D60 with a 50mm f1.8 D
>lightweight (under 200g)You are six days away from sunday, pal
>can't convince myself of carrying a luxury itemIf photography is a luxury in your hike then do not attempt to dare take a good technical photo of your trip, loser. It's like attempting to eat gourmet with under 200g worth of utensils/supplies, it cannot be done yet unless you weight very specifically in tiny bottles.
>Is it really too much to ask?For 200g? yeah a whole lot, mostly because good sensors are inside strong bodies to protect them or merely to withstand heavy lenses in front of it, so with the metal mount and the battery you are already around 150g, add the lens and even the lightest one will put you north of 250g.
Lightweight cameras can also be strong bodies but the sensor (and lens inside the body) will be small and not premium quality, think of an Olympus Tough which is sturdy as hell and can deliver great pictures (if you consider composition to be the top priority and not resolution clarity) but still nothing that close to even a M43 sensor.
And if i am being honest i don't think making the trees not a dark green mush will make your pictures any better in terms of artistic matters, maybe a tripod/monopod/walking stick with plate to expose the pictures well and then process them with the RAW file will work for you better as these things up the technical quality by a lot, better colours and sometimes better textures, but if i were you i would consider just attempting to learn more technique.
This image
>>4044672 is actually not half bad, the scene is pretty cool but maybe you wanted to chew too much and included the shack and its cable, had you shot from behind the dead trunk with a vantage point/angle to the bridge and mountains with the low clouds it would've been a more compelling shot, and that's using the same camera. If you exposed a lot you would then have better colours when processing the RAW, or maybe even bracket it to preserve the sky.
