Introduction
The camera that I've used for all my shots since new year 1998/1999 is the Canon EOS 1000F. This is an SLR camera with a 35-80mm zoom lens, auto/manual focussing and auto/manual exposure. It uses the common 35mm film format rather than other formats such as APS or 120mm film.

There are generally three types of camera out on the market as follows.

• Compact 35mm/APS cameras

• SLR 120mm/35mm/APS cameras

• Digital Cameras

I've only had experience of using the 35mm format and seeing some APS results, so the use of digital cameras is beyond the scope of this page. I'm therefore going to look at comparing SLR and compacts together with features that you should look out for.

Poor lens quality doesn't do justice

Features to look out for
Above all else, lens quality is paramount. A poorly made variable focus lens is a lot worse than a good fixed focus lens found on some cheap cameras. Fixed focus lenses, when made well, can deliver reasonable results for long distance shots .... such as mountains! I've seen some disposable cameras deliver quite nice results!

A zoom lens is very useful. It's important to know though that very long focal lengths (120mm or greater) are not too beneficial for mountain pictures. The 35-80mm focal length is quite adequate though sometimes wide angle lenses (shorter focal lengths) are useful when close up to your subject.

As well as zoom, variable focussing is very important. My camera gives me the option between having auto focus and manual focus. Generally I use manual focussing as it's more accurate on my camera. Mist and featureless snow slopes can play havoc on auto focussing due to lack of contrast on the subject area.

Variable exposure is also essential. Most £30+ cameras will have auto exposure though the cheaper models won't be so good. Exposure on the SLR's is set by the shutter speed and the aperture. A wide aperture lets in a lot of light - but gives a narrow depth of field on the image. Long exposure does the same thing but there's the risk of camera shake that can blur the image.

Two photos stiched together, exposure locked using manual options

Often dark results for fixed exposure

Generally I let my camera judge the level of light coming in. I can though, set aperture priority or shutter priority or even have complete manual control. The sharpness of your picture is often compromised by having too wide an aperture or too long an exposure. The shutter/aperture settings are displayed to me when I compose my shot meaning I can judge whether or not to use a monopod/flash.

Many, if not all compact cameras will not give you exposure information and instead they will often use autoflash instead when low light is detected. Flash for mountain pictures is useless and the result is often an underexposed picture because the exposure is set to absorb flash light.

SLR vs Compact
SLR is much better in many respects. They're better built and generally have better lenses. They give you much better control over focussing and exposure and they're not too difficult to use when set to automatic. Often they're very expensive but you can get some fully manual models sold second hand for under £100. Fully manual exposure on such models though, can be a right pain, you'd have a much smaller yield of good photos.

Compacts have their advantages. Most folk find them easy to use. That's a big plus for those with a fear for gadgets. They are also lighter weight - more like small choccy bars rather than big potatoes. Many folk say that's extremely important.

I've seen the prints from compact cameras and I'd have to say I'm disappointed - even with expensive cameras. The problem is that focussing isn't perfect and pretty much all of the compacts are autofocus. Some prints are very sharp so lens quality isn't the issue. Exposure is normally excellent but compacts are fundamentally flawed with focussing as you can't see through the lens - crucial for previewing your images!

So Compact or SLR? If quality is top of the agenda then there's no competition - SLR wins hands down. If weight, bulk and price are the issues then you'd better stick with compact - though don't expect wonders.

35mm vs APS
APS is a smaller film format. The diameter of each frame is about 20mm. The chemistry by which it receives and processes light is the same as 35mm. The development process is chemically identical to 35mm. The image you see is made up of small grains - like chemical pixels. Because the film format is smaller, you need a greater magnification to get the same print size as from a 35mm film. As a result, APS film tends to look grainier as the grain size is larger on the final print.

On the face of it APS sound rubbish! APS came out very recently when 35mm had been around for decades. So why have worse print quality? Well, the chief advantage is that the cameras using the format are a lot smaller. Chiefly this is a matter of fashion rather than function. The film is easier to load - just slot it in to the camera rather than open the camera, place a 35mm film in, roll out the film and snap the camera shut again! Slightly easier usage is a small matter for camera experts.

The main difference in developing allows you to have different height/width print ratios. The film allows you to have 'panoramic' options. I've noticed that the grain size for panoramic photos is bigger than the standard option so it would appear that the original print is simply cropped at top and bottom and then enlarged!

In summary, if you like gimmicks then APS is for you. Otherwise stick with 35mm film for better quality.