Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

light weight hiking camera

Flowernut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · light weight hiking camera

I've been using a canon SL2 for a light weight camera when hiking with a zoom that is the equivalent of a 24-105 full frame. Any suggestions for a replacement as I'd like to go mirrorless? Like a zoom that will get to 1/4 life size.

Jul 13, 2024 at 02:40 PM

Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · light weight hiking camera

What lens are you using now? Neither the 18-55 nor 15-85 are 24-105 equivalent.

Anyway, the SL2 + 18-55 is 653g. The R8 is the same weight as the SL2 while the R10 is a little bit lighter. The 24-105 STM is almost 200g heavier than the 18-55 and does 0.5x macro in manual focus at 24mm, but the periphery is not sharp when you do this, and you have to be really close to the subject. Maybe more of a gimmick than anything. I've never used that feature on mine except to test.

The RF-S 18-45 is lighter than the EF-S 18-55 but lacks the reach and doesn't have a high magnification. The RF-S is 100g heavier than the 18-55, gives more reach, and hits 0.44x.

Maybe consider an extension tube or two which would open up the lens options.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#715.23,903.948,889.1055,889.1056,ha,t

Jul 13, 2024 at 03:48 PM

Betacamman
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · light weight hiking camera

Olympus E-M10 Mark IV and the Olympus 12-45mm f/4. Not sure it'll meet the close focus need, though.

Jul 13, 2024 at 04:02 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · light weight hiking camera

R7 or R10 with the 18-150 STM, focuses 1:2.3 at 60mm where its still f5.6. The tele end is fairly sharp. The Sigma 18-50 will be f2.8 but lacks IS. The RF 10-18 is slow but small and light as a wide accessory. The RF 100-400 is there for wildlife. I have the R7 and really like it.

If you have EF-S favorites like the 24, 35 macro, or 60 macro, these balance and work well with the adapter. The R7's IBIS has given new life to the 60 macro. You will love focus stacking with these new bodies. In addition to animal/people tracking, the tracking lets you focus and recompose while keeping your subject in focus. I was a reluctant/late adopter but have been converted.

The R7 did it for me. The R10 has many of the same features without IBIS and is smaller and lighter with the same battery as your SL.

Jul 13, 2024 at 04:44 PM

StephenS_CP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · light weight hiking camera

Mike's reference URL looks like a good reference but may leave out a few options. (I couldn't tell because I wasn't willing to disable my ad-blocker in order to navigate the page.)

You can do your own selection of candidate replacements using the product lineup at Canon's page

I think you'll find the APS-C body weights are all lighter and some are smaller (by volume) than the SL2.

After that, the decision shifts from Hiking weight/size considerations to feature list and ergonomics.

My personal hiking camera is still the M5 with the EF-m 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 lens. I'm very pleased with the image quality from that combo. I tend to try for intimate landscapes and image compression so the extended focal length beyond 105 [35mm equiv.] is very useful to me. The RF equivalent is the RF 18-150 which I understand is essentially the same lens with an RF mount. My GAS has me in constant state of turmoil over whether or not I should buy that lens and end up with yet another system, the still quite satisfactory M5, sitting on my shelf.

You'll get higher "magnification" over the SL2 since all the cameras have higher pixel densities than the SL2. If magnification is a significant feature you might consider the larger R7 for its much higher pixel density.

Jul 13, 2024 at 06:05 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · light weight hiking camera

Flowernut wrote:
I've been using a canon SL2 for a light weight camera when hiking with a zoom that is the equivalent of a 24-105 full frame. Any suggestions for a replacement as I'd like to go mirrorless? Like a zoom that will get to 1/4 life size.

I like the SL2 for hiking, I often leave the 55-250 on there for any wildlife that might show up. Excellent zoom macro. 18-55 is good in LV, which is basically mirrorless has DPAF

Jul 13, 2024 at 06:34 PM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · light weight hiking camera

Olympus OM1 12-100mm, 12-40mm, 12-45mm, or Panasonic 12-60mm. Or Panasonic G9, 12-35 , 35-100mm, or 12-60mm. EZ.

Jul 14, 2024 at 12:05 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · light weight hiking camera

People always bring up m4/3 but SL2 is a lot lighter than OM-1. ~1lb on the SL2, I'm showing 1.32lbs on OM-1 II

Jul 14, 2024 at 12:43 PM

Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · light weight hiking camera

AmbientMike wrote:
People always bring up m4/3 but SL2 is a lot lighter than OM-1. ~1lb on the SL2, I'm showing 1.32lbs on OM-1 II

Yeah, smaller formats aren't necessarily lighter, at least in the body. But the lenses sure can be.

Jul 14, 2024 at 01:40 PM

Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · light weight hiking camera

I tried so hard to like the SL2, bought, sold, then bought again. But I just can’t get on with it. Love the EF-S STM triplets (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). Also have the Canon M bodies along with the M lens line up, nice. But both now get left behind in favour of a simple canon RP and 2 lenses (16 & 85) switching to crop mode gives 25 & 135.
Sometimes it’s still too much, I then fallback on the Panasonic Lumix LX100. Incredible compact with fastish lens and built in EVF.
However AF is in the dark ages compared to canon, yet it always seems to deliver.

Jul 14, 2024 at 04:03 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · light weight hiking camera

Mike_5D wrote:
Yeah, smaller formats aren't necessarily lighter, at least in the body. But the lenses sure can be.

OM-1 + 300/4 is basically the same weight as 100-500 + R5. The 1 2/3 stop difference is about what you'd expect as far as ff high iso advantage.

Jul 14, 2024 at 05:43 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · light weight hiking camera

Nikon Z7 and Z 24-120 gets you worlds better IQ, near macro at 120mm and .4x mag, and a one-lens hiking kit.

Jul 14, 2024 at 05:56 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · light weight hiking camera

when it comes to comparative comments about lenses, beware of hyperbole and those who rely on it.

That is all.

Jul 14, 2024 at 06:31 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · light weight hiking camera

R50 (or R10) + 18-150

The R7 is a good bit chunkier than either, and has the previous generation AF system, which in my brief experience is NOT on the same level as even the R50- but the big battery, bigger EVF, and better controls are very nice. I'm very impressed with the 18-150.

Jul 14, 2024 at 07:10 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · light weight hiking camera

Flowernut wrote:
I've been using a canon SL2 for a light weight camera when hiking with a zoom that is the equivalent of a 24-105 full frame. Any suggestions for a replacement as I'd like to go mirrorless? Like a zoom that will get to 1/4 life size.

I have M5, R8 and R5. I do lots of hiking and backpacking. I bought both the m5 and r8 for hiking/ backpacking - primarily for weight at different times. I have rf16/2.8, rf15-30 Stm, rf24-50 stm, rf24-105stm, and RF100-400. For hiking/backpacking, typically I bring r8, 16/2.8, and 24-105. I usually bring my carbon fibre benro 1000grams for backpacking. Sometimes I bring 100-400 if there is likely to be interesting wildlife. Sometimes I bring a Laowa 15/f4 macro shift for shift if I know that perspective correction will be necessary. 2lbs kit for hiking. 5lbs kit for backpacking.

My observations:
- In day time, handheld - there is not much difference between apsc and ff [and iPhone or m4/3. M4/3 will require noise processing]. At sunrise, full frame is better. When challenged for light (wildlife), the ff is better.
- Weight is important. r8 and m5 and r10, r100.. Are all similar in weight.
- Lens for m5 apsc are not that different in weight than r8 unless you are very disciplined. Eg11-22 efm is long and heavy compared to RF16.
- if you are adapting, the adapter and older lens are too long and heavy compared to newer Rf lens.
- Newer bodies - have better 4kvideo. The R8 is great.
- Even though I have R8 (450grams) and 16/2.8 (190grams) and 24-105 (390grams) I don't hike with them around my neck because they bounce and I hike uphill at 15% grades and its just as easy to do casual shots with my iPhone (which I bring along with my Inreach for safety).
- But when I am backpacking I really like the R8 with 16/2.8 24-105 because it allows me to have a light tripod (1000grams) and keep my kit to 2000grams (5 lbs). A bigger lens/body would require a bigger tripod. FF for me is worth it for landscape and as I said, it's not that much different in size than m5 (11-22, 15-45).

So my recommendation is R8 (450grams, ff), RF 24-105 sim (390grams), and RF 15/2.8 (190grams) and iPhone 15. Or just buy the newest iPhone 15/16 and leave it all behind. Nothing better than r8 handheld in good light. Great for landscape with light tripod. M5 is fine but not smaller overall and old sensor. If you are going to struggle uphill with weight why bring an apsc when you have an iPhone.

Edited on Jul 15, 2024 at 09:07 AM · View previous versions

Jul 15, 2024 at 08:51 AM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · light weight hiking camera

I tend to agree with Scott about APSC (and more importantly m4/3). The iPhone can replace m4/3 entirely as far as I'm concerned for wide angle shooting. If you wanted something better, APSC starts to beat phone output, but can be nearly as heavy as the lightest FF setup, at which point, you should just do the FF setup.

Jul 15, 2024 at 09:07 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · light weight hiking camera

ISO1600 wrote:
The R7 is a good bit chunkier than either, and has the previous generation AF system..

Is this true? In my memory the R7 and R10 were released at the same time and would have the same AF system at least.

I prefer the R7 to the R10 because it has 32 MP, IBIS and the same battery as my R5. I think the R10 would be great with the 18-150 IS. Both the R7 and R10 have the multi-controller/joy stick for positioning the AF point. I've come to find this controller essential. The SL2 doesn't have this so the OP may be used to the R50 controls

R7 + 18-150 2.0 lbs. R10 weighs 5 oz less.

Jul 15, 2024 at 10:07 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · light weight hiking camera

Jeff Nolten wrote:
Is this true? In my memory the R7 and R10 were released at the same time and would have the same AF system at least.

I prefer the R7 to the R10 because it has 32 MP, IBIS and the same battery as my R5. I think the R10 would be great with the 18-150 IS. Both the R7 and R10 have the multi-controller/joy stick for positioning the AF point. I've come to find this controller essential. The SL2 doesn't have this so the OP may be used to the R50 controls

R7 + 18-150 2.0 lbs. R10 weighs 5...Show more →

my view is - r7 is heavier than r8 (rp), requires wider lens, has at least one stop less light performance, and 32 vs 24 does not matter much for handheld shooting. IBIS is not necessary for day time shooting. Buy the r7 for reach (32mpx on apsc is better than r5 cropped for resolution) if pressed for reach (not hiking). Only other >30mpx apsc similar sensor is m6ii but it has an older sensor and not lighter with available lens. Or buy R7 for hiking AND birding knowing that it's heavier.

Jul 15, 2024 at 10:33 AM

marsguy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · light weight hiking camera

RoamingScott wrote:
I tend to agree with Scott about APSC (and more importantly m4/3). The iPhone can replace m4/3 entirely as far as I'm concerned for wide angle shooting. If you wanted something better, APSC starts to beat phone output, but can be nearly as heavy as the lightest FF setup, at which point, you should just do the FF setup.

This is why I switched from Fuji to Canon. I loved the output from my Fuji cameras over the years, but starting with the svelte X-E2, and ending on the chunky X-T4, I realized (calculated) that it was only like a 15% increase in size/weight to upgrade to an R5 (and lenses), which provided a significant increase in IQ, ergos, viewfinder/screen, punch in focus, etc. If I was going to try to min-max between phone and R5, and wanted to spend the money, I'd probably get the smallest Fuji camera possible like the X-T50, or hopefully the X-E5 if they don't gimp it, and stick to primes. I only really shoot with zooms these days but the good Fuji zooms (good being relative) aren't really compact and that's kind of the point here, whereas there are some good lightweight prime options.

But yeah, if you bump down to m4/3, a lot of those cameras now are pretty huge for their sensor size, and don't make sense over APS-C, which is also making less and less sense over FF.

Jul 15, 2024 at 11:47 AM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · light weight hiking camera

marsguy wrote:
This is why I switched from Fuji to Canon. I loved the output from my Fuji cameras over the years, but starting with the svelte X-E2, and ending on the chunky X-T4, I realized (calculated) that it was only like a 15% increase in size/weight to upgrade to an R5 (and lenses), which provided a significant increase in IQ, ergos, viewfinder/screen, punch in focus, etc. If I was going to try to min-max between phone and R5, and wanted to spend the money, I'd probably get the smallest Fuji camera possible like the X-T50, or hopefully the X-E5 if they...Show more →

It's important to recognize what you will do with the photos, though. If all you're after are social media posts, 4x6s for your physical albums, etc, even m4/3 is fine and there IS real weight savings in form of 20-30%. You just have to recognize that the files can't take as much post, can't handle harsh scenes as well, etc and shoot within your self-imposed limits.

I prefer not to hamstring my workflow at the expense of carried weight, but that's my personal preference.

Jul 15, 2024 at 11:55 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.