Olympus is notorious for an overly obtuse menu system. You may have made a setting change that overides the Auto ISO. Suggest doing a total reset to camera defaults and shoot full Auto exposure mode under various light conditions to see if Auto ISO makes the proper adjustment to keep shutter speeds faster than 1/60sec. You really don't want to go slower unless your camera has image stabilization capability. Also check to see if Olympus has a firmware update for your camera.

Your in-focus bear pic at 1600 isn't too bad for such high ISO and it proves your camera can go that high.

I just looked at the manual for this camera and you cannot manually change the shutter speed. Amazing. Your best bets are to play with one or more of the following:
1. Manually set ISO to 400 or 800.
2. Shoot in Digital Image Stabilization mode
3. Available light SCN mode

Any of those will reduce the resolution to 2,048 x 1,536 or less (unless you only do 400 ISO vs 800).

Bradford
I posted this link at another forum today.
Take a look at the "dry land photos" and the conclusion in particular..
http://www.lenstip.com/128.1-article-Underwater_cameras_test_2011_Introduction.html
Franco

Thanks for everyones help thus far. I am thinking about picking up a non waterproof camera and also keeping my old Olympus for river crossing/especially rainy trips.

Coming from a novice here, S95 is not overkill! Room to grow is not bad :) That it is touted as the point and shoot of choice among professionals shouldn't deter you! I recently upgraded my Panasonic LX3 (which had been pretty badly abused!) to the LX5. I seriously wonder if the S95 would have been a better choice for backpacking. They have their strengths and weaknesses. Both shoot RAW. There are many direct comparisons floating about on the internet that should be easy to find. The S95 does A LOT for its dimensions! Supposedly, there is a waterproof casing for the S95 that runs about $200. (I have never used a waterproof casing and don't know what it entails!)

I have a feeling that S95 is as close to the perfect backpacking point and shoot as you're going to find! S95 would slip in and out of a backpack belt pocket (or other pocket) easily. And it doesn't have a lens cap to fiddle with. However, it doesn't have a hot shoe for an optical viewfinder if this is something you'd find useful.

I do have a Canon D10, a waterproof point and shoot, that I purchased a couple years ago. It's been good fun especially in the water. I am satisfied with the picture quality given this camera class. It's not very pocketable due to it's size and odd shape. You pay a lot for the casing on the waterproof point and shoots. Pentax Optio W90 has enjoyed rave reviews if you want a waterproof point and shoot.

As for the pictures you posted, I don't mean to be insulting (I am a novice!), do you hold down the shutter button halfway to let auto-focus do its thing, before you push it all the way to take the picture. I went a long time without knowing that! Again, sorry in advance!!!

Check out www.dpreviews.com Their video reviews are very entertaining! That guy cracks me up.

PS. I've been watching some of the photography tutorials on Lynda.com I highly recommend those by Ben Long. I am also working my way through his photography textbook which is brilliant!

Edited by backpackerchick on 08/05/2011 00:21:36 MDT.

+1

198 grams with the cloth wrist loop.

This little camera has almost all the functions of my DSLR and most of the functionality of my G11 in very tiny package. If you are a beginner, you can shoot in total automatic mode or if a more advanced shooter, fully manual and steps in between. You can also assign functions to the ring control. The LCD is very bright and when in horizontal mode I can even view it with my sunglasses on! The image stabilization is very forgiving of camera shake and helps extend the cameras low light performance. For rain protection, when I go UL, I use one or two zip lock bags. For those who care about ergonomics, it feels like a real camera.

I could wish for longer reach and a faster lens but then it would be heavier. The only drawback is that there is no printed documentation shipped with the camera. You have to read the PDF on line or print it out on your own printer.

Edited by btolley on 08/05/2011 11:44:13 MDT.

I would never let my camera select a shutter speed as slow as 1/2 second. Plus, like others stated, there may be some camera jiggle going on. When everything in the frame blurs in the same direction, it is generally jiggle. When the subject is blurred but the background is sharp, it is generally a slow shutter or a sticky (malfunctioning) shutter. Of course, some cameras don't have a real shutter at all, just a shutter-like function.

In order to avoid all of that funny business, I keep my ISO jacked up to 800 nearly all of the time. Then in the evening, I will move it up to 1600 or 3200 if I think that dimly lit subjects are around. I never go to 6400 or higher because of pixel color noise.

A foggy image is generally caused by a fog on the lens. That is generally caused by temperature changes between the air and the lens, and it is avoided by keeping the entire camera at a more constant ambient temperature (as long as that is not terribly cold). Dessicant packs may solve some of the humidity.

--B.G.--

IMO, if photography is your main priority the Oly XZ-1 bests the LX5 and S95, especially if shooting in RAW. The video is supposedly a let down but that's what video cameras are for anyway.

My photo skills are on par with yours per your description. I recently got advice to pick up a Panisonic Lumix. I found one on sale and have been very happy. Like you, I would like a a waterproof. I keep mine in a ziplock if it's rainy. Really, I rarely got a good photo in the rain anyway. I will take it out in light rain. I have been very happy with it.

My wife it the photo guru between us and she loves her G10. Apparently the G11 made it obsolete. So I guess +1 on G11.

One week ago I saw a stranger on the trail with a new camera, Canon SX30IS. It appeared to be a small/compact DSLR with non-removable lens that zooms out to 840mm effectively, and it had an optical viewfinder.

Does anybody have one of those?

I can't believe that its 840mm image quality would be as good as with a real lens. However, it has to weigh about a tenth of what a real lens weighs.

--B.G.--

It's interesting to see what manufacturers put on/leave off to keep cameras in a given price range. Zoom is one of the first places I am willing to compromise in terms of a $400 point and shoot for backpacking. This camera is about zoom. What do you like to make photos of? What else are you looking for besides zoom?

Edited by backpackerchick on 08/07/2011 22:24:18 MDT.

"What else are you looking for besides zoom?"

I'm not looking for zoom. I'm looking for maximum focal length.

Now, I use a full-size Canon DSLR with either the 100-400mm lens or a Sigma 300-800mm lens, and this is all for wildlife. Further, the Sigma lens requires a major tripod. The net result is that I can't take that heavy rig on a backpacking trail for more than a few miles at best. It would be neat to have some little 1- or 2- pound solution for wildlife on the trail.

On the other hand, many of the so-called compact cameras have a body so small that there is not a lot of room for user control buttons, and they make you do user changes in menus. Too slow.

In early June, I shot a wolverine at night using my 100-400mm lens and a headlamp. It was so dark that I didn't know what kind of animal I was pointed at. Maybe it was a raccoon or something. To my surprise... Gulo gulo.

--B.G.--

I have one and like it. I previously had the precursor LX3. Design is pretty trad. I do have some regrets about not getting the Canon S95 instead -- brilliant little package. The cameras are quite different in many respects but they are often mentioned in the same breath and there are many head to head comparisons around. You can get an optical viewfinder for the LX5. It shoots RAW. S95 shoots RAW, no lens cap to fiddle with, no optical viewfinder possibility. Both have a huge following ;) Both have pretty limited zoom. (I love photography and I'm studying hard, looking at lots of photos, trying to shoot and edit a lot but I'm a novice.)

I did get an MFT (Micro Four Thirds, a new format that is catching on -- these look like mini DSLRs and have interchangeable lenses but they are mirror-less -- sorry if you already know this!) this year -- Panasonic GF2 -- takes the touch screen (no apple iPhone but not bad) menu to a new dimension. So if that isn't your thing, check out the Olympus PEN and Sony NEX MFTs instead -- same idea but less menu dependent. Or Panasonic GF1 -- I think there are still some out there. Depending on the trip, I think it is still too much of a camera to haul. Does not lend itself to one handed operation :(

Wolverine -- that's awesome :)

Edited by backpackerchick on 08/08/2011 01:02:44 MDT.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=16529&skip_to_post=426722#426722

I posted the wolverine photo July 8, sort of halfway down this page.

--B.G.--

WOW! That's pretty special! I don't think I've ever seen a wolverine.

That is what the wolverine intends, not to be seen. They are pretty elusive animals, and their disposition is really nasty. They have been known to back down a grizzly bear.

I live in California, and there are confirmed wolverine sightings only a few times per decade. I was just speaking with a National Park ranger the other day, and he informed me of the lake where they were last sighted in Kings Canyon National Park a few years ago. So, I have to decide to put that on my list of places to go backpacking.

The whole point of this thread is: what kind of camera do I want to take for a backpacking trip? It depends. For most backpackers, any camera will shoot wildflowers and general scenery. As you start getting at wildlife, it gets a little more challenging. Standing wildlife in daylight is one thing. Moving wildlife at night is quite another thing. Who wants to carry a separate external strobe flash unit? (I used to, but not anymore.)

Are you the kind of backpacker who carries a big tripod, a small tripod, or none at all? It depends. I carry a skinny chest-height tripod, but that is mostly for shooting video where I step in front of the camera. That reminds me. I found another use for olive oil. You know how we are always looking for multiple uses for one item. Olive oil makes a good substitute lubricant for the pan head on a tripod.

--B.G.--

That is the most compelling reason to haul a DSLR backpacking no doubt. When it comes to wildlife, these glorified point and shoots are just frustration! Reportedly, some are quicker than others.

I just have a gorilla pod sometimes and usually use it to take photos of myself...I hate to admit. I use big rocks for tripods when I don't have the gorilla pod :)

i've worked as a professional, and I have pretty high standards for image quality but my current backpacking cam is from my droid x. If my goal was to get high quality files to make large fine art style prints, I'd go with a small mirrorless large sensor camera like a sony nex or panasonic with a small prime lens to match. Same if I were doing backpacking or adventure pics for editorial or commercial clients.

However if the pictures are to show my friends, for memories and smaller prints, the cameras on high end smartphones are plenty good. One limitation is that you shouldn't shoot beyond iso 200 with a smartphone or else the image quality falls apart completely. So brace the phone on something if the light is low. I love being able to quickly post and email pics from my phone to online as soon as I get off trail, as well as being able to show friends pics from my adventures as i bump into them around town (amazing how many people live in boulder who don't even know what the indian peaks are! ;)

I know there isn't a comparison between something like the S95 and a smartphone, but for me its a question of if the boost in image quality is worth the extra 6-7 oz (considering I already carry my smartphone-books, gps, maps etc). For me, if its worth it to bring the a point and shoot, then its worth it to bring a compact mirrorless. At least thats how I've laid it out for myself, probably as a future justification to invest in an nex-7!

Adding a couple recent smartphone pics. Plenty left to be desired technically, but both did the trick of evoking a sense of that place and time for me. The second pic was at a high pass after about 5 hours of non-stop rain. I used an ultra high tec zip-lock branded filter for ambiance.

Edited by sgiachetti on 08/08/2011 02:50:31 MDT.

Every compact camera design has some compromises, as compared to a big/heavy DSLR. The DSLR probably uses phase detection in the autofocus system, and the compact probably uses contrast detection. They both fall apart if you try to shoot a monochrome or monotone wall, because neither one will find much to work with, but the phase type tends to work better for normal stuff, like the fur on the neck of a marmot. The DSLR probably has a much faster rate for continuous burst shooting. But, really, do you need to shoot the marmot fur at 6 or 8 frames per second? I can, and I will on rare occasions. I find that one frame per second is more economical on memory card space. But that is why they invented 16, 32, and 64 Gigabyte cards.

Compact cameras are getting better, but they used to have serious shutter lag. From the moment that you push the shutter button until it actually goes CRICK can seem like an eternity of time.

Some backpackers have basketball-player size hands, and they like a big DSLR with big dials and buttons. Some backpackers would prefer to squint at a menu to select some shooting feature. Meanwhile, the marmot ate one boot and is heading for the other one. I like lots of buttons that are marked with icons that I can remember.

When you need to zoom in to get the glint in the marmot's eye, do you push some power zoom button one way or the other way, or do you twist a zoom barrel on a lens? Or, maybe a push-pull zoom is quieter.

For shooting wildlife video, some cameras have a tiny microphone built into the front of the camera housing. Unfortunately, those tend to pick up the noise of me shuffling around with control buttons. An external shotgun microphone can be mounted up on the hot shoe to avoid that problem. That way, you can pick up the audio of the marmot taking a leak on a boulder.

--B.G.--