View Full Version : Big Cameras
TurboPants
01-09-2013, 19:44
Anyone here ever have enough testicular fortitude to carry a larger dSLR camera on a long sectional or thru hike? I'm a bit of a photography nerd and I know the views out there are spectacular so it would kill me to be taking pics with my iPhone. If I did a thru hike I'd want to record a lot, a handful of tripod shots if the moment presented itself. I know the whole goal is LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT, so with all the extremely light 30-50L packs out there adding an extra 1.2 lbs to my bag seems tolerable if I can sacrifice elsewhere. If anyone has a risk/reward opinion who has tried taking their SLR I'd love to hear horror stories, or why it's worth it. Thanks!!
bigcranky
01-09-2013, 20:01
This guy did:
http://benbenvieblog.com/2010/09/tell-my-mom-not-to-worry-maine/
The photos are stunning. He's a professional, and took a 5D Mark II and a 35/1.4. That's a big, heavy combo. But yeah, it can be done.
If I wanted to something similar, I'd probably bring my Panasonic GH2 and the 20/1.7, or the 12-35/2.8. Good results, less than half the size and weight. I've made many good photos with the micro 4/3 system. I'd bring the largest Gorillapod.
bigcranky
01-09-2013, 20:03
Let me note that I took a 5D Mark II and the 24-105 with my smaller tripod on a weekend hike this past August. Got some great photos, but that thing is a pain to carry. And my smaller tripod isn't all that small and light.
Here's one: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=52740&catid=member&imageuser=266
Wow... nice photos. Thanks for the link! It's gonna kill me not to take my 'big' camera (Canon 7D) but I will settle for something smaller on this hike :o
BirdBrain
01-09-2013, 22:07
Bringing my Canon Rebel xsi in July.
ChinMusic
01-09-2013, 22:09
Anyone here ever have enough testicular fortitude to carry a larger dSLR camera on a long sectional or thru hike? I'm a bit of a photography nerd and I know the views out there are spectacular so it would kill me to be taking pics with my iPhone. If I did a thru hike I'd want to record a lot, a handful of tripod shots if the moment presented itself.
I carry my 5D MII with a 17-40 and a 100 macro, with tripod on what I consider photog trips...........Alaska, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, etc. I carry an iPhone for the AT. There are VERY light cases for the iPhone to use it with a tripod, or to attach it to the end of your trekking pole.
IMO an AT thru is a social trip, one filled with pics of people. The DSLR is overkill.
Pendragon
01-09-2013, 23:35
In 1986 I packed a Canon A-1, with three lenses, and a Medium format camera and associated gear into Denali National Park in my trusty Camptrails McKinley external frame (state-of-the-art backpack back then) and I think I was lugging between 60 and 80 lbs total. The wife's pack was maybe half that. If I tried that today I'd be dead or severly injured before the day was out. But I got some DAMN good pictures that trip! The 100 - 300 telephoto came in real handy getting the grizzly shots.
ChinMusic
01-09-2013, 23:43
The 100 - 300 telephoto came in real handy getting the grizzly shots.
Love my 300 2.8 as well but HEEEEEEAVY
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/ChinMusicIHSS/Fishing/2008/Milner_Bear012web.jpg
TurboPants
01-09-2013, 23:47
My thinking was to get a 40-50L sized pack and use a chest rig to have the camera with easy access at all times, but also I could have enough room in the pack to stow it away for rain days and when I get tired of dealing with it. Plus, the chest rig would basically be a holster style case that can be carried on my belt too. I'm not saying it won't be a pain in the hump, but if I could get pictures even close to Ben's it would totally be worth it.
As for lenses I'd take my 75-300 telephoto attached to the camera, and have a wide angle within reach.
I totally hear what ChinMusic is saying about the social side of it, but in my experience on the trail I very rarely come across people except for gathering spots like hostels and shelters. But getting pics of fellow campers would be nice as well.
robertblake60
01-10-2013, 00:51
I KNOW I'm going to regret not taking my Rebel T3i. Dammit.
robertblake60
01-10-2013, 00:52
I AM bringing a Nikon Coolpix AW100 though; it's nowhere near as powerful or takes as good of pictures as my T3i, but it's much better than the iPhone. 6.5oz is a good compromise I figure.
bigcranky
01-10-2013, 09:19
Think Tank has a new bag coming, it's a chest rig with a built in hip belt so you can wear it various ways, even just over the shoulder around town. Big enough for a full size camera and an f/2.8 zoom attached (but maybe not with your 75-300 attached.)
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/changeupv2.aspx
This should easily hold a 5D Mark II or similar with the 24-105, which is a great combo to have at the ready. Looks like it will hold a long zoom as well. Once you get to camp, you can pull out the hip belt (which is hidden away behind a panel) and wear the bag around while you photograph.
I'm going to get one of these for work and I'll probably never use the chest harness thing, but I should never say never....
(All that said, toting a very large camera on a thru-hike is not something to consider lightly. It's a substantial amount of weight to carry and there are not as many photo possibilites as you might think. especially early in the hike. There are only so many pictures you can take of a rock and some bare trees. Something like the Olympus OM-D or the NEX-6 will make excellent photos, and weigh about 1/3 as much and take up 1/4 the room.)
RedBeerd
01-10-2013, 09:28
This guy did:
http://benbenvieblog.com/2010/09/tell-my-mom-not-to-worry-maine/
The photos are stunning. He's a professional, and took a 5D Mark II and a 35/1.4. That's a big, heavy combo. But yeah, it can be done.
Fantastic pictures. Thanks for sharing.
FarmerChef
01-10-2013, 09:35
I am an amateur photography enthusiast (hobby, nothing more) and I'm a firm believer that it's the person behind the camera not the camera that takes great pictures. I've carried both a Canon powershot (don't recall the model number, didn't matter) and my iphone and taken great and crappy photos with both. In fact, I've taken some of the most gorgeous pictures of my life in Shenandoah NP during a fall hike at sunset...with my iphone 3gs. Yes, the lighting was perfect and I was in just the right spot and the composition wasn't bad.
However, I've found that the current iphone just doesn't have the photographic flexibility to accomodate my imperfections as well as a pocket camera or DSLR. I get far more bad pictures with the iphone due to it's seemingly problematic focusing and/or sharpness. So for my next section hike I'm contemplating carrying a DSLR 35/2.8 combo.
What do I shoot? Lots of landscapes at the overlooks, people (mostly my family), flora/fauna and structures. I also love macro shots (frost on leaves, flowers, hoarfrost, etc.). A DSLR can provide more flexibility here but at a substantial weight cost. A P&S can give you maybe 70 percent of that for a lot less weight. Decisions, decisions...
colorado_rob
01-10-2013, 09:39
I KNOW I'm going to regret not taking my Rebel T3i. Dammit. I'm really REALLY trying to not talk myself out of taking my T3i... but you know, with a decent Canon 18-135 attached, wrapped up in a neoprene Zing case, we're only talking 41 ounces (2 lb, 9 oz) plus a couple more ounces for extra batteries...
BUT: what I'm really trying to talk myself out of (or in to?) buying is that sweet looking NEX 6... Same sensor size, decent lightweight zoom (16-50mm = 24-75 equiv on full frame), rave reviews...
A couple years ago, I got a Clik Elite chest carrier. http://www.clikelite.com/products/#Chest Carriers
Very good quality bag. I was going to use it for a section hike, but instead I decided on a tiny P&S...
I've hiked a couple miles with a 4x5 view camera strapped to my back. That was way too heavy for even a 3-5 mile hike! It probably weighs at least 10 lbs, with a couple sheets of film...
TurboPants
01-10-2013, 10:59
I think Colorado_rob has the perfect all-in-one SLR lens, 18-135mm. The 18mm end isn't super wide but it would suffice. And that particular lens size is very good quality in all major brand name lenses.
If anyone is willing to buy a new camera for a trip, consider the Canon SX50 bridge cam. It has 50x zoom and image stabilization! It weighs about 20 oz so it's not small but you don't need any lenses for it. This camera is amazing for $380, it has a macro mode to focus at 2" and the telezoom is equivalent to 1200 mm. I'd consider it but I already own my Sony A57 and lenses so no point in spending another $350-400 on yet another camera.
I have no doubt extra heavy equipment gets annoying on the trail but I think it's silly that people would worry about an extra 1-2 lbs of gear, when our ancestors did the AT with 50-60 lb unframed packs. We have become a very sissified civilization lol. I don't exclude myself in that comment either, I'm a 9-5 desk worker.
Rightfoot
01-10-2013, 13:35
I was a graphic design and photography major and 1 time only did I pack the "big guns"... I went from Cravers Gap to Kincora carrying a Chamonix 4 X 5 view camera, 3 lenses; a 90, 150 and 210 mm, tripod, 12 film packs(24 photos), a Shepherd Polaris light meter len and the other associated accessories. Have wonder memories and super images especially from the balds. Will I do it again? H*** NO... Needless to say i packed very little other items and the pack was HEAVY!!!
colorado_rob
01-10-2013, 13:47
I was a graphic design and photography major and 1 time only did I pack the "big guns"... I went from Cravers Gap to Kincora carrying a Chamonix 4 X 5 view camera, 3 lenses; a 90, 150 and 210 mm, tripod, 12 film packs(24 photos), a Shepherd Polaris light meter len and the other associated accessories. Have wonder memories and super images especially from the balds. Will I do it again? H*** NO... Needless to say i packed very little other items and the pack was HEAVY!!! I've actually done the 4x5 thing as well, twice... yikes! My 4x5 camera itself is actually light (1.5 lbs), and I have a lightweight 125mm rodenstock lens that yields excellent images, but it's the dam film holders that add up... (well, plus my big 90mm and 210mm nikors...) REALLY looking forward sometime eventually to reasonably priced digital backs for the 'ole 4x5 !
Rightfoot
01-10-2013, 14:11
Colorado Rob... I hear you with regards to the film packs and the digital back. I forgot to include i carried a polaroid back for proofing prior to exposing precious sheet. I carried a Schneider APO Symmar 210mm 5.6, a Sinar Sinarron 150MM 5.6 and a Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm 4.5. The base camera weights just over 4 pounds and the lenses added a couple more. My tripod, a Benro Transfunctional added another 3 pounds. The polaroid back another 4 and I would have to guess at the weight of the film holders and film. Needless to say the weight added up quick. In reality my biggest fear was turning my head on my pack for more than a second as there was in excess of 8 grand in lenses alone.
bigcranky
01-10-2013, 14:34
The Quickload 4x5 packets helped tremendously, as I could carry a whole box of 20 for about the weight of 2 or 3 film holders. (Note that I am writing in the past tense, as I am about as likely to hump my 4x5 camera out on the trail as I am to sprout wings and fly.)
robertblake60
01-10-2013, 15:56
I have no doubt extra heavy equipment gets annoying on the trail but I think it's silly that people would worry about an extra 1-2 lbs of gear, when our ancestors did the AT with 50-60 lb unframed packs. We have become a very sissified civilization lol. I don't exclude myself in that comment either, I'm a 9-5 desk worker.
I respect and appreciate your comment...however when something like 90% of the people who start won't finish...well, I'm doing everything I can to make sure I'm in the 10% and if a lighter pack will help me stay happy, motivated, injury free, then that's what I'm going with.
Finishing the adventure is more important to me than photojournaling it with my DSLR.
But HYOH.
bigcranky
01-10-2013, 18:04
The early AT thru-hikers had relatively light packs, actually. They didn't require all the gear and clothing that the modern hiker seems to need. It's only been in the last twenty or thirty years that pack weights have ballooned.
yes...
"Once upon a time a photographer was invited to have dinner at the home of a nice couple. During dinner the wife comments to the photographer “Your pictures are beautiful. You must have a great camera.” The photographer nods politely.
After finishing dinner the photographer comments to the wife “That was a fine meal. You must have some great pots!"
I briefly hiked around a flip flopper thru-hiker, named Wooly, this past September from Western Maine to Gorham, NH. He was carrying a large Canon DSLR and was planning on making a photo book when he finished. He said he would post here when he was done with it.
I originally was going to carry a Canon Rebel T3i but wimped out and went with a lighter(14.8oz) mirrorless 4/3 camera (panasonic Lumix GX1 with a 14-42mm lens) which is basically a mini DSLR without a view finder. The weight never bothered me though there is a reason why I'm a UL hiker; so I can carry such extras and not worry about the weight. I was pretty happy with the photos and videos I took, but I still wonder what fall would have looked like with a full size DSLR with an even larger sensor.
I thought I would weigh in on this conversation since I have have versions of it many times with various people. I think the type of camera you carry should be determined by what you plan to do with the images afterwards. I have a 5D Mark II with a 24-105mm lens. Together they weigh about 3.5 lbs. I also have a telephoto that weighs 1.5 pounds - this I leave at home on all but day hikes. I need to take a full frame, high resolution camera because I sell stock photography and prints that need to be enlarged to a minimum of 16x20, usually larger. I can't get the quality I need from my Rebel xti (which I consider my 'small' camera).
Last summer we hiked and camped for 4 days and 3 nights on Isle Royale in Lake Superior. My pack was heavy with food and water since refilling the first impossible and the second, unreliable. I'll admit it was tough; partly due to the fact that I twisted my knee within the first two miles out and hobbled my way through the next 4 days. Anyway, it was worth it for the photos I was able to bring home. Two weeks ago we spent 2 nights and 3 days on the AT in GA. My pack didn't have quite as much food and I avoided injury. It was a much better trip and the camera wasn't a problem. I should probably note at this point that I am a petite 5'3" female over 50 so an extra 3.5 pounds is noticeable.
I think the chest rigs on the market are way too expensive so I made my own. Cost me less than $10 for straps and clips at my local Ace Hardware. I use a Gorilla belt holster bag if I need to tuck my camera away due to weather. It fits easily on my backpack belt which is an Osprey Areil G5 and adds the weight in front instead of on my back - kinda balances me out.
I'm happy to share how I made my own chest rig if anyone is interested.
beachcottage
The early AT thru-hikers had relatively light packs, actually. They didn't require all the gear and clothing that the modern hiker seems to need. It's only been in the last twenty or thirty years that pack weights have ballooned.
are you serious bigcranky? i thought they carried 50 - 70 lb packs - i know some of them did. wool clothing, jeans, and packs sure weren't lightweight. and they had to carry more food as there were no shuttles, or hostels, or trail burger stands.
btw i'm carrying 7 lbs of video gear in 2013. documenting the journey and enjoying the trail is more important to me then finishing but i hope to finish just the same.
pages
The Quickload 4x5 packets helped tremendously, as I could carry a whole box of 20 for about the weight of 2 or 3 film holders. (Note that I am writing in the past tense, as I am about as likely to hump my 4x5 camera out on the trail as I am to sprout wings and fly.)
18942
June of 2011. The whole pack is filled with a monorail and 2 holders lol.
It's the Merced Grove in Yosemite - just 3 miles RT, but 600' of climbing. Was pretty crappy lol.
I meant to say, June 2011, so quickloads didn't exist anymore.
I have a fuji point and click cheapie and a Pentax DSLR.
Couldn't begin to like the idea of lugging the DSLR and the Fuji also suffers from the real problem of hiking a long way with a camera and that is that water and cameras don't mix.
So I have just bought an Olympus Tough TG1.
Stands out in all reviews for lens quality and low light (i.e. shelter) shots when compared to other "tough" cameras.
I'm hoping having it on the outside of the pack and ready will overcome the low zoom of 4x for those fleeting bear shots.
Ask me in September how it went.
grizzlyadam
01-11-2013, 10:35
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....
These days I shoot with either a Nikon D300 or D700. For years I primarily shot 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 (It has since been discontinued, but there are many suitable replacements out there). 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, in 2009 on the JMT, in 2011 on the PCT and am still using it to this day.
In 2005 i walked the John Muir Trail for the first time and carried 22 (yes, I said twenty two) pounds worth of camera equipment with me. I carried my Nikon 35mm SLR 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....
CURRENTLY In the Off Trail 1; I carry my camera body, 3 lenses (24mm, 50mm, and macro-90mm) 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. I have found that this works quite well for those long exposure sunrise/sunset/nightime/moving water shots.
My current camera setup on trail weighs a total of 11 pounds. 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
All but one of the images on my site were shot with either an SLR, a Medium Format, or a DSLR.
And, most of them were shot on long distance hikes.
bigcranky
01-11-2013, 10:36
are you serious bigcranky? i thought they carried 50 - 70 lb packs -
Yes, I'm serious. Many of the early AT thru-hikers carried very little gear. Grandma Gatewood carried everything in a laundry bag on one shoulder. Earl Shaffer carried his military ruck with some basic gear and not much else. They slept under a tiny tarp or under the stars, wrapped in a blanket; they shivered when it got cold and sweated when it got hot. As Gatewood said, "most people are pantywaists." She was one tough lady.
Yes, there have been plenty of thru-hikers with 50 or 70 pound packs, but that's a more recent construct. The modern idea of needing a tent, and a camp kitchen, and extra clothing, water filters, headlamps, trowels, and all the other extra stuff (electronic devices, anyone?) is not something the early hikers would recognize.
Maddoxsjohnston
01-11-2013, 18:18
I respect people who are ballsy enough to carry a nice camera. I hate taking pictures but love looking at them afterwards
Grizzly you have my respect.
I love good photos and do regret not being willing to take my DSLR.
But at the end of the day I take pictures of my hike, not hike to take pictures.
I'm glad that people like you do take them (I followed Ben Benvies blog when he hiked - his "people" shots are the best I have seen from the AT) but I think what you carry highlights that it is not an option for most because of the commitment needed.