For the photographers

[taildragger]

Alright, so for all ya'll who do long hikes and photography, what do you do about you're gear.

Currently I usually choose to use my D100 and a nikon 50mm lens, since this combo yields nice pictures, but its heavy, and I have to recharge the batteries.

I really want to know how you guys carry your camera's. What kind of lenses do you take, or do you just one lens? Do you use film or digital (I'm thinking about busting out my film camera for my long hikes in order to save weight, but the nikon FM10 body feels a little flimsy to me)? How hard is it to keep the internals clean while in the field for that long? Do you carry a small digital camer for the quick shot moments (like when your hiking partner is about to do something stupid and you just have to get pictures for blackmail)?

What I'm thinking about doing is using my FM10, load it with some good 100ISO slide film (fuji velvia maybe), my 50mm prime, a wide angle and maybe a macro lense (depending on cost, weight, and my willingness to put up with both. Don't think that I'll be hauling a tripod around, might be able to fashion a monopod out of something on the trail for lower light shots, if not, theres always the backpack and rocks to use.

So, any thoughts and opinions welcome (even the ones about hiking poles and water treatment being unnecessary)

[rafe]

I just don't see the point of shooting 35 mm film nowadays. Even a $250 point-and-shoot digital can match the image quality. SLRs (both film and digital) are heavy, and a kit of lenses is heavier still.

If you choose a digital camera (my recommendation) take note of the sensor size, as it's one of the main determinants of image quality. Most of the very small and light cameras use a 1/2.5 sensor. Find one that has (at least) a 1/1.8 sensor. Unfortunately, the bigger sensors are only found in DSLRs.

FWIW, I've been carrying a Canon A620. It weighs about 12 oz with its four AA batteries. Those four AA batteries lasted for a 587 mile, 39-day AT section hike. I carried it in a pouch attached to one of my pack's shoulder straps.

This camera isn't current any more. I bought it new, about 18 months ago for a bit over $200. Check out the usual review sources on the web, eg. dpreview.com and Steve's Digicams (et. al.)

[taildragger]

I'm a little leary about just carrying a point and shoot camera. I've used them before, and having learned photography on a manual camera without a light meter, I've become a control freak and want absolute control over every aspect, that, and there are some cool tricks that I can do with a SLR that I cannot do with a point and shoot.

So, I'm trying to get an opinion from those who do lug the giant cameras (I know Tha'wookie does, and there have got to be others as well)

Keep it coming though, its always cool to here about the wee little cameras and there smaller cmos chips

[Midway Sam]

I have, in the past, carried my Canon Digital Rebel Xti with a 17-85 IS lens and a 70-300 IS lens. I carried the kit in a Lowepro Off-Trail 2 rigged at my sternum. The weight was tolerable, but I tended to sweat profusely under the bag.

My last hike I left the DSLR at home and took my Nikon Coolpix and loved not having the Lowepro on my chest but desperately missed my DSLR.

I have purchased a smaller Lowepro belt pack that will hold the body and the 17-85 IS and fits nicely on the belt of my pack. I am going to try that config in a couple of weeks.

[rwpontius]

I carry a D80 with an 18-70 zoom for most hikes. If I expect to see something that requires more telephoto I take a 70-300 VR. I like to protect my gear so I use a case for the camera and 18-70 and a holster when the 70-300 is on the camera. The 70-300 is heavy enough that I tend not to take it as much as I probably should.
RP

[grizzlyadam]

here is an updated version of a reply i made on an earlier thread about SLRs-

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. 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 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 OR stuffsack 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.

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.

a few of the JMT shots can be found at www.trailjournals.com/grizzlyadamjmt or here as well.

that's all for now.

[weary]

Well, I've been taking pictures for almost 70 years, occasionally professionally, but have never been a very sophisticated photographer. I finally have made the switch to digital, after years of resisting.

I now use a Panasonic DMC FC7. (though I see an "8" in the stores now). It has a 12X lens and all kinds of digital zoom. And one of the best anti-shake settings according to the reviews. It weighs 15 ounces -- heavy by digital standards these days. But I find it hangs quite comfortable around my neck.

Anyway, in June I took a hand held photo of a wild grizzly 200 yards(?) away in Denali that came out quite well. It won't win any prizes. But it's a better picture than any 35 mm I've owned could have taken.

I've had the camera for a year and have not begun to seriously explore all the possible automatic settings. I shot 1,500 photos during a month in Alaska, most of which came out quite well, despite my increasingly shaky hands.

I have fashioned a monopod by drilling a hole in the top of my 9 ounce wooden pole and embedding a 1/4-20 hex head screw with epoxy. But the anti shake setting on my Panasonic works so well that I rarely use it. I paid a bit over $300 if I remember right. I think they are available for around $250 on ebay.

Weary

[rafe]

I'm a little leary about just carrying a point and shoot camera. I've used them before, and having learned photography on a manual camera without a light meter, I've become a control freak and want absolute control over every aspect, that, and there are some cool tricks that I can do with a SLR that I cannot do with a point and shoot.

That's cool. I carried a 35 mm SLR while backpacking through most of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. In fact my first digicam ever was a Canon G2, used on a section hike thru Vermont. These days I just can't justify the extra weight. In real-life, I do enjoy photography immensely, but when I'm hiking (especially for long sections) photography takes a back seat to "making miles."

[Jim Adams]

Taildragger,
Seems that you and I have alot in common. Although I have only used it professionally for a 3 year span, I have a degree in photography and photojournalism from the Art Institute of Pittsburgh.
In 1990 I carried 2 minolta bodies, 1 with chrome film and the other with b&w. I had a 24mm, a 50mm and a 135mm with macro capabilities, a small flash, a small tripod (3' extended) and a shutter release cable. The AT was part of a year long trip and I shot 16,000 frames of photos on that trip. Most of my shots were landscapes.
In 2002 I decided that I had most of the photos of landscapes that I wanted of the AT and decided that I needed more people pictures so I carried a nikon point and shoot with zoom and used color print film.
This year on the PCT I switched to a cannon digital (not quite as large as a slr) for the first time and shot 2,000 frames on that trip.
Although I liked the instant viewing capabilities of the digital and learned all of the different controls and aspects of the digital, I did miss the abilities of manipulation possible with film. I feel that film will give you a much better finished product in the end.
After all is said and done, I would take the mode of photography that you enjoy the most and are most skilled in...that will give you the best photos!

geek

[The Will]

I still shoot film--Velvia. I carry a Nikon F80 and a 24-120 zoom.

I purchased an accessory called the "Rib" from Dana Design (this line is now produced by Marmot) and this is where I keep the camera with lens attached. Access is very quick, similiar to a holster concept as the "Rib" is located just left of the midline on my stomach.

For years when traveling and backpacking I would use a 200 speed film, but a few years back I invested in a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod. Now I can carry film in the 50-100 speed range and shoot the quality I like. The tripod weighs about same or even a little less than the camera+lens.

My camera is a tool, and it goes where I go.

[Ramble~On]

I carry about 5 pounds worth of camera stuff when I backpack and the camera for backpacking is a Lumix 12x with Leica lens...Tracks walking staff/monopod, cable release, batteries, case etc. I keep the camera on my hip or sternum where I can get to it quick inside a LowePro or Tamrac holster.

For dayhiking around the park I'm as interested in taking pictures as I am in hiking so I lug around 30 pounds of camera crap in either a LowePro S&F Vest system or one of several camera packs which double as a day pack.

If I were going to thru hike I would leave the DSLR's at home and pick up one of the smaller 10+ megapixel point and shoots they keep putting out.

[The Solemates]

I carry a Pentax digital SLR with 18-55mm lens, 80-200mm lens, extra batteries (mine takes AA), lens cleaning kit, and 3 different filters on my hikes. I did not carry this on my thru-hike because I did not have it, and I would not carry it on a long distance thru-hike if I were to do another one. I would instead opt for a small point and shoot. But, I do carry it on long hikes, such as long weekend hikes of 30-50 miles, and I am carrying it on my upcoming "thru-hike" of the Laurel Highlands Trail (70 miles in PA).

I use a Lowe Photorunner and carry it in the front of my navel or so, strapped through my backpack's web-belt, and carry it while hiking. It has never bothered me and it makes for easy access. Unzip and go. I also carry a small waterproof sack and put everything in it, bag and all, if weather turns wet.

My whole set up weighs about 5 pounds.

http://focuscamera.com/product.asp?id=569584049
http://www.seatosummit.com.au/showdetail.php?Code=AUDS1

[D'Artagnan]

I carry a Pentax digital SLR...

Which Pentax are you shooting? I picked up the K10D this year and I love it. Glad to see another Pentax shooter on WB.

[Uncle Silly]

I gotta say, I love my manual 35mm film cameras, but I love my musical instruments more, so I usually forego the camera on long distance hikes. I do break out the SLRs for weekends and short hikes. I've got a good 18-70mm, a great 50mm, and a great 70-300mm, as well as a nice collection of filters. Overall it's too much to take on long trips (I just can't pare down to a single lens). A digital point-and-shoot camera would be OK for long distance trips, but really doesn't give me the options my SLR setup has, and I can't afford to replace my SLR setup with the equivalent in digital right now. So for the shots I want, film is really my only choice at the moment.

[faarside]

There was a time when I racked my brain over this (as I was an avid 35mm SLR user); however, I eventually could no longer resist the high quailty, small size, low weight, and economy of the newer digital cameras. I currently use a HP PhotoSmart M22v. Runs one heck of a long time on 2 AA Lithium's, and I can shoot tons of high quality pics on a single 2MB SD card. It's also "weather resistant" (I would'nt use it during a torrential downpour, but a little drizzle or dampness doesn't seem to bother it).

[c.coyle]

I'm with you, Taildragger. I ditched my SLR about 4 years ago due to the bulk and weight, but I do occasionally miss the control that full manual gives. Interchangeable lenses aren't that important to me. I wonder if there are low-priced digital point & shoots with true full manual (set aperture and shutter speed).

[The Solemates]

I'm with you, Taildragger. I ditched my SLR about 4 years ago due to the bulk and weight, but I do occasionally miss the control that full manual gives. Interchangeable lenses aren't that important to me. I wonder if there are low-priced digital point & shoots with true full manual (set aperture and shutter speed).

i think some of the panasonic lumix cameras have pseudo-manual control such as this

[The Solemates]

Which Pentax are you shooting? I picked up the K10D this year and I love it. Glad to see another Pentax shooter on WB.

mine is basically the older version of the K10D, which is the *ist DL

[The Solemates]

mine is basically the older version of the K10D, which is the *ist DL

the *ist DL is the lightest weight, smallest (yet negligble sacrifice on quality) SLR you can buy (at least it was when I bought it)

[shelterbuilder]

When you read this post, you'll all think I'm nuts - and you may be right.

For years, I've been somewhat fearful of carrying my "good" SLR's out into the elements - I've ruined too many expensive cameras that way. But my wife and I enjoy heading out to the flea markets and garage sales , and I've always been able to pick up reasonably good, small 35 mm cameras from the 50's and 60's for just a few bucks. For anyone who learned photography in the "old school", it doesn't take very many rolls of film shot around town to re-learn the manual aspects of a camera like this - and it gives you the ability to "play with the controls", which is something you can't do with digitals.

The brand names are from companies that have long since gone out of business - the camera that has seen the most trail miles with me was made by Ciro, in Delaware, Ohio. Paralux viewfinder, f3.5, 1/10th-200th second shutterspeed, hot shoe - a rugged little camera that only weighs a little more than a pound. No extra lenses, so you can't pull that bear in any closer, but for camp shots and scenery, it's great. If you shoot a slower speed film - for which these cameras were designed - the color saturation is fantastic, and enlargements aren't grainy. And if you drop the camera into a creek, or over a cliff, you're not out hundreds of dollars. (I carry mine in a heavy-duty zip-loc bag inside of a small padded camera bag attached to by pack's hip belt.)