Every ounce in a backpack is a decision. A camera has to justify its weight against everything else I carry, and over the years I’ve iterated on my choices. This post covers the camera gear I take hiking and on multi-day treks, why I settled on it, and where I think a simpler setup makes more sense for many hikers.
I currently shoot a Micro Four Thirds system — an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III with a small set of lenses. It’s not the camera with the biggest sensor or my favorite straight-out-of-camera color. But for hiking and backpacking, the combination of range, weight, stabilization, and weather sealing is hard to beat.
Below, we include affiliate links to Amazon, which means we earn a small commission if you purchase through them. However, when practical, I encourage you to purchase from your local camera store. In Seattle, Glazer’s has been key for letting me try different gear in store, amazing service when I had a problem with a camera, and cultivating the local photography community, and I buy from them when I can.
Years on a compact: the Sony RX100
For a long time my hiking camera was a Sony RX100 III. It was a good compromise for travel and backpacking: light, pocketable, and a real step up from a phone, with no lens decisions to slow me down. It fit neatly in an Osprey Digistow, so I could clip it to a hip belt or chest strap and watch the scenery instead of watching my feet. It was always at hand, and a camera that’s always at hand is a camera you actually use.
The RX100 encouraged me to experiment and shoot more simply because it was always there. That counts for a lot, and it’s why I still recommend the line to plenty of hikers (more on that below).
What eventually pushed me off it wasn’t that it was a bad camera–as you can see, it takes great photos. It was that I kept wanting to do things it couldn’t. A fixed lens means no reach for wildlife and no wide, fast option for astrophotography. The one-inch sensor has limits in low light. As my photography grew, I ran into the ceiling more and more often. By 2018, I wanted a slightly larger sensor, the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, and more dedicated controls.
Choosing a system: why Micro Four Thirds won
I spent a long time deciding. I went back and forth between the Fujifilm X-T20, the Sony A6500, the Fujifilm X-E3, the Canon EOS M100, and the Olympus OM-D E-M10 III. I read reviews and looked at far too many sample galleries. Commenters on the NWHikers forum offered helpful opinions. I tried bodies out in person.
After all that research, I slightly preferred the output of the Fujifilm X-T20 and the Sony A6500. But three things decided it for Micro Four Thirds, and all three matter on a trail:
- Controls. The Olympus controls were easier to work than the Fuji’s, and far easier than the A6500’s. On a hike I want to change settings without diving through menus.
- In-body stabilization. The X-T20 lacked IBIS. Stabilization means sharper handheld shots and, often, leaving the tripod at home. This saves weight and means I’m much more likely to get that quick dusk wildlife shot.
- Lens size and weight. This was the one that mattered most. For comparable range and brightness, the Micro Four Thirds lenses were smaller and lighter than anything the APS-C systems offered. On a multi-day trip, that difference compounds with every kilometer.
That last point is the main argument for the system. The 2× crop factor and the smaller lenses are why I can carry the range I do without dreading the weight. It’s a deliberate tradeoff: a smaller sensor in exchange for a kit I’ll actually bring.
I started with an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and the 12-50mm (24-100mm equivalent) as a starter lens, tried it locally, then gave it its first real test on the Tour du Mont Blanc.
The first trip: the Tour du Mont Blanc
A week and a half on the TMB told me more than any review could.
A few things stood out. We had one day that was a seemingly endless cycle of short showers followed by dry spells, and I was grateful for the weather sealing every time the rain came back. I’d started out carrying the camera in a bag, the way I was used to with the RX100, which turned out to be cumbersome for an interchangeable-lens body. I switched to a Peak Design Capture Clip and never looked back: it answered the carry question I’d been chewing on before the trip. My camera got a little scuffed, but that was always going to happen, and a scuffed camera you can grab in two seconds beats a pristine one buried in your pack.
The shift from the compact was clear by the end of the trip. The RX100 invited me to experiment because it was always at hand; the OM-D invited me to experiment because it was so easy to try different things once it was in my hand.
Refining the kit: the 12-100mm f/4
Two changes turned a good system into the one that has grown with me across years of trips and as I slowly learn to take better photos.
First, the lens. In 2019, with a trip to New Zealand coming up, I moved to the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 (24-200mm equivalent) (Amazon), and it’s the ideal travel and hiking lens. The range covers most of what I want, the constant f/4 is fast enough for daytime wildlife and the occasional bird. I wished for something wider and faster for astrophotography and dusk — and, a few years later, I added a Panasonic 9mm f/1.7 to fill that niche.
Refining the kit: moving to a more capable body
Second, the body. I upgraded to the OM-D E-M1 Mark III, mainly for the Handheld High Res Shot mode, phase-detect autofocus, in-body image stabilization, and the Live ND filter. The previous body produced just enough autofocus misses, especially at dusk and dawn, that phase detection was a welcome fix. The upgrade added a little weight and size, and the larger grip turned out to be a quiet benefit I didn’t expect. A second card slot also matters more than it sounds: losing a trip’s photos to a single failed card near the end of a backpacking route is a nightmare I’ve never had and never want.
Between the body and the stabilization in the 12-100mm lens, I’m regularly surprised by the long handheld exposures I can pull off. I got some lovely Comet NEOWISE photos with it one summer. The body’s stabilization is also good enough to support primes that don’t have stabilization, which has been great for the aurora and waterfalls.
To my eye, I still prefer Sony’s and Fuji’s straight-out-of-camera color, and there are moments I long for an APS-C or full-frame sensor. But for backpacking, this is a delightful system. The camera invites experimentation, and the range the lens delivers at this weight and size is remarkable.
One footnote on timing: I bought the E-M1 Mark III just before Olympus announced the sale of its camera division, and I spent a while hoping Micro Four Thirds had some longevity left in it. Several years and a healthy OM System and Panasonic lineup later, that bet has held up.
My current kit
What I carry on a hike or multi-day trek:
- Body: Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III — weather-sealed, well-stabilized, dual card slots, controls I can work without thinking. Contemporary equivalent: OM System OM-1 Mark II (Amazon).
- Default lens: Olympus 12-100mm f/4 Pro (24-200mm equivalent) (Amazon) — the be-ready-for-anything choice; if I bring one lens, it’s this, and it’s almost always on the camera.
- Wide / astro: Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 9mm (18mm equivalent) f/1.7 (Amazon) — when a trip promises dark skies or big landscapes worth a fast wide.
- Wildlife: Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm (150-600mm equivalent) f/4.8-6.7 (Amazon) — light enough to bring on day hikes and the occasional backpacking trip. I wish it were faster, but nothing faster stays this packable.
- People: Panasonic Lumix G 25mm (50mm equivalent) f/1.7 ASPH (Amazon)— This one only comes on group trips and when I leave the 75-300mm at home, because four lenses just feels indulgent. But it’s a great prime for people at dusk, and at ~$200, it’s a great price.
- Accessories:
- A 72mm circular polarizer for skies and water with the 12-100mm. I research options each time I’m due for a new one; my current favorite is the X4 CPL (Schott B270) (Amazon) -it offers great color neutrality, a good grip, and reliably rates without coming off the lens.
- Two spare batteries.
- A Peak Design Capture Clip (Amazon) for carry.
- A rocket blower (Amazon).
- For hut-to-hut hikes, a charger so that I can have my camera with me while charging a battery at an outlet. You never know when you’ll see that ibex or when the light will hit the mountains just right.
For longer backpacking trips, a backup battery plus a small solar panel means I’m not sweating battery life anymore — worth noting if you’re out for more than a few days.
If I were buying today
I’m still happy with the E-M1 Mark III, but if I were buying now, I’d get the OM System OM-1 Mark II (Amazon). It’s the natural descendant of the reasoning that got me here: dual UHS-II card slots, the full computational toolkit (Handheld High Res Shot, Live ND, Live GND, in-camera focus stacking), strong AI subject-detection autofocus for wildlife, and IP53 weather sealing. It maps cleanly onto everything I value in the E-M1 Mark III, improved. Personally, I’m holding out for a Mark III if one arrives, but the Mark II is the body I’d point most people toward. OM System sells it in a kit with the 12-40mm (24-80mm) f/2.8 (Amazon), which has a reputation as a great lens–though not one that has fit into my kit, yet.
For many hikers, the OM-5 Mark II (Amazon) will also be a good choice. It inherits much of the computational feature set in a smaller package. The tradeoffs are the two things that pushed me up the line in the first place: a single card slot and more limited controls. If neither of those is a dealbreaker for you, it’s a lighter, less expensive way into the same system.
Some other gear that comes up:
- OM System also makes a 12-200mm (24-400mm) f/3.5-6.3 (Amazon). This lens is tempting for its longer reach, but I don’t want to lose the constant f/4.0 aperture of my 12-100mm, its added image stabilization, or its added weather sealing.
- For wide, I also look at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro (Amazon). Having some flexibility at the wide end appeals, but it’s a big lens and not as bright as the 9mm I have, so for now, I’ve accepted the constraints of the fixed focal length.
Should you carry a compact instead?
Not everyone needs a system, and I want to be clear that the RX100 served me well for years before I outgrew it. If you value pocketability over reach and you won’t carry interchangeable lenses, a one-inch compact is still a legitimate hiking camera — a step up from a phone, light, and always ready.
If you go that route, I’d look at a newer RX100 with phase-detect autofocus rather than the older III I was using. A used RX100 V (Amazon) is good value and a meaningful jump in low-light autofocus, while the RX100 VII (Amazon) has added reach but sacrifices some low-light performance. The limits are the same ones I hit: limited reach for wildlife, a smaller sensor, and lots of hunting through menus to adjust settings. If you’ll bump into those limits the way I did, a system is worth the weight. If you won’t, save your back.
(I still own my RX100 III, incidentally. It’s earned a second life as my concert camera, since plenty of venues that ban interchangeable-lens cameras will wave through a fixed-lens compact.)
The bottom line
A camera on a backpacking trip lives or dies by whether you’ll actually carry it and use it. Micro Four Thirds wins for me because the lenses are small and light enough that I can carry an extra lens or two, the stabilization and weather sealing hold up in real conditions, and the controls stay out of my way. It isn’t the biggest sensor, but it’s the system that gets me the shots I want from the trail, trip-after-trip and year-after-year.
See also our packing lists for:
or Sean’s Flickr photos.
