Kit for travel and hiking

M

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,048
Edit My Images
Yes
I am debating whether it's worth switching some/all gear out.

My usage is this: landscape photography around the world, primarily mountainous regions, with hiking and not necessarily good weather. Think places like the alps, US national parks, Canada, Iceland, etc... I expect long term kit to cope with poor conditions and be used as a tool.

I currently have a Canon 5dmk2, 17-40L, 24-105L, 100-400L mk2, and various other minor bits of kit. Over the years I've had variations of this, and purchased gear for specific trips and sold after, eg. 7dmk1's, 7dmk2, 100-400L's, 400L, 70-200L, etc...

I have been a Canon user for ~15yrs, so am very comfortable with the platform, but would consider other options if they prove worth a look. I try to keep away from looking at gear very often, so am very out of touch!

One of my favourite aspects about the gear I have is that I don't really have to worry about it. It's super reliable, and able to cope well with the conditions I can find myself in.

Can anyone suggest more current gear that I should take a look at? Budget isn't ridiculously high, but reasonable.


Thanks
 
For landscape work there's not a lot wrong with your current kit, I'm assuming you have a good steady tripod for it mount on. The best move to improve it (although costly) would be a modern body with a higher dynamic range sensor which has been Canons achilles for some time imo. 5D4 sort of thing but that's really going to blow the bank balance.
 
jerry12953 said:
The 5d Mk 2 seems a bit dated......... and the 16-35 is a better lens than the 17 - 40 ......
Click to expand...

The 5d definitely is dated. It works really well though and I do really like it. It’s missing so many features though, even compared to the 7dmk2!

I think if I’m to stay with canon (which in reality makes a lot of sense), then the 5dmk4 is my most sensible option.

5dmk3 is too old.
6d is too plasticy and poorly built.

I occasionally get tempted by Sony, but doubt the build quality is what I would expect.

I’d like to change the 17-40, I’ve had it for over 10yrs and it’s not the best. Though right now I think the body is where I’m let down more.

I could sell the 100-400 and get the 5dmk4. I rarely use the lens, but I’ve bought and sold so many 100-400s that it almost seems sensible just to keep it!
 
Matt. said:
6d is too plasticy and poorly built.
Click to expand...
Really? That's not been my experience with one over the last few years which has been up mountains in all weathers and down caves.
 
I have a 5d3 and a 5d4 and the main advantage I feel of the 5d4 is when I'm shooting sports. For landscape I feel they are interchangeable. Maybe I'm missing something?

My travel and hiking camera is micro 4/3 Olympus, although that is also now becoming used more than my Canon these days as it's so easy to carry it all with you and the Em1ii is robust. It was happy shooting at minus 16˚c when my garmin watch and our go pro failed due to cold in Tignes recently. Ultimately the image quality may not match up to FF, but it's weight and size is brilliant, and it has other features which are great fun like live composite functions for capturing lightning etc.
 
Bebop said:
My travel and hiking camera is micro 4/3 Olympus, although that is also now becoming used more than my Canon these days as it's so easy to carry it all with you...
Click to expand...

I do wonder whether this is an approach I should look into.

Currently when hiking I’ll take the 5d and either 17-40 or 24-105. I just stuff the camera into my normal backpack with everything else and put my tripod on the side of the bag. This works fine, but I do wonder whether there’s an alternative option I’m missing.

I suspect the investment to get a 4/3rds camera and a few lenses will be more than just getting a 5dmk4 though!
 
I have started wild camping so as you can imagine weight is always an issue. I am a canon user and have 5dmkiii, 16/35 f4, 24/105, 70/800 f2.8 and 24 f1.4. I looked long and hard at Sony as a potential upgrade/weight saving, however once you introduced like to like lenses the only real saving was packed volume. I decided to stick with what I had and found a better way to carry/distribute camera gear.
 
I moved from Canon 5D to Fuji X-T2, purely to make it easier to carry on my mountain bike etc. The X-T3 would be the morern equivalent, which is weather sealed. The Fuji lenses are great and lots are available with "WR" (weather resistant) status.
 
Matt. said:
I do wonder whether this is an approach I should look into.

Currently when hiking I’ll take the 5d and either 17-40 or 24-105. I just stuff the camera into my normal backpack with everything else and put my tripod on the side of the bag. This works fine, but I do wonder whether there’s an alternative option I’m missing.

I suspect the investment to get a 4/3rds camera and a few lenses will be more than just getting a 5dmk4 though!
Click to expand...
Yes I'm afraid I still have a foot in both camps. We recently did a 2 week tour in the car through Portugal and Spain. I took both the 5D4 and the Em1ii because I could. I'm afraid by the end of two weeks my Canon hadn't come out of the bag. This was an eye opener for me.
 
Matt. said:
Currently when hiking I’ll take the 5d and either 17-40 or 24-105. I just stuff the camera into my normal backpack with everything else and put my tripod on the side of the bag. This works fine, but I do wonder whether there’s an alternative option I’m missing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like it could get much more simple than that!! :)

Being picky you could upgrade the body & maybe a 16-35L for the 17-40L but would you notice much difference?? I mean real world, Flickr/500/IG/reasonably sized home prints difference.......?
 
LeeRatters said:
Doesn't sound like it could get much more simple than that!! :)

Being picky you could upgrade the body & maybe a 16-35L for the 17-40L but would you notice much difference?? I mean real world, Flickr/500/IG/reasonably sized home prints difference.......?
Click to expand...

The 5dmk2 was released in 2008. It’s currently 2019. It’s not necessarily all about the features, but age and potential reliability will start to come into it for me now.
 
jerry12953 said:
I wouldn't say so. I've had a 6d for years and its a solid bit of kit. Maybe consider a 6d2 if you're short of readies?
Click to expand...

I did mean the 6dmk2. When comparing to a 5d it is much more plasticky feeling.
 
Last edited:
I'd easily go for mirrorless for hiking.

For my hiking trip to Argentina, I did one 4 day hike near Bariloche, and one 5 day hike in Torres del Paine, in Patagonia. I had an E-M5 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. I have also done a 4 day hiking trip to Rinjani, on Lombok, Indonesia, but with a different lens, as well as a couple of two day hikes in the Alps. The Olympus cameras have excellent weather sealing, and the weight/size savings are obvious. Even now, I'd say the new E-M1 mk II would be the obvious choice, and Olympus has a whole array of lenses to choose from.

The disadvantage of m4/3 is high ISO noise and lack of shallow depth of field, neither of which is really a problem for travel/hiking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top