Trekking with sticks and a DSLR

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-31-2013, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

It seems to me that if I want a long zoom on a small sensor, I can get that more conveniently on one of the superzoom P&S cameras. Would the extra weight of the Vivitar zoom really be worth it?

This was one example of a super zoom, because the P&S max out at about 560mm equivalent, and are no where near as good as a Q. Also, if you only want 500mm equivalent focal length, then you can put an M100/2.8 on the Q. That will cut the total weight to something like 300G.

In fact, a Q with the 5-15mm zoom plus the Q/PK adaptor plus am M100/2.8 would be a super light kit that would let you do a whole lot.

I have replaced my K10 and M42 kit with a Q plus 5-15 zoom plus an M135/3.3 as my business travel kit, where I might have a chance to capture some wild life as well

Ratmagiclady · 06-02-2013, 10:58 AM

I'm really fond of those Y-crooks that come with hiking staffs: they're meant to steady a rifle, but can actually cradle most lenses just as well. I like these because they are quick, light, and also mean you don't have to set aside your walking stick to shoot. It's not quite as steady as a monopod of course, (especially if the stick itself is erring on the side of lightness rather than rigidity: my such pole bent and later broke after saving me from getting hurt in a spill on some ice, (The parts are now combined with a cheap aluminum tripod from a thrift store, voila: Light stand.

) ) ...but it's just a matter of a few bucks.

With my arthritis and such, I found the Y-shaped rest to be a lot better than fumbling about with things in the cold: no need for a ballhead or anything to do verticals, etc. for something more rigid I'd been just waiting for a mismatched/orphaned ski pole to turn up. I was somewhat prioritizing just having something to help me walk and take the weight of camera and heavy sleeves,but for better steadiness it's just a matter of the right pole. (One of those trek-pod monopods looks like it'd work well in that combination.

GeneV · 06-05-2013, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

This was one example of a super zoom, because the P&S max out at about 560mm equivalent, and are no where near as good as a Q. Also, if you only want 500mm equivalent focal length, then you can put an M100/2.8 on the Q. That will cut the total weight to something like 300G.

In fact, a Q with the 5-15mm zoom plus the Q/PK adaptor plus am M100/2.8 would be a super light kit that would let you do a whole lot.

I have replaced my K10 and M42 kit with a Q plus 5-15 zoom plus an M135/3.3 as my business travel kit, where I might have a chance to capture some wild life as well

Interesting assembly of components. If it works, then great.

BTW, the P&S cameras I was thinking about are the current crop of 50x zooms or thereabout. These go to about 1200mm equivalent. If I will be limited to a small sensor, this sounds more attractive to me than carrying some large glass.

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-05-2013, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Interesting assembly of components. If it works, then great.

BTW, the P&S cameras I was thinking about are the current crop of 50x zooms or thereabout. These go to about 1200mm equivalent. If I will be limited to a small sensor, this sounds more attractive to me than carrying some large glass.

But isnthen50x optical or combined optical plus cropped image. The Nikon P&S I have is a 26x zoom and goes out to 500mm but the stabilization is no whe near as good as the Q, and the Q, with a k mount adaptor ( the Pentax one) has a shutter built in that can do 1/500 flash sync (its an iris shutter) and the normal zoom for the camera 5-15mm is pretty good also. I have yet to really test the reach as I have limited my playing to 200mm, but plan to put this on my 200-500/5.6 zoom, for an equivalent of something in the order of 2750mm. Of course this is not exactly a light lens combo at 3kilos for the lens and 6 for the tripod with gimbal

Giklab · 06-06-2013, 04:06 AM

@Lowell the 50x zoom is optical all the way. IMO it's easier to get a bridge (or a Q) than a supertelephoto for a DSLR.

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-06-2013, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Giklab

@Lowell the 50x zoom is optical all the way. IMO it's easier to get a bridge (or a Q) than a supertelephoto for a DSLR.

I don't disagree.

I have a 560mm equivalent bridge, and before that a 360mm bridge. I am playing now with a Q which is in a different league all together, because when I stick a modest lens like an M135/3.5 on it, it is a pretty light weight 750mm equivalent

Actually I think my Kodak bridge camera was better than my current Nikon bridge camera, and the Q better still

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Peru and Macchu Piccu Trekking	alphanerd	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-25-2013 10:24 PM
DSLR with Auto Bellows A and Slide Copier	grjmn	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	02-16-2013 11:19 AM
"Smart Guy" Trump sticks with 'birther' argument, Romney sticks with Trump	jogiba	General Talk	8	05-30-2012 01:09 PM
A little trekking INSANITY	MRRiley	General Talk	13	10-13-2010 11:08 AM
Painting with fire... and glow sticks! (4 images)	hamidlmt	Post Your Photos!	9	05-21-2008 08:11 AM

05-31-2013, 10:18 AM	#31
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by GeneV It seems to me that if I want a long zoom on a small sensor, I can get that more conveniently on one of the superzoom P&S cameras. Would the extra weight of the Vivitar zoom really be worth it? This was one example of a super zoom, because the P&S max out at about 560mm equivalent, and are no where near as good as a Q. Also, if you only want 500mm equivalent focal length, then you can put an M100/2.8 on the Q. That will cut the total weight to something like 300G. In fact, a Q with the 5-15mm zoom plus the Q/PK adaptor plus am M100/2.8 would be a super light kit that would let you do a whole lot. I have replaced my K10 and M42 kit with a Q plus 5-15 zoom plus an M135/3.3 as my business travel kit, where I might have a chance to capture some wild life as well

06-02-2013, 10:58 AM	#32
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I'm really fond of those Y-crooks that come with hiking staffs: they're meant to steady a rifle, but can actually cradle most lenses just as well. I like these because they are quick, light, and also mean you don't have to set aside your walking stick to shoot. It's not quite as steady as a monopod of course, (especially if the stick itself is erring on the side of lightness rather than rigidity: my such pole bent and later broke after saving me from getting hurt in a spill on some ice, (The parts are now combined with a cheap aluminum tripod from a thrift store, voila: Light stand. ) ) ...but it's just a matter of a few bucks. With my arthritis and such, I found the Y-shaped rest to be a lot better than fumbling about with things in the cold: no need for a ballhead or anything to do verticals, etc. for something more rigid I'd been just waiting for a mismatched/orphaned ski pole to turn up. I was somewhat prioritizing just having something to help me walk and take the weight of camera and heavy sleeves,but for better steadiness it's just a matter of the right pole. (One of those trek-pod monopods looks like it'd work well in that combination.

06-05-2013, 07:11 PM	#33
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge This was one example of a super zoom, because the P&S max out at about 560mm equivalent, and are no where near as good as a Q. Also, if you only want 500mm equivalent focal length, then you can put an M100/2.8 on the Q. That will cut the total weight to something like 300G. In fact, a Q with the 5-15mm zoom plus the Q/PK adaptor plus am M100/2.8 would be a super light kit that would let you do a whole lot. I have replaced my K10 and M42 kit with a Q plus 5-15 zoom plus an M135/3.3 as my business travel kit, where I might have a chance to capture some wild life as well Interesting assembly of components. If it works, then great. BTW, the P&S cameras I was thinking about are the current crop of 50x zooms or thereabout. These go to about 1200mm equivalent. If I will be limited to a small sensor, this sounds more attractive to me than carrying some large glass.

06-05-2013, 10:49 PM	#34
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by GeneV Interesting assembly of components. If it works, then great. BTW, the P&S cameras I was thinking about are the current crop of 50x zooms or thereabout. These go to about 1200mm equivalent. If I will be limited to a small sensor, this sounds more attractive to me than carrying some large glass. But isnthen50x optical or combined optical plus cropped image. The Nikon P&S I have is a 26x zoom and goes out to 500mm but the stabilization is no whe near as good as the Q, and the Q, with a k mount adaptor ( the Pentax one) has a shutter built in that can do 1/500 flash sync (its an iris shutter) and the normal zoom for the camera 5-15mm is pretty good also. I have yet to really test the reach as I have limited my playing to 200mm, but plan to put this on my 200-500/5.6 zoom, for an equivalent of something in the order of 2750mm. Of course this is not exactly a light lens combo at 3kilos for the lens and 6 for the tripod with gimbal

06-06-2013, 04:06 AM	#35
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	@Lowell the 50x zoom is optical all the way. IMO it's easier to get a bridge (or a Q) than a supertelephoto for a DSLR.

06-06-2013, 02:06 PM	#36
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by Giklab @Lowell the 50x zoom is optical all the way. IMO it's easier to get a bridge (or a Q) than a supertelephoto for a DSLR. I don't disagree. I have a 560mm equivalent bridge, and before that a 360mm bridge. I am playing now with a Q which is in a different league all together, because when I stick a modest lens like an M135/3.5 on it, it is a pretty light weight 750mm equivalent Actually I think my Kodak bridge camera was better than my current Nikon bridge camera, and the Q better still