Camera recommendations for backcountry adventures

Right now most of my photos are taken with my phone or a waterproof Panasonic point-n-shoot.

When I look at photos from Radka or Jason Hummel I realize I'd like to get a camera with a bigger sensor to be able to produce the same quality. Being able to do night photos, time lapsed, macro, and video would be great.
Oh, and it needs to be lightweight and affordable

What cameras are people using these days that they would recommend to take on adventures (backcountry skiing, climbing, etc)?

Thanks
Richard

no replies yet...okay, i'll take a shot 

for what its worth (and I imagine you realize this too) i think the photos produced by Jason, Radka, etc, have a lot more to do with some amazing photographer skills than the type of hardware- I know I couldn't replicate their results if I had the same camera  

For the past few years I've carried a Canon S100 when I didn't want to lug around my SLR.   It has a reasonable burst mode and manual mode and can shoot in RAW.   Being able to take a RAW image into Adobe Lightroom and monkey around with it will likely give you more bang for your buck than going for a big sensor.  Unfortunately that camera does not have  'bulb' mode like most SLR's so I can't open up the shutter for more than 15 seconds for long night shots. 

Maybe there are some point&shoots out there now have a bulb mode- I haven't been looking at cameras for a while.    Seems like a Micro Four Thirds/Mirrorless camera might be a contender- most of the same features as a SLR but a smaller package and less weight...that or a higher end point&shoot that can shoot in RAW format. 

I use a sony nex-5n. It's old at this point and I need to upgrade. Taking a full-frame DSLR or even a APS-C DSLR has never seemed an option to me, too bulky. I'm overall thrilled with the quality of images I get from the sony mirrorless system.

If money is no object, there are some very small 'full frame' point-and-shoot options from sony ($2000-3000 I think).. But otherwise you can get a sony A6000/6300, what the NEX line evolved into.. for $600 or $1200~.. it shoots great shots in low light and is relatively compact for the sensor size. I tried the m4/3 sensor size camera but I wasn't overall impressed. APS-C is a huge step up in sensor size, only full frame does better.

Just like with skis and bindings "affordable" is a relative term. I carried my Canon 7D DSLR for several years but got tired of the size and weight. I now carry a Sony A6000 mirrorless camera. It focuses quickly and has a burst rate of 11 frames per second. It has lots of manual controls and importantly for me it shoots in RAW format. I don't think much of the 16-50mm "kit" lens I have but it's small and light. Sony makes other excellent lenses that will fit the camera - all it takes is money.

Sony just release a newer version, the A6300, that is weather sealed and has a few other improvements.

Photographers like Jason Hummel and Grant Gunderson shoot professionally and carry DSLR's because it's their stock in trade. They're probably shooting 50,000 or 60,000 frames a year and their clients are looking for very high resolution images. The rest of us mortals just shoot for fun.

Below are a couple of Jason Hummel fan-boy pics I took with the A6000 this year.

Thanks for the recommendations. I do understand that buying a better camera doesn't make me a better photographer. It's just like ski gear

Another vote for the S100-series and a6000 series.

If compactness is important to you. I upgraded from a Pentax W30 to an S100 for ~3 years before going mirrorless. It's still my backup / going-lightest camera. I did have trouble with dust in the lens after a couple of years, but Canon fixed it under warranty. It's great in good light, and functional at night.

Today, I'm using an EOS M with a 12mm Rokinon manual focus lens on almost every trip. With other lenses, M is slow to autofocus, but otherwise quite nice. The M3 is supposedly faster. The 22mm pancake lens is awesome, and the 18-55 is quite good.

Susan had an a6000 (until it disappeared somewhere during travel) that produced excellent photos with the collapsing kit lens. I envied the 11 fps shutter rate. It seems like Sony tries to extract the very best performance they can from that camera instead of crippling it to support upmarket bodies. If I had to recommend an APS mirrorless, the a6000 would be it. I don't know if it's quite as durable as the M.

A camera that's inexpensive enough that you're willing to take it out in rough conditions is important. Damage warranties may ease the mind on something more expensive. Finding the right case that balances speedy access, freedom of movement, and camera protection is important too. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.