Someone could recomend me one really ligth good quality digital camera? For a SUL pack??

There are many posts discussing this topic.

My recommendation is the Pentax Optio WPi. The i is the newer 6M pixel camera. It can be taken underwater (1 meter) so it works better in wet conditions (rafting, etc.).

Buy an extra battery or two on eBay and at least a 1GB SD card and you will have a very nice lightweight camera for backpacking.

Craig Shelley

You might also consider the all-weather 6 mega pixel Olympus Stylus 600 or Stylus 800 8 mega pixel Digital Cameras

Yes i considered the stylus 600 and the optio wpi but im looking for somehing ligter.... a real SUL digital camera ...

I don't thinky you can get lighter than 5 oz unless you go for those cheapo "pen digital cameras" but the quality is so bad it isn't worth it.

It's possible to have a subminiature with quality. Here's one example, regrettably from a company that's pulled out of the business, but they have all the good stuff (Zeiss lens, etc).

http://www.contaxusa.com/product.asp?itemnum=110063#

Generally speaking, if you make can do with a small screen and a fixed focal length lens, or at least a limited zoom range, you can find a very, very small camera.

I happened to notice good ol' backpacker gear guide listed a casio 5 meg sul camera...so going to casio's website they have a 6 meg coming out in the same configuration in March and another 5 that uses aa batteries.Casio exslim ex-s500 @ 4.6 oz. I have a olympus stylus 800 and you will spend a lot of your time shooting in the middle quality range because SHQ takes up so much memory. Unless you really think you are going to be printing posters save a few bucks and get a 5-6 megapixel unit.

Lighter??? Ok time to roll up the sleeves…..

How about the Casio EX-S600 6 mega-pixel digital camera with a 2.2-inch LCD screen weighing in at a mere 4.05oz/115g (without battery)

Throw the battery in and it weights 5 oz. Just like the Optio series.

well i spent the last two years trying to build a sub 5 pack ....

For that reason i spent the last year looking for a real SUL good quality (decent) camera .. but as you can see is a very difficult task
contax and minox are two very good options
Minox has the movy d1 and DM1
(digital&video&mp3player) 87 grms (3oz) including batteries and card and use a battery corresponds to the NOKIA 7210 cell phone battery

and contax has the i4r

thats the kind of cameras that im looking for

sub 4 cameras for a sub 5 pack

Carlos the Contax can produce good enough 4"x6" prints, at 5"X7" you will start to see it's limits. Forget the Minox unless you like the comparable results of a disposable 35mm camera.
I will find you something usable by this week end.
Franco
BTW I have tested the above mentioned cameras.

No such thing as a light good quality digital camera. If you are looking for great image quality and light you are still looking at shooting slide film on a small range finder or ultrahigh quality P&S.

There are several digital cameras which have reasonable lens such as the Ricoh GR Digital... but all the small/light cameras have only so/so sensors. When I compare any of the shots from our DSLR to any of the smaller cameras, the smaller cameras always look dull and lifeless.

If you are willing to give on image quality and optimize for size... there are a number of decent chooses. I haven't used the Ricoh GR Digital, but I used to have the film version of this camera and liked it alot. For small light cameras I would look at Casio Exilim or one of the Canon PowerShot SD (Digital IXUS) line. Second choose would be something like the Sony T, Pentax S5 (though I have had reliability issues with mine) or the Panasonic FX7K.

For this question, I think you would be best served checking out the reviews at http://www.dpreview.com/

Well I cannot find anything that I would bother using for less than 4.2oz .
The minimum weight at the moment, with batt, is between 4.2 and 4.5oz.
Canon SD/Ixus, Casio S500/600, Pentax S5Z or WPi.
Soon we will have the Olympus 720SW, around 4.4oz with batt, waterproof to 9" and shock proof!
PMA, one of the largest photographic exibitions, will be on at the end of Feb, we may see something lighter then.
Franco

:-( thank you franco

may be the 720 could be a better option ¿maybe better than the WPI?

I am not judging, but isn't finding a sub 4 camera for a sub 5 pack a little like building a ship in a bottle? I kind of start to lose the point when the goal is to be outdoors and take great pictures too. I can understand not wanting to tote a heavy SLR with motorized body etc., but not considering a camera because it weighs an extra 2 or 3 ounces seems strange. The variety of features and quality and price are astronomical in the 7 ounce range. I can only assume that for some folks...it is just the satisfaction of knowing that your pack weighs a certain amount??? Anyway...if you are patient enough 4.2 ounces will probably be a hulking piece of junk in 5 years.

Scott,

My soul reason for removing bulk and weight from my pack is so I can fill it back up again with camera gear. Although the EOS 350D was considered one of the smallest lightest Digital SLR’s on the market, besides water or food my precious digital SLR is the heaviest thing in my pack. On top of that include an additional lens, filters, batteries, tripod, cleaning kit and case. This photo system may not be the gram weenies 1st choice but photography is one of my passions and I never once regretted the weight.

Regards,

I'm with you.

I cut down my pack so that I can throw in my Medium format rig - 50 plus ounces of pure negative exposing joy.

Of course, I'm pretty spartan with my photo gear too - I use one prime lens (whatever is standard for the format and comes to about 50mm in 35mm) and that is it.

I generally don't feel the need for anything else besides a trekpole with built in monopod and maybe a red filter on occasion.

Wade,

I was inspired by another member of BPL Eu-Jin Goh (you have to check out his website pictures, outstanding) to leave the limited point and shoot at home and bring the relatively heavier SLR system. Another inspiration is Andrew Skurka not only the first person to walk the entire 7,778-mile transcontinental Sea-to-Sea Route but the first one to do it with a SLR. When I met him I asked why the SLR he responded it was all about the quality of the photos.

Regards

Edited by FastWalker on 02/06/2006 12:20:18 MST.

Roger,

I totally agree with your approach, and it probably was not clear in my post. If you have specialized interests or pursuits in addition to being in the wilderness, by all means that is what weight should be saved for. I for one have contemplated taking out the old medium format. Not very weight concious of course, but you will not get the artistic touch from even the most expensive, full feature digital in my opinion.

My only point was that if you are looking to get decent shots, but you are weight concious...I am not certain why you would necessarily just focus on a sub-set of camera offerings that save you 2 to 3 ounces. I suppose that is what everyone terms a "gram weenie"...but to me there comes a point when it is weight savings for no real reason. The camera has so many more function options than a headlamp, or stove, or water filter. To compare them based only on their ability to meet a 5 ounce thresh-hold seems to rule out about 300 other choices that are probably only a mear 3 ounces heavier...and does that weight really matter???

Scott I couldn't agree more…