View Full Version : any SLR users out there?
gruntledpainter
12-28-2009, 01:57
I am an avid photographer and will definitely will be bringing a camera on my 2010 thru-hike. I'm a rookie to the AT or for any hike longer than a few days. I hear that mostly, people bring small point and shoot digitals, but I love my SLR and imagine the AT to be one of the best locations/experiences for me to shoot.
Does anyone have advice/experience on bringing DSLRs on a thru-hike? The camera fully loaded with batteries is about 1.5 lbs. Also I am wondering about moisture/dirt/other things being a danger to the camera.
Thanks for the advice! I'm looking forward to the walk.
Sir-Packs-Alot
12-28-2009, 05:48
I am an avid photographer and will definitely will be bringing a camera on my 2010 thru-hike. I'm a rookie to the AT or for any hike longer than a few days. I hear that mostly, people bring small point and shoot digitals, but I love my SLR and imagine the AT to be one of the best locations/experiences for me to shoot.
Does anyone have advice/experience on bringing DSLRs on a thru-hike? The camera fully loaded with batteries is about 1.5 lbs. Also I am wondering about moisture/dirt/other things being a danger to the camera.
Thanks for the advice! I'm looking forward to the walk.
After the first 30 miles - you'll probably want to lose that heavy SLR in favor of something lighter. At that point people are looking to shave off any ounce they can - so that's a fast weight savings. However- later in your hike - an avid photographer like yourself may opt to get it back. I carry the 10meg Olympus Tough "point & Shoot" that's waterproof and shockproof (sometimes) - at other times a Nikon D60 SLR. You can't get the SLR's quality images with the point and shoot's lense - but you can't grab quick pix in the rain with the packed away SLR either. It's a quandary - but I don't think there's a camera to do both. I go back and forth on this issue - but I'm beginning to think I'll go the Nikon way as much as I can for my section hikes. If you could take the weight on a thru-hike, the images are great. You won't find many thru-hikers carrying an SLR though, and once out on the trail ... you'll know why. Sorry I didn't give you a clearer answer - you'll probably go back and forth. Good luck - and good hike!
I have not thru'd, but taken my smaller dslr (canon xsi) on week long hikes. It has not been a bother at all. I have a waterproof camera bag, very small, that I thread my hip belt through. The camera is carried on my waist the whole trip, with a couple of sds and batteries. I only take the cheap kit lens, but to be honest, that does the trick for most of the scenery.
Painted Turtle
12-28-2009, 09:27
I am an avid photographer and will definitely will be bringing a camera on my 2010 thru-hike. I'm a rookie to the AT or for any hike longer than a few days. I hear that mostly, people bring small point and shoot digitals, but I love my SLR and imagine the AT to be one of the best locations/experiences for me to shoot.
Does anyone have advice/experience on bringing DSLRs on a thru-hike? The camera fully loaded with batteries is about 1.5 lbs. Also I am wondering about moisture/dirt/other things being a danger to the camera.
Thanks for the advice! I'm looking forward to the walk.
I am an advid / advanced amature photograher and used a DSLR for years on section hikes. The weight got to me so I went to the G9 when it came out. The new G11 looks good you may want to look at that. It is a nice compromise.
As for normal carry I use: http://www.backcountrysolutions.com/ . Also I carry baggies / zip locks for those nasty days. A camera not ready to use fast is no good. I have a couple of nice shots of animals that I would not of had if I had to dig my camera out of a case or pouch or bag. When you almost step on a 4 foot Timber Rattler (missed his head by 2 inches) you have to act fast Pun intented. Now he did not run off right away but it did take me a few minutes to clam down and once he clamed down he did take off, but not before I got a few nice shots.
I would think that because you want to carry a DSLR you are going to be shooting in RAW and you are using something in the order of CS4. Now shooting in RAW my be a problem with a long hike, so plan well on labeling and getting your cards back home safely. Batteries are a big concern. I got about 250 shots without recharging, A camera that uses "AA" will be easier to take care of batteries. But 250 shots should get you through 2 weeks (thats about 15 a day)
If you are not shooting in RAW I would suggest you look at high end PS. A good place to look at reviews is: http://www.dpreview.com/
Try and picture the kind of pictures you will be taking most of the time: landscape = wide angle, close-up = macro, people = zoom, low light = ISO with low noise? You know the drill, think it through. Cut the weight, listen to all suggestions and make your own decission, you are the one that will have to live with it, try out those things you can and remember to have fun.
Happy Trails.
Toolshed
12-28-2009, 10:21
I use a D90 70-210 zoom lens which weighs probably close to 2 lbs. My wife really wanted it as we both used to be very much into film SLRs and B&W, Slides.....
We take it on day hikes when we have plenty of time, but nothing further as it is very bulky and difficult to carry outside the pack. I always keep it in it's long-neck camera case, but if I find a shot, it usually takes me 1 minute or so to remove form the case and then decide if I want to go AP or TP or some other priority set-up.
In addition, I don't like to keep it in the backpack as I am always worried it might get slammed into something, or I might forget and just "drop my pack" at some overlook or break spot.
So otherwise, I carry an older (circa 2001) relatively small Pentax Optio S and a few cards/spare battery. Much easier to keep attached to my waist-belt or shoulder strap and I don't pass up as many photo ops because "I don't feel like getting the DSLR out...."
bigcranky
12-28-2009, 10:25
But 250 shots should get you through 2 weeks (thats about 15 a day)
15 shots a day? Seriously? That seems kinda low, don't you think? I expect most serious photographers would shoot far more than that by a couple of orders of magnitude -- otherwise you might as well bring the P+S camera.
To the OP: you can bring the DSLR, it'll just require some work:
1. Bring extra batteries, and carry the charger so you can top off the batteries when you get to a hostel/restaurant/hotel (it's usually polite to ask first.)
2. Get a pouch like this Think Tank Photo version (http://www.thinktankphoto.com/categories/holster-camera-bags.aspx). It can be worn across your chest, attached to your shoulder harness for easy access. It comes with a rain cover.
3. Bring a LOT of memory cards, especially if you are shooting raw files. Costco has the 4GB SDHC cards at two for about $25 right now. I would bring at least ten. I would also have someone back home to whom I could send the cards for downloading and backing up, who would then send them back to me in a mail drop.
4. I would bring a small tripod, something like this (http://www.amazon.com/Joby-Gorillapod-SLR-Zoom-Flexible-Digital/dp/B000KFRSG4/ref=pd_cp_p_1) should be useful. There have been plenty of photos that I would like to have shot at dawn or dusk, or even at night, when I could have used it.
I have carried my serious cameras hiking and backpacking, and mostly quit doing that in favor of a decent point and shoot. But then I go hiking to get away from work -- there's nothing inherently wrong with bringing an SLR on a thru-hike. Plenty of hikers have done so.
Many Walks
12-28-2009, 12:04
I have always been a big fan of SLR's, darkroom and now digital and considered one for our thru, but decided the weight and potential risk to the equipment just wasn't worth it. I am glad I left the SLR at home. A better choice, for me anyway, was to complete the thru with a smaller digital camera and identify special spots along the way that I want to go back to. I plan to revisit some locations, set a base camp and spend a few days shooting with no weight or schedule worries. Enjoy your hike!
gruntledpainter
12-28-2009, 12:43
A better choice, for me anyway, was to complete the thru with a smaller digital camera and identify special spots along the way that I want to go back to. I plan to revisit some locations, set a base camp and spend a few days shooting with no weight or schedule worries.
That's not a bad idea...and maybe ideal. Just worried about my ability to get back to the trail.
I'm definitely struggling to go lightweight, which is just another thing pulling me in the point-and-shoot direction. This is all awesome advice, though! Still going back and forth on it. It seems that most people who start on a thru hike with an SLR end up mailing it home, so it would make sense to start with a PS camera and not have to worry about it.
Maybe I can find a good point-and-shoot with some manual options, maybe even RAW capability??
Painted Turtle
12-28-2009, 12:54
Maybe I can find a good point-and-shoot with some manual options, maybe even RAW capability??
That why I suggest you looking at the G11, also think about a cable release.
As for the tripod there are now two models of the Joby. I have taken the old one on hikes and it works fine (app $49.00). I was just at the big photo expo in NYC and got the new Jobi it has a nice little ball head (app 79.00) a little more control.
That's not a bad idea...and maybe ideal. Just worried about my ability to get back to the trail.
I'm definitely struggling to go lightweight, which is just another thing pulling me in the point-and-shoot direction. This is all awesome advice, though! Still going back and forth on it. It seems that most people who start on a thru hike with an SLR end up mailing it home, so it would make sense to start with a PS camera and not have to worry about it.
Maybe I can find a good point-and-shoot with some manual options, maybe even RAW capability??
Well, many of folks have backpacked for many years and many miles with heavy 50 lb packs and still managed to carry heavy SLRs with an extra lens or two. Myself included.
I generally had given up the SLRs until recently. My D90 will stay closer to home and used for day hikes and "Photo" trips, but the much smaller D40 will become my backpacking camera. My method will be to keep all camera gear separate from the rest of the pack weight. I will still strive for a very light pack weight, then use that lightweight load to justify carrying the better camera and gear. I will still be way below what used to be considered the norm. Still expect to be below 30 lbs in most cases.
You are 22 years old, at your prime. Keep everything else lightweight and you will hardly notice the extra camera gear, especially if that's something you enjoy and it adds pleasure to your day. My guess is that the bigger problem (bigger than the extra weight) will be finding the time to make use of your gear while trying to maintain a typical thru-hiker schedule/pace. May have to compromise one or the other.
Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!!!
ChinMusic
12-28-2009, 13:47
RAW is over-rated unless you are into HDR.
And if you don't know what HDR is......shoot jpeg. ;)
I carry a d-40 with me everywhere. I used to carry it in my pack,but that was a pain to get to and alot of pic ops lost...I went to a camera shop and found a padded case that the camera fits down into. its a triangulr case and the camera fits into it with the lens pointing down. My camera fits with a 55-200 lens attached. I also have camera armor attached to the camera and it also fits with that. The case has loops on the back that i bought a contractors type belt and attached. I also carry other things in this like keys,cell phone,knife,charger,extra battery...etc. This goes on after the pack is on. I also like this ,that if I have to leave the pack, my valuables come with me. when I day hike I walk with the case open and its easy access and never missed a shot yet. Some might find some downfalls with this , but it works for me. To save a few pounds just doesn t make sense compared to the quality of pics I will have for a life time....The bag ran me about 60 dollars...
Jim Adams
12-28-2009, 15:14
Stick to your DSLR. You know the camera, it will shoot great photos and keeping it clean and dry will be easier than you think.
My first thru I carried 2 bodies, a 50mm, a 28mm, a 135mm, a 2x converter (basically used it as an extension tube for macro shots), a small tripod, a shutter release cable, a polarizing filter, a uv filter and 10-12 rolls of film per mail drop (B&W, chrome).
My second thru I carried a point and shoot with zoom.
I will NEVER make that mistake again! If you love photography, take everything that you will need...you will be disappointed with your results if not. Don't worry about the weight, again the results are worth it.
geek
gruntledpainter
12-28-2009, 15:21
My first thru I carried 2 bodies, a 50mm, a 28mm, a 135mm, a 2x converter (basically used it as an extension tube for macro shots), a small tripod, a shutter release cable, a polarizing filter, a uv filter and 10-12 rolls of film per mail drop (B&W, chrome).
wow.......that sounds like a lot to carry!
One of the decision issues I am facing is speed vs. photography. I know the DSLR will slow me down, but maybe that will be a good thing in the long run. But on the other hand, the faster I go, the more I will see (I am planning on thru hiking, but only have a limited amount of time). Thank you to all who are encouraging me and offering advice one way or another. I know it will be an amazing experience, camera or not.
One thing I know, though, is that with an SLR I will be able to capture all the artistic shots I want, whereas with a point and shoot I will be able to capture more of the experiences, i.e., people, shelters, campsites, the trail, friends, wildlife, towns.
Maybe I will go with point-and-shoot this time, and come back with a section hike or 2 to places that I know have great vistas/opportunities for artistic shots and shoot them with the SLR another year. Still debating.
ChinMusic
12-28-2009, 15:34
One thing I know, though, is that with an SLR I will be able to capture all the artistic shots I want, whereas with a point and shoot I will be able to capture more of the experiences, i.e., people, shelters, campsites, the trail, friends, wildlife, towns.
I've only hiked the AT south of Damascus so far and frankly the AT just does not lend itself to all that many "artistic" shots compared to out West or Alaska. I could see that changing once up north on the AT, don't know.
I have a lot of experience in photography and carry up to 15 pounds of equip on some trips. I DO shoot RAW on my photog trips but stick with jpeg on trips like the AT.
Maybe I will go with point-and-shoot this time, and come back with a section hike or 2 to places that I know have great vistas/opportunities for artistic shots and shoot them with the SLR another year. Still debating.
That is my plan for a future thru.
I respect your desire to carry a DSLR as I enjoy photography too. However, I'm of the same mind of taking photos on the trail as I am of hunting on the trail. It sounds good in theory but in reality I just want a wham bam thank you maam solution.
I carried a larger digital (no SLR) camera on my semi-thru hike and I regret it. My photo albums are hit and miss. I had to store the camera in my pack so I only took pics when I set my pack down. Many will attest to the frequency of skipping overviews because you've already seen it... same idea for setting pack down to get the camera out to take a pic of yet another snake. Therefore, most of my pics revolve around breaks and shelters and I missed many, many photo ops.
If I were to do the AT again, I would buy the smallest, lightest, cheapest digital camera available. Something I could keep in my shorts pocket (in a ziplock) and very quickly get out to snap that pic of the 1 bear I saw.
That being said, I did see a few successful hikers with full fledged DSLRs, so it's up to you.
On a side note, take a picture (mug shot) of EVERYONE you meet (ask first if its ok). These are really the shots people are interested to see... not the millionith view of yet another mountain top. So many discussions revolved around a particular person in a photo yet few of the georgous views. Take pics of your gear too, and get many pics of yourself (a daily pic would be great to catalog how you change)
Have fun!
I saw several guys carrying SLRs on the PCT this year. Most only carried a single lens and no extras. They often carried them in a camera bag that they attached to the hipbelt or carried a fannypack above their hipbelt. This kept the camera right in front of them so that they could grab it at a moments notice. People who carry it in their backpack aren't going to use it very often.
On the PCT, I carried a HD camcorder that with the huge extended battery weighed 1.25 lbs and thought it was well worth the weight though my base weight with it was still under 14lbs. I carried it in a lens case that I attached to my shoulder strap so that I could grab it quickly and used it all the time. I'll definitely will carry something similar when I hike th AT.
When weather threatened I kept it in a gallon ziplock. Between the water resistant case I normally carried it in and the ziplock, it never got wet (even in 3days of rain). When I had to ford a creek (not as big of a deal on the AT as it is on the PCT) I'd double ziplock it. And I did slip off a rock and fall in a creek once, but the camcorder stayed dry.
Very good tips on subject matter Brock.
Jim Adams
12-28-2009, 22:54
wow.......that sounds like a lot to carry!
It was but I got some incredible photos! The thru in 1990 was part of a year long trip and I shot 16,000 frames of film in 13 months.
I would take the DSLR with 1 lens, a small tripod and a release cable. You can carry the camera on your sternum or hip so that it is accessable and shoot as much and as quickly as you want.
I carried my camera on my sternum on the PCT...I shot 350 photos in the first 700 miles and 1,100 in the next 300 miles.
ALSO, I wouldn't try to go fast even if you have a time limit...take your time, enjoy the experience and the photography...you can always go back at a later date to cover the part that you didn't get to.
geek
v5planet
12-28-2009, 23:13
You know guys I have been researching this exact question on and off for several weeks, and I am glad to see it being openly discussed here in detail. I know I would like to have a dSLR system with me, and I would agree with some of you here who suggested bringing a single lens. I was thinking a standard prime (something in the 30-35mm range for most dslrs) to ensure I have a fast lens and something with a fair degree of flexibility. You want your vistas, but not at the expense of your portraits, and vice versa, yes?
I guess I have a follow up question though, which is what brands or specific models people consider. I had done an AWFUL lot of research on Pentax's line, since - until recently with the K-x - they weather/dust-sealed their lower-end/midline dSLRS, a feature not readily available at that price point or physical size from the other manufacturers. I'm curious how important people think this is -- I realize if you drop your camera in a river or smash it against a tree, a sturdy body with sealed buttons ain't gonna do much to protect it from the elements you've so frightfully exposed it to, but in general the trail is a moist, dirty place, and I wonder if it's something people think is worth pursuing for peace of mind to keep condensation or dust from finding a permanent home inside the camera body.
Thoughts?
gruntledpainter
12-29-2009, 00:00
I guess I have a follow up question though, which is what brands or specific models people consider. I had done an AWFUL lot of research on Pentax's line, since - until recently with the K-x - they weather/dust-sealed their lower-end/midline dSLRS, a feature not readily available at that price point or physical size from the other manufacturers.
Thoughts?
Interesting you mention Pentax. I currently have a Pentax *ist DL (looking to upgrade, the version is old) and I have dropped it in an inch of water, into the snow multiple times in the Grand Canyon, and jostled it around more than I care to admit, yet it's held up fine for the 5 years I've had it. Now I'm just looking to get lighter, more resolution, and a general upgrade in quality. I'd definitely recommend them. Though some say you can't go wrong with Canon/Nikon, and I wouldn't disagree with them. The Pentax line has proven itself for me, though.
Had a friend who had a Pentax K100? years ago. Fully manual film. We were canoeing, swamped the canoe and lost the camera. Took about 1/2 hour before we finally found it submerged in about 4 ft of water about 50 yards downstream from where it went in. We dumped the water out, removed the battery, put it into a plastic bag to keep it wet, and just let it sit for the rest of the trip. When we got home, found a local camera repair man who agreed to take a look at it. He dismantled it, cleaned and dryed it thoroughly, and fired it up. Worked flawlessly for many more years.
Said we were right to keep it wet, otherwise it may have started rusting.
My point:
While I've owned Nikons for many years, I would never talk someone out of a Pentax - good cameras.
grizzlyadam
12-29-2009, 02:29
i always like it when this topic comes up, especially since backpacking and photography are two things i'm passionate about and two things i've figured out how to blend together. here is an updated post i made about camera equipment before....
i primarily shoot with a late 1960's model nikon 35mm.
the history of carrying my camera goes as follows:
in october of 2000 i set off from springer with the slr in my backpack and a point and shoot in my pocket. i took literally no pictures with the slr and ended up sending it home two weeks later.
in april of 2002 i set off from the roan highlands with the slr attached to a side compression strap on my pack with a small carabiner. this proved to be a decent method for me but i didn't like that the camera wasn't protected.
in october of 2003 i set off from katahdin with the best system i have found. i use a Lowepro Off Trail 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Off-Trail-Camera-Black/dp/B00004TX77). i use two small carabiners and some cord to attach the bag to my shoulder straps and thread the belt of the case around my torso (in between my pack and my body) and have no problems with it. the system doesn't bounce and the belt strap around my torso doesn't bother me.
i used this same set up in 2004 on the AT, in 2005 on the NCMST, in 2006 on the AT, and am still using it to this day.
in 2005 i walked the john muir trail and carried 15 (yes, i said fifteen) pounds worth of camera equipment with me. i carried my nikon with 3 lenses (28mm, 50mm, and macro to 90mm); a canon ae1 with a 16mm fisheye lens, and a bronica medium format with a 75mm lens. i would carry one of the cameras in my lowepro bag and the other two in another camera bag in the top of my pack. heavy but well worth the weight....
in the Off Trail 1; i carry my camera body, 4 lenses (21mm, 24mm, 50mm, and macro-90mm), extra rolls of film, a shutter release cable, a small spiral notebook and pen for recording the camera settings of each shot, and two small silnylon stuffsacks for when it rains.
when it does rain, i also have a larger waterproof stuffsack (OR/Sea-to-Summit roll top type of bag) that i put everything in and then store in my backpack. i don't take any chances.
although it is a little bigger and heavier (1.8 pounds) i also carry a Quantaray - QT-100 Compact Travel Tripod (http://www.amazon.com/Quantaray-291660520-QT-100-Compact-Travel/dp/B00009V37O). i have found that this works quite well for those long exposure sunrise/sunset/nightime/moving water shots.
i just starting making the foray into digital photography about a year ago. i started out with a nikon D40, then picked up a nikon D70 at a steal, followed by a nikon D300. i've carried a combination of all three digital cameras on extended hikes using the system mentioned above.
i don't think i could ever hike without an SLR of some sort. i'd go mad without that kind of control over my settings/images...
is it worth the hassle and the effort and the weight and the time? i think so: http://www.wacphotography.com
Jim Adams
12-29-2009, 02:33
Had a friend who had a Pentax K100? years ago. Fully manual film. We were canoeing, swamped the canoe and lost the camera. Took about 1/2 hour before we finally found it submerged in about 4 ft of water about 50 yards downstream from where it went in. We dumped the water out, removed the battery, put it into a plastic bag to keep it wet, and just let it sit for the rest of the trip. When we got home, found a local camera repair man who agreed to take a look at it. He dismantled it, cleaned and dryed it thoroughly, and fired it up. Worked flawlessly for many more years.
Said we were right to keep it wet, otherwise it may have started rusting.
My point:
While I've owned Nikons for many years, I would never talk someone out of a Pentax - good cameras.
There's something to be said for totally manual cameras. I used to shoot motocross for several magazines and when it rained hard I would breakout the manual cameras and get great action shots in the mud while all the other photographers fried their electronic equipment and got nothing. I even had muddy water running out of the bodies and they were still going strong.
geek
i always like it when this topic comes up, especially since backpacking and photography are two things i'm passionate about and two things i've figured out how to blend together. here is an updated post i made about camera equipment before....
i primarily shoot with a late 1960's model nikon 35mm.
the history of carrying my camera goes as follows:
in october of 2000 i set off from springer with the slr in my backpack and a point and shoot in my pocket. i took literally no pictures with the slr and ended up sending it home two weeks later.
in april of 2002 i set off from the roan highlands with the slr attached to a side compression strap on my pack with a small carabiner. this proved to be a decent method for me but i didn't like that the camera wasn't protected.
in october of 2003 i set off from katahdin with the best system i have found. i use a Lowepro Off Trail 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Off-Trail-Camera-Black/dp/B00004TX77). i use two small carabiners and some cord to attach the bag to my shoulder straps and thread the belt of the case around my torso (in between my pack and my body) and have no problems with it. the system doesn't bounce and the belt strap around my torso doesn't bother me.
i used this same set up in 2004 on the AT, in 2005 on the NCMST, in 2006 on the AT, and am still using it to this day.
in 2005 i walked the john muir trail and carried 15 (yes, i said fifteen) pounds worth of camera equipment with me. i carried my nikon with 3 lenses (28mm, 50mm, and macro to 90mm); a canon ae1 with a 16mm fisheye lens, and a bronica medium format with a 75mm lens. i would carry one of the cameras in my lowepro bag and the other two in another camera bag in the top of my pack. heavy but well worth the weight....
in the Off Trail 1; i carry my camera body, 4 lenses (21mm, 24mm, 50mm, and macro-90mm), extra rolls of film, a shutter release cable, a small spiral notebook and pen for recording the camera settings of each shot, and two small silnylon stuffsacks for when it rains.
when it does rain, i also have a larger waterproof stuffsack (OR/Sea-to-Summit roll top type of bag) that i put everything in and then store in my backpack. i don't take any chances.
although it is a little bigger and heavier (1.8 pounds) i also carry a Quantaray - QT-100 Compact Travel Tripod (http://www.amazon.com/Quantaray-291660520-QT-100-Compact-Travel/dp/B00009V37O). i have found that this works quite well for those long exposure sunrise/sunset/nightime/moving water shots.
i just starting making the foray into digital photography about a year ago. i started out with a nikon D40, then picked up a nikon D70 at a steal, followed by a nikon D300. i've carried a combination of all three digital cameras on extended hikes using the system mentioned above.
i don't think i could ever hike without an SLR of some sort. i'd go mad without that kind of control over my settings/images...
is it worth the hassle and the effort and the weight and the time? i think so: http://www.wacphotography.com
Nice Pics, thanks for sharing.
AzWildflower
12-29-2009, 16:07
I carry my dSLR on day and overnights. I prefer RAW.
For my AT adventure I have been looking at Panasonic Lumix. Some have a slightly wider angle lens which I prefer. I still have not made a final decision.
gruntledpainter
12-29-2009, 19:58
i always like it when this topic comes up, especially since backpacking and photography are two things i'm passionate about and two things i've figured out how to blend together. here is an updated post i made about camera equipment before....
i primarily shoot with a late 1960's model nikon 35mm.
the history of carrying my camera goes as follows:
in october of 2000 i set off from springer with the slr in my backpack and a point and shoot in my pocket. i took literally no pictures with the slr and ended up sending it home two weeks later.
in april of 2002 i set off from the roan highlands with the slr attached to a side compression strap on my pack with a small carabiner. this proved to be a decent method for me but i didn't like that the camera wasn't protected.
in october of 2003 i set off from katahdin with the best system i have found. i use a Lowepro Off Trail 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Off-Trail-Camera-Black/dp/B00004TX77). i use two small carabiners and some cord to attach the bag to my shoulder straps and thread the belt of the case around my torso (in between my pack and my body) and have no problems with it. the system doesn't bounce and the belt strap around my torso doesn't bother me.
i used this same set up in 2004 on the AT, in 2005 on the NCMST, in 2006 on the AT, and am still using it to this day.
in 2005 i walked the john muir trail and carried 15 (yes, i said fifteen) pounds worth of camera equipment with me. i carried my nikon with 3 lenses (28mm, 50mm, and macro to 90mm); a canon ae1 with a 16mm fisheye lens, and a bronica medium format with a 75mm lens. i would carry one of the cameras in my lowepro bag and the other two in another camera bag in the top of my pack. heavy but well worth the weight....
in the Off Trail 1; i carry my camera body, 4 lenses (21mm, 24mm, 50mm, and macro-90mm), extra rolls of film, a shutter release cable, a small spiral notebook and pen for recording the camera settings of each shot, and two small silnylon stuffsacks for when it rains.
when it does rain, i also have a larger waterproof stuffsack (OR/Sea-to-Summit roll top type of bag) that i put everything in and then store in my backpack. i don't take any chances.
although it is a little bigger and heavier (1.8 pounds) i also carry a Quantaray - QT-100 Compact Travel Tripod (http://www.amazon.com/Quantaray-291660520-QT-100-Compact-Travel/dp/B00009V37O). i have found that this works quite well for those long exposure sunrise/sunset/nightime/moving water shots.
i just starting making the foray into digital photography about a year ago. i started out with a nikon D40, then picked up a nikon D70 at a steal, followed by a nikon D300. i've carried a combination of all three digital cameras on extended hikes using the system mentioned above.
i don't think i could ever hike without an SLR of some sort. i'd go mad without that kind of control over my settings/images...
is it worth the hassle and the effort and the weight and the time? i think so: http://www.wacphotography.com
Thanks for sharing those pics...a great example of what I'd hope to shoot on the AT.
Right now, I am leaning more toward the compact point and shoot. The reason for this is because it is my first AT hike, I would definitely want to see as much as I can of the trail in the limited amount of time I have. Through the small camera and my journal, I would know where the best shots are and be able to return the next time. I don't anticipate my relationship with the AT to be wham bam thank you maam, I'm done. I have a lot of time ahead of me to come back and take my time with the pictures. I feel like if I took the SLR now, I'd be too antsy to keep hiking to really get out the SLR and take a good shot, or a good 10 shots in a location to make sure I can get the best image.
These are all awesome points though! :D
I've had my D40 for a year now. At first all my pictures seemed overexposed. I thought what a peice of junk. I never had this problem with my Cannon AE-1.
Then I found this web site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
I set the exposure compensation to -0.7, then use the +/- exposure compensation button to make the exposure lighter or darker based on the histogram observed on the camera's LCD display.
I like using the histogram when I can't tell from the display if the exposure was good, because its hard to tell when viewing the camera's display in bright sunlight. Displaying the RGB histograms and shifting the RGB channels also helps with determining a good exposure.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm)
The more I use the D40 the more I have come to like it.
daryl
I've had my D40 for a year now. At first all my pictures seemed overexposed. I thought what a peice of junk. I never had this problem with my Cannon AE-1.
Then I found this web site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
I set the exposure compensation to -0.7, then use the +/- exposure com pension button to make the exposure lighter or darker based on the histogram observed on the camera's LCD display.
I like using the histogram when I can't tell from the display if the exposure was good, because its hard to tell when viewing the camera's display in bright sunlight. Displaying the RGB histograms and shifting the RGB channels also helps with determining a good exposure.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm)
The more I use the D40 the more I have come to like it.
daryl
Sorry for the double post. But I can't seem to edit them after posting. I fired off a message to the site administrator to fix this.
daryl
ChinMusic
12-30-2009, 17:46
I've had my D40 for a year now. At first all my pictures seemed overexposed. I thought what a peice of junk. I never had this problem with my Cannon AE-1.
I assume the D40 has the option of bracketing. If so, set it for -1, 0, +1 or -0.7, 0, +0.7 (or any other combination) and pick the best ones when you get home.
It's quick and painless. There's not much of a reason to have to guess.
There's no guess work involved. I found that the D40s meter leans towards overexposure. Once I set the exp com to -0.7 I leave it alone unless the histograms crashes towards white. Which tells me I'm overexposed. It depends on the scene. I don't want to wait until I get home to see if the exposure is correct.
I don't think you read my entire post. You stopped at the peice of junk statement and didn't read on.
Daryl
ChinMusic
12-31-2009, 10:17
I don't think you read my entire post. You stopped at the peice of junk statement and didn't read on.
Daryl
Sure did.
A normal functioning metering system has it's limitations. Bracketing is a standard strategy. If you're not interested, fine.
Sure did.
A normal functioning metering system has it's limitations. Bracketing is a standard strategy. If you're not interested, fine.
Don't everyone get Pi$$y. :D I think he was just saying that he sets his D40 to slightly underexpose on all shots as a matter of course, then if he finds one or two he doesn't like he adjusts. This solution is even easier than bracketing every shot. Many folks with a D40 learn this little trick to make shooting the type of photos they like more effortless.
Bracketing would work as well, but requires taking three photos for every shot, not necessary once you learn the tendency of the camera and how that relates to what you prefer.
I think the dreaded internet inhumanity is clouding our implied messages. :sun It's all good, just two solutions to the same problem.
Edit: This post was intended for both of you, even though I only quoted one. Smile everyone.
ChinMusic
12-31-2009, 11:11
Bracketing would work as well, but requires taking three photos for every shot, not necessary once you learn the tendency of the camera and how that relates to what you prefer.
But, even with a NORMALLY functioning meter, bracketing has its advantages. It matters MUCH more if your camera is metering off the distant trees or the sky than 2/3 of a stop on all pics.
With greatly different lighting in a full subject bracketing just makes it easier.
Then, if you want, you can even HDR your multiple exposures once you get home to increase your dynamic range.
If don't have to limit your arsenal to a sledge hammer.
Good points.
Not sure if dlh62c gets involved with a lot of Post Processing like HDR or even exposure adjusting. My take was that he just wasn't happy with the exposure straight out of the camera and wanted a simple, straight out of the camera solution for the majority of shots.
I hear you on bracketing, something I plan to get more involved with as I do like the possible effects with HDR. I do not have a preferred program yet, just getting my feet wet with PP. I've downloaded Capture NX2, but haven't started playing with it yet. I've read poor reviews of Elements 8. Other versions are good, but supposedly 8 is a lemon.
Any experience with these?
Maybe this would be better in a new thread, if the discussion takes off I will start one.
Buzz_Lightfoot
12-31-2009, 14:09
wow.......that sounds like a lot to carry!
One of the decision issues I am facing is speed vs. photography. I know the DSLR will slow me down, but maybe that will be a good thing in the long run. But on the other hand, the faster I go, the more I will see (I am planning on thru hiking, but only have a limited amount of time). Thank you to all who are encouraging me and offering advice one way or another. I know it will be an amazing experience, camera or not.
One thing I know, though, is that with an SLR I will be able to capture all the artistic shots I want, whereas with a point and shoot I will be able to capture more of the experiences, i.e., people, shelters, campsites, the trail, friends, wildlife, towns.
Maybe I will go with point-and-shoot this time, and come back with a section hike or 2 to places that I know have great vistas/opportunities for artistic shots and shoot them with the SLR another year. Still debating.
As much as I love my SLRs, I do not think I would take one on a thru BECAUSE I love them. One thing you are certain to encounter is atrocious weather which would be a real danger to your beloved SLR.
If you have "the eye" it is entirely possible to take decent shots with a point and shoot. The following was taken with a Canon Powershot A95:
7676
7677
Would there detail been enhanced with a better camera? Most certainly. Would I have been able to get the shot of the cecropia moth on my fist? Almost certainly not with an SLR. The A95 was on the picnic table next to me and I turned it on and snapped the shot all with one hand. I got the one shot before the moth flew away.
You will lose a little picture quality but will gain a ton of flexibility and capture more spontaneous shots with the point-and-shoot. I feel that these shots will be ones that bring back the best memories years after your hike is over and done.
There was an impressive photo exhibit at the old mill at traildays this year that was taken by a young woman with a point and shoot. (I wish I could remember her web site to point you there.)
This is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. :sun
You might save some weight too as many others have mentioned already. :-?
BL
ChinMusic
12-31-2009, 14:26
You will lose a little picture quality but will gain a ton of flexibility and capture more spontaneous shots with the point-and-shoot. I feel that these shots will be ones that bring back the best memories years after your hike is over and done.
Well stated.
Some of the pics I have gotten with my point and shoot (even without using the manual settings) were so good that they actually kinda pissed me off. "How can this thing look as good as my top-end stuff". Granted that the odds are in favor of the good stuff.
For photog trips, where I carry the heavy stuff, I'm doing much less miles. I'm stopping more often, getting out my tripod, thinking and looking for shots, waiting for the clouds to get just right.
I wouldn't have that luxury on a thru.
The Will
01-01-2010, 15:38
gruntledpainter,
It's a challenge to be weight conscious and not compromise your photography. For myself the decision comes down to 3 variables. The obvious ones are where you place your priorities: quality of photos or pack weight. If it is difficult to decide between the two than time available for photography may be my deciding factor.
Wilderness travel and photography are very compatible for obvious reasons. That said, it is surprising how frequently that they are competing interests. "Photography", as I think of the word, is defined very little by the quick candid snapshot of a passing hiker but more so by the challenge of capturing and communicating the most beautiful part of 360 degrees of beauty. The later takes time (at least is does for me).
My pack weight is light in all respects but I don't like to compromise my photography. I carry an SLR and a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod. I have a friend who thru-hiked the CDT last year and started with a similar setup, but he didn't have the time to use the equipment to a degree that justified the weight so he swapped out to a point-n-shoot. Rather than viewing the task of swapping out camera equipment at a mail drop as a nuisance, look at it as a means to understanding your style of backcountry travel and an opportunity to dial in you equipment and pack weight to the current tenor of your hike.
If you are a keen photographer I would suggest starting with your SLR. Maybe you'll make the exchange for the point and shoot or maybe not. Ask yourself which of the following is more likely. . .at the end of your 6-month hike to regret carrying extra weight in camera equipment for the first two weeks or regret missing the chance to capture a splendid image in rare and beautiful light.
boarstone
01-01-2010, 20:07
If you can't afford to lose it, can't replace it, don't take it,....stick w/small digital, go back later with SLR to shoot that photo. Either go on the AT to hike or to photograph, you can't do both and be successful at it...
ChinMusic
01-01-2010, 21:35
Either go on the AT to hike or to photograph, you can't do both and be successful at it...
Some probably can. I don't think I could.
I have a Canon PowerShot S95 digital hd video camera (http://www.sencart.com/Supply-camera_c76). This is a very popular point and shoot camera that offers excellent image quality, and also gives you the ability to shoot 720p HD videos. This camera may be slightly pricey, but its quality is unquestionable.