A good camera for the hills?

[IamAJMiller]

Hi all, I wanted to get the advice of others on what cameras they take into the hills. For years I've been using the Ricoh WG-30 which is a waterproof shockproof handheld camera, after having a few other cameras ruined by rain! It's a fine camera for surviving the elements, but in good weather, the pictures aren't as good as my old ones, or even my phone!

Does anyone have any suggestions for a good, hardy but light camera? Thanks in advance!

[WalkWithWallace]

The Sony RX100 range are definitely worth looking at, mark III onwards.

They're not hardy though, I put my camera away in bad weather and just use the phone.

[jupe1407]

The Sony RX100 range are definitely worth looking at, mark III onwards.

They're not hardy though, I put my camera away in bad weather and just use the phone.

Aye this ^^^

I just bought an RX100 mkVI - ideal for big days where I can't be bothered hauling the Z6 around. The picture quality is pretty good in terms of both JPEGs and the RAW files are decent enough to edit in Lightroom to get very usable images. It's absolutely tiny when you're used to a mirrorless or DSLR though

[Sgurr]

Panasonic Lumix. Mine is the TZ70 and it has an excellent zoom. I never use it to its full extent except to find out if that spot is a deer or not, as although it is supposed to have an anti shake mechanism, it doesn't work for me at full extent.. It also has a panorama function which is good, and can do great sunrises and sunsets. I don't know about wild life as it usually runs away before I get the camera out

[Malky100]

Bought a cheap a6000 been brill and a real compact tripod goes to 4ft from about a 13 inches very light combo . Good for stars and lighting ye tent up .

[boriselbrus]

I used an Olympus TG5 and I'm very happy with it. It's very tough - waterproof, shockproof and works in low temperatures. The photos are very good, not quite up to those I get with my Sony RX10 M4, but for landscapes it's very close. It has built in HDR, shoots in RAW and has a microscope mode which is good fun. Battery life is excellent and you can use filters with it to get better light control.

The TG6 is the current model but the changes from the TG5 are minimal and the TG5 is still available at a lower price.

[HalfManHalfTitanium]

I am a bit old fashioned and don't have a phone camera. I use a Canon G9X which I find very handy and lightweight. I do everything on Auto - but it has lots of settings for keen photographers to use.

In 2018 we were on holiday in Rome and our flat flooded in the night. The camera was on the floor, charging. It was sitting in an inch of water for several hours. Two days later, it started working again and has been fine ever since.

tim

[BlueNo4]

Hi. I too have been a proud owner of the Canon g9x ii. Really excellent image quality and other features, especially for something so small.

There's one potential drawback, though, with which I'm contending. The high-end compacts, especially if you let them sit in your pockets, are prone to getting dust on the sensor and, as a result, spots in your images. And it can be quite complicated to have them cleaned; either you need to know a guy who will hack in or it will go back to the manufacturer (or you can look at YouTube videos where people show a vacuum cleaner approach).

I have that problem with my g9x, for which I'd paid $500 (CDN), and Canon wants $400 to repair it! I had a similar problem with an older, and also very good, Canon S95, though I found a guy who I think only charged me $200. So when I head over to Scotland shortly, it'll be with a somewhat larger, though not-so-big, mirrorless camera that my nephew has lent me. It's a Sony a6000, and from what I can see, is very good. It has the bonus of interchangeable lenses, but of course, isn't pocketable.

Anyway, the dust issue I've described isn't something everyone runs into, but it's not uncommon either. Some people recommend carrying the compacts in cases around your neck or on a belt, or if putting them in a pocket, putting them in sandwich bags first.

Good camera, though, despite all that. And hey, maybe my pockets collect more lint than others'

[IamAJMiller]

Thanks for your replies! I'm interested in the Olympus, looks like a tough old camera for the hills. I wonder if anyone could speak to the picture quality between that one and the others mentioned. Am I sacrificing image quality for toughness? I suppose ultimately I've become a bit of a fair-weather walker of late, so it's unlikely to get soaked. Don't want to make the mistake I made last time and get a waterproof camera, only to take worse photos in good weather. I appreciate everyone's help with this.

[jmarkb]

You may well be sacrificing some image quality with the Olympus TG cameras as they have a relatively small sensor - see https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-tg-6-review

[Pointless Parasite]

Thanks for your replies! I'm interested in the Olympus, looks like a tough old camera for the hills. I wonder if anyone could speak to the picture quality between that one and the others mentioned. Am I sacrificing image quality for toughness? I suppose ultimately I've become a bit of a fair-weather walker of late, so it's unlikely to get soaked. Don't want to make the mistake I made last time and get a waterproof camera, only to take worse photos in good weather. I appreciate everyone's help with this.

There are two answers to this. In RAW mode the pictures are very good, if a little flat (as would be expected given the lack of post-processing). For standard non-RAW mode (jpg) the photos are appallingly bad. I wondered if I'd accidently set the camera to shoot in 'rubbish old-school phone camera' mode but that doesn't seem to be the case. Currently I set to RAW only and then convert the photos to jpg at home. It's a bit time consuming but it works, plus I can log GPS tracks.

If you want some examples, all the photos in this report were taken with a TG6 in standard mode. The ones at the end are spoiled by smudges on the lens, which is another problem with this camera (no lens cover).
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=107004

[HalfManHalfTitanium]

Thanks for your replies! I'm interested in the Olympus, looks like a tough old camera for the hills. I wonder if anyone could speak to the picture quality between that one and the others mentioned. Am I sacrificing image quality for toughness? I suppose ultimately I've become a bit of a fair-weather walker of late, so it's unlikely to get soaked. Don't want to make the mistake I made last time and get a waterproof camera, only to take worse photos in good weather. I appreciate everyone's help with this.

There are two answers to this. In RAW mode the pictures are very good, if a little flat (as would be expected given the lack of post-processing). For standard non-RAW mode (jpg) the photos are appallingly bad. I wondered if I'd accidently set the camera to shoot in 'rubbish old-school phone camera' mode but that doesn't seem to be the case. Currently I set to RAW only and then convert the photos to jpg at home. It's a bit time consuming but it works, plus I can log GPS tracks.

If you want some examples, all the photos in this report were taken with a TG6 in standard mode. The ones at the end are spoiled by smudges on the lens, which is another problem with this camera (no lens cover).
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=107004

Interesting to see the TG6 performance. Also to see a photo of the Churfisten range - I'd heard of it (and the link between its 7 peaks and the 7 Electors) but had no idea how odd it looks.

Scary routes - well beyond my comfort zone!

I am no expert and I have hardly heard of RAW, let alone know what to do with it. But one thing that I like about the Canon is that in auto mode (which I always use), most things, whether near and far, are usually in focus without any effort on my part, e.g.

IMG_5822 by HalfManHalfTitanium, on Flickr

[boriselbrus]

There are two answers to this. In RAW mode the pictures are very good, if a little flat (as would be expected given the lack of post-processing). For standard non-RAW mode (jpg) the photos are appallingly bad. I wondered if I'd accidently set the camera to shoot in 'rubbish old-school phone camera' mode but that doesn't seem to be the case. Currently I set to RAW only and then convert the photos to jpg at home. It's a bit time consuming but it works, plus I can log GPS tracks.

If you want some examples, all the photos in this report were taken with a TG6 in standard mode. The ones at the end are spoiled by smudges on the lens, which is another problem with this camera (no lens cover).
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=107004

Sorry to disagree, but that's not my experience at all. My photos are much brighter and crisper than yours, I'm constantly surprised by how good the images are. I originally had the TG1 and upgraded to the TG5 as I wanted aperture mode as well as RAW capability. I used RAW for a while, but stopped as the Jpegs out of the camera are so good.

Whilst it is true that it doesn't come with a lens protector, you can buy them for a few quid:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-Olympus-Camera-Replaces-Protector/dp/B087M5HYCV/ref=sr_1_7_sspa?crid=2DRZQQGDYTKCD&keywords=olympus+tg6+accessories&qid=1655497542&sprefix=olympus+tg%2Caps%2C262&sr=8-7-spons&psc=1&smid=A3V1LIX8WCQN7A&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUFMWDZHREVUVVkxWTYmZW5jcnlwdGVkSWQ9QTA3NDMxMzVNRzUzRDhaWkFDQzkmZW5jcnlwdGVkQWRJZD1BMDE0MDYyNExFSEVaRkVIQ05GOCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX210ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

You can also get adaptor ring so you can use 40.5mm filters which gives more control especially in aperture mode. Honestly in reasonable light it's pretty close to my RX10 mk4 for image quality - maybe yours is faulty or the lens is damaged or something?

[weaselmaster]

Up until recently I was using a Sony Rx100 (Mk1) on dry days and an Olympus TG6 on wet or unpredictable days. I thought that the Sony pictures were significantly superior and it's a nicer camera to use, but I've lost two of them to the weather. Losing a Mk1 isn't, I suppose, that bad but losing one of the newer and far more expensive models would be a major catastrophe.

However, since this Spring, I've jettisoned my cameras for my iPhone 13 Pro Max. Waterproof, takes good pictures (OK not with the same controllability as the Sony, say) but I'm pretty delighted with the results. If you normally have a phone with you anyway, it doesn't cost any more weight.

[prog99]

Up until recently I was using a Sony Rx100 (Mk1) on dry days and an Olympus TG6 on wet or unpredictable days. I thought that the Sony pictures were significantly superior and it's a nicer camera to use, but I've lost two of them to the weather. Losing a Mk1 isn't, I suppose, that bad but losing one of the newer and far more expensive models would be a major catastrophe.

However, since this Spring, I've jettisoned my cameras for my iPhone 13 Pro Max. Waterproof, takes good pictures (OK not with the same controllability as the Sony, say) but I'm pretty delighted with the results. If you normally have a phone with you anyway, it doesn't cost any more weight.

Funnily enough I have also all but ditched a traditional camera for an iphone (iPhone 12, I'm not as rich as you )
And I also killed an rx100 with the lesser known lens sensor error, fixed by sony and reappeared several years later.
Only really use my compact camera (tz100) now for rock climbing where not having to use a touch screen is desired.