]

Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot. I've had at least one outdoor shot where a good photographer asked me, "what kind of lens did you use to get that?" and I pulled out my cell phone, pointed to its lens, and answered, "I don't know, whatever this is. It's all I had on me that day."

I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon.

[hikerboy57]

I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon.

its so true and with a bit of luck that you happen to notice the light will never be the same and you happen to snap the shutter and capture the moment

[Another Kevin]

its so true and with a bit of luck that you happen to notice the light will never be the same and you happen to snap the shutter and capture the moment

Yup. This one was shot with a phonecam. Magical light. It really looked like that, that isn't lens flare.

Plotterkill in the mist by ke9tv, on Flickr

And this one on a disposable. I loved the symmetry of green trees and black shadows, white clouds and sunlit rocks, the upper and lower cascades. And the feel of coming out of the dark chasm to the sunlit falls.

Kaaterskill Falls by ke9tv, on Flickr

[OzJacko]

I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon.

My wife entered a pic taken on my Nokia in a photography competition and got second prize. Rusting old cars on a farm at dawn.

[Odd Man Out]

My wife entered a pic taken on my Nokia in a photography competition and got second prize. Rusting old cars on a farm at dawn.

My version from backpacking on North Manitou Island, Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, MI. This must have been taken with my old Canon 4 MP.

IMG_3365.JPG

[colorado_rob]

I had a bit of a chuckle reading that. We recently had a photography competition at my corporate office. I was one of about 15 photos selected from hundreds submitted and my photo (as well as the other winners) will be used as art in our offices worldwide. My winning photo? Shot on the AT (I love that there's even a blaze barely noticeable in the photo) with an iphone when the light was just perfect. I love it when folks win contests with shots from a disposable camera for the same reason. It's the photographer, not the camera that makes all the difference. I have to remind myself of this every time I read one of Ken's recommendations on the newest Nikon or Canon.

... Spot on.

[GoldenBear]

> Maybe we agree on the most important point: the best camera is the one you have with you when you can get the shot.

Yes, I agree. A smart-phone can capture that smile on your hiking mate just as well as a super-duper DSLR with all the bells and whistles.
I even agree that, for day hiking, a good zoom and wide angle are essential to getting those shots you really want to get -- whether it's a wide view of a cliff in British Columbia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr77x/3...4008/lightbox/
or a zoom of the climbers on that cliff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pr77x/3...4008/lightbox/

Which is why I still carry my SLR for these shots -- I hate having the camera decide when the shot is in focus, or taking even half a second to do so.

But that wasn't the question asked, and it wasn't the one I answered.
As I tried to make abundantly clear, I tried to give advice for what camera to use on a THRU-hike -- not a weekend hike.

For the former, durability and weight are what counts. And that's because, if you're trying to complete a thru-hike, your focus will have to be on doing the miles and avoiding hazards.
Not that you can't possibly get great shots -- you very likely will. But, if you make THAT your focus, then you won't complete your thru-hike. And the latter, after all, is why the OP is out there.

Me? I'll continue to have my SLR camera on easy day hikes, a digital camera on weekend hikes, and a smart-phone on longer hikes.
That way, I'll keep getting the shots I hope to get when THAT is my focus, and doing the miles when THAT is my focus.

That way, all those minor inconveniences I mentioned (Lyme Disease, knee surgery, removal of melanoma) won't keep me from completing the AT all the way to Kathadin.

[leaftye]

I'll take zoom every time. I've missed too many wildlife pictures because I couldn't get enough pixels on target. All the image quality on the world doesn't matter if animals are only 3 pixels wide. If image quality was really important, I'd carry nothing less than 4/3rds, but would more likely go with APS-C, and even full frame if I had lots of money to spend on a camera. Even then, I'd still carry a second compact super zoom camera to catch quick pictures that the big sensor camera isn't ready/equipped for.

[Feral Bill]

As always in photography, the camera is only as good as the photographer. Read a book or two, and practice, practice, practice. Not just with shooting, but with Photoshop (or equivalent).

[tds1195]

I use a Samsung w300 - weights about 4.8 oz, is waterproof, shockproof, and dustproof. I got it for $50 (newegg refurbished)...zoom sucks but it has good enough quality. I love the little guy! It's a video recorder first and camera second, though. If you want something simple and durable I would go for it. Can't beat it for the price!

[Bencape4]

as for the samsung w300, looks really nice, but does it have a screwy thingy to mount it to a stick pic or tripod or something?

[Odd Man Out]

as for the samsung w300, looks really nice, but does it have a screwy thingy to mount it to a stick pic or tripod or something?

I got one of these for Christmas - It's all plastic so it is very lightweight, but I'm not sure how much it weighs.

http://joby.com/gorillapod/original