Landscape photography - an almost perfect hiking camera
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2022
- I still think the best digital outfit for shooting on long hill walks is something based on the Micro 4/3 standard. In this video I go into the Western hills of Snowdonia for a 10 mile walk with my G80 and superzoom lens but I also ask myself, and you, the question of what is the ideal 35mm film outfit for days like these?
Equipment Used
Panasonic G80
14-140 Panasonic f/3.5-5.6 MkII
Preview App
Mark II Artists Viewfinder (iOS only on the App Store)
Vlogging Equipment
GoPro Hero 10
iPhone 12Pro
Tascam DR05 and Rode Smart Lav
Incidental Music (Epidemic Sound)
Etsy Shop
steveonionsphoto.etsy.com
Contact Details
Email: steveonions1@gmail.com Twitter: Steve_ONions / steve_onions Instagram: steveonions1 / steveonions1
Get a pet donkey. Load him up and bring everything. If the donkey starts talking, let me know where you got those gummy snacks 😁.
Hmmm, paying someone else to lug everything for me sounds very appealing 🤔
Yes, perfect combination for hiking and travel. I use the G95 (I had the G85 before that) and the 14-140. I usually carry a couple of small primes in my pocket/bag too. (9mm, 15mm and/or 25mm .... all small and lightweight.) 🙂
There’s never and drawback to carrying extra lenses when they are that small 🙂
You stated- near the end of the video ( 8:40 ): "maybe not photographically". I really thought the photographs that you took with the Lumix were stunning.
Thanks 😊
I agree with you! M43 is the perfect hiking equipment! The new OM1 paired with the 12-200mm works perfectly for me in almost every single photography discipline! And the best of it: I can make long hiking and climbing trips with only one Camera and Lens!
That really is an all in one solution 👍
Great, entertaining videos--thanks for taking the time. Here's the thing--I honestly believe that if you were to make A2 or even larger prints from a well-processed MFT RAW file (or in some cases JPG) and compared that with the results from any larger-format digital camara, most anyone would be hard-pressed to tell which was which. The potential IQ available from any mid-range camera/lens already surpasses the ability of the human eye/visual cortex to differentiate and of course, it's the concept that counts the most, not technical "perfection." Now, B&W film still possesses greater potential DR than any digital sensor (if you apply advanced darkroom techniques such as Bruce Barnbaum's two-solution negative development), but the Lumix G9 is my go-to camera for most situations, not because of economics, but because of its capabilities and portability (as Maggie points out below). My go-to kit covers 16-800mm eq FL and weighs about 5kg (pack, G9, battery grip, five lenses, spare batteries, flash/softbox, cleaning supplies, C-PL and NDs, and even an Olympus TG-5--an amazing little camera), so I can go anywhere under any conditions and get museum-quality shots (assuming I do my part!). If I'm walking the dogs and need one-handed operation, my Lumix FZ1000 covers that with a 25-400 (f/2.8-4) Leica lens and 20MP 1" sensor, which has huge DoF and more than enough IQ up to at least ISO 800 or more, depending on the scene (it's just not waterproof). If I have both hands free but want to travel even lighter than the full G9 kit, the GX85 with the 12-32 and 45-150 fits into a couple of jacket pockets, and offers essentially 24-300mm of FL range--about what I generally had when I shot film. There's simply no need to burden oneself anymore to get great images.
I couldn't agree more about getting out in nature! Although I rarely leave the house without a camera, the hiking experience/exercise counts at least as much as the photography (at least that's what I tell myself). No great expectations, only hope for some nice surprises...
I agree regarding M4/3 image quality and have seen it demonstrated many times. A friend owned both an Olympus OM5 (original) and a D800 and on A2 prints there was no difference in the quality.
I also owned the FZ1000 which I used for walks but preferred M4/3 overall. I did own a TG-5 but found the video quality a bit disappointing so I sold it.
My G9 mainly gets used for video and digitising negatives but I do like it for stills work I long with a couple of d/2.8 zooms.
M4/3 is so versatile it’s a shame it isn’t more popular.
I invested in m4/3 precisely for traveling, excellent image quality, prime lenses are so small and versatile, you can achieve great results despite its limitations vs full/medium format sensor.
Beautiful shots Steve. I love when you do micro4/3 content. I have a G95 (called G90 in the UK), so light, but weather sealed and freeze proof. It’s a joy to use.
I need to do more with the M4/3 Joel, including the G5 full spectrum conversion.
@@SteveONions The old G5 has lovely haptics, wonderfully cuddly. Everything on it is well made and feels nice whereas the G6 felt like tacky plastic. With the G7 they almost got it right again but the E-M5ii feels nicer, very similar but no they don't quite do the same stuff.
True, the G5 doesn't have newer features like focus peaking and cannot be taken to high ISO. And it is let down by the low resolution of its LCD and EVF which can make you think it is out of focus, but it is not. It shared a lot of innards with the GH3, including the total 18Mp sensor (but only uses 16Mp). I still use the G5, it's an old friend, it's a keeper.
There are easier cameras to butcher, like a cheapo Canon Rebel. I'm using the old Olympus 2 Mp Camedia C2040Z for IR because it does not need the sensor stripping out (it's got funny threads and needs a special filter adapter tube).
Fab fotos ! 🤩👍
Fabulous images. So many wonderful memories.
What a great video. I used the g80 on a trip to the Lake District and mainly used the lumix 12-60mm. The weather sealing was needed and I came away with some good photos. I may consider this lens too
That 12-60 is also a great lens and more compact than the 14-140, pretty well sealed for general wet weather use too.
I love your digital photography videos as I can relate to it more. You have a way with your digital work to capture very film-ish looking images. Love your humour also - you sure footed mountain goat.
Thank you, I’m pleased with the digital shots but would probably add some grain texture to them if destined for print, they are a little too clean for me 🙂
I like your style man :)
Beautiful images Steve, I have the Olympus system, the little Em5 with my wee Mzuiko 17mm is still to this day one of my favorite combinations for all photography.
Thanks Paul, I used to own the 17mm 1.8 and it was an impressive performer.
Steve an Olympus om10 with the speed adapter or an om1 or om2 should work very light cameras
Forgotten about that lens might have a look!!
Thanks for the nice Video. My Favorite is the GX8 - smaller and 20 Megapixel! I have two Bodys (and one G9).
Another much needed video, intelligently explaining the uses and advantages of micro 4/3, a real contradiction to the nonsense.
Tools for the job, great hike !
Thanks Gary.
My favorite photographer on UA-cam. Thank you very much for your videos.
Thanks John 😊
Another great video Steve. Don't know much about film lenses. But for color work and short hikes, I love my Oly PEN. Oh boy, a medium format P&S coming. Can't wait. Ken
Thanks Ken. M4/3 was made for days like this, quality aplenty and not burdened by hefty lenses.
Absolutely stunning shots. Afraid I'm not in the know on the lens question but I've heard nothing but good stuff on the Tamron zooms. I do carry heavy gear when hiking ie 45-100 zoom and 100-200 zoom. If in lazy, I hike with the small camera and the 21, 28, 50 and 90 primes. Again, absolutely stunning pictures. Thanks again
I’d defiantly carry more/better gear if not for the overhead (burden) of vlogging. It’s surprising how frustrating it can be to try and capture stills whilst making a video and juggling all the accessories required.
I have the Nikkor 28-300 and love it. Have used on film cameras and both FX and DX bodies. Lots of hiking in mountains and it has become my favourite lens for backpacking trips where reducing camera gear was important. I also use Fuji cameras but nothing is more versatile than my 28-300 nikkor.
Thanks Peter, I’ve given myself a week to decide, then I’m buying something!
Like how your photo looked like a water painting. in a good way.
Another top vid, thanks for taking us up those hills with you. If you go for the bigger stabilised lens, leave the tripod behind.
I think stabilisation is the only way to go for real flexibility in these situations Trevor.
Thanks for your video(s)! Love them. I got the Tamron 28-300 mk 2 for Canon and it is one of my favorit lenses for landscape/model shots. Use it on Canon RP and R. The Tamron is also in Nikon mount. I also like Lumix TZ100. It has a 24-240mm (eq 35mm) and 1 inch sensor. Just a last one; the Lumix LF1 with 28-200 mm EQ and 1.1/7 small sensor.
I picked up a TZ100 in May Jens ( and the TZ90) but just couldn't get on with them so they were quickly sold. The form factor was a bit chunky although I liked the reach of the telephoto. To be honest I'm finding my iPhone 12 Pro almost as good for most things.
As you approached I was already jealous - I think I posed the Rhinogydd question to you somewhere recently? You are spot on with the mft things too - I really regret selling my G9 with 12-60PL and replacing it with the lightweight S5 which yes, comes with heavier lenses 🙄 Stunning hike and stunning photography Steve, in fact my fave set of photographs from you in a while... but I am a lover of the mountainscapes. For the film lens question sorry I wouldn't know - I am surprised you don't yourself to be honest. I look forward to seeing what you did with the film camera. atb Al
I remember you carrying the G9 Alan, I don’t typically take mine up hills as it’s a bit bulky and the G80 is fine. M4/3’s real advantage is the lenses which are so much smaller than APSC and full frame (as you well know 😊).
I bought a Lumix GX7 for travel and walking around several years ago, I was so impressed that I bought the GX9 later
I'd have gone for the G9 but it's bulky enough. To be honest had I known much about the system from the beginning of my digital journey, I'd never have gone apsc or full frame.
It's brilliant for what I need. I love what you film guys do but I don't think that I'll ever go back in that direction
Great shots bye the way 📷👌
Thanks Eltin. I’m many ways M4/3 is like 35mm film in that most people seem to dismiss it as inadequate. The larger formats have always attracted people but often it’s just overkill.
Ah, splendid stuff. Looking forward to getting the 14-140 in the mail even more now, I think it will be a proper allrounder combined with the GX9. Sclepped the G9 with the PL50-150 and the G3 with the 8-18 around for a two hour terrain walk today and it was somewhat cumbersome, but not especially heavy at about 2.5 kilos for the lot. But then again, it being a short hike, I just had them slung cross body, so pushing through bushes and low threes off the beaten path was... interesting. 🙂
It’s surprising how a little more weight (and bulk) can soon get in the way. Beyond a certain point the Peak Designs clip on my backpack will not hold the camera steady and it bounces/sways annoyingly.
Beautiful images and location. These days I use a panasonic gx85 with an olympus 14-150mm lens on the camera 90% of the time. Occasionally I swap it out for a prime lens for extra challenge.
Those M43 bodies are so delightful John, I have too many but just enjoy owning them.
Laurence Smith here. Good for you on those wonderful hiking boots. Looks like Norwegian stitch-down welt and REAL leather. Beautiful overlapping hills in those first images.
Thanks Laurence, the boots are pretty waterproof too unless they get submerged for a longer period of time.
Nice to hear someone praising the Lumix. I currently take my old G7 on hikes and hardly notice I've got it. Unfortunately I sold my 14-140mm lens a couple of years ago. For more deliberate photo shoots I use a full frame Sony, but I really do notice the weight difference if I'm walking far. Great video, thanks.
It’s definitely the size of the lenses, body wise M43 is comparable to many FF mirrorless.
good one Steve !! .. I still have my first digital camera .... a Olympus E-PL1 .. still produces fine shots !! .. and I have a OM-D M5 and a OM-D M10 (my favorite) .... :)
That's a great lifespan for a digital camera George.
14kg pack weight for a day hike!? Time for a "what's is my bag" video. Viewers could then help you to reduct that weight that will enable you to take your existing lenses.
Agreed! That seems definitely on the high end. That's almost the weight of my overnight bag with a Fuji apsc kit! What's in there?!
I agree - that is a lot for a day hike. I've got an Olympus set up covering 24mm to 300mm equiv and I come in under 2kgs. Add 2 kgs for water and 500gms for snacks, then add the backpack, two Leki walking sticks, and I'm still not up to 5kgs. A decent travel/hiking tripod is under 1.5kgs. I suppose I could always take the 8.5kgs of bricks out of my bag... That might help :-P
I know Neville, I don’t know what I’d let the bag get that heavy but I’ve now reduced it to 8kg and it was so much easier on this weekends hike. I’d forgotten just how much stuff I had sat in those dry bags (not to mention the excess of food and water).
Film and digital are both great. Maybe now and again just stay with the m4/3 camera and go with some film simulations in post. 😉 Thanks, always enjoy you sharing your outings and vision.
I do think some trips should be M4/3 only, the gear is so much lighter and easier to use.
Yep, I agree. I go out with my g85 or g9, 12-60(kit), or 14-140 (a recent upgrade, used). Also a 100-400, sometimes, if I am not in the forest. If in the forest or in a narrow city streets, I bring a 7-14, also.
That Panasonic 12-60 kit lens is surprisingly good Steve and it’s quite showerproof too. M43 is the only format I have where I could take as many lenses as I liked should the mood take me.
Just a few weeks back I got myself the Lumix 14-140 f3.5-5.6. I want it for travel and so far, I have been very happy with it. The image quality is great. It is light and well balanced on my GX9.
So many UA-camrs bang on about 'pro' gear, a more practical view is nice to see. Also on the point about depth of field, few make the point you did about how it is a strength of M43. Although, I've found with the 140mm, f5.6 and close focussing, this lens can give some great subject isolation, good for flowers, etc. Thanks for a great video, beautiful weather and scenery 🙂
There’s too much focus on ‘image quality’ Michael, in real world situations nobody will ever see a difference between M4/3 and full frame. If someone wants a wall sized print then that’s different but few people even have A4’s done.
@@SteveONions Agreed, although I wasn't really meaning the old chestnut of M43 Vs FF. By pro I meant lenses. The Oly 12-45 f4 pro lens is nice but I don't think the 14-140 is a lot bigger nor heavier. The 14-140 doesn't have a constant aperture but is that important? I can have a constant aperture of f5.6. I am sure the quality of the Oly/OM and Panasonic Leica M43 Pro lenses are great but, so much better than the consumer lenses such as the 14-140...?
When I’m hiking I take a film and digital camera. I Travel light too. I’ve just bought a Sony 18-135mm lens for my mirrorless A6300 camera. The lens had to be light in weight but good quality. It’s an equivalent 27-205mm in full frame. The kit is so compact and ultra light weight giving me a good zoom range. I too love the compression of hills and mountains for that abstract looking image. I rarely use a tripod unless I have to. Shooting lightweight gear keeps motivated
I'd struggle without a long lens in the mountains Simon, I find it invaluable for cutting out unnecessary detail. I also prefer a zoom for the instant access, having to change lenses is the difference between getting and missing a great shot.
Have you looked at the newest Panasonic camera? Great for video.
Hello Steve. Always enjoy your content. Nothing new to suggest, just another vote for the Tamron 28-300 Di VC PZD. 2/3s the weight of the Nikkor (540g vs. 800g), so it should balance nicely with your F80. Non-rotating filter ring so you can set and forget your 67mm circular polarizer. And you can find Excellent condition copies for 130-150 £. Dustin Abbott has a review on this lens (albeit in Canon EF mount) that you may want to check out. Best regards.
Thanks Colin, I think that’s the lens I’ll be getting for the F80. I was never sure if the stabilisation worked on late Nikon film cameras but it seems it does. Ideal size and weight and any optical shortcomings are less likely to trouble 400 speed film and rolling mountain scenery (usually in a gale!).
Stunning compressed Images Steve. Okay so for me on a long hike I bought the smallest kit I could find and that is 2Sony A6300 bodies with a 10-20mm wide zoom and a 55-210mm telephoto which is very light and compact. It’s the kit I was going to take on my trip to Canada and the Rockies, but never happened due to the pandemic. I side to use a Tamron 28-200mm zoom on my Canon Eos 1 back in the 90’s. TBH I think that Nikon super zoom you suggested sounds a great idea.
Bad luck with the Canada trip Simon, I just got in before the pandemic. Those two lenses would cover just about any opportunity you would come across out there.
@@SteveONions Yes, Canada was a bitter pill to swallow, but some day we will go hopefully. We have family on Vancouver Island. My nephew and his wife to be are seasoned mountain climbers. Not quite my bag hanging a few hundred feet on a cliff face. I have a passion for cameras. I’ve always loved the look of the Leica M6, but I know I will never own a Leica. The reason being is I’d rather spend the money on travel. I used to use an old Lubitel 166B and I love using manual everything sometimes. I was really interested in your review of that Olympus camera you had, the first version. I was out on Good Friday shooting a 1950’s garage with authentic rusting petrol pumps outside. Of course I shot it with my Nikon FE2. The sound of that shutter makes me smile.
Cheers Steve, this is Sean in Atlanta! I happen to shoot an OLYMPUS with the 14-150 lens on it, very similar to yours. And I also have a CPL permanently attached to my lens. If I may make a suggestion, go to eBay and look for a JJC metal circular lens hood in your lens diameter size which will cost you probably $8 to $10 and put your CPL filter on the lens and then screw on the circular lens hood onto the filter and you’ll always be able to rotate the CPL on or off as needed. I noticed you had your tulip, included, Atlanta and then you have to fiddle with the CPL filter by hand were using the circular learns heard from JJC, which is metal by the way, it’s so easy to use or not use the filter.
Sean
Good point Sean, it’s fiddly to adjust the polariser with the standard hood.
Excellent pictures as always.
The Nikkor 28-300 is good enough and can be the only lens on a hike, it‘s much more practical than juggling several fixed lenses.
If you should need one fast lens in addition, put a 1,8/50mm into your pocket and you‘re done.
Thanks Jörg, I’m definitely going for a stabilised super zoom, however I’m going to give the Tamron a try as it is quite a bit smaller and lighter.
@@SteveONions Would be great to hear about your experiences with the Tamron. If it's good enough I may change it against my Nikkor 28-300 which is pretty heavy.
I have the sigma 28-300mm lens EF mount the lens is amazing.
Its not stabalized. But my GH5 does the job well enough
Totally with you on the Jelly Babies, Steve. Also on the M4/3 too. I'm Olympus rather than Panasonic but the concept applies. I also pack my Agfa Isolette II when I'm hiking so other than my complete lack of fitness, lack of desire to get up early in the morning and lack of an eye for great landscape photographs, we could almost be twins :)
😀 getting up and out is 75% of the battle Morris, if I can do that then getting a good shot is the easy part.
Great video Steve - was trying to work out the 2 mountains but no success (update: Got it! - Rhinog fawr n Fach👍). I find my Fujifilm XT-1 digital with 16-50 and 50-230 (24-75 & 75-350 equivalent in 35mm) lenses is a great lightweight kit. I know that's not the answer to your question, but it's another great option for digital and light. To answer your question I have a few old Mamiya 35mm cameras and a range of lenses which are very light and sharp as anything. Not sure how long the longest lens they did was, but it may be suitable - not got any image stabilising, but you could use a monopod for same effect. Looking forward to part 2.
Thanks Roksan. I find long lenses so useful in mountainous environments which of course adds to the difficulty of carrying equipment. Shorter lenses are so much easier to use.
What about a 1.4x extender? And what on earth where you doing going over that wall at 6:13?! Great video again though, thanks :-)
Ooh, extenders on high quality primes - yes, on zooms though, hmmmm.
I love the content you put out :) I shoot with olympus while hiking mountains and nikon Z9 for wildlife. If you are planning to go to another system, why not get a nikon z7 or z7II with 24-200 f/4 z mount with VR? you can use all your current nikkors with an adaptor on the Z7
Best,
Jay
I had this conversation with a friend recently and we agreed that if we started from scratch today the digital system of choice would be Nikon Z. I love the look of the 24-200 and could probably manage with that lens for almost everything.
I’m using the z7 and the 24-200 and I can only agree with Bisibela. A very good combo with excellent picture quality. Additionally I have a small, but sturdy enough mini tripod with me. Does the job for longer exposures most of the time although only 25cm high.
My Olympus PenF is my favorite walk around digital with the 12-40 f2.8 lens. Add the 75-300, sometimes called the plastic fantastic, and there isn’t really anything you can’t shoot. I sometimes add the 60mm f2.8 Macro which is a beautiful little lens. As to your 35mm question have you thought of adding a 1.4 extender to the kit you already have
Thanks Sophie. I will sometimes use a 1.4x on the Bronica or the very best 35mm primes but on a zoom it would result in poor overall quality.
I'm rather spoilt for choice with MFT having started with the E-PL1. Actually it was the Lumix FZ200 that sold me the idea of MFT. and that would still be a good idea for carrying up a mountain because it is light and goes all the the way from 25 to 600mm equivalent, at f/2.8.
I use the E-PL7 as my carry cameras loaded with the Lumix PZ14-45, often with the tiny PZ45-175 in a pocket. The E-PL7 shares much with the E-M10ii, but even smaller. The equivalent Oly 14-42EZ is not only unstabilised but clanky.
The E-M5ii handles larger lenses better than the PEN-F, that's to say simply holding it - they share a lot of innards. The largest I like to load the PEN-F with is the Lumix 45-200, but not the 100-300 nor the 100-400. The big Leica goes on the G9 and that kit is heavy, but nothing like slapping an 800 on a full frame, and it is still hand-held (but I will put it on a tripod for long sessions because my left shoulder is damaged). The PEN-F is a little more sophisticated and I appreciate the EV compensation in auto-ISO in M-mode (which the G9 also does).
The advantage of using OIS Lumix lenses is that an Olympus back will then use part and part stabilisation "Olympus Dual Stabilisation" (which they do not crow about), not Sync-IS and not as effective as Panasonic Dual-IS/Dual2 but which is better than all-IBIS.
Do not be put off the older MFT lenses because they focus more slowly or make whirring noises. They still focus smartly and all have good glass.
Pre digital I used Olympus OM1/2 cameras for hiking. The Olympus bodies and lenses were smaller and lighter than the Canikon equivalents. But they didn't really have a superzoom that Ican recall. I used a Tamron adaptall 28-70 and the Zuiko 135mm. Nowadays i use a Lumix GX80(rangefinder format) with 14-42 and 45-175 lines. Not the most sturdy outfit but very lightweight. And for multi-day backpacking I take the Lumix TZ100 with its 25-250FFE zoom and 1inch sensor. (And pre-digital I used a Rollei B collapsing lens camera for big trips - tiny and lightweight, but hard to operate with gloves!)
It’s interesting that you mention the TZ100 Alan as I’ve recently picked one up after thinking of getting one for 6 years. I like 1” sensor cameras and the zoom range is impressive for the size, especially compared to the FZ 1000 I used to own.
Yay! I really love my Lumix G85 (same as the G80 -- US nomenclature) as my digital camera (primarily a film photographer though, like you). I have the Lumix 50-150mm lens as my longest native lens -- and yep -- that 300mm (equivalent) of reach is great. I also have many adapters for vintage manual lenses and have been known to shoot a 200mm/300mm/400mm vintage lens as well. Occasionally I am tempted by the G9 -- but despite still being M4/3 -- the size and weight is much closer to (mirrorless) full-frame. And sometimes I am tempted by the last 2 generations of Olympus M4/3 cameras as they have retained the smaller size and weight. But it costs me $0 to keep using my G85!!!! 🙂
It’s true the G9 is close to full frame body size, but the lenses aren’t - which is the real advantage of micro4/3. The G9 is also rugged and an ergonomic dream, especially with bigger lenses. The 12-40/2.8 is awkward and front heavy on my tiny GX9.
My G9 is a lot bigger and heavier than the G80 so I tend not to carry it on long walks (although it’s not exactly ‘heavy’). I did have a spell of using adapted lenses on micro 4/3 but overall I found the native designs so small and sharp that I stuck with them.
@@SteveONions -- I'll use an adapted vintage lens when a) I can manage the manual focus and b) I have a good idea that the specific lens will add some character to the image that I could not get with a native lens. Or sometimes I give myself the challenge of going out to shoot photos and *only* use one or two vintage, adapted lenses and see if I get any results that I feel are "more than the sum of their parts" -- and I usually can manage that. But definitely the native lenses are more convenient and easier to haul/use.
Steve: I’ve been shooting with a Lumix G series body for several years now. I began with a G2 and currently travel with my G7. I hike and canoe with it on a chest harness and a Olympus Zuiko 25mm prime attached. That’s correct, a prime, not a zoom. It requires using my feet or the paddle to “zoom” the composition, but that makes me more aware of the scene. As you note, it is compact and lightweight, but capabilities and image quality are equal (imho) to full size sensors.
If my desire is to be ready for potential wide angle compositions, I will carry my Panasonic Leica 8-18 zoom in a belt loop soft-case. Obviously, I am a bit leary of changing lenses while in my canoe, but I often come around a bend in a river and am presented with majestic wide angle shot that I couldn’t compose with the prime.
Great vlog. It is hard to find professional videos about 4/3rds shooting on UA-cam.
Thanks Bob, it looks like you have a system that works well for you.
I like to use primes in locations where I can reposition easily, woodland, coastline etc but I do find mountains cry out for a long zoom to exclude all that extraneous detail.
Sorry I don’t have an answer for your question, but I do have the North American version of your M43 camera, the Panasonic G85. I also have the rangefinder GX85 as a backup. Wonderful cameras, still very relevant 6 years later. I love the shutters on both of these bodies: they are electromagnetically controlled with no shutter slap for super crisp images.
I also appreciate the quite shutters Lyndon, much better than the load clap of my earlier EM5 Mk1. The electronic shutter is also nice for quiet locations or time lapses.
Once again great shots Steve. Have you thought of a Nikon APS-c camera with the DX 18-300 ( giving 27-450 mm FL). The D5600 is a very small camera with 24MP sensor. So it is ranked as an advanced beginner camera but you and I know that it takes excellent pictures anyway. There is also the ability to put in more Picture Controls too. In terms of bang for your buck, I think the Nikon D5600 is the slam dunk best value camera ever. So you put the lens on the camera and never take it off, less maintenance, less weight in the back-pack; more energy for hiking. Cheers
Good suggestion Brian, if I wasn’t into M43 it would make my shortlist.
Hi Steve, have the G90 with the 14-140 as well, 20mp resolution and fast processor, for film try the N80 with battery grip, my 28-300 works great with that camera and better balanced with grip. The Tamaron 35-150 2.8-4 is also excellent(check compatibility with Tamaron/Nikon for the N80. Just as light and nimble as my G90 with grip. Ted.
I do like my F80 but I’m not so keen on the battery grip which should have been designed with a vertical shutter release. It does balance well with the more modest zooms but the bigger lenses feel better on the F100.
Lovely images Steve, sorry if you've already answered this somewhere, but what made you go for Lumix in the first place? I got a second-hand Fuji XT1 after years of Canons, I went for it for no other reason than I liked the design with the top-mounted dials, but I can't say if it's any better or worse than Panasonic or Olympus in the mirrorless stakes.
I was M43 from 2012 Mark and had a few lenses for the outfit. In 2016 I was going to get an XT2 but at the last minute went back to M43 and bought the G80 and G9. I just love how small and sharp the lenses are.
Thanks Steve, quite enjoyed! Have you considered the G100? Small, albeit only electronic stab. I find my g9 at bit too big to haul about in the mountains and looking for an alternative. G85 certainly smaller, but not a lot.
I’m not convinced by the G100 Gordon, all my M43 cameras with body stabilisation easily beat those with lens only options. It’s not cheap either so I’ll stick with the G80 for now.
@@SteveONionsthere's something about the g80 i really like the images that come out of it are very detailed and have a lovely colour rendition to them but I think the MFT camera's are overlooked by the so called pro shooters with there full frame camera's, I have the g80, g90 and the g9 and they really take some beating and thank you for showcasing the MFT system.
In my mind the best camera and lens combination is whichever one you take with you. Each will give you the opportunity to get the shot with a little application of thought and an idea, whether it is large format, medium format, 35mm or 4/3rds and the rest. They will all produce the goods, albeit with varying quality of return but, as you have proved many times Steve, each will give you what you want with a little effort. It is the end result, not the size of recording medium that matters. Mind you mate, lugging stuff up hill and down dale may make one refine the choices LOL!
Thanks John. Without the need to record vlogs I’d be happy to carry more camera gear but the fact is that filming and shooting stills is very hard sometimes which is why it sometimes seems the focus on lightweight kit is almost obsessive 🙂
For your Nikon why not a super light and super small Tamron equivalent lens, the 28-300 mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD (weight: 540 g (1.19 lb) - length 96 mm (3.78″) subtracted? Works perfectly on f80 and f100, even the VC.
Thanks Michael, I think you’ve identified the best option. I’ve been mulling over this lens for the best part of a year now but was never able to find anyone who could tell me if it worked on the late Nikon bodies. I just need to find one now, not many in the UK and they are expensive.
The Tamron 28-300 VC lens was considered fairly good (for a superzoom) if I remember the reviews correct, but I think there were two versions and the PZD-version was the newest. I considered it, but had more or less switched to MFT when it came out. It was available for Canon and Nikon and the first version possibly for more mounts, but I cant see any reason why you'd switch from Nikon to get one. The Nikon 28-300 is slightly faster at the long end, but also larger and heavier. There are still reviews of the Tamron on the net, but results on optical quality vary a lot.
Canon also have a 28-300 IS, but it's a L-lens and weighs at least twice as much as the Tamron so for light and compact it's obviously not the best option.
interestingly it's currently about 10% less expensive for Nikon than Canon.
I think the Tamron lens is the way to go, I just need to find a good one now 👍
I have the same camera and while it is very good, I upgraded to the spectacular Lumix G9. It is 20MP, still M 4/3 but the sensor has less noise and stunning color rendition. It also has superior "in body" stabilization. The ergonomics is hands down the best of any camera and the weight is not much more than the G80/G85 .
As for lenses, I use the 12-60 kit lens and the 45-150 Lumix lens. The latter is cheap as chips but it is really light, does feature cooperative stabilization with the camera body and it is small. I suspect, with these two lenses, you can get superior image quality over a super zoom lens.
However, what I do most often is to use adapters and shoot manual focus vintage glass. With the ability to zoom in the viewfinder, I get razer accurate focus. And with the IBIS, I can shoot at speeds as low as 1/5 of a second and get excellent results.
I also have the G9, wonderful camera. The problem with adapting vintage lenses to micro4/3 is the crop factor… you lose the entire wide end of the focal range. The widest practical lens is 40mm equivalent.
This is why I bought a Z6ii just for adapting my Nikon ai-s lenses.
I’ve also got the G9 Maggie and it is very capable but I’ve found the G80 produces lovely prints too. I also own both those lenses and agree that the 12-60 is excellent, the wide end of superb and hard to differentiate from the Leica version. That 45-150 is a gem and I’d never part with mine even though it gets little use today.
G95 has the same sensor as the G9 the only advantage to the G9 is video and 80mp mode everything else is identical basically.
Steve, two options stand out - both Tamron, both relatively recent, and I have used both. The Tamron 28-300 mm VC 3.5-6.3, and 35-150mm VC 2.8-4. You will need to check Nikon compatibility, but no more so than you would with the newer Nikon lenses.
The 35-150mm lives on my Canon EOS 3 now. I had been using a 24-70, and a 70-300 pair. I expect I will also acquire the 28-300mm. I need to sell the other pair first. Looking back at my shots very few required >150mm, so I opted for the larger aperture option 1st. It is the first time I have acquired third party lenses.
The Tamron 28-300mm VC, I found it to be excellent stopped down 1-2 stops end to end, and the image stabilization was good for at least three stops - enough that the few botched shots were my fault, lol. I also remember comparing the Tamron 28-300mm to the Nikon using the-digital-picture website and they were very similar.
I tried the Canon 28-135mm IS, and both Tamrons were *far* superior for both stabilization and image quality. Canon has no other stablized super zoom options - except for the ridiculously heavy and old L zooms. My main lens on my EOS R is the 24-240mm, which is an amazing performer. I adapt the 35-150mm Tammy to the R as well.
Just looked - 800g and 77m for the Nikon 28-300, 538g and 67mm for the Tammy 28-300, 790g and 77mm for the 35-150. I like that you get a 6 year warranty with a new Tamron. That was enough that I bought my Tamron new.
Thanks Jeremy, I’ve looked at that Tamron many times but was never sure it would suit me until now - it’s on my list to buy this week 👍
@@SteveONions Glad the info was useful!
On an unrelated note, an Adox employee popped up on another UA-cam channel - "attic darkroom" in the comments section for his color mission video. I took the opportunity to ask about their broken 120 machine... and he responded! They've *finally* made progress and it sounds like it won't be long now before they'll be shipping 120 again:)
Tamron's 28-300 Di VC PZD (ultrasonic focus motor) weighs in at 540g. I'd go for that one.
Canon's is good but big and heavy.
I envy you the snow free hills. Here we still have meters of the stuff not far up.
Thanks Lars, I believe I will be acquiring the Tamron quite soon 🙂
@@SteveONions Well, thanks for making me aware of that particular lens. I hope you get a good copy.
I once had the privilege of meeting William Poucher (a master of mountain photography) in Snowdonia back in the 1970's. He was was working on an new edition of his book 'The Welsh Peaks'. He used just a Leica with only 35mm and 50mm lenses, plus a yellow filter. Almost laughable today as we have so much gear available, but it was a great lesson for me.
I do like to simplify what I carry whenever possible Brian, it makes decisions a lot easier. We really are spoilt for choice these days and everyone has a chance at getting a truly memorable shot.
I totally agree that Micro 4/3 is great for hiking and used it myself for many years. I bought the first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, the G1, the first day it was available in the UK. Provided you keep within the limited dynamic range the smaller pixels give, the results from the more recent cameras can be great. I had the MkI and much better MkII 14-140 for hiking in Greece, too. But the GH3 viewfinder was a disaster, with blurry corners, muddy greens and worse of all, any moisture on the viewfinder made the coating come off, making it almost unusable. Despite it being widely reported in various forums, Panasonic refused to admit there was a problem although they did change my viewfinder "as a gesture of good will". The coating on the second viewfinder started to come off the first time I took it out on a damp day, too. So I sold two bodies and ten lenses and switched to Fuji. More weight to carry, yes, but much nicer to use in my opinion, and the viewfinder coating stays put!
Interesting what you say about the GH3 Rupert because I also hated the viewfinder (and to a lesser extent the LCD). It looked completely lifeless and out of focus, I quickly sold it and went back to using my EM5 Mk1 that gave a far better representation of the scene.
Fuji has terrible colors and photo quality overall, owned several, the best fuji camera I owned was a fuji film camera lol.
Olympus OM-4. Tiny, beautiful camera. But like a lot of film cameras, only 3rd party lenses go the 28~200 range. At least the OM lenses are tiny and light (mostly). A truly beautiful camera though. If you get the OM-4Ti then it's even lighter because it uses a Titanium body
They are really small Trevor, I had OM1’s and OM2’s and couldn’t believe how compact they were.
Despite my Panasonic gear weighing less, I still prefer to carry a Nikon D800 plus battery grip, matched with some solid and heavy Nikkor lenses plus a sturdy tripod, when I climb steeply to the top of mountains. The leap in image quality and dynamic range makes it well worth the extra effort.
I couldn’t manage the heavy gear on a hike anymore to be honest, I’ve tried lugging the medium format up hills and it’s tough going. Wasn’t such an issue in the past or on shorter hikes but once you throw in the video making into the mix I’m worn out!
@@SteveONions I swap and change, taking a smaller pack with one camera and lens when not in serious mode, or carry the really big pack with cameras, lenses, flashes, tripod, food, drink, plus bad weather clothing etc during my serious photo sessions. I enjoy carrying heavy packs and it helps maintain strength and stamina.
There's a stabilized Tamron 28-300 (current model is the VC Piezo) which weighs over a third less than the Nikon. Sounds like it might fit your needs well.
I think that’s the one for me 🙂
I am thinking the Nikon Zfc with the 18-140mm VR lens might be interesting. The camera is smaller and apsc, but also has dials like an old Nikon FM. Paired with a zoom, it might fit the bill.
He’s looking at 35mm film options
They are nice looking cameras Sean, if I wasn’t invested in M4/3 they would be worth a look.
I reckon a light weight 90's Nikon AF body with your stabilised super zoom may be good.
It’s got to be stabilised Richard, I had a ‘failed’ outing yesterday and one of the factors was not quite having enough speed for the conditions - VR would have been ideal.
The Nikon 28-300mm is an OK but not great lens. I never used it on film but borrowed/rented it to use on a couple of digital bodies over the years to see how I felt about it. On lower MP cameras, it was serviceable provided I payed attention to the quirks of the lens (it liked to be stopped down, the corners and even the edges were never all that great, it could exhibit some heavy vignetting and distortion, it could flare awfully, etc.). If I composed with those details in mind, it was a decent one lens option though I never pulled the trigger to buy a copy of my own.
I also tried it on a D800 once and was not as happy. Even the center came up a little lacking and the edges/corners certainly weren't up to what that camera could deliver.
With those thoughts in mind, I'd say that it may be a good one lens option for a film camera for use with lower resolution films. Use with something like Adox CMS 20 would probably be disappointing, though.
It's still a two lens system but if you wanted to cut down on weight for long film treks and still have pretty good optics, you could look into pairing one of the Canon EOS Rebel series (maybe something like a Rebel TI for a nice camera or a Rebel X if you're looking to save every possible ounce) with the EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 and the DO 70-300mm f4.5-5.6. The former was designed for Canon's APS film cameras but will cover a full 35mm frame. The latter uses diffractive optics and is much smaller than a traditional 70-300mm lens. They both have compromises in order to fit into their small footprints but those compromises can be worked around.
That being said, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably just stick to using the m4/3 system for the longest hikes. No film option with the same focal range will ever come close to size/weight advantage of m4/3.
Thanks is for the information Christopher, that’s very useful. I know what you mean about marginal lens quality, digital cameras show up any shortcomings mercilessly but a 400 speed film less so.
I’ve tried two (or 3) lens outfits in the hills but swapping lenses is surprisingly inconvenient in bad weather and when you add in the requirements to constantly capture video clips it becomes intolerable.
Without the need to make a vlog I’d carry more stills equipment.
Can’t see why you don’t just stick with your micro 4/3 setup! That lumix lens is a great option and will do everything you need. I know you have a lot of film to use up though!
That is the right answer David and I knew it 10 years ago when I picked up my first M4/3 camera. Film doesn’t make much sense but I don’t let that stop me 😊
@@SteveONions maybe because we grew up with film and still like using it. Why MFT, because I do not really want a camera bigger than a film SLR, and because I foresaw that the reflex mirror would go the way of the dinosaur. With the Olympus Camedia C2040Z 2Mp I was still using film because it was better. I then waited until digital got (cof) better than film and bought into MFT. With film, I don't develop film negatives myself, I should, but I do have a good neg scanner.
With film there is less flexibility taking a photo. We are stuck with whatever ISO we loaded. We can easily miss a shot because we have lost the light. With digital we can change the ISO and fiddle with the exposure and gain curves on the fly. With digital we can see what we shot. We can use digital to asses what we will likely get from a film camera. With film we cannot be as blasé with the camera settings, not so easy to fix later.
Otherwise there's the nikon p950 😊 if you are ok with bridge camera quality 😊 24-2000mm
That’s a beast Villiam.
Steve, if you like abstracts, what about the old Tamron 500mm catadioptric lens on a tripod?
Ps. Perhaps, that's not answering the question!
I do like mirror lenses James but they are definitely a one trick pony (love those out of focus donuts though!).
Would you do a video on crop factor and equivalence with regard to M4/3? I don't see how optically you can get the same image as a 50mm lens on 35mm film as with a 25mm lens on an M4/3 sensor. I understand you crop in on the image circle due to the smaller sensor, but the optics on a 50mm and a 25mm lens are still very different. I ask you as you have good experience using both mediums and formats.
I’m not overly concerned with differences between formats although I do understand where you’re coming from. Depth of field and aspect ratio make using M43 quite a different (and pleasurable) experience compared to the 24x36 format.
I have a G95 and a Nikon Z5 and both are fantastic, use the G95 more due to weight and the fact that it shoots better video and etc. Z5 is great if I want better landscape photos.
I’ve gone between M43 and FF quite a few times but always come back to the smaller format. I don’t find there to be much practical difference in image quality either when making large prints.
That is true I like both cameras but I like that lenses are cheaper on micro 4/3 I hate paying as much as a camera for lenses. @@SteveONions
Funny you should ask just this question. Because after years of experimenting with MFT, APS-C and FF I found that the light Canon 6DII with a stabilized Tamron 28-300 is my personal all purpose favorit in digital. This lens is not heavy, quite small, provides great picture quality and I can use the lens also with my Canon EOS3 (actually mainly as I decided to shoot only film this year). They don't make this lens anymore, but as they dropped it only lately, it is easy to get used (or as NOS if lucky). And there is of course a Nikon version, too. PS: I think I should buy a second one soon, because I would be at loss of what to use if my present lens should stop working...
That is indeed the lens I am looking for and if I like it I’ll inevitably get a second too, I’d hate to find them soaring in price in the future.
besides getting the 28-300 for nikon you could save weight a little bit by having a lightweight F75 that autofocuses with AF-S lenses and has VR and is lighter than f80 and f100, but is fragile. there is also the 24-120 f4 lens but that is might be too short i gather. Canon has 28-135 IS but im not sure how sharp it is in the corners at the wide and tele ends if you care about that.Canon's equivalent to f80 or f100 was Canon EOS 30V or 33V (same model on has eye autofocus other does not). If i remember correctly metering was better in nikon film cameras, from what i have read, i have no experience with canon film cameras but in digital canons 30d or 5d metering wasnt that good.
I’ve tried all the lightweight Nikons and they are so close to the F80 if makes little difference. The F55 is a lot smaller than all the others but very fragile (makes a great backup body to keep in the rucksack though).
Maybe have a look at the Tamron 28-300 for nikon, much lighter than the Nikkor and still with stabilisation
That’s the one I’m now after Charlie, it seems to tick all the boxes.
Nice video!
I would say work smarter, not harder.
Keep the digital setup and printout the photos back at home…
Definitely an option Anthony but I do like to print my B&W negatives in the darkroom so a film camera is a must have.
Question Steve: at 6:17, why did you climb over the wall rather than use the stile?
Me too!
😊
A Canon EOS film body and the modern EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS could be a nice option. The modern lenses work just the same on the older EOS bodies. The lens is still pretty expensive, though.
Those old l super zooms are horrifically heavy, the stabilization is maybe worth 2 stops, and frankly their image quality when used on film is pretty weak. On digital the in body corrections help a bunch with the chromatic aberrations - no such luck on film. I rented both the 28 to 300 and the 35 to 350 when I was looking for an all-in-one solution and found both lacking.
That’s a very heavy lens Robert but obviously a quality option. 👍
As far as Ive seen superzooms with such a range have only gotten good in recent years with mirrorless. Even the commonly praised FF superzooms like that 28-200 tamron for sony, needs stopping down at the tele end to sharpen up. That 14-140 II you have is about as good as it gets, the only optically better lens is the olympus 12-100mm f4.
They are a real compromise but on 400 speed film the quality loss isn’t so noticeable thankfully.
I would probably go with nikon and the 28-300 which has been on the whish list for quite some time now 😂 suffer the weight, reap the benefits.
I’ve been so tempted to get one but it is a bit big so I’ve held off for ages. I need to make a decision.
@@SteveONions Can't you hire one and try it out?
What tripod do you use for your Bronica? I can’t find any that can handle a 5lb camera without wobbling all over the place and yours seems very sturdy
Steve O'Nions told us about the tripod he was using in an earlier video, fairly recently. For mountains, I use a pocket-size tripod with bendy legs, where there are plenty of rocks to perch it on.
Just about any tripod will handle that bronica with no issue. Just don't extend the center post.
I actually have a heavy old Manfrotto I got a Costco that I put a better ball head on that works great for my etsri. I have two newer, fancier, lighter tripods, but they don't work nearly as well so I typically opt to haul the heavy one. I considered getting a really expensive tripod that was rated for gear like the Bronica, but for the cost to benefit ratio I just stuck with the good old Manfrotto. If you want to find a rock solid tripod and you're not too concerned about weight, look at video tripods. You can get a video tripod rated for 20 lb for $130. Then you pop on an Arca Swiss or similar adapter and you are good to go.
Look in the description of each video, Steve lists the equipment and usually includes the tripod.
I only use lightweight tripods Corbin, currently a Velbon 655 which is about 1.5kg. I’ll also use a lighter 1kg model if I need to travel further.
If I’m correct, you’re looking for a super zoom (one to rule them all), that works on a film camera. This is an unexpected twist as most people are looking to use old lenses on digital.
Have you considered Sony 24-240 3.5-6.3? I assume you can get an adapter from e-mount to Nikon.
Me, I bought a lightweight Bessaflex (Cosina) for my 3 M42 primes. The Bessa is a lightweight rangefinder and the lenses are easy enough on my back.
Good luck, whichever way you go. The comments by others certainly off good suggestions.
PS: I shoot Oly & Canon for digital and haven’t used the Sony.
You can adapt e-mount to the mirrorless Nikon z-mount and that is with AF but not the f-mount. I use the Tamron 28-200 (rated a sharper lens than the 24-240) on my Sony system; however, with some of the Sony cameras you can use APSC crop mode to reach 300mm (for my cameras that is 18mp, 21mp, and 26mp resolution in crop mode).
I’d love to try it Dan but I don’t think you can adapt it to Nikon F 🙁
@@SteveONions Yeah, figured I do a search (I’m sure you’ve dine the same), to see if anything works and this looked like a super zoom that might fit the bill… not…
Part of the reason I like film is simply because I like cameras as objects. I’m very much all thumbs mechanic, but I just marvel at the machinery produced pre-electronics era. Lots of reasons to love photography as your channel illustrates. Best regards.
Weight? Back when I could walk for miles and miles, before we had digital I had a Chinon CE5 with 28-50 and 55-225. No stabilisation then. With the 28-50 it is no bigger than many digital cameras but that 55-225 is a monster. Carry weight being an issue, I switched to the Samsung AF Zoom 1050, an auto compact 135 film with 38-105mm. It won "camera of the year" a few times. Not quite as long and as wide as I would have liked but it worked very well. I still have and use those cameras.
I would so not be carrying 28kg of rucksack.
Make a note of what you didn't use and leave it behind next time, except the waterproofs.
We do have that Lumix 14-140 super-zoom but it is glued to my wife's GX7. Being a x10 zoom it is a bit challenged compared to say the 45-200 (mk.1 and mk.2), although the lightest lens pair I have are the PZ14-45 plus PZ45-175, the first being the pancake and the latter being absolutely tiny size of a can of tonic water. I think I would carry my E-M5ii or PEN-F, the former having slightly better haptics the latter some je ne sais quois, especially the EV compensation in M mode. Both being lighter than the excellent G9 brick.
Lightweight carbon tripod or just the trekking pole with 1/4-20 monopod top.
I’ve skimmed down the bag a fair bit now and it sits at a comfortable 8kg. I was carrying too much backup gear and food/stove/water etc.
Half the problem is juggling the video making in with the stills and the walk itself.
@@SteveONions with widespread arthritis I can barely make it around the park with the dog now so bravo!
But that bit about ditching stuff you don't use, the stove and kitchen sink, is true.
Or a team of Sherpas?
Nikon 80-200 f4.5 ai rectangular baffle--would that work, or is it too heavy, maybe not good w/out tripod?
I have that model Christopher but it’s a beast (though smaller and lighter than the preceding model). Quite a good performer too considering it’s age.
Out of curiosity I looked at the specs of the Nikon FM3A. Its weighs the same as the Lumix. I would just tolerate the weight of my normal lenses for landscape shooting, the 20mm, 35mm and 50mm. I don't think those lenses weigh all that much. Each of those lenses weigh less than a pound each. Still a thrifty kit weight wise.
Great camera! Those three lenses are relatively light. I carry that body and those lenses with no problem.
He said he needs the telephoto end. Even the f/4 version of the 200mm ai-s is a pretty big heavy lens. The 105/2.5 is small, but not much reach.
Great outfit Michael but it’s not really the weight that’s rules them out, more the inconvenience of changing lenses. Its surprising how much extra hassle it is when trying to video each outing, the stills camera needs to be as simple as possible as lots of other bags, pouches etc have video and sound accessories in them. If I just did stills I’d definitely carry a few lenses.
Generally use nikon f80 with 28-85 af non vr. Lightweight does the trick. Digital d5200 with 18-55 kit and 55-200 both vr Lightweight also. That's about as exciting as my collection gets I'm afraid.
I do like my Nikkor 24-85 g VR but in the mountains I love a long lens to pick out the layers of the distant hills 👍
A lovely day, indeed. However, at the expense of interesting cloud cover and more accommodating light.
It was only good for the first hour and a half Bob, after that it became a walk with little worth shooting.
What is the lightest but still stable tripod to bring on hikes?
I don’t think there’s an answer to that question sadly, it all depends on the camera and weather.
But, you have a cloudless sky, don't you love storms ?
I am not a gal to provide recommendations on gear, I know I'm weird and my idea of a tote about camera that I've taken with me on hikes is my Mamiya RB67. Yes, I'm not phased by the Mamiya's weight and this is not because I'm a energy powered child, I'm a retired 65 yo.
I struggle with even the little Bronica SQAi on mountain hikes so I need to start eating whatever you do!!
I carry a 7Dmk2 with 70-300L. Its a heavy combo until I mount it in a chest mount. In a lens pouch is a 24-70. It hangs on belt. Another small belt pouch for batteries. Cotton carrier chest mount and lowepro lens cases. No camera backpack for me. This setup I don't notice weight. Camera goes into use in a couple seconds.
I’m far too impatient Eric and I usually get caught in wind and rain so changing lenses is a no no 🙂
@@SteveONions I sometimes have a belt holster for second camera with 24-70. Takes some getting used to carrying two cameras. No lens changes.
The Genius of JellyBabies 👏
Agreed
I totally agree about mft cameras for arduous hikes. I'm 64, overweight, and out of shape. A lightweight camera is more of a "have to" than a "want to" for me. I have a olympus pen e-pl7. It's 16mp, like your mft camera. I think yours might be a bit better than mine. Be that as it may, I am very satisfied with the Olympus. It has stabilization in three directions, and you can also get stabilized lenses. Light as a balloon, nothing like it for hiking. As for a light, stabilized do anything lens, look up the Tamron 100-400mm for digital cameras. For film, I think Tha the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED would be hard to beat as far as low weight and low cost goes for 35mm film. For mft, Olympus makes the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II lens, but full frame lenses are much better. I have speed boosters and straight through adapters for many of my cameras, which gives me great choices. The speed boosters are fiddly, and you have to tune them for your camera.
For close up stuff, put your favorite pancake in your shirt pocket
I’m going to try the Tamron 28-300 Dan, the stabilisation is becoming increasingly desirable as I face plenty of dull days on mountain hikes. The M4/3 was just so easy to use with its in body IS that I never needed to worry about shutter speeds.
Whats the recent equivalent of this camera? I am looking for a camera for my mother on her early morning walks with the dog. Maybe mft would be for her?
I believe there is a G90 now but it is very similar to the G80.
@@SteveONions I just looked it up (it’s the 91) and there is Leica glass for it - very compelling
Have you ever seen or used an Olympus IS-3000? (It's an IS-3 dlx in the U.S.). It's a 35mm SLR from the 90's (commonly referred to as a ZLR) since it has a built-in ED 35-180mm zoom lens. While it doesn't support image stabilization, the camera is very light and the images it produces with the ED lens are the sharpest you can imagine. It also supports a proprietary .8x screw in lens adapter to convert the wide angle to 28mm, and a 1.6x adapter to convert the tele lens to a 300mm. I use this camera for my landscape work, and bring a simple monopod along with me for stable images. Really, it's a wonderful camera that takes stunning images and can be had in the used market today for under $200. Check it out.
I’ve heard of those Keith, also the Ricoh version I believe. It’s tempting but looks quite large and I think it lacks stabilisation which is becoming a must for me. I believe the lens has a fine reputation 👍
This may be a bit of a luddite comment but as I'm not a big fan of image stabilisation (or electronic low pass filters) my suggestion, if you don't get the donkey someone else recommended, is that you can carry a monopod. Weighs just grams and you get most of the stability benefits of a tripod.
I’ve certainly tried the monopod approach Rasheed but can’t get as many stops as a dedicated VR lens. I also hate to carry anything other than the camera as I’ve got to also think about the video equipment.
@@SteveONions oh good point about the video gear! I hadn't realised that you would always take it along.
To get to a film gear set comparable (actually, should be significantly lighter unless you carry *way too much* extra film) in weight and versatility to that Micro 4/3 with superzoom, I'm going to suggest you use your Konica Pearl III.
No, seriously. There are tele converters and wide angle converters that screw onto the filter rings of various lenses, and since today they're mainly aimed at video cameras, they come in an immense variety of filter ring sizes. I got one in 77 mm diameter for my RB67 (for about US$40, there are probably better ones if you spend more) -- at 0.46x, it turns my 50 mm (already pretty wide on 6x7 cm) into a *23 mm*. One of those would make the normal lens on your Pearl about as wide as the short end of your superzoom. Then add a 2x and another 2x on top of it (you'd want to test this for image quality before committing for a hike like this, but from my experience it should be good, especially if 6 MP from Micro 4/3 is doing the job) and you're out around 200 mm equivalent (need a good lens hood, though, to control internal reflections with all that extra glass); make one of those a 3x (if you can find one) and you're in that 300 mm range.
Now, these won't do anything to/for your depth of field, but unlike behind-the-lens converters on SLRs they also don't cost lens speed, so you can load up your Portra 400 or HP5+ and know that ISO 400 will be plenty sufficient for decent conditions (and in the latter case, you can push +1 or +2 if needed).
And now the whole rig probably weighs less than that superzoom (and did I mention that, if the converters don't tear up the image quality too badly, you've gained about a factor of five in total pixel count?). QED.
Hmmm, I’m not convinced by the Pearl option all be honest. I’ve had experience with lens adapters on TLR’s and the results weren’t great. I also find all that messing around with accessories totally impractical in bad weather, even changing filters on my SLR is often out of the question.
The folders do come into their own in fine weather and on less arduous walks, I’ve an upcoming video with the Perkeo II in which it was just ideal for the situation I found myself in.
I upgraded to Fuji X-Pro 1 from Panasonic to get a larger Sensor. Now I'm upgrading my Nikon D300 to D850 when I can afford a 2nd camera.
Stick with the M4/3 for hikes. No-one would ever have known it was 4/3 if you didn't tell us.
By the way what do you use for filming? If it's a Fuji , they have a few exetent smaller lenses.
M4/3 is really ideal, wish I wasn’t afflicted by the film bug!
Most of the footage is from a GoPro Hero 10, so easy to use and very good quality if there’s enough light.