i thought of asking this on the cameras branch but i thought you guys have a better perspective -- what camera do you bring on your week-long or longer treks? in my previous treks i brought an amateur film camera, but missed my digital, and predictably i wasn't happy with the results. i have a semi-pro digital, but the lithium battery doesn't last long, and obviously can't be recharged in the wilderness. i thought about buying two or three extra lithiums, but they're expensive. should i just invest in an slr film camera? looking for suggestions.
1
willwork4travel
I take a point-and-shoot (37.5-125mm) film. Honestly, I like digitals but am still a film guy. There is a lot of cool aspects to digitals, but there is something about film cameras that just seem to be more reliable on the trail. This I'm sure, is just supersitition on my behalf because I have more experience with film. But it's whatever you feel comfortable with.
2
elementalphotos
I shoot almost exclusively in digital these days, but for a week-long or longer trip in the wilderness, I would still use film. Especially if it's rainy, snowy, or any other environment that's pretty harsh to the camera. Battery life is one issue with digital cameras, and reliability is another issue when you're away from civilization.
For reliability, digital still can't beat the manual Nikon FM-2s with a mechanical shutter. Even without batteries you can still shoot with those, whether your exposure is right or not that depends on your technical savvy.
3
oldpro
#2 I have 30 year old Nikkormat, with the original 50mm lens, hauled around the planet from desert to jungle, from -25 to +40 temperatures and it still takes pictures as good as new.
I also have a more up-to-date Nikon F-60 SLR that is half the weight. Doesn't seem to work as well in colder temperatures -- maybe the electronics are affected.
I have a digital video with a 3hour battery life. So, I have to carry the camera plus charger plus the battery or two. OK if I'm not moving around much, but also not particularly handy if a person isn't within easy access of an electrical outlet.
Not sure why the OP wasn't satisfied with SLR quality. Generally, a good-quality SLR with slide film is always going to give you better results than a digital camera. I find processing slides is better than the two-step negative plus print.
4
dogwap
Although I take lots of photos with an expensive SLR and a med format camera, when traveling I only bring along a point and shoot.
First reason is weight and space. Second reason is convenience/spontaneity/speed. A small P&S fits in your shirt pocket and can be pulled out for every point of interest. I find I only take the SLR out if I see something really important and I have the extra time. Third; it's harder to be inconspicuous and get candid shots of locals with an SLR. Last reason is safety. Carrying an SLR in some parts of the world is like painting a bull’s eye on your back. Also if I lose or break a point and shoot, I'll be out no more than a couple hundred bucks.
My recommendations:
Olympus Stylus (No zoom) small, weatherproof camera with high quality (fast) w/a lens
Yashika equivalent (forgot the number)
Yashika T4 28-70 zoom- good range, especially the 28mm end
Canon Z135 (38-135 zoom)- fast 3.6f lens, but a little big compared with the newer...
Canon Z155 (37-155 zoom)- very small camera with lots of exposure options
Then there are the Leica and Contax cameras if you’re thinking National Geographic quality.
Have fun,
S
Pro tip
Lonely Planet
trusted partner
trusted partner