Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AT thru-hike, recommend a good camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:34:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:35:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an
AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery.

The C-5000 is not a good camera for Alaska. You really will want
something with a longer zoom lens. I left my digital camera at home and
took my film SLR (this was before I had a digital SLR). You want at
least a 300mm zoom (35mm equivalent) in Alaska. If you expect to get
any photos of wildlife, either on-land, or from a boat, forget about it
with a camera that doesn't have a good zoom; you'll see little dots or
blobs (dark or light, depending on the animal).

If you want something with AA batteries, then look at the Sony
Cyber-shot DSC-H1, but it won't be out until June 2005, and it uses the
annoying Memory Sticks. Also look at the FinePix S5100, which is a good
deal, and the Kodak EasyShare Z740, both of which use AA batteries. The
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 or FZ15 are good choices if you can live with
a Li-Ion battery.

With whatever you buy, you're going to be using rechargeable batteries
that you'll need to recharge somehow. If you're hiking, the Li-Ion
batteries could be a better solution because they don't self-discharge
as much as NiMH, and because they are more dense, but OTOH the charger
is larger than you can get away with for NiMH AA batteries. Also, there
are plenty of solar chargers available for AA cells, but solar chargers
for Li-Ion proprietary batteries are a kluge of a 12V solar panel and a
12 volt charger.

I can't imagine why you are considering the C-5000Z. There are plenty
of far better compact cameras with similarly small zoom ranges on the
market, many of which use AA batteries. The C-5000Z is quite an old
camera, it lacks an AF illuminator, and has been panned in reviews as
being noisy. If you go with a camera like this, get the Canon A95. They
Stylus 410 and Stylus 500 are also not good choices, they both lack an
AF illuminator.

Use the search engine at:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

Tick off AF Illuminator and Recent Model, and select AA batteries, 4-5
megapixels, and over 10x zoom. You'll get three results.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
> camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
> town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
> taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
Now I have come across the Olympus Stylus 500 and 410, I think I am
gonna go with one of them. They both have all the features I am looking
for and a level of weatherproofness.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon A95 beats everything in its class - no contest!

Will

"fog-dog" <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:D 0o2v5$r8g$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
> fog-dog wrote:
> > This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> > thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> > Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
> > camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
> > town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
> > taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
> Now I have come across the Olympus Stylus 500 and 410, I think I am
> gonna go with one of them. They both have all the features I am looking
> for and a level of weatherproofness.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Malevil wrote:
> Canon A95 beats everything in its class - no contest!
>
> Will
>
> "fog-dog" <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 0o2v5$r8g$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
>>fog-dog wrote:
>>
>>>This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
>>>thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
>>>Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
>>>camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
>>>town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
>>>taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
>>
>>Now I have come across the Olympus Stylus 500 and 410, I think I am
>>gonna go with one of them. They both have all the features I am looking
>>for and a level of weatherproofness.
>
>
>
This doesn't have any weatherproofness like the other 3 do.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> This doesn't have any weatherproofness like the other 3 do.

do you want to hike or scuba diving in Alaska ? :-))
--
cheers :-)) emski
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:28:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
> camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
> town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
> taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?

You might take a look at the Kodak DX6440, if you can find one in stock
(it has been replaced by the DX7440). The 6440 still has AA batteries,
and can use CRV3 disposables. It has a nice 4x zoom lens, takes great
pictures, and is able to do some manual functions as well as having
presets. I took about 450 pictures during an Alaskan cruise in May/June
of last year. They are on Webshots. User ID is rphunter42. Take a look.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:34:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:34:59 -0500, fog-dog <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu>
wrote:

>This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
>thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
>Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
>camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
>town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
>taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?


Batteries are only part of the problem.
What are you going to do about storage?
Get fresh memory cards in your mail drops?
Send the "full" cards home? Carry a 40G
iPod for storage?

You might consider a nice lightweight
35 mm film camera, maybe an Olympus
Stylus or some such.

I've used a Canon G2 on AT section hikes
and weekend hikes. In 1990 I trekked
about 850 miles of AT with a Ricoh SLR.
(Chosen for its low weight.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/Appalachian%20Trail0.html
http://gallery.backcountry.net/at-vt-2002
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fuji Finepix s602z.....discontinued now, but a blinder of a camera so look
at ebay./...should get one for £150 ($270US?)

"fog-dog" <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:D 0o0qv$fk$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom Digital
> Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this camera is
> that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to town it will
> be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend taking into
> consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:28:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

canongirly wrote:
> Fuji Finepix s602z.....discontinued now, but a blinder of a camera so look
> at ebay./...should get one for £150 ($270US?)
>
> "fog-dog" <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 0o0qv$fk$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>
>>This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
>>thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom Digital
>>Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this camera is
>>that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to town it will
>>be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend taking into
>>consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
>
>
>

Man this camera is hard to find.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:28:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

canongirly wrote:
> Fuji Finepix s602z.....discontinued now, but a blinder of a camera so look
> at ebay./...should get one for £150 ($270US?)
>
> "fog-dog" <gtg270h@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:D 0o0qv$fk$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>
>>This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
>>thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom Digital
>>Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this camera is
>>that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to town it will
>>be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend taking into
>>consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
>
>
>
Found it on steve's digi cams, I think this is gonna way too much for
being weight conscious on a hike.
March 10, 2005 5:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:

> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery.

I'd be using an all mechanical film camera for something like this, but
that's me.
--

Stacey
March 10, 2005 5:07:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:


>
>
> Batteries are only part of the problem.
> What are you going to do about storage?
> Get fresh memory cards in your mail drops?
> Send the "full" cards home? Carry a 40G
> iPod for storage?
>

Exactly what I was thinking, with a film camera you could easily find film
at the stores along the way and mail home the exposed ones. Even batteries
are something I'd rather not deal with as you're likely to get into some
cold climates where they might stop working etc.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:48:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

emski wrote:
>>This doesn't have any weatherproofness like the other 3 do.
>
>
> do you want to hike or scuba diving in Alaska ? :-))
Hike, the summers there are rainy also.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:49:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
> camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
> town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
> taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?
I am gonna go with the olympus stylus either 400, 410 or 500. They are
lightweight and although it has a rechargable battery, I found out its
not that big of a deal. Plus all three are weatherproof to an extent.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:44:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> emski wrote:
>>> This doesn't have any weatherproofness like the other 3 do.
>>
>>
>> do you want to hike or scuba diving in Alaska ? :-))
> Hike, the summers there are rainy also.

If weather-proofness is critical (and it might be the difference between
something and nothing, after all), consider an "ultra-transportable"
like the Canon S410 or S500; they will accept an underwater case that is
good to 140 feet ( ! ), must fit very close to the camera and weigh
proportionately little, compared to the return. The cameras use CF cards
and proprietary batteries. If my experience with SterlingTek batteries
is any indication, their replacements should give double the standard
expected number of exposures. Such kit combined with moderation in flash
and LCD use could meet your needs.


--
Frank ess
March 10, 2005 12:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fog-dog wrote:
> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an AT
> thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with this
> camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I get to
> town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall recommend
> taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard batteries?


I've thought about thru-hiking the AT, but it's just idle thought mostly.

Everything I've read about thru hikers is that weight is everything. I'd
go for a lightweight 2 or 3 mp camear that runs off AA batteries. I'd
mail myself lithium AAs. A 3 mp camera with a few 256mb CF cards will
take a ton of pictures. If you restrict your use of the LCD, you can
shoot a lot of pics with the lithium batteries.

Remember, it's not a photo expidition, it's a cross country hike. I'm
thinking of something along the lines of one of those little nikon
coolpix cameras. When I got my package of new batteries, I'd use up the
old ones reviewing and editing the ones on the card.

Bob
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:00:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:6oudnXnhseEd5K3fRVn-vg@giganews.com...

> If weather-proofness is critical (and it might be the difference
between
> something and nothing, after all), consider an "ultra-transportable"
> like the Canon S410 or S500; they will accept an underwater case that
is
> good to 140 feet ( ! ), must fit very close to the camera and weigh

<snip>

Good advice. These two cameras are also very inexpensive right now,
with the S500 being available for around $300. Canon is apparently
closing out the S410 and the S500.

Still, for something like an AT hike, I'd go with an AA powered camera
that takes Compact Flash (i.e. the A95), for the following reasons:

1. You can buy a small, inexpensive, solar charger for AA batteries,
but not for proprietary batteries.

2. Large capacity CF cards are very cheap, especially the non-high
speed ones.

3. You can use an add-on telephoto lens if desired, something that
would be very useful on his Alaska trip.

4. It has essential features like an AF-Assist Lamp, that is missing
from many of the low end cameras,

5. There is a waterproof housing available. Personally I think this is
overkill, unless planning to take photos underwater. Keep the camera in
a small waterproof box when not in use.

The new Canon A520, while it doesn't use Compact Flash, would be
another excellent choice due to the available add-ons, which include a
wide-angle lens, telephoto lens, close-up lens, waterproof case, and
external flash. See:
"http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a510_..."

The Olympus Stylus models cameras, that the original poster is
considering, are very poor choices. The lack of an optical viewfinder
on the 500 eliminates it immediately, and the lack of an AF assist lamp
on any of them, also is not a good thing.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:23:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:

> fog-dog wrote:
>
>> This summer I am going to Alaska and a year from now I am planning an
>> AT thru-hike. I have been looking at the Olympus Camedia C-5000 Zoom
>> Digital Camera but it has a rechargable battery. The problem with
>> this camera is that it does not use standard AA batteries so when I
>> get to town it will be a hassle to get recharged. What do yall
>> recommend taking into consideration weight and that it uses standard
>> batteries?
>
>
>
> I've thought about thru-hiking the AT, but it's just idle thought mostly.
>
> Everything I've read about thru hikers is that weight is everything.


That's mostly true though it's odd how many
hikers allow themselves a luxury or two.

If you can be satisfied with 15 miles a day,
weight isn't as critical.

For those hoping to do more miles than that,
better check into ultra-light hiking.

The real speedsters are carrying no more
than 20 lbs or so.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 10, 2005 5:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb wrote:

>
> That's mostly true though it's odd how many
> hikers allow themselves a luxury or two.
>
> If you can be satisfied with 15 miles a day,
> weight isn't as critical.

I can't imagine maintaing 15 miles a day through the mountains with a
pack. The last time I did 15 miles it was a day hike on a coastal road
with an elevation change of about 2 feet.

According to my calculations, based on the info on
www.appalachiantrail.org, the average thru hiker averages out 10 to 13
miles a day (5 to 7 months).

I'm sure some days are faster than others, too!

Bob
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:18:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> rafeb wrote:
>
>>
>> That's mostly true though it's odd how many
>> hikers allow themselves a luxury or two.
>>
>> If you can be satisfied with 15 miles a day,
>> weight isn't as critical.
>
>
> I can't imagine maintaing 15 miles a day through the mountains with a
> pack. The last time I did 15 miles it was a day hike on a coastal road
> with an elevation change of about 2 feet.
>
> According to my calculations, based on the info on
> www.appalachiantrail.org, the average thru hiker averages out 10 to 13
> miles a day (5 to 7 months).
>
> I'm sure some days are faster than others, too!


Every hiker is different. Every day is different.
Don't forget that even hikers want to take a day
off from time to time. So if you take (say) one
day off per week, and walk 15 miles on each of
the other six days, your average is now down to
under 13 miles per day.

I was 37 years old when I did my "big" AT hike
and averaged 11 miles per day overall. There
was a speedster on the trail that year who was
moving at almost three times that speed.

I did a few 20-mile days.. and usually these
were followed by a seriously sub-par day, milewise.

On the AT you're hemmed in by the seasons.
Most succesful thru-hikers (as you've noted)
have to make at least 12 miles a day to cover
the 2170 miles between mid-March and early
October.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 10, 2005 7:27:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb wrote:

> I was 37 years old when I did my "big" AT hike
> and averaged 11 miles per day overall. There
> was a speedster on the trail that year who was
> moving at almost three times that speed.
>

How far did you go total, and what kind of camera did you take? I
suppose the followup would be did you think it was a good choice later?
(Not necessarily while you were carrying the weight, but later when you
looked at the photos).

When we get the renovation on our house wrapped up I'd like to do some
hikes on the AT of two weeks to a month.

Bob
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:11:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:27:56 -0500, bob <not@not.not> wrote:

>rafeb wrote:
>
>> I was 37 years old when I did my "big" AT hike
>> and averaged 11 miles per day overall. There
>> was a speedster on the trail that year who was
>> moving at almost three times that speed.
>>
>
>How far did you go total, and what kind of camera did you take? I
>suppose the followup would be did you think it was a good choice later?
>(Not necessarily while you were carrying the weight, but later when you
>looked at the photos).
>
>When we get the renovation on our house wrapped up I'd like to do some
>hikes on the AT of two weeks to a month.


I did about 700 miles in one go, from April 4
to June 2, 1990. Springer Mtn. to Blacksburg VA.

I did another 100+ miles in Maine later that
same year, from Katahdin summit to Monson ME.

Over the 15 years since, I've finished my
coverage of the trail from the northern terminus
down to Dalton MA. So overall, about 2/3 of the
trail under my belt so far. There are sections
of trail in the White Mountains (NH) that I've
walked at least 20 times. (Eg., the Franconia
Ridge.)

I took a Ricoh film SLR, because it was cheap
and fairly lightweight. I left my Nikon FE at
home for two reasons: the weight, and because
I was less attached to the Ricoh -- ie, I
wouldn't feel as bad if it were lost or ruined.

No regrets. It was the right choice for me, at
the time. These days I usually take my Canon G2.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 11, 2005 12:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> I did about 700 miles in one go, from April 4
> to June 2, 1990. Springer Mtn. to Blacksburg VA.
>
> I did another 100+ miles in Maine later that
> same year, from Katahdin summit to Monson ME.

Sounds like a great time. Thanks for sharing.

Bob
!