Lightest Camera and tripod

Hi I'm new to photography but learning every day. I discovered ultralight backpacking just over a year ago and now i want to be a nature photographer. I mostly want to photograph natural landscapes. I don't want to add to much weight to my backpack as i will be travelling long distances. What is the lightest professional camera on the market right now and what is on the horizon for later this year? Im also looking for an ultralight tripod. I understand my backpack will no longer be ultralight with pro camera gear but how light can i go and still take professional quality photographs? 

Cameras I've been looking at are the Sony A7R and the Nikon D750 . Am i on the right path?

In an ultralight scenario you can't have a camera that is ultra sensitive to vibration, whether self induced or wind induced since you won't be on a real strong tripod. For that reason, I think the a7 Mk II is much better than the a7R or D750 with it's in body stabilization system.

For a light tripod I have a Sirui T-2205X that is very light and folds down small. It isn't nearly as stable as my big Gitzo, but it gets the job done and easy fits in my luggage when flying and is easy to carry. It is tough to decide between 3, 4, or 5 leg sections and depends on how small you want it to fold. For me light weight and small size were key with this tripod and I'm sure other brands make similar units.

I'm not sure about the best head. I had an Acratech GP head and it was too big for the tripod legs to fold around. It looks like they offer smaller base versions though now in the GPS and GPSS that might work. They are very light and work okay. I don't have the tripod with me at the moment to measure the base diameter but be aware of the head diameter if you buy a tripod whose legs fold up and around itself.

For a backpacking tripod, you might consider the Oben CT-2331, B&H price $199. It's 3-section, 1.65 lb, 45" height w/o the center column. Spike feet drive into the ground compensate a bit for the light weight. I use it backpacking with my Canon 5D III. I wrote a review the tripod on my website: http://garyluhm.net/backpacking-tripod-oben-ct-2331-201408/

I like the 13 oz Markin Q-ball for a backpacking ball head.

Gary

A local college photo teacher friend who has been anti digital out the wazoo for years recently started doing epic landscapes with her iPhone. She used to be if it wasn't B & W large format, it was crap. Now that is a change of heart if ever there was one!

Google Jack Davis if you decide to go the iPhone route. He is an iPhoneographny master with fabulous teaching skills. I used to poo poo iPhone photography, but I was wrong. Fun, inexpensive, and a very lightweight camera!

Steve Cirone wrote:A local college photo teacher friend who has been anti digital out the wazoo for years recently started doing epic landscapes with her iPhone.  She used to be if it wasn't B & W large format, it was crap.  Now that is a change of heart if ever there was one!

Google Jack Davis if you decide to go the iPhone route.  He is an iPhoneographny master with fabulous teaching skills.  I used to poo poo iPhone photography, but I was wrong.  Fun, inexpensive, and a very lightweight camera!

Errrr...I think he doesn't want the lightest camera; he wants the lightest professional camera.

Honestly, I would recommend that you start out with a Sony RX100M2 and use it without a tripod. You can get one new around $500 and new around $350. You can also carry a very light and inexpensive tripod with you for when you need very long shutter speeds.

It covers 28-100mm equivalent and fits in your pocket and weighs a few ounces. You can also get an RX100M3 which covers 24-70mm equivalent, but includes a pop-up viewfinder.

If you really, truly want more quality, and a huge amount more to carry, then you can buy a Sony Alpha 6000 or 7M2 or other mirrorless camera and lenses afterwards. But I would start out with the RX100 first, use it for a while, and then decide what kinds of images you want to capture that the RX100 can't handle (probably ultrawide and longer telephoto, it's very very competent in its focal length range). The images are very good, and you will always have a use for a camera small enough to carry everywhere.

I'll second Matthew's recommendation for the RX-100 if light weight is a primary requirement. Small (maybe too small), light, good battery life, full manual control, RAW, good DR and noise characteristics. Filters available via aftermarket adapter.

I used to backpack with a DSLR and 2-3 lenses, flash, tripod, etc, typically 8-9 lbs. Now I use an RX-100M1 with a homemade L bracket, small lightweight gitzo tripod, head, and CPL and ND filters, about a third the weight.

For images where I want more than 20mp, I shoot a lot of multi-image panoramas. They are quick and easy with the L bracket and having one of the camera's custom functions set up with my preferred pano settings (ISO 100, RAW, manual focus/exposure, level display, etc).

Some of the features of the M2 and M3 versions of this camera look interesting (articulating screen for example) but I'm still content with the M1 version as the image quality has not changed much, AFAIK.

Good luck with your decision, this is a great time for those of us interested in small/light cameras with stellar image quality.

The main advantage of the RX100M2, and why I went for it, is the articulating screen.

The RX100M1 is a great camera too. I got a used one for my son for $260, shipped, on eBay.

I couldn't deal with the reduced maximum focal length of the M3, but if 24-70mm fits the bill for you it's a great option.

I've seen so many people buy cameras that they won't carry with them. And if you don't carry it, you can't use it. These big cameras end up sitting in a closet on a shelf, or else sold (at a huge loss!) on eBay or Craigslist. That's why I'm so gung-ho on the RX100 series. It's never too big to carry, and the IQ is more or less in line with Micro 4/3 and most APS dSLRs at low ISOs.

You can always carry the RX100 with you no matter what you are doing, so if you end up really enjoying photography and want to get high-end gear, the RX100 will continue to provide value at times when you don't want to lug along the bigger gear. Mine sits in a pants pocket at all times when I go out and mow the lawn, go to the store, basically whenever I step out of the house. It's amazing how many beautiful scenes present themselves when you are NOT out to do photography.

I have had a little Sony RX 100 version one since they came out.  I never used it much so gave it to my wife who is pretty good with it.  My objection is the long slow shutter lag.  Mainly, if you are used to regular sized cameras and lenses, it is going to feel way too small in hand.  Also the lack of a real viewfinder.  Years of shooting a normal DSLR have essentially ruined me as I am too old a dog to learn new tricks, dang it.

Objection on my iPhone suggestion (not pro), yet no objection to the RX 100 (pro?).  Much the tenor of the internet.  Funny skit:  "You mean he didn't attack everything posted as utter BS or an insult??"  "What a wuss."  "Must be new to the internet." 

Went to a big wedding a few weeks ago as a guest and nearly all 80 guests had iPhones in hand constantly.  Up on YouTube before they even cut the cake.  Man, I am just too slow for all this newfangled stuff.  And my phone is a $14 Walmart unit with no camera. 

Steve Cirone wrote:I have had a little Sony RX 100 version one since they came out.  I never used it much so gave it to my wife who is pretty good with it.  My objection is the long slow shutter lag.  Mainly, if you are used to regular sized cameras and lenses, it is going to feel way too small in hand.  Also the lack of a real viewfinder.  Years of shooting a normal DSLR have essentially ruined me as I am too old a dog to learn new tricks, dang it.

Objection on my iPhone suggestion (not pro), yet no objection to the RX 100 (pro?).  Much the tenor of the internet.  Funny skit:  "You mean he didn't attack everything posted as utter BS or an insult??"  "What a wuss."  "Must be new to the internet." 

Went to a big wedding a few weeks ago as a guest and nearly all 80 guests had iPhones in hand constantly.  Up on YouTube before they even cut the cake.  Man, I am just too slow for all this newfangled stuff.  And my phone is a $14 Walmart unit with no camera. 

The RX100 has essentially no shutter lag at all. Are you referring to autofocus speed? If so, it's very good outdoors in decent light, but indoors it can be slow in some low light conditions.

At low ISO, the RX100 image quality is essentially equal to current APS-C dSLRs from Canon, today's Micro 4/3 cameras, and APS-C dSLRs from Nikon / Sony a few years ago. The latest Nikon and Sony APS-C cameras are somewhat better in dynamic range.

When you compare to any iPhone regarding resolution and dynamic range, the RX100 simply blows it to kingdom come...

You are right, the RX100 is small, which is a trade-off. And only the M3 comes with a viewfinder (you can attach one the the M2), otherwise you are using the big-and-very-bright LCD to compose (but it tilts on the M2 and M3).

Steve Cirone wrote:Objection on my iPhone suggestion (not pro), yet no objection to the RX 100 (pro?). ...

Hey, not really objecting your suggestion but just to remind everyone that CalmRiver wanted a professional camera. Personally I don't know why but I assume CalmRiver has a reason for that.

But, glad to know that some folks do realize that other cameras could give you great photographs, too

DChan wrote:

Steve Cirone wrote:Objection on my iPhone suggestion (not pro), yet no objection to the RX 100 (pro?). ...

Hey, not really objecting your suggestion but just to remind everyone that CalmRiver wanted a professional camera. Personally I don't know why but I assume CalmRiver has a reason for that.

But, glad to know that some folks do realize that other cameras could give you great photographs, too

What is a "Professional Camera", other than a Nikon D4 or Canon 1Dx?  :D

I think what the OP wanted is excellent quality results in a lightweight camera.

Hmm, no shutter lag in the rx 100, odd that we were shooting flash with it at a wedding with it recently. It was glacially slow, push the button, the flash fires a pre flash and the camera thinks, then it pops the real flash and takes the photo. We had to warn everybody the first flash was "fake," as they were walking out of the pose before the actual photo. If not using flash I suppose there is no shutter lag, but with flash it is really bad, at least the way I had the rig set up, which may have been all wrong, as it is not something I use much.

Worse yet, I had removed the date stamp, and somehow it came back on and I could not recall how to shut it off at the venue, where I swore I was NOT going to do photography, but I got over ruled by my wife. It is always something!

I have been looking for a very light small tripod for years and never liked what I saw--just too unstable. I recently found the Sirui T1205X and added a Giotto MH1302 ball head. It is impressively strong and stable for its size and weight (1.22 Kg legs + head = 2.68 pounds).

Realistically there are many options, rather than going straight to the very lightest have a look at the system that is offered with the cameras, so you have a good choice of ultra wide zooms, kit lenses, 70-200 equivalent zooms, macro, flash etc if you ever want to branch out beyond your current fairly narrow scope.

Also work out what you think you mean by professional. Most cameras with interchangeable lenses will produce great looking web size images on low ISO landscape work and printing up to A3 size the results are probably fairly similar with well exposed images. So you could look into micro 4/3 which have a great range of lenses, Sony mirrorless and many other options.