Camera recommendations for backcountry adventures

Right now most of my photos are taken with my phone or a waterproof Panasonic point-n-shoot.

When I look at photos from Radka or Jason Hummel I realize I'd like to get a camera with a bigger sensor to be able to produce the same quality. Being able to do night photos, time lapsed, macro, and video would be great.
Oh, and it needs to be lightweight and affordable

What cameras are people using these days that they would recommend to take on adventures (backcountry skiing, climbing, etc)?

Thanks
Richard

no replies yet...okay, i'll take a shot 

for what its worth (and I imagine you realize this too) i think the photos produced by Jason, Radka, etc, have a lot more to do with some amazing photographer skills than the type of hardware- I know I couldn't replicate their results if I had the same camera  

For the past few years I've carried a Canon S100 when I didn't want to lug around my SLR.   It has a reasonable burst mode and manual mode and can shoot in RAW.   Being able to take a RAW image into Adobe Lightroom and monkey around with it will likely give you more bang for your buck than going for a big sensor.  Unfortunately that camera does not have  'bulb' mode like most SLR's so I can't open up the shutter for more than 15 seconds for long night shots. 

Maybe there are some point&shoots out there now have a bulb mode- I haven't been looking at cameras for a while.    Seems like a Micro Four Thirds/Mirrorless camera might be a contender- most of the same features as a SLR but a smaller package and less weight...that or a higher end point&shoot that can shoot in RAW format. 

I use a sony nex-5n. It's old at this point and I need to upgrade. Taking a full-frame DSLR or even a APS-C DSLR has never seemed an option to me, too bulky. I'm overall thrilled with the quality of images I get from the sony mirrorless system.

If money is no object, there are some very small 'full frame' point-and-shoot options from sony ($2000-3000 I think).. But otherwise you can get a sony A6000/6300, what the NEX line evolved into.. for $600 or $1200~.. it shoots great shots in low light and is relatively compact for the sensor size. I tried the m4/3 sensor size camera but I wasn't overall impressed. APS-C is a huge step up in sensor size, only full frame does better.

Just like with skis and bindings "affordable" is a relative term. I carried my Canon 7D DSLR for several years but got tired of the size and weight. I now carry a Sony A6000 mirrorless camera. It focuses quickly and has a burst rate of 11 frames per second. It has lots of manual controls and importantly for me it shoots in RAW format. I don't think much of the 16-50mm "kit" lens I have but it's small and light. Sony makes other excellent lenses that will fit the camera - all it takes is money.

Sony just release a newer version, the A6300, that is weather sealed and has a few other improvements.

Photographers like Jason Hummel and Grant Gunderson shoot professionally and carry DSLR's because it's their stock in trade. They're probably shooting 50,000 or 60,000 frames a year and their clients are looking for very high resolution images. The rest of us mortals just shoot for fun.

Below are a couple of Jason Hummel fan-boy pics I took with the A6000 this year.

Thanks for the recommendations. I do understand that buying a better camera doesn't make me a better photographer. It's just like ski gear

Another vote for the S100-series and a6000 series.

If compactness is important to you. I upgraded from a Pentax W30 to an S100 for ~3 years before going mirrorless. It's still my backup / going-lightest camera. I did have trouble with dust in the lens after a couple of years, but Canon fixed it under warranty. It's great in good light, and functional at night.

Today, I'm using an EOS M with a 12mm Rokinon manual focus lens on almost every trip. With other lenses, M is slow to autofocus, but otherwise quite nice. The M3 is supposedly faster. The 22mm pancake lens is awesome, and the 18-55 is quite good.

Susan had an a6000 (until it disappeared somewhere during travel) that produced excellent photos with the collapsing kit lens. I envied the 11 fps shutter rate. It seems like Sony tries to extract the very best performance they can from that camera instead of crippling it to support upmarket bodies. If I had to recommend an APS mirrorless, the a6000 would be it. I don't know if it's quite as durable as the M.

A camera that's inexpensive enough that you're willing to take it out in rough conditions is important. Damage warranties may ease the mind on something more expensive. Finding the right case that balances speedy access, freedom of movement, and camera protection is important too. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

If I had to recommend an APS mirrorless, the a6000 would be it. I don't know if it's quite as durable as the M.

Right on. I think I'd look at the a6300 over the a6000 because the body is made of a magnesium-alloy and is sealed against dust and moisture, although it is more $$$

Great timing on this subject. Trying to get something between my phone and DSLR.

I'm looking at the Sony mirror-less line and was surprised the a6000 and above does not have a built in flash.

Tradeoff between the 5100 and 6000/6300 worth it? Cost not really an issue. I'd rather pay a lot for a good, compact product.

Is this a big deal?

Would my phone cover anything I might need a flash for in the bsckcountry?

Thanks!

I'm looking at the Sony mirror-less line and was surprised the a6000 and above does not have a built in flash.

Both the a6000 and a6300 have a built-in pop-up flash, although it's not too powerful. The camera's High ISO capabilities allow you to take pictures in very low light. But, is case you need more flash power, the camera comes with a hot-shoe to mount an external flash unit. I've never used flash in the backcountry. You can take all your after dark hut shenanigan photos using high ISO.

If cost isn't an issue the a6300 is better for backcounty because it has improved auto-focus (the a6000 is already good), better battery life, more rugged construction and it's weather-sealed (a definite plus outdoors).

Go for it.

For those of us on a budget, does anyone have experience with the Olympus PEN line of micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras? I am looking to upgrade from my phone camera, which is already on the crap end of the phone camera spectrum. Worth getting a cheaper mirrorless, or should I just get a point-and-shoot? Thanks!

I've tried various sizes of cameras over the years and find that I, personally, don't take anything that won't fit into a jacket pocket. So, the a6300 (and olypus PEN series) are too big for me.

Take a gander at the Sony Rx100. If it's good enough for Scott Rinckenberger, it's good enough for me.

For similar quality, smaller, lighter, cheaper, but with a touch screen and slightly slower lens, check out the Canon G9X. The G9X is the spiritual successor to the S90/S100/S120 mentioned above. This is an amazing small and light camera, and was actually too small for my hands.

Take a gander at the Sony Rx100. If it's good enough for Scott Rinckenberger, it's good enough for me.

I've been using an RX100 for several years and I like it a lot.

Be aware that if you knock over your tripod onto concrete while shooting a bunch of high school kids, the camera WILL break.

After doing that, I looked at the newer versions of the RX100, but decided to stay with the original version. Cheaper and it meets my needs.

I've been using an RX100 for several years and I like it a lot.

Be aware that if you knock over your tripod onto concrete while shooting a bunch of high school kids, the camera WILL break.

After doing that, I looked at the newer versions of the RX100, but decided to stay with the original version. Cheaper and it meets my needs.

yes on the RX100. You can save files as RAW as well. This little thing does almost as well as my Nikon 7100. Needless to say with the DSLR you get way better lens quality but that RX100 fits into a jacket or pant pocket for skiing, climbing, whatever. A great portable choice.

I've never been crazy about storing my camera in a pocket, so I typically use a small camera case. The one I use for mountain trips is from Mountainsmith and it has an attachment system that works well on a backpack shoulder strap. So I carry the camera at chest height near my shoulder. Here's the case I'm currently using:

www.rei.com/product/898526/mountainsmith...r-camera-case-medium

https://www.rei.com/media/product/898526

I can also carry extra batteries in there.

When I'm in town I usually carry the camera on a hip-belt, and use a different case for that.

I've owned two RX100s and love the results, but can't recommend it after my second one has had another electronic glitch problem that seems to be common. The camera turns itself on randomly - even sitting on a shelf by itself. Mine goes into viewing mode. Of course that burns through your battery if left in a case for long. I've read that a fix from Sony runs over $200 if you are past warranty like me - not worth it. I don't think the later models have the same problem.