Camera for Expeditions

[IndyClimber]

Hi all, I'm a Mirrorless NUBE and am very close to making the switch.  Quick background, I was a sponsored climber and traveled 40+ countries rock climbing and mountaineering.  This is before budgets for camera crews/person and social media.  It was all up to me to grab photos and I'm not a pro.  Over the years I've got some great pics and learned how to use manual settings, light, etc.  I have shot on a Canon T2i for a long time.  Here is the problem.  Weight is a big issue for me when hanging on a wall or being in high altitude.  If I'm carrying a camera that size and weight, heck! I could be carrying an A7rii !  I am no longer sponsored but still always climbing and traveling and want to start taking my photography seriously.  Good thing about the Canon T2i is that I have beaten it into oblivion in the harshest environments and it is still going (flash is broken but I never used it anyway)!  A huge benefit is that I can charge it at home, and take it on a 3 week expedition without charging it again.  I realize, most of what I am doing is more point and shoot and if I were setting up shots it wouldn't last that long.  Lastly, would love a full frame option but thinking the a6500 may be a good bet based on my needs.  Other climbing photographers can afford multiple 5DMiii/IV with lots of lenses, but they also have people rig ropes ahead of time and they post up all day.  I don't have that luxury and am taking pics while leading groups, fixing ropes, etc.

 

My priorities:  weight, size, but also durability, weatherproofing, a solution for short battery life

 

What I shoot:  landscapes, portraits, people (climbers, mountaineers) in landscapes, travel

 

A7rii is out of my budget (unless there is a big Black Friday sale ha).  The A7ii is doable with one or 2 lenses.  Was thinking a pro 50mm or 35mm.  a6500 may be a great way to get used to Sony mirrorless then could eventually get an A7rii to compliment it when price decreases in a year or 2).  Is full-frame that big of a deal for what I am doing?

 

 

I appreciate all of the help!  Thanks in advance!

[JonathanStewart]

Hi - We have similar needs. Although I'm not doing really technical climbing, I'm out for weeks at a time sometimes. The great thing about the A7 series is you can charge and power it with a USB backup. And, you can get grey market batteries, non-OEM, for about $7/each that last almost as long as the original Sony's, but just aren't as durable as far as number of recharges.  I go through about 1 battery per day, and the big USB backups are good for about 4-5 recharges, plus some operating during long time lapes on top of that.  I have 17 batteries and 2 big USB backup batteries, and I've been fine for trips of up to 3 weeks off-grid.  Any longer than than and you should get a solar charging system. 

 

I've been shooting with the A7R2 and A72, and the RX100iv, the latter of which I just sold to raise the funds for the a6500. The nice thing about the RX100 series is they are so small, and image quality is amazing, almost as good as a cropped-sensor camera for landscapes. For technical climbing, I'd almost prefer that over the A7 cameras. In fact, on my last trek to Nepal, which had 5 days on a glacier and lots of scrambling, I kept the A7R2 packed away because it was just too bulky and the shifting weight threw me off, plus it was harder to keep it dry outside my pack. 

 

But, you can't get the kind of bokeh and next-level professional-type image quality on portraits with the RX100iv (or mark 5). And, the video quality is a bit rough when handheld, especially if you're walking with it.  I decided to upgrade it to the A6500 because of that camera's utility shooting sports and wildlife, plus its faster processor which should help in the rolling shutter department, where the RX100 really falls short in 4k.  

 

As far as durability, the mirrorless and RX cameras are not as robust as a full-size DSLR. I've already broken several A7R2 bodies in dust and moisture, but since I've learned to baby it, I haven't broken one for about 6 months.  They're not really weatherproof, at least not as much as you'd hope for. If it rains, you're better off putting it away.  I've also sent my RX cameras in for repair many times over the past few years. It's a fact of life if you're out in the wild shooting. Get one of those accidental damage warranties (just don't tell them it was rain, or they won't cover you - it was always a spilled soda or something, or a fall from your tripod). 

 

As far as value, if you can afford it, I'd recommend getting a used A7R2, which is really a step-up from the A72. Not only do you get more megapixels, but you're also getting 4k video, plus better low-light performance.  I think the best value, and one of the lightest lenses you can get, is the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.  Great lens.  Again, you can find one used for a big discount.  For 35mm, I'm using the Loxia, which is manual focus, but very small and light and beautiful image quality.  With an A7R2 and those two lenses, you'd be set for pretty much any adventure (except wildlife or bird watching).  If that's out of your budget, I'd get the a6500 over the A72 because of the 4k video  and better performance shooting sports and wildlife. 

 

You can check out my stuff here to see that I'm not BS-ing you: http://www.jonathanstewartphotos.com

www.youtube.com/user/jonathan1stewart

[TBREIT]

Hello Indy:

 

MY CAMERAS

You have a rough balancing act of weight, size, durability, and convenience with the assumption of excellent output performance a given.  I owned several Nikons including the D300, T3i, T5i from Canon plus the 20D/40D/60D which were all excellent value for their times but certainly not weight/size friendly, especially when juggling monster lenses.  The part that frustrated me most was simply dealing with various lenses and the huge trade-offs.  Each new model I got added new features but often created new battles for me.  

 

MY THINKING

I fortunately passed my "zoom phase" where I always wanted a lens that could exceed 300mm equivalent.  But, after I made HONEST reviews of my shots, maybe 10% were >100mm!  As with "mega-zoom" needs, I out-grew my push for "mega-bokeh".  Yes, yes....some people go the other way chasing "F0.95 or nothing" but I just don't chase this anymore either.  A CLEAN F4 is often very good on APSC and F2.8 on 1" sensor.  Next was crazy resolution and mega-pixels basically fading away after @20mpixel cameras all came through.  

 

Ironically, through all of this I was falling back into a 1980's "pocket-camera" mindset but wanted DSLR quality.  Uh oh...but then the interest in video started ramping up the last two years.  As I think I am seeing from your needs, I simply wanted a mini-DSLR camera that does everything at a "grade B+" or better and and fit into an over-size pocket but it simply did not exist.  The A6000 was the closest to this but it had a whole new set of battles.  I wanted everything you wanted but the A7ii and A7Rii were just TOO BIG as were the lenses and their prices.  The Fall 2015 market was still mushy but I think the Fall 2016 is really bringing a LOT of product clarity and value options with the APSC family via the A6500!    

 

MY CAMERA SOLUTIONS

I wound up with two cameras - the RX10ii and HX90v.  Why?  First with the RX10ii, I wanted 4k video to run and never overheat.  I wanted a fixed F2.8 lens so I could rack in or out without screwing with the aperture settings.  I wanted a GOOD ND filter living in Florida and taking a lot of high sunlight shots.  I wanted a solid 24-200mm lens with rock solid resolution and low vignetting issues plus macro.  The RX10ii is a MUCH better lens than the RX10iii/24-600 lens due to simple physics and the mk2 has the F2.8 vs the variable Fstop mk3.  Also, the mk3 does NOT have the ND filter (HUGE mistake by Sony) and the RX10ii is weather sealed.  "Step-ups" are not always step-ups.  

 

I also got the pocket HX90v for everyday carry.  It starts fast, grabs and goes, but most important to me is the GPS function which works really well.  My iphone 6s+ camera is NOT as good as this HX90v, I dont care what anyone says.  The HX90v is not as good as the RX10ii, and are two steps down from the APSC solutions, but I picked it up for $200 open box and I can whip it out at any time without anyone noticing, especially doing 1 handed shots!   It's something you might want to think about when you don't have time or 2 hands free.  

 

I looked carefully at the A6000/6300, but these have a lot of tradeoffs that even a hot rod lens did not fix such as overheating in video, no ND filter, and certainly not weather resistant.   But....the A6500 APPEARS to have fixed every issue and paired with the 18-105/F4 lens, this would PROBABLY be the camera/lens bundle I would buy today.  This still does not fix the pocket solution but the HX90V remains a fantastic/cheap solution there if you cannot pull out $900 for the RX100v.  

 

SUMMARY

If I needed low weight, size, durability, and convenience today, I would run WARP SPEED into an A6500 with 18-105/F4 for @$2000! The lens was available last spring but an A6300/6500 was not thus my RX10ii solution.  You can also grab the 10-18/F4, $700 for ultra-wide shots which is a FANTASTIC ultra-wide thus giving you a final lens range equivalent of @15-155mm/F4 on a VERY impressive A6500 body.  Add a few cheap batteries, or simply a backpack solar charger, and you can top off the camera directly via its USB port.  Such a bundle would be a monster package in my mind, especially with the video capability that nothing from Canon/Nikon/Panasonic could equal. 

[crashwins]

Hi - We have similar needs. Although I'm not doing really technical climbing, I'm out for weeks at a time sometimes. The great thing about the A7 series is you can charge and power it with a USB backup. And, you can get grey market batteries, non-OEM, for about $7/each that last almost as long as the original Sony's, but just aren't as durable as far as number of recharges.  I go through about 1 battery per day, and the big USB backups are good for about 4-5 recharges, plus some operating during long time lapes on top of that.  I have 17 batteries and 2 big USB backup batteries, and I've been fine for trips of up to 3 weeks off-grid.  Any longer than than and you should get a solar charging system. 

 

I've been shooting with the A7R2 and A72, and the RX100iv, the latter of which I just sold to raise the funds for the a6500. The nice thing about the RX100 series is they are so small, and image quality is amazing, almost as good as a cropped-sensor camera for landscapes. For technical climbing, I'd almost prefer that over the A7 cameras. In fact, on my last trek to Nepal, which had 5 days on a glacier and lots of scrambling, I kept the A7R2 packed away because it was just too bulky and the shifting weight threw me off, plus it was harder to keep it dry outside my pack. 

 

But, you can't get the kind of bokeh and next-level professional-type image quality on portraits with the RX100iv (or mark 5). And, the video quality is a bit rough when handheld, especially if you're walking with it.  I decided to upgrade it to the A6500 because of that camera's utility shooting sports and wildlife, plus its faster processor which should help in the rolling shutter department, where the RX100 really falls short in 4k.  

 

As far as durability, the mirrorless and RX cameras are not as robust as a full-size DSLR. I've already broken several A7R2 bodies in dust and moisture, but since I've learned to baby it, I haven't broken one for about 6 months.  They're not really weatherproof, at least not as much as you'd hope for. If it rains, you're better off putting it away.  I've also sent my RX cameras in for repair many times over the past few years. It's a fact of life if you're out in the wild shooting. Get one of those accidental damage warranties (just don't tell them it was rain, or they won't cover you - it was always a spilled soda or something, or a fall from your tripod). 

 

As far as value, if you can afford it, I'd recommend getting a used A7R2, which is really a step-up from the A72. Not only do you get more megapixels, but you're also getting 4k video, plus better low-light performance.  I think the best value, and one of the lightest lenses you can get, is the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.  Great lens.  Again, you can find one used for a big discount.  For 35mm, I'm using the Loxia, which is manual focus, but very small and light and beautiful image quality.  With an A7R2 and those two lenses, you'd be set for pretty much any adventure (except wildlife or bird watching).  If that's out of your budget, I'd get the a6500 over the A72 because of the 4k video  and better performance shooting sports and wildlife. 

 

You can check out my stuff here to see that I'm not BS-ing you: http://www.jonathanstewartphotos.com

www.youtube.com/user/jonathan1stewart

Great pics! Man, I have to say, reading stuff like this scares me. "Several" bodies...For a $3000+ camera that just seems unacceptable to me. I love my Sony (A6000) and wanting to swap my Nikon FF for a Sony FF, but reports like this just hold me back, honestly. Also, per the OP's concern, I have to wonder if the A7R2 and a few primes could really weight more than a smaller Nikon like the D750 and their G primes. 

[IndyClimber]

Very helpful responses!  Jonathan - your photography is very similar to what I shoot and will be shooting accept much better haha!  I am going to keep my eyes open for a used A7rii.  Hopefully I can find one at a discount.  The a6500 with a 30mm F1.4 or similar low F seems like one heck of a good package for more demanding climbs.  It would translate to more of a 50mm on an APS-C.  So maybe I would snag a 16mm or so for wider shots.  

 

If I got full frame lenses and used them on the a6500, I could also use them if I had an A7 series camera correct?  That might be a good idea.  Also, are the Sony E-mount pancake lenses crap?

[Guest all8]

Batis lens range is for you - weather sealed, very light, very good performance. Loxia range is OK too.

 

For the camera, the A7 range is not weather proof ... I wrap mine in a leather body case which improves the situation somewhat, and also makes the camera more robust that it really is. Eventually Sony must release an "A9" camera to offer a more durable setup ... because of that I would not bother too much with an A7rii for the simple reason that a newer/betterer camera will eventually hit the market. 

[TBREIT]

Hey Indy, Timde made a VERY good point on the Batis lens.  If you are shooting mostly wide you could easily jump into the 18mm Batis (27 equiv) and nail some stunning shots!  I steered away from the Batis or Primes simply due to cost but I have seen STUNNING output from these lenses if you are OK with higher cost primes.  You would be shocked at the $200 Sigma Art lenses.  The 19 and 60m units are stunning but the 30 version has not had as much positive feedback since the Sony 28 and 35 are remarkably good plus focus faster for not a lot more money.  If you need a one-prime, compact but wide prime lens that you can bang around without fear, that Sigma 19 might rock your world as a starter lens!  

 

For shoot-n-run, unless I had money dripping out of my pockets, I cannot see looking at anything but the pending A6500 body - it looks like stunning tech that is unequaled until the A7Rii.  For the cost savings you could easily roll with some full-frame FE lenses and be very pleased.  I forgot to mention the Zeiss 16-70/F4 (24-105 equiv) which is FANTASTIC glass in a small but extremely good package.  I have seen many shots from it but early production had a lot of decentering which went on far too long from Zeiss.  It is a shame since good copies of this lens are impeccable for photo and video work and almost ruined this lens.  Fortunately Zeiss did respond and later production has all been excellent so it forces you into a new lens only compared to the Sony 18-105 and 10-18 which do have very impressive history new and used, especially with the 18-105 as a "G-branded" lens which exceeds pro video standards for the FS5/FS7 pro cameras.  

[IndyClimber]

Great info everyone!  I'm thinking one camera, 2 different ways.

 

If I go the Prime route:  Sony a6500 ($1,400) , Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 ($350 Used), and Rokinon AF 50mm F1.4 ($330 Used).  =  $2,080

 

If I go Zoom route:  Sony a6500 ($1,400) - Sony Vario/Tesser 16-70mm F4 (used $350) = $1,750

 

                                Sony a6500 ($1,400) - FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 (used $400) = $1,800

 

The Wildcard Combo:  Sony a6500 ($1,400) - FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 (used $400) - Rokinon AF 50mm F1.4 ($330 Used) = $2,130

 

                                     Sony a6500 ($1,400) - G Master FE 24-70 F2.8 (used $850) = $2.250

 

Can 1 lens do it all for me?  Is that the best quality and good combo? I know its big but if it covered everything, could get nice bokeh portraits and beautiful landscapes then I may be in luck.  Also, protecting one system from wind, rain, snow, sand, etc is easier than a few lenses.

 

Good thing is all of these lenses works with a future E-mount camera.  So if I ever need to upgrade to A7r IV  I can do so

[TBREIT]

Indy, I think you are narrowing your needs a little but any multi-lens system is never going to do everything well nor be convenient.  I ran that road thus my current RX10ii solution from last Christmas.  But, approaching November 2016 and the new A6500 with much better Sony/3rd party lenses, I certainly can see my 2017 path somewhat mirroring yours.  Considering all the improvements in the A6500 I would not think of the A6300 at this point, especially if you ever do any video work or need action photos.  

 

My colleague has the A7Rii/24-240 and a bundle of other zooms/primes.  The 24-240 is so front-heavy he simply falls back to the 28-70 Sony (much better than the price implies) and his Zeiss primes which are stunning.  But, he is also full frame, so crops are never an issue.  Like myself, he takes 90% or so of his shots <100mm so a long zoom (his 70-200) is just an "as-needed" device.  

 

I think you really need to nail down your "outer-limits"....how wide/long do you need to go?   It sounds to me like you probably could take two steps into your system.  First, get the A6500 body and don't second guess yourself.  Now, look at a mid-zoom, a good used 18-105 or 16-70 (new only).  As for wide shots, start with the Rokinon 12/14mm then move on to the Sony 10-18.  Do not forget...the Rokinon/Samyang is ONLY manual zoom and I believe loses the EXIF data!  This might be too much in a one handed situation thus the Sony 10-18 automatic is a more practical solution.  

 

So...my 2 cent solutions would be...

(1) A6500 ($1500) + Rok 12mm ($300 used) + Sony 18-105 ($400 used) = $2200 

(2) A6500 ($1500) + Sony 10-18 ($500 used) + Zeiss 16-70 ($1000 NEW!) = $3000 

 

Does this work for you?  

[IndyClimber]

Thanks!  and I think that does work for me.  I may do the Zeiss 16-70 and a prime for portraits.  Portraits will be important for me when capturing high detailed faces of indigenous folks.  I'm a National Geographic fanboy from Day 1 haha.  

 

Can the Zeiss 16-70 take stunning landscape shots in low light?  I know the a6500 should assist in that as it has a high functional ISO

[JonathanStewart]

Thanks!  and I think that does work for me.  I may do the Zeiss 16-70 and a prime for portraits.  Portraits will be important for me when capturing high detailed faces of indigenous folks.  I'm a National Geographic fanboy from Day 1 haha.  

 

Can the Zeiss 16-70 take stunning landscape shots in low light?  I know the a6500 should assist in that as it has a high functional ISO

 

You'll probably be fine at f/4 with the Zeiss zoom in low light.  You can shoot slower shutter speeds at wide angles anyhow, plus IBIS ought to help you keep your ISO within reason. That sounds like a nice option. I think the 24-70 f/2.8 is overkill on a cropped body. 

I saw your other post regarding the Rokinon lenses. Just keep in mind that no 3rd party lens (except the Batis) is going to focus as well as a Sony lens on the a6500, with all its new advanced features. The Rokinons might be decent optically, but as with the Sigmas, you'll suffer in focus speed and coverage. 

Anyhow, I think you're heading in the right direction. I'd add a portrait lens to the wide angle zoom. Does Rokinon make an 85mm with a/f.  If not, the Batis is pretty sweet, and I'd bet you can find one used. 

[JonathanStewart]

Great pics! Man, I have to say, reading stuff like this scares me. "Several" bodies...For a $3000+ camera that just seems unacceptable to me. I love my Sony (A6000) and wanting to swap my Nikon FF for a Sony FF, but reports like this just hold me back, honestly. Also, per the OP's concern, I have to wonder if the A7R2 and a few primes could really weight more than a smaller Nikon like the D750 and their G primes. 

Thanks! First A7R2 was destroyed in a dust storm. Second possibly by splashing sea water. Third by rain that somehow made it through my backpack and a plastic bag. Fourth, by a spill (my fault).  Believe me, the insurance company loves me.  I was 4x4-ing in Death Valley yesterday and my A7R2 seized up in the dust, but seems to be working now.  Here's hoping it's not on the downward slope (the first one to die in the dust took a couple of weeks to finally quit). 

 

Oh, and regarding weight - it really is significantly lighter than a DSLR, but only if you go with the smaller lenses, like the Loxias or Sony's with slower apertures. The GM and f/1.4 primes are awesome optically, but you're right back in DSLR territory for weight and bulk.  As a one-sized-fits-all system, I'm happy having a mix of smaller and larger lenses, depending on what I need that day. 

[IndyClimber]

I agree.  I really would like a super portrait lens.  I think the 85mm would be perfect for an A7 series camera, but on a crop sensor, I will have to stand really far away correct?

[TBREIT]

Indy - don't forget the 1.5 crop for portraits for an 85 or 135 equivalent.  (I never saw a lot of benefit to the 135 other than standing far back but many pros like the appearance.)  If you need a portrait near 85 equiv, the Sony SEL 50mm/1.8 (75mm equiv) is an OUTSTANDING portrait solution!  It is probably the best E-mount lens made for resolution, vignetting, low light, and bokeh - probably the #1 lens for overall quality.  

 

If you want to hold to absolute minimum in lenses, the triad of 10-18/16-70/50 pull just about as much out of your A6500 as possible without carrying a pile of primes.  The A6500 with these 3 lenses puts you around $3,300 ...the price of the A7Rii body.  Also a VERY important note - these three lenses are probably the best resale value and fastest speed to flip of all the Emount lenses.  So if/when you need to move full frame this bundle would likely flip fast and easy if taken care of. 

[JonathanStewart]

I agree.  I really would like a super portrait lens.  I think the 85mm would be perfect for an A7 series camera, but on a crop sensor, I will have to stand really far away correct?

 

Yeah, pretty much.  What focal length is going to be more useful to you is tough to say until you've developed your style. A 50 or 55mm is very useful as a general photography lens, and you can take nice portraits with them. Something like that might be your best bet as you're starting out, and if you find that you're leaning more towards headshots with blurred-out backgrounds then an 85mm might be a nice future purchase.  Personally, I take most of my people shots either at 35mm, getting really up close and personal, or at 85mm, putting an emphasis on the person and de-emphasizing the background, and not many at 50mm, which is sort of in-between.  But, as a starter lens, or, if I just had to choose one lens, a 50mm (or 55mm) would be my first choice. 

[IndyClimber]

Great idea TBREIT!  That SEL 50mm f/1.8 sounds like a winner.   I would love the Zeiss but its $750 used.  I'm sure there is a big difference but hopefully the Sony is good enough. I have a Canon version that is about $120 brand new.  Its cheap plastic, but that lens has never broken, been in severe weather, and takes pretty darn good portraits!  I'm thinking the SEL 50mm f/1.8 coupled with the AF Eye detection could get me into a higher quality than that Canon setup but maybe not up to par with the Zeiss.  Is it really worth getting the Zeiss @ $750 over the Sony @ $150?

[chris.jankowski]

I am concerned that the mirrorless cameras that you are considering may not be robust enough and may not have a battery that will give you enough photos in low temperatures.

 

You may wish to consider going the other way - a small DSLR.

 

I would recommend the Canon EOS Rebel SL1 aka 100d with a Canon EF-S 24mm F/2.8 pancake lens.  This whole kit weighs 525 g and gives you about 450 photos from a small and light battery.  Easy to have a few spares.

 

I would rely on cropping instead of carrying a heavy zoom.  The image quality is good enough to allow significant cropping.

 

Another advantage is low price.  The whole kit may be had for between US$500 and $600 new including a few spare batteries.

 

I would also consider buiyng a used one.  There should be heaps of them on the secondary market sold cheaply.   You will be operating in an environment where it is easy to demage a camera inadvertantly.  better damage a $250 unit then $2,500 unit.

 

I also found that in harsh conditions using OVF is easier than EVF.  But this is certainly an individual preference.

 

 

[TBREIT]

Everyone has brand bias but the application is everything.  Certainly pocket cams would be my choice for climbing such as the Sony RX100v or the Canon G7X.  But, APSC is going to exceed anything these pocket cams can do.  I looked carefully at the CaNikon small DSLR's but saw only major compromises to the point of why bother?  They are 90% an APSC DSLR so just swallow and get the Canon 80D or Nikon D7200.  But, these made no sense to me since they are 90% the bulk of a full frame.  These micro-steps were just too big a camera for me when adding the lenses and other nuisances.  

 

As for Sony battery life it  is completely overblown but is an easy whipping post for non-Sony owners.  I owned Canon Rebels, 20/40/60D, two T-series, and Nikon D300.  CaNikoners keep playing this battery stuff like they are carrying a nuclear reactor in their pocket.  My D300 never exceeded 400 shots on its Nikon battery. The Canon clones rarely passed 200 if using LiveView and were often not recognized by the D-series cams, a completely unreliable situation.  For Sony, good aftermarket units have been very reliable from Wasabi and others achieving @300 shots for me every time.  Truly an incredible bargain at $20 for a pair including the pocket sized wall charger. 

 

Finally, let's talk honestly about shot counts.  If you take @20 photos, every 15 minutes, that is @4 HONEST hours of shooting. How long was the screen on?  How long was the EVF on?...oh wait...most CaNikons don't have EVF.  Pitty.  Is the camera shooting burst?  Does it have 4k video?  How about 1080/4k video at 60fps for real life adventure filming? If you cannot spend 10 seconds to pop in a fresh battery then you have other troubles dealing with daily life.   I am pushing back on this battery babble since it just does not hold water in common use.  I hold a BSEE and own Sony+Canon+Nikon so I feel I can speak with solid experience and knowledge.   I reference the Sony NPFW50 battery in my photo below in hopes of ending all this battery arm waving - it is barely bigger than a 9V battery.  If you cannot pack a pair in your pocket there are clearly other issues/biases.  

 

 

[Guest all8]

I'd personally take an A7ii or A7rii camera, Batis 25 and then either a Batis 85 or the Loxia 50. Once you have hiked, climbed  and crawled all that way, might as well make the best photos you can.

 

The Loxia because that lens is particularly versatile - for me it has about 4 different uses; wide open for portrait, f4-5 for good micro contrast and pop, f8-11 for extra sharp landscapes, and it can focus reasonably close too for "almost macro". 

 

I have samples from the Batis 25 and Loxia 50 on my 500px site, link below, the photos themselves are not always that great however I did try to show some of how the lenses perform. Most photos don't have much post processing, and very light sharpening to counter the effect of the AA Filter of my A7.

 

https://500px.com/tim-de/galleries/loxia-50mm

 

https://500px.com/tim-de/galleries/batis-25mm

[TBREIT]

Timde - I envy your wallet!  ​ The A7Rii is just killer and the Batis are monster quality but the Loxia do take things to the outer limits but I would miss the autofocus.  Beautiful 500px shots!  Unless I was pro (or well off hobbyist) I could never justify the jump to FullFrame.  The A6500 with just a few hot lenses is making a very hard justification for almost anything from CaNikon.  CaNikon top products remain fantastic but in a rapidly shrinking market pressured from below.  Even Hasselblad figured out this upper tier and is rolling out impressive stuff with iPhone like interfaces - just excellent!  

 

Actually, I'm very concerned with Sony's recent success.  They only need to make a few key improvements in 2017 for the "A7Riii, A6700, RX10iv" and they will permanently damage CaNikon outdated DSLR's.  Unless CaNikon pull some VERY strong products out for CES2017, I only see a bloodbath for them as Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and even little Olympus begin to simply pull away.  Canon/Nikon have appeared almost rudderless for 2 years now but I just don't see anything positive, even in rumor form.  In contrast I just hope Sony does not get greedy/lazy which ruins every company in similar cycles.  

[Guest all8]

If you want fast AF, the a6500 is probably the best place to be, however there are plenty of A7ii's on the market and they are cheaper than the a6500 ... the funny thing with the Loxia 50 is that it fairly easy to focus fast and with high precision, in difficult conditions I get much better results than with AF. Its really something quite special, and, because of its reasonable size, it is not very confronting when taking photos of people.

 

Anyway, IMO its the lens that matters, the camera body is secondary (and easily upgraded).

[altern8reality]

...Weight is a big issue for me when hanging on a wall or being in high altitude. ... have beaten it into oblivion in the harshest environments and it is still going ...

 

My priorities:  weight, size, but also durability, weatherproofing, a solution for short battery life

 

What I shoot:  landscapes, portraits, people (climbers, mountaineers) in landscapes, travel

 

 

 

I have visions of a rock climber holding onto a rope with one hand and a swinging a camera around in the other. Something cheap and capable of quality images would be best - A5000 or 5100 with standard lens (operable one handed!)

[IndyClimber]

hahaha thats a pretty realistic vision!  I've been climbing a long time and move pretty smoothly these days.  I'm tackling big classic routes but of moderate difficulty (relative from a climber's perspective).  I can still climb hard, but prefer long alpine routes like The Diamond on Long's Peak , Washington Column in Yosemite, and next summer I will be doing Cime Grand (the middle tower in the Dolomites classic group Tre Cime) - although I will not be taking pics on that.  Its 16 pitches and really hard.  I digress, my point is that, I am comfortable and climb with enough precision that I'm not banging things around anymore unless a fall, and a camera will be the least of what I'm worried about breaking haha!  I think I am going to take TIMDE's recommendation.  Good glass has a lot to do with good pics and the bodies are interchangeable.   

 

Think I'll go with a 6500 and a Zeiss 50mm and a high quality wide angle.  That should do the trick.  That will hit landscapes and portraits and can take pics of folks in landscapes in close proximity with the wide - ie standing next to someone on a tiny belay edge.  If I feel the need for a zoom later then I'll pick something up. Or maybe a good 16-70 and an 80 but none the less, I'll cough up the $$$ for good glass

[IndyClimber]

OK here it goes!!  I convinced my work to pay for what I need within reason if I build out marketing content for them.  I'll have a budget of around $3,500.  Because I will mainly be taking photos, should I go with full frame sensor?  I've never had a FF camera.  The A7ii - used - with a few excellent Zeiss lenses would be a sweet package, but I read that the video is not good and the a6500 is great!  I know I shouldn't second guess myself, but the A7ii is still very small compared to my Canon DSLR.  Final decision.  Which is it?  a6500 or A7ii?  Regardless which one, I will get high end glass

 

I'll have them pay for a warranty too for my expeditious exploits haha

[IndyClimber]

Anyone still around for this post?  Would be helpful to have a final opinion.  My budget is approved and I'm waiting for Black Friday to see if I can't get any deals on glass.  I have decided I want to go full frame.  The A7iii is what I really want.  I think the A7rii's file size may be prohibitive and a may have to have more skill to operate it.  The A7ii would be great if it had all of the new bells and whistles of the a6500 (which I still have on pre-order).  I imagine the A7iii which is launching in Q2 will have all of those features and be the perfect camera for me.  Thinking now I'll get the A7ii for cheap (used), use it for a few months, sell, then get the A7iii (new) once it comes out.  

The reason a rock climber and adventurer is choosing the A7 series over a6500.... I recently did another big wall and lugged up a Canon 5DMiii with a 50mm f1.4 as a test.  I tell you, those pics came out great but of course the body of that camera is too big.  I again held the A7 body in my hands and realized its way smaller and lighter than that rig and much smaller that my Rebel rig as well.  Full frame will be fun to have and I can deal with the extra, marginal, weight/size of the A7ii/iii compared to a6500. Thinking of going Batis 18mm f2.8 , Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Lens , and a small prime - maybe  Sonnar T* FE 35 mm F2.8 ZA for when I really need to be conscious of size.  

 

Final thoughts??