[35mmfilmfan]

Not a hiker as such, but for a day's birding I'll carry bins round my neck, Leica scope on c/f tripod on shoulder, and a backpack with K3, 18-135, 55-300, 50 and Sigma 105 macro in the lower compartment, sandwiches, chocolate, water bottle, first aid kit and camera cleaning gear (in sealed container) in upper compartment - and these days, hand sanitizer and face masks. Usually walk between 4-7 miles (mainly on the flat, admittedly) - and I'm 70 in five months (HINT !!!!! HINT !!!!!). Doctor says lugging that lot around keeps me fitter than any gym, and I'm out in the fresh air to boot.

[bdery]

I'm 65+ years old and have been taking a K70 w/16-85mm

Good setup, I'd say.

I've been using the K-1 with 28-105 for a few years now. If owned it, I might bring a Ricoh GR III, that one would be a fantastic. Last week I got a Sony A7C and coupled with a small lens it will make a killer hiking camera.

[Serkevan]

My flatmate has a 1/2.3"-sensored Sony HX400V, which weighs about 650g and has you more or less covered in good light. Takes more than decent enough photos at low iso, methinks. You'd be basically carrying just the K-70 body without any lenses.

[Viking42]

I'm curious what everyone is carrying for a camera when out hiking. I'm 65+ years old and have been taking a K70 w/16-85mm and love the flexibility and images I get with it. It works good for a relative short hike of up to about 4-5 miles, but much longer than that the weight becomes a big problem for me, even when using a chest harness. I recently took it on a 3 day 2 night backpacking trip of about 18 miles with a lot of up and down hiking, and said never again is that camera coming along. That 3+ lbs. doesn't sound like much weight but it is when added to the weight of backpacking gear. I'm looking for a different solution, and have even considered going back to my 15 year old 7.1mp Kodak ZD710 bridge camera. It only weighs about 12 oz. The problem is I really love my Pentax. What good quality lightweight cameras are others here taking in long or difficult hiking situations?

This is a timely thread, as I've been trying different hiking/biking cameras for about the past year. I first used a Pentax MX-1 and loved it's size and usability, but it wasn't long before I wanted a camera with a bigger sensor. That, and you can't mount a hood on that thing. Two big strikes against it for a landscape/nature camera. Otherwise it's an excellent camera. I wish Pentax would make a Mark II version of it, with a bigger sensor and an EVF.

Then a friend loaned me his Sony RX100 mkVI -- very well-designed and well-built camera, but the image quality was terrible. Very sharp, excellent detail and resolution, but the colours are way off. Honestly, if you like the Pentax colour rendering, you will hate the Sony. Ghastly really. I think Sony is trying to eke too many pixels out of a tiny sensor in order to sell cameras to people who are impressed by such specs.

Then I bought an older Canon G1X (mk1 version), and I've been actually very happy with it. The 16mp sensor is quite large, in between APSC and micro 4/3rds, so it gives very clean images even at higher ISO. The lens is incredibly sharp...quite remarkable. Colour rendering is neutral but accurate -- not thin and anemic like the Sony, less saturated than the Pentax....raw files just need a bit of a saturation boost in post, is all. Otherwise I am quite pleased with the image quality. Zoom is 28-112 equiv., so quite useful range. It has a fully tiltable, rotating screen, which is very handy at times. And the camera is built like a tank....very rugged and tough. I feel like it can take a beating and still work. A plus for rugged terrain hiking or mtn. biking.

On the minus side: it is a bit larger and heavier than, say, the MX-1, but still quite portable in a small fanny or sling pack...it just fits in the pocket of my Camelbak when I do a gravel or mtb. ride; the optical viewfinder, while handy in emergencies, is otherwise not really usable; and macro is not possible (the MX-1 spoiled me), it's rather more like close-focus.

Otherwise I really like the camera. You can tell when using it that the ergonomics and menu items were designed for real photographers -- very intuitive and quick to use, enough of the important functions that matter to photographers.

If I were to recommend anything else, you might consider an Olympus Pen series with a pancake lens or small zoom. I used my daughter's E-PL1 for a few outings and was really impressed by the IQ -- wonderful deep colours, great microcontrast from just the kit lens. Impressive, for an older camera. The E-P5 is the one I would seek out, if I were looking -- very compact (similar to MX-1), tilt screen, 16mp sensor, good build quality, ergonomics and features of a real shooter. Interchangeable lenses is another big plus here. And all of the Pen series have in-body IS, just like Pentax.

Or there's the Lumix LX100, which others have suggested. I've read nothing but great reviews. If the Canon ever poops out on me I would seriously look at this one.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Svend

---

Last edited by Viking42; 11-16-2020 at 07:36 AM.

[Alnjpn]

I do a lot of hiking in the mountains and find the Ricoh GR is the best solution. Small, light, reliable and cheap second hand. Awesome picture quality and the 28mm is perfect for landscape. Definitely worth checking out if you don't already have one.

[jgnfld]

As a first shot, you might consider your K-70 with a couple of pancakes. I always add my 40mm Ltd--often in my jacket pocket--when I go out on the water or hiking. Try mounting it--I find it's a really great lens on a K-70 especially in golden/blue hours or any special sunlight. Together with, say, a 100mm if you]re wanting to go long or a, say, 21mm or so if you want to go wide, you've saved a lot of weight--especially off of the camera. Weight is weight, I know, but I really find a half pound on the camera much different from a half pound in the pack or pocket.

Finally, if you can use manual lenses, they tend to be lighter as well. I have an old 135mm that weighs only 270gm (9.5oz). You have to be careful of chromatic aberration with it, but it's light.

Check some of these ideas out if you want, anyway.

[DeadJohn]

I'm a relatively youthful 53 years old, and have 3 hiking options depending on whether my goal is "photography" or distance. The camera bulk and effort of stowing it in my backpack is as much a consideration as is weight.

K-1 for the best photos. Lens choices are 28-105 for general hiking, 15-30 if doing astrophotography or ultrawide landscape, 55-300 in crop mode if I have a reasonable chance of wildlife. Pausing, taking out the camera, photographing, then putting the camera away again slows down hikes. I will sometimes wear the camera on my chest but worry that even a small fall risks smashing the camera into my ribs.

Ricoh GR for the lightest possible camera with good image quality, provided I can get by with the single focal length. It's small enough to hike with it in my hand, or quickly stow it in a waist pouch if walking with poles.

Panasonic GX85 (micro 4/3 system) with 12-32 when I need something small with zoom. This is barely bigger than the GR and total weight with lens is 493g / 1.09 lb. In terms of dynamic range and sharpness, though, it's the most limited of the 3 cameras.

[texandrews]

I'm 64 and not an athlete. If I'm just taking a walk with my wife and the dog, and it's going to be snaps, then it's my phone, Galaxy Note 9.

If it's a hike that's purposeful, and one where I believe there's a possibility of good photo opportunities, then my first choice would be my 545Z. What lens or lenses then would have to do with other factors---mileage, elevation gain, light levels, etc. The backup might be my K1mkII for the IBIS, and again lens choices per additional factors.

[MTNcycler]

I ride trails on my mountain bike and hike, usually with a KP, 15mm ltd, and 20-40. Sometimes I add the 100 WR macro. I find a good pack really makes a huge difference. It can be a pain to get the camera out quickly, so if I want frequent camera access I attach it to a Peak Design capture clip on the backpack harness.

[Gene D]

My contribution to this post is that managing the "all in" weight of hiking, especially overnight as mentioned is of as great in import as the couple extra grams of camera or lens weight, as is the ease of access to your equipment (especially if you are hiking with others who may or may not have interest in your photo needs). I'm slightly younger but recently did a week in and out of Glacier where we were doing about 10-14 miles per day over 4-5 days.

My kit (where I am looking to get higher quality vs point and shoot) was the K-S2 (since sold for a KP), 15mm ltd, 20-40, and on days when I knew I needed reach, 55-300 PLM.

I use a MindShift Horizon (there are reviews on this site I believe) that has the rotational camera compartment that allows me to keep the camera off of my neck and rotate the camera compartment forward and open without removing the pack. If the Horizon is too big they have smaller sizes with the same set-up that are probably better for day hikes. Something utilizing that concept makes it so much easier, minimizes the stops and keeps the camera off of my neck etc. Plus my colleagues did not have to wait for me to stop, put the pack down or change a lens etc.

I agree with others about the quality of the pack and in my case the support for the lower back, so probably as much trying the pack out is key.

My first hike with the KP provided the added opportunity of being able to do programing of a few user modes so that it took even less time to prep settings. Thats all a learning process of course, but for my needs I just did not want anything hanging off of my side-shoulder area or neck etc if there was climbing involved--plus of course managing the weight of my stuff ("why did I bring this?...").

Good luck and keep on hiking!

[othar]

My usuall equipment is a K-3 + F 35-70mm and the A 50mm f1.7 + Cosina Cosinon-T 135mm f3.5 in the backpack.
When bad weather is to be expected I switch the F 35-70mm with the DA 18-55mm WR lens.

But when I have a certain idea or subject in mind I can get quite excessive when it comes to bringin gear along. My most excessive venture was bringing: K-3, Zenit E, F 35-70mm, A 50mm f1.7, Samyang 35mm, Cosina Cosinon-T 135mm, Helios 44-2, Pentacon 200mm, 2 tripods and 2 ballheads additionally to my other hiking gear with me for an ascend of 1250m/~4100ft in altitude. Nothing I can recommend lightly but luckily still manageable for me.

When weight becomes an issue though, there are still many good compact cameras available despite beeing gradually superseded by mobile phones.

[mikeprotts]

I'm curious what everyone is carrying for a camera when out hiking. I'm 65+ years old and have been taking a K70 w/16-85mm and love the flexibility and images I get with it. It works good for a relative short hike of up to about 4-5 miles, but much longer than that the weight becomes a big problem for me, even when using a chest harness. I recently took it on a 3 day 2 night backpacking trip of about 18 miles with a lot of up and down hiking, and said never again is that camera coming along. That 3+ lbs. doesn't sound like much weight but it is when added to the weight of backpacking gear. I'm looking for a different solution, and have even considered going back to my 15 year old 7.1mp Kodak ZD710 bridge camera. It only weighs about 12 oz. The problem is I really love my Pentax. What good quality lightweight cameras are others here taking in long or difficult hiking situations?

A decent back pack makes a lot of difference, mine's a proper walking backpack, and I use a normal holster style camera bag as an insert. That takes a little more time to get the camera out, but means there's almost no strain while it's packed away.

I use K1-II with 55-300mm for normal walking (several miles, moderate ground). DA* 300 mm instead if specifically looking for wildlife. It's less common to take out other lenses as I don't have WR versions, but usually the 16-45mm or 28-105mm (older Tamron) would be in the bag as well.

If travelling light, it's the Q with both zooms and fish eye, but then have to watch out for rain.

[Viking42]

I'm a relatively youthful 53 years old....

Whew! That's good to hear. From your moniker it seemed you were posting from beyond the grave Wishing you many more healthy years

---------- Post added 16th Nov 2020 at 14:46 ----------

A decent back pack makes a lot of difference, mine's a proper walking backpack, and I use a normal holster style camera bag as an insert. That takes a little more time to get the camera out, but means there's almost no strain while it's packed away.

I use K1-II with 55-300mm for normal walking (several miles, moderate ground). DA* 300 mm instead if specifically looking for wildlife. It's less common to take out other lenses as I don't have WR versions, but usually the 16-45mm or 28-105mm (older Tamron) would be in the bag as well.

If travelling light, it's the Q with both zooms and fish eye, but then have to watch out for rain.

+1. This is a really good point. To the OP: for your longer day hikes perhaps consider a good camera backpack with a nice wide hip belt to keep the weight low on the body. I use a small older model Lowepro Flipside, which has a advantage of opening from the side that sits against my back. This means if I put it down on a muddy surface the mud stays on the outside and my back stays clean, if you see what I mean. I can carry this all day with a dslr body, a few lenses, tripod, and my lunch. A rain cover is built in. Perhaps you can carry your K70 comfortably after all?

OTOH, this doesn't help you on your overnight adventures, so a light, compact, packable camera with great IQ will still be needed. There are lots of good suggestions here, and the choice may come down to whether you want interchangeable lenses, or a fixed prime or zoom.

Just an observation -- if you like your K70 image quality, I can't see you being happy with some of the small sensor models. A micro 4/3rds at a minimum will serve you well, and many are very compact and light.

[DWS1]

Wow! So many great responses. Thank you. It's given me quite of lot to consider. As mentioned by Viking42, I'm not sure I'll be satisfied with a smaller sensor. The GRiii is inviting but I don't think I'll like the fixed 28mm lens. If only it was available with a 24-70mm (35mm view) I would buy it today. One of my hiker friends carries a Sony a6300. Shoots great video, but I shot some stills with it and wasn't impressed. They looked fake to me even after post processing. The Lumix and Olympic models look interesting too.

Something that a friend, who's been an ultra light backpacker for years, suggested that I have not considered. Instead of spending a lot of money on a new camera just to reduce weight when I clearly like the one I have. Take that money and invest in some of the newer ultra light backpacking gear. He seemed to think I could reduce my base weight by 5-7 lbs. or more very easily. Right now my loaded pack weight is about 25-26 lbs. not counting consumables and camera. This is beginning to make more sense to me. If I can cut just 4-5 lbs. off the gear, then carrying the K70/16-85 combo won't be that big of a concern. I may go this route, but I still want a smaller, lighter camera too. If for no other reason just to carry around with me when a DSLR might not be the best choice.

[Viking42]

The GRiii is inviting but I don't think I'll like the fixed 28mm lens. If only it was available with a 24-70mm (35mm view) I would buy it today.

Yes! Me too. I'd buy that in an instant without even hesitating. If they put a zoom lens of the quality of what was used on the MX-1 (which was excellent!) onto the GRiii then it would be a winner!

One of my hiker friends carries a Sony a6300. Shoots great video, but I shot some stills with it and wasn't impressed. They looked fake to me even after post processing.

So it's not just me then, that feels that way about Sony rendering. Good to know . When I used my friend's RX100iv I shot the same nature scenes with the MX-1 side by side, in raw, and the latter was leagues better in colour depth and tonality. Even after trying all kinds of manipulation of the Sony files, I still couldn't get them to look natural. Perhaps Sonys work better for urban stuff, but for nature and landscape they are just not for me.

Something that a friend, who's been an ultra light backpacker for years, suggested that I have not considered. Instead of spending a lot of money on a new camera just to reduce weight when I clearly like the one I have. Take that money and invest in some of the newer ultra light backpacking gear. He seemed to think I could reduce my base weight by 5-7 lbs. or more very easily. Right now my loaded pack weight is about 25-26 lbs. not counting consumables and camera. This is beginning to make more sense to me. If I can cut just 4-5 lbs. off the gear, then carrying the K70/16-85 combo won't be that big of a concern. I may go this route, but I still want a smaller, lighter camera too. If for no other reason just to carry around with me when a DSLR might not be the best choice.

That's a really good idea. Makes total sense. Kudos to your friend for thinking outside the box. If you can make this work, then you will have the advantage of having a weatherproof camera and lens. One day you will get dumped on by a rainstorm and be thankful for that choice

How about for your day hikes? What bag are you using now? I'm surmising a shoulder bag from your first post? Perhaps a nice, small backpack would make, say, an 8 mile hike actually comfortable and pleasant to carry your kit. Backpacks make it easy to attach a light tripod too as well. A carbon travel tripod would almost be not noticeable.

Best,
Svend