Paging Photo-mags: Legit Ski camera recs?

[muted]

If you are shooting more deliberately, primes are absolutely ok because you're usually directing the skier to be somewhere specific and you have an idea of what your framing will look like ahead of time.

I have never seen a pro ski photographer do this with a prime. It's totally legit to try, I'm sure a few do occasionally, but I wouldn't recommend it to most people.

[Supermoon]

I have never seen a pro ski photographer do this with a prime. It's totally legit to try, I'm sure a few do occasionally, but I wouldn't recommend it to most people.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I feel like I've seen lot of photos published that were shot on primes, 35mm especially. But you'll never get any images unless you are out there so OP should just buy whatever he needs to to actually start shooting.

[adrenalated]

I can't imagine shooting backcountry skiing with prime lenses. Your travel protocols always have to come first, and you're picking your shooting locations based on what's in a safe zone, not on the best place to shoot from. A zoom lens allows you to make the most out of imperfect shooting locations, primes don't.

For resort skiing or any other type of shooting where you can move yourself to wherever you need to be, sure, primes are great. But for backcountry skiing I'd rather shoot with a zoom near 100% of the time.

[LeeLau]

Moving back to Huskys question and my experience

I moved from a 7D about 4 years ago. About 6 years ago I bought my first Sony RX100. I know it's got it's limits but I use it for pocketable nature and low light. It's slow, it grays out snow, and I find it clips out shadows but there's ways to overcome that and it's because I'm basically too lazy to shoot RAW or do much Lightroom

To complement that when I got rid of the 7D i got an A7ii. At first I was pretty underwhelmed. Ok results but especially in low light it was just meh. But I was trying to use adapters for my Canon glass on the Sony and also terrible slow and fuzzy kit 28-70mm lens

2 years ago I sucked it up, bought native Sony glass. 24-105 and 50mm prime. Af and IQ is where I wanted things to be. I use the zoom for skiing.

So now I have RX100mark1 and Sony A7ii. 90% of the time it's just the smaller camera but I've never regretted bringing out the A7ii

[XXX-er]

Just write it ^^ off ! The pictures are good but we really read you for the pithy comments you know La !

[Judo Chop!]

The RX100 vi or vii are also really great ski options (they have longer focal length range than the 'v' or older, at the expense of max aperture). I don't have one, but I've used one and I want one.

Yeah, primes are also good too, on whatever camera you choose. depends on the shot you want. Smaller & lighter for sure.
with all the white around you seldom need the faster apertures for light capturing, but they are useful for artistic effect, plus weight & simplicity.

You could get some really rad shots and cover a lot for relatively cheap & lightweight with a combo of an Rx100vi + a6100 (or a7iii) with a good prime lens. both would fit in your pockets. Nothing wrong with carrying two cameras if it's cheaper, lighter & the right tools for the job.
I might consider that setup if I didn't already have my olympus setup, but I'd be losing some IQ.

You don't necessarily want fullframe for skiing. unless you do. but probably not if you're asking on a ski forum.

[auvgeek]

90% of the time it's just the smaller camera

Same, and that's why I'd like to upgrade from the RX100 mk1 to the mkVI. It's not terribly expensive now, I don't need the features of the newest mk VII, and it addresses all of my concerns with the mk1: faster frame rate, more buffer, more zoom, EVF, etc. Personally, I wish I'd updgraded the RX100 getting an a6500. I'd just use it more.

Not trying to hijack the thread, but here are some of my favorite photos I've taken with the RX100 mk1, just to show what a point and shoot in the hands of an inexperienced operator can do:

[benk]

Go to a store and get a few cameras in your hand. Imagine what it’s going to be like wiping snow and frost off a camera and trying to change settings and lenses in the field. For these reasons I never bring my Sony mirrorless with me anymore, I’ve struggled with the most basic settings changes in rain and snow let alone with gloves on. It’s way too finicky in the field. My D800 works, no touch screen, no eye piece sensors that don’t work when a snow flake falls on it and best of all the battery lasts for days if not weeks.

Don’t waste money on a kit lens if you’re seeking “pro” quality. There are several sharp options for the Sony axxxx series but likely going to be prime if you don’t want to drop 1K.

My advice would be to look at an older model body where you can get batteries and body for cheap and then drop your money on a 24-70mm 2.8.

Or get an iPhone 11

[LeeLau]

Good advice from Ben. You have to want to use whatever camera you bring into the field. There are tradeoffs - like the lack of viewfinder in the RX100Mark 1 but i'll accept the cheap price and pocketability almost all the time

Sony batteries for full frames are poor in cold weather. I'll literally go through 2 -3 when its -10C which isn't that cold. Fortunately there's Vivitar generics which are fractions of cost and work fine.

RX100 battery holds up better but the camera is fragile. I stuck with the Mark 1 because they're so cheap and quasidisposable and have busted and replace 3 under a warranty. AT $ 300 I don't cry too much about them given how much I use it. I do like the newer RX100s but I can't bear the thought of destroying a 700 camera

[North]

Lots of good input here. I'll try to do my best to add some points I missed when making this decision.

1. Weight matters. The fancier bodies often have better weather sealing, better tech etc. but it's not worth the extra weight IMO. The more affordable plastic-y bodies (6000 et al) pack lots of capability into a smaller and lighter package. With fancier mirrorless kits, it's easy to approach the weight and bulk of a DSLR setup. Unless you're adept at breaking things or want to shoot in crappy weather often, I'd recommend the lighter mirrorless bodies for b/c skiing.

2. Composing images while maintaining a good safety protocol AND keeping things moving when shooting in the backcountry is a delicate balance IMO. Having intention about the shots you want to get will help sort out your lens preferences. Tight action pow shots= telephoto.
Mountainscape + skier in frame = 16-35+ range. If you aren't sure what you're after, a wider focal range lens (ie 18-135mm) can be a nice option, but will typically sacrifice some IQ. Unless you're going out to do more shooting than skiing (who does that?) I'd aim to bring 1 lens.

3. Be realistic about the result you're after and how you wanna get there. I like skiing and getting "great" photos. I don't particularly enjoy post-processing. I typically don't bother processing/sharing/posting photos unless I'm very happy with the initial result out of the camera. For this reason (and others), I use some slightly heavier and pricier gear than my pals.

[adrenalated]

Tight action pow shots= telephoto.
Mountainscape + skier in frame = 16-35+ range. If you aren't sure what you're after, a wider focal range lens (ie 18-135mm) can be a nice option, but will typically sacrifice some IQ. Unless you're going out to do more shooting than skiing (who does that?) I'd aim to bring 1 lens.

On this point specifically for the Sony lenses for the a6xxx cameras - I generally agree with what you're saying, but the Sony zoom lenses seem to vary in image quality based on more than just their zoom range. I haven't tried every lens, but of those I have these are my observations:
-the 16-50PZ and 18-200 (manual zoom) not very sharp
-the 18-135 and 55-210 are pretty sharp
-the 16-70 is sharper than the 18-135, but not enough to be worth the price and decreased range IMO.
-I have not tried the 70-350, 10-18, 18-55, 18-105PZ, or 18-200PZ options. Supposedly the 18-55 is a little better than the 16-50 and I'd like to try it. I don't have any use for power zooms and the other ranges aren't that useful to me.

So for the Sony cameras specifically, I'd actually recommend the wider range 18-135 over the narrower range 16-50 on image quality, and over the 16-70 on value. FWIW. On most other brands I think you're correct that the tighter range zooms are generally going to yield better image quality.

[North]

I was gonna say "yeah duh the more expensive lens is sharper," but that 18-200mm in the "not very sharp" category is kinda wild. Thing ain't cheap.

I use a FujiX so I'm not especially dialed on the Sony lens range. My main touring partner uses an a6xxx and upgraded to the 18-135 and anecdotally his shots look much sharper than both the 16-50 and 55-210 IMO. But that's comparing a $550 zoom to two <$300 kit zooms so no surprises there.

[adrenalated]

I was gonna say "yeah duh the more expensive lens is sharper," but that 18-200mm in the "not very sharp" category is kinda wild. Thing ain't cheap.

I use a FujiX so I'm not especially dialed on the Sony lens range. My main touring partner uses an a6xxx and upgraded to the 18-135 and anecdotally his shots look much sharper than both the 16-50 and 55-210 IMO. But that's comparing a $550 zoom to two <$300 kit zooms so no surprises there.

Yeah, the 18-200 is an example of big range leads to compromises in image quality.
I think I agree that the 18-135 is sharper than the 55-210 but honestly haven't compared them directly back to back closely enough. I do think the 55-210 is for sure better than the 16-50 though. I was also surprised to not find a bigger difference between the 16-70 and the 18-135 - at $900 the 16-70 should have blown my skirt off, and it didn't.

[Huskier]

QUOTE=benk;5903918]
o to a store and get a few cameras in your hand. Imagine what it’s going to be like wiping snow and frost off a camera and trying to change settings and lenses in the field. For these reasons I never bring my Sony mirrorless with me anymore, I’ve struggled with the most basic settings changes in rain and snow let alone with gloves on. It’s way too finicky in the field. My D800 works, no touch screen, no eye piece sensors that don’t work when a snow flake falls on it and best of all the battery lasts for days if not weeks
[/QUOTE]

So that's another thing: I've fiddled with a few in the store and been like "well this seems good...hmm this too seems good". But there's no snow in the store... I've heard you can rent these things out, I'm assuming they include insurance?

1. Weight matters... Unless you're adept at breaking things or want to shoot in crappy weather often, I'd recommend the lighter mirrorless bodies for b/c skiing.

I am -exceedingly- adept at breaking things. My old D40 was bombproof. And storm-shooting duty is definitely part of the proposed job description. The RX100 pics are super impressive, I'm just so, so Leary of mechanical fuckery as a point of failure. Every P&S I've owned has died from sand or other abbrasive in the zoom mechanism.

2. Tight action pow shots= telephoto.
Mountainscape + skier in frame = 16-35+ range. If you aren't sure what you're after, a wider focal range lens (ie 18-135mm) can be a nice option, but will typically sacrifice some IQ.

So good lens -->narrow zoom range or prime, it seems. How else can you tell a "good" lens aside from word of mouth? Is there a middle-ground between "garbage" and mega $$? I guess that's what has me the most confused right now. I mean none of them come in red or say "carbon fiber" on the side...

Seems I have some renting to do. A6500 vs A7ii

[arild]

There is only Leica M-series (almost serious, but weather sealing, composition can be iffy, the lenses are all manual, and large apertures can be fucking imposible to manage with focal lengths above 50mm). Prefocusing is the name of the game here. Actually, if you can prefocus, almost anything will suffice. Shoot raw. Kit lenses and/or ultrazooms might not be at their greatest wide open, but stop down a couple of notches (aperture priority) , crank up the iso to get the required shutter speeds, set exposure comp at +0.7, and stop sucking. Arrow, not indian.

That said, the Sony Alphas look mighty good. There are even good third party options as far as glass goes. Leicas are always nice, but your AF reqs kind of kill them.

[North]

I am -exceedingly- adept at breaking things.

In that case something with weather sealing might be worth it for you. FWIW I think most zooms will have a bad time with sand sealed or not.

How else can you tell a "good" lens aside from word of mouth? Is there a middle-ground between "garbage" and mega $$? I guess that's what has me the most confused right now. I mean none of them come in red or say "carbon fiber" on the side...

Actually, red does distinguish some of the higher zoot lenses for certain brands . Fuji "red badge" are the best they make. Canon's best are "red band" L series lenses.

No hard and fast rules on lens quality but generally, you get what you pay for. Quality in relation to focal length is somewhat hard to define. Big ranges aren't inherently bad (pro-level telephotos often have 200mm or more of range, but all in "telephoto range" ie 70mm-300mm). High IQ gets harder to achieve when lenses try to do wide FL (ie 16mm) and telephoto FL (200mm) in the same package. Online reviews are good, but the usual internet caveats apply. One reason I chose Fuji over Sony is I believe their lenses are almost all in that "middle ground" cost-wise ($500-$800) but near the top in quality. For Sony, my opinion is that there are lots of OK lenses and lots of pro level lenses ($1000+) but not much in the middle. Some exceptions have been mentioned.

RE: playing with cameras in-store, controls are important to me. I hate touchscreens, digging into menus, or remembering what each mode dial does. Fuji is unique in that it has mechanical controls, which I prefer for the reasons BenK mentioned and others. For shooting skiing, the things I do most are select 2 or all 3 of ISO, Aperture, and Shutter, select AF mode, select drive mode (FPS), and change focus points. For me it's important to be able to do all of those things in a certain way.

[Judo Chop!]

set exposure comp at +0.7

QFT. yup.

FWIW, I mostly shoot on aperture priority. Set aperture for the look I want, then leave it on auto ISO if there's lots of light, otherwise adjust ISO until I get a fast enough shutter speed for the desired shot. Usually >=800 (more like >=1000) for action, unless you're getting artsy. It basically becomes a mindless technique for getting good shots.
Set WB to either sunny or shade and you're good to go.
I use back-button-autofocus on C-Af mode, so you can separate the action of the shutter button from focusing. Meaning you can easily just track focus with full AF, or quickly just pre-focus on a spot and/or focus-recompose for framing and fire away without it jumping focus elsewhere; all without changing any settings. Learn this technique. it's great.

I also have a custom mode set on my dial with settings ready to go for when I hand the camera to a friend. expComp+0.7, shutter priority 1000 shutter speed, focus point right in the middle, autofocus on shutter button. One turn of a dial and it's in dummy mode.

[Dromond]

AT $ 300 I don't cry too much about them given how much I use it. I do like the newer RX100s but I can't bear the thought of destroying a 700 camera

That's not a bad strategy. Are you buying them refurbished or buying a new one and then getting some sort of crash replacement from Sony? I've broken a camera before and if you spent too much, it hurts!

I used to have a Canon S100 P+S about 10 years ago. I really didn't enjoy the image quality or using it and got rid of it.

I took some epic trips this winter and carried a Fuji X100 part of the time which is a nice, lightweight camera that I enjoy using. However, because it is not pocketable, I missed so many opportunities for a quick snap that could have turned out pretty cool. I poked fun at a friend who carried an old point and shoot only to realize he got more good/interesting photos than I did - and there were lots of good phone photos from the trip as well. However, the phone's lack of zoom, buttons you can use with globes and a viewfinder are a big issue in a winter environment. I just didn't take the camera out of the pack too often because it's a hassle. If you are taking time to set up photos and really hunting for the right time/place it makes more sense, but most of the time I am just out there to enjoy the day/skiing and getting some photos is a fun bonus where there is time. So I'm thinking I should get the P+S another try as clearly the image quality is better than it used to be.

[auvgeek]

That's not a bad strategy. Are you buying them refurbished or buying a new one and then getting some sort of crash replacement from Sony? I've broken a camera before and if you spent too much, it hurts!

They pop up on eBay for super cheap pretty often. The mark 1 that Lee and I both own is pretty old tech at this point.

But the buffer and frame rate makes it very limited for action shots unless you know how to time it well.

[jackattack]

I'd buy the newest iPhone.

With a set of Moment lenses.

[coldfeet]

My phone (several years old now) takes pics that look great on the phone screen. Sometimes my P&S or even DSLR pics look sort of blah in comparison (post-processing to play with the contrast helps). But I think part of this is that the phone pumps up the saturation; times when I am more interested in subtle or accurate colors, the oversaturation becomes excessive. The phone does deal with high dynamic range subjects pretty well. And the pics are convenient for sharing. However, when I try to zoom the lens much, or enlarge the pics, they start to fall apart. The glove factor is a major nuisance.

Something to mention is that if you're willing to pack them and use them, older crop-factor DSLRs are cheap as dirt now. You can likely buy a Nikon D200 body for under $100 on fleabay. That gives a robust body with good image quality, AF, etc, and entry into a whole world of good to great lenses available on the used market (it can use manual focus lenses, for non-action shots). I'm sure other brands have similar options.

[LeeLau]

That's not a bad strategy. Are you buying them refurbished or buying a new one and then getting some sort of crash replacement from Sony? I've broken a camera before and if you spent too much, it hurts!

.

Like auvgeek said the old Mrk1 RX100 can be had new inbox for about 300. Bought one and broke it within 2 years (CC warranty fixed). When the out of warranty busted I got another one new inbox from a bricks and mortar retailer and purchased a 3 year warranty. That's been fixed now 2x.

I managed to fix the other broken RX 100 LCD by getting a spare part so now have 2.

They're definitely old tech and burst mode is slow. I have to really play hard with light and angle and WB to squeeze good shots out of it. But, to me given what I want it's the tradeoff I want 90% of the time.

But no question I can do better with the full frame Sony and the good but pricey zooms lens

[lowsparkco]

I shot a lot of whitewater for a lot of years, but I haven't really kept up with the tech for nearly 10 years. Reading these posts it seems a lot has stayed the same. For those of you that are commenting about using various P&S, I will say the Sony's I owned outperformed Olympus. Some of my favorite all time shots are with a P&S. I think because you have it available.

I have ski toured with a DSLR and an 18-300 lens. The weight is considerable on longer days. I remember getting a lot of thanks from my crew after sharing the photos. Good information in this thread I can tell many of you are better photographers than me.

[auvgeek]

Like auvgeek said the old Mrk1 RX100 can be had new inbox for about 300. Bought one and broke it within 2 years (CC warranty fixed). When the out of warranty busted I got another one new inbox from a bricks and mortar retailer and purchased a 3 year warranty. That's been fixed now 2x.

I managed to fix the other broken RX 100 LCD by getting a spare part so now have 2.

Woah. I've been using the RX100 that I bought used off eBay for $100 for the past four years. And I don't baby it at all. Must have gotten lucky so far.

[LeeLau]

Woah. I've been using the RX100 that I bought used off eBay for $100 for the past four years. And I don't baby it at all. Must have gotten lucky so far.

I had lens stuck on one. Warrantied. LCD went crazy on the other. Fixed. Then; had one in a pocket and fell on my pocket and broke it. Warrantied. Then somebody in a car closed the door on the camera in a bag on the other and broke another screen - that's sitting for parts. Use it for biking and skiing and things just happen when you're getting it in and out of the pocket trying to be fast so you can ski and bike yet still take acceptable quality shots

Anyone reading this - I treat my Mirrorless Sony and expensive lenses with much more care