Backpacking and Photography

[nats]

I am going on a relatively long trip on the Pacific Crest Trail (3

weeks at around 20-25 miles per day), and I will be hiking with a

friend of mine who will not be doing photography. Therefore most of

my photography will be done before we start hiking or after we stop.

I have extensive backpacking experience, but I have never tried to do

any photography while backpacking. I will probably go between five

and ten days between food pickups.

 

My first question has to do with camera bodies and lenses; I am stuck

in 35mm format for the moment have a Nikon system. I have four prime

lenses at my disposal: a 50mm f/1.4 non-AI, a 50mm f/1.8 AF, a 28mm f/

2.8 AI(S?), and a 135mm f/2.8 AI(S?). I am considering taking the

28mm and the 135mm, but I am curious what others think about this

choice. I also have two bodies: an F and an F5. If I only take the

28 and the 135, I will be restricted to manual focus and thus am

tempted to take the F rather than the F5, but I am worried that the F

may be more vulnerable to the elements. Any thoughts on which body

will serve me best?

 

I am unsure whether to take a tripod. I have a very cheap tripod at

the moment that is pretty unstable but usable and relatively light; it

has the tendency to break. As my budget is rather tight (I am a

student) I would like to avoid buying a new, light, and stable (i.e.

expensive?) tripod, but I am willing to make the sacrifice if I will

be largely disapointed with my shots without one. If a new tripod is

a must, what recommendations can you make? Would a monopod be a

reasonable alternative? Can I get away with using a small sack of

rice or beans on the ground or a rock as camera support? I basically

assume I will be using long exposures as my shooting times will

probably be mostly early and late, small apertures may often be

necessary, and I will probably be shooting slow film (see next

paragraph).

 

My film of choice is almost sure Velvia 50 as I like the velvia look

very much and will probably not be taking pictures of my hiking

partner. I would consider Velvia 100, but it seems to be

significantly more expensive than the older Velvia 50. How much film

will I be likely to go through and will the extra stop of Velvia 100

become useful? I may be sending my film to Fuji to be processed via

mailers while I travel, so my film load should get lighter along the

way; however, I won't be able to buy decent slide film (my preferred

medium) anywhere along the way. Is it worth taking some other films

for camp and people-in-nature shots? Perhaps some Astia or Velvia

100F?

 

I am sorry for the long post and will appreciate any advice you can

give me.

[bonsignore_ezio]

"most of my photography will be done before we start hikinf or after we stop". I assume this means you intend to carry your photo gears inside your backpack, and you are wise enough to realise that this implies NOT using it while underway (I discussed this particular point in a couple past treads). But, why would you wish to limit yourself this way? I'll say the first and foremost issue is for you to find a way to COMFORTABLY carry your camera always on the ready, so that you can take picture while hiking simply by stopping, raising the camera to your eye and clicking. There are a variety of possible solutions involving e.g. hanging the camera from the backpack's shoulder straps, a belly pouch etc., and I would recommend that you do some experiment to find what is best for you. As regards the equipment, if a Nikon F would not withstand the elements than nothing in this world would. The choice of the lenses is too much dependent of personal tastes for me to make any sensible suggestion. However, given that slides effectively prevent cropping (unless you plan to scan & photoshop) you may wish to consider a small zoom (say, 28/35-70/85) that are available at pretty decent prices on ebay. You may also want to add a very small/light P&S with built-in flash (e.g. Olympus Stylus) for camps photos etc. The tripod/non-tripod question is stricly a matter of how much weight you are prepared to carry. IMHO, carrying a sand/bean bag on your backpack for 3 weeks @20-25 miles a day doesn't sound as a particularly attractive proposition. have fun!

[elf]

On the basis of a few trips in that neck of the woods I would say that:

 

At ISO 50 you will not be able to get adequately sharp photographs at any time of day

without a tripod. If you're serious about photography go as high towards the top of the

line as you can afford and try them out before you buy.

 

Limiting yourself to 135mm will make it impossible for you to shoot about 75% of what

you probably will wish you had been able to get. A good Nikon zoom from 90-300mm

will be a much appreciated asset although not as sharp as the faster versions of such a

lens.

 

If the end goal of the trip is to hike and get a few nice shots, you'd probably be better off

taking a higher end digital P&S, a few flash cards and batteries, an adequate tripod and a

good solar powered battery charger.

[bob_riddell]

Hi Nathaniel,

Just my two cents, but, in my teens and twenties I did a lot of backpacking and my kit in those days my kit consisted of a Pentax Spotmatic, a 28mm, and a 135mm lenses. Along with a lot of Kodachrome

ASA 100, and 200(ISO now) I managed to capture a great many keepers.

Weight being a big consideration, I think you'll be just fine with your F and the aforementioned lenses. With that in mind I'd suggest a few inexpensive additions-(one you mentioned) a monopod that would also serve as a walking staff, a good circular polarizer, ND's hard and soft, inexpensive table top tripod, and a used TC 200, for reaching out when you need to ($60 at KEH).

Then spend anything left over on film!

 

Have a great trip,

 

Bob

[luminous world]

Nathaniel,

 

I shoot almost exlusively Velvia and it's a fact of life that if you shoot Velvia 50 you'll live with a tripod as a constant companion. One trade off may be to shoot Velvia 100F instead. You add some grain but the extra stop you'll gain, combined with the fast lenses you listed, might make the difference in a lower light situation. If you don't plan on printing your pictures very large then it might make no difference and you might be able to get away with no tripod. Another option is a quality trekking pole with a camera mount. Leki and others make these. It will aid your hiking, be more cost effective, and combined with Velvia 100F might be enough.

[nats]

Will a monopod/hiking staff be enough support for the longer exposures I might run into? I suspect one second exposures won't be uncommon, but I can't be sure. With regard to tripods, I have heard good things about Gitzo's like 1127 and 1228 but I think they may be a bit expensive for me. I have seen some table top tripods around that way 1/4 of a pound and are ultra-cheap (~$30). Would one such tripod be able to serve me well?

[lancemcvay]

>I have seen some table top tripods around that way 1/4 of a pound and are ultra-cheap (~$30). Would one such tripod be able to serve me well?

 

It'd be worth getting one to try, I would imagine.

 

Personally, I would go with the beanbag idea, along with a remote release. If you don't have rocks to put the beanbag on, you can always use your backpack to put the beanbag on. And should the unthinkable happen and you're stuck somewhere, you can always eat the beans, so that's one advantage over a monopod.

 

Mostly, though, I think that I would go with a faster film than the Velvia 50 for a through-hike with a non-photographer. And I agree about taking a point & shoot as well. If your main camera somehow malfunctions, you're going to lose a lot of shots without a backup, and with a smaller secondary camera, you'll be more able to take pictures during the day's hike, which I'm just about positive you'll find yourself wanting to do.

[imaginator]

I'm not in that good of shape as when I was younger (44 right now), and even then, 6-8 miles a day was about all I could handle backpacking, but I still do go on day hikes with my photo gear (and in some very rugged terrain) Basically, I carry my tripod all the time... not in the pack, but in my hand, over my shoulder, ect. This way it's ready to use at a moments notice and also comes in handy for the hiking itself (with legs drawn together so it's like a monopod) I whack small branches out of the way, use it as a walking stick to get up/over things, and even use it help others across logs or between boulders. By constantly switchings hands and the way I hold the tripod, I hardly notice the weight anymore... it's like a part of me now... very instinctive. I keep the legs part way extended (and drawn together) so it's like a short monopod. Even less expensive tripods are decent when you keep the legs short... more stable, but maybe not so comfortable on your back/knees. I really find that photo ops appear all the time, so I would otherwise be constantly packing/unpacking the darn thing anyway. About your cameras and lenses: bring the wide angle and short tele, but also the 50mm f/1.8... it's so small and light. By the way, a locking cable release is handy if you decide to do any night stuff like star-trails or moonlit landscapes. I should warn you that others tend to tire of the constant "lagging" to take pics... even my friends that are photographers don't wait for me. I was once left without water on a hot day with several miles to go to catch up with the others in the group (ha ha, I had most of the food, so they went hungry for awhile... serves them right, my dehydration was much worse than their "munchie" attack) Anyway, try to practice your shooting techniques so it doesn't take lots of time to grab those shots along the way. I'm working on a sort of home-made setup that would turn your backpack into a "tripod" (one leg with the pack being the other two) Don't know when you are going (or already went), but if you are interested send me an e-mail (click on my name to request e-mail address)

[stephen hazelton]

I think you'll find it's largely a matter of personal taste. Some people hike to photograph, and tote 40 lbs of camera gear along to do it. Others hike for fun, and may or may not even bring a camera.

 

I've generally taken a 35mm camera with just a 24mm lens when I hiked. Sure, I missed some shots, but that was my compromise for weight/volume/utility. No matter what you take, you'll miss some shots; that's okay, just have fun on the trip.

[andrew robertson]

If I am out where there will be wildlife to photograph, I tend to carry my 10D along with

the 28-135 IS and the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC. I use the wife's Fuji Natura for the wide

scenics. If I am not expecting to run in to much wildlife, I tend to carry the R-D1 with a

full compliment of lenses. I used to carry along the EOS 1n for a backup, but I haven't ever

had the 10D fail me in the slightest way, so I forego the security blanket now.

 

I agree with the above poster who suggests taking a longer lens too - maybe a 500mm

mirror lens? This, along with the 28 and the 135 would give you a chance of getting shots

of wildlife where the wildlife is actually visible in the frame, plus allow for other kinds of

photographs as well. I would shell out for some extension rings too.

 

I wouldn't take the huge square brick of an f5 if I were you.

[phyrpowr]

As an aging (OK, fattening) part time backpacking photog, I'd say practice using your pack as a support, from a seated or kneeling position, or go down to a WalMart or Ritz camera and check out the cheapest little "full size" tripods they have: not too adjustable but light, and decently supportive. BTW no need for a bean bag, use clothes in a stuff sack

 

Try the Velvia 100 with the above mentioned at home to see results. You WILL want some kind of support, but you sure won't want any extra weight for the type of ground pounding you're in for

 

Godd old drugstore Fuji 400 or even 800 is a good little print film for your "here's Sam dying of exhaustion" shots , surprisingly little grain, everyone knows how to process it, and it usually sells for a "loss leader" type discount

[nats]

How many rolls of film do people tend to go through on trips like this? I was thinking about bringing 10-15 rolls for 20-25 days. Any suggestions?

[slide]

Tough call. Wrestled with this myself. If I were you, I'd forget about photography on a trip like that. Yes, you will be hiking through a beautiful area and it's a bummer that you won't have any photos to show for it. But at 20-25 miles a day, every ounce counts. Your days will be long, you will be too tired at the end of the day to be serious about photography, too tired to get out of your bag for sunrise, and a drag on the person you are hiking with.<BR><BR>If you can't bear the thought of not bringing a camera, I'd bring the lighter of the two bodies, a 24mm or 19-35 f3.5-4.5 zoom (can get a 19-35 for $139 and they're light and <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1293555-lg.jpg">sharp</a> stopped down), a 2 stop soft edge nd grad w/ cokin holder and one of those $10 table top tripods from REI. Bring 5 rolls of velvia and save them for oustanding landscapes with good light that you are unable to ever return to. Have another 5 ready when you resupply. Leave your camera in your pack while you're hiking and just take it out at first/last light.<BR><BR>If I were you though I'd really just try to enjoy the hike not having to worry about photography and bring a small point and shoot and a couple rolls to remember the trip.

 

<BR><BR>

-slide

[andrewpgrant]

Hi Nathaniel,

 

Re film: why not bite the bullet and go with the 100ISO? While many (most) shots will still benefit from a tripod, you can often get away with hand-held at 100... whatever encourages you to take more photos. I often hike with my camera out of my pack b/c I hate missing an opportunity and lets face it, pulling off a pack and putting it back on again every 15mins becomes one nasty chore on a multi-day (or multi-week for that matter... I am envious) hike! I have a little Lowepro bag that I sling over my shoulder and I connect it to my pack right where a water-bottle holder would go. It's big enough for my SLR and two lenses. I also met an outdoor adventure leader once who strapped his Lowepro bag to his chest (between the shoulder straps on his pack)... whatever keeps it out of the way!

 

Re space/weight: When hiking I justify the space taken up by reminding myself that photography while hiking is a major enjoyment component and partial aim for me to get out there. In addition, you get to photograph many things many people will never see. That in itself is justification. Your choice of only two lenses sounds pretty solid.

 

Tripods: I find that the cheaper, lighter tripods are a bonus while hiking. I have a little Slik U7700 and while it's obviously nowhere near as stable as something bigger, it does the job adequately and weighs next to nothing. From the memory it was around $60 (Canadian) new. If the trail is not too messy I often place the tripod in the side straps of my pack... this comes back to the easy-to-get take-more-photos-on-the-way thing.

 

Re Film quantity: It depends on what your habits are, I guess. I know from experience that I usually shoot a 36 or two while hiking a day (more if it's spectacular) and then perhaps another one or two at the beginning/end of the day (depending on location). I find it helps with regard to space to take the film out of the box and just store it in it's plastic container. I usually keep all my film together in sealable freezer bags.

 

Sounds like you're in for a great trip. Have fun and make sure you post the photos for us all to see when you get back!

[andrewpgrant]

I just had a look at my film quantities and realised the fine line between what I really do and what I always wish I could do. Realistically I'd mostly get away with one 36 a day... two if we camp in a spectacular location (only three if it were really, really spectacular). But over a hike you might have days where you photograph everything, and other days where you photograph nothing. Perhaps on such a long hike you could also consider being more selective with what you photograph to conserve film?

[andrewpgrant]

At risk of becoming obsessed with this thread, <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/2990751">this photo</A> which, if I may say so, I think is one of my best, would never have been taken had I (a) left my camera inside my pack; and (b) not made my hiking companions wait for me. QED ;-)

<p></p>

Incidently, I think everyone was secretly happy for me to take photos because it gave them an excuse to rest.

[www.whitemountainphoto.com]

Nathaniel, 20-25 miles per day with a full pack for three weeks is a very ambitous goal. I'd have to agree with those who suggest paring down to the minimum, and still bring a small tripod. I've been hiking for about thirty years with and without full packs and camera gear. Have you actually hiked 20-25 miles in a day with comparable weight? If not, you might want to try it for a day or two first, and possibly adjust your agressive time-frame?

 

Happy Hiking,

 

Dana/<a href="http://www.whitemountainphoto.com">www.whitemountainphoto.com</a>

[bill sullivan]

Nathaniel: If I find one thing missing in this otherwise good discussion, it is mention of a tool for closeup photography. Given your limitations of budget and pack space, this probably means carrying a set of closeup filters. I am sure you could buy a set for less than $25, and perhaps even find a used set.

 

I do a lot of hiking and backpacking with my camera around my neck, and my suggestion is "the lighter the better." Yes, the 28mm-135mm combination will give broaden your capability, but for the trail I would suggest just the 50mm, either the f1.4 or the f1.8, whichever weighs less. This makes your ISO 50 Velvia less of a problem and lets you do more without a tripod.

 

I guess you really have to think about what you want to shoot, and whether you could work with a 50mm lens alone. You might have to adjust your thinking. Take in look at John Shaw's Landscape Photography book at the essay on Normal Lenses. It begins: "I think that the 50mm lens is one of the most underrated of all focal lengths." It may help.

 

You've picked a very ambitious program for your three weeks. I'd like to see a report when you get back.

[rob_murray]

A beanbag will be a waste. every shot on the ground? forget it. a proper lightweight tripod is needed with your slow film. Keep the camera accessible to take shots on the trail. I would take the 28 and 50mm probably not the 135. I would take the F camera if it is operating OK, test it.

[nats]

I have decided to shoot mostly Velvia 100 on the trip so I've earned a stop there. Is the general opinion that 135 is too short to be of much use? Its by far my heaviest lens, but if a deer or something of the sort runs into camp as I have had happen in the past, I fear I might miss not having the 135. It also has occurred to me that if I use the F I will only be able to get one second and shorter exposures unless I play with bulb. I suspect I will be running into longer exposures than that, but I suppose I don't really know. The F is certainly a lighter camera, however (never thought I'd say that).

[lilly_w]

Nathaniel, I find your extensive backpacking experience entirely incongruous with your consideration of toting an F5 and aspiring to average 20-25 mi/day for 3 weeks in mountainous terrain, including 5-10 days worth of food and fuel between fill-ups. Have you thoroughly thought this one through (weight, distance, etc.)? I have done many trips with minimal gear (no stove, fuel, tent, minimal clothing, relying on movement for warmth, etc.) and covered sizeable distances. Great fun to be unencumbered and covering lots of terrain! There are some things that are better to have done than to be doing. My guess is that you will want to enjoy DOING this trip rather than enjoy HAVING COMPLETED the trip. 1) Purge the thought of F5, needing autofocus and monopod. 2) If your cam is in the pack you miss shots, plain and simple. Get a chest-mounted bag, not merely a harness that holds only the camera. You want a bag for padding. In it put camera/ lens, 1 roll of extra film, cable release and a small, heavy duty plastic bag for rain. If rain, put cam in plastic and then into cam bag. You don't want holes in plastic! All else goes on your back. I really don't see the point of toting a camera solely for morning and evening shots. 3) Do what you must to repair and use your light, beat-up tripod. Sounds perfect for that use as it will emerge even more beat-up. Can you remove the lowest segment of each leg for weight savings? Mount pod to exterior of pack w/ quick release straps for EZ access. Only take it if you are determined to use it often and wake early. 3) Any chance you can arrange to drop exposed film and be re-supplied w/ film at the food/fuel fill-ups? 4) The 28mm will be the go-to lens. Consider the pros/cons of hauling a 135mm for how many distant or deer shots for 3 weeks? That's a lot of weight for what will likely be mediocre wildlife shots. Personally I would prefer a 20 (f3.5 or 4) or 24 f2 prime and the underrated 35-105 3.5-4.5 Macro Zoom. Both take 52mm filters. Reasonably light kit and covers a wide range. To carry a 200 or 300mm (500mm ?!?!, perhaps w/ a porter!) for the seldom animal shot is wishful thinking. Thoreau was right; simplify! 5) Consider ordering some Velvia 100, not the 100F, just plain 100. Bracket the must-have shots. Yes, bracket the must-have shots. I'll take one spot-on exposure over a half-dozen mediocre shots.

 

Lastly, rethink 20-25 / day. Enjoy this. X years from now you may be able to say you hoofed it from point A to B in blah-blah time but what is the value of that? You know the price; appreciate the value.

[madredhen]

I so agree with Lilly's post above. The 135 will probably not be worth it. At the pace you've planned it doesn't seem like time enough to set up for really good shots either while hiking or in your "free time" (20-25 mpd? I think you will be sleeping in your free time.) I'd reccommend getting a good prosumer-ish digital camera and not assuming that it will survive the trip. I have a Nikon coolpix that does real well for macros and landscapes, cheap and light enough to pack anywhere. If you're going through magnificent places, you'd die without having some kind of camera, right? But it is a hiking trip and not a photography trip, so it's okay to leave the expensive heavy equipment behind.

 

A question to all, is there any reason that crumbled styrofoam wouldn't work in a beanbag?

[nats]

Thanks to everyone for all the thoughtful and insightful posts so far; I have really appreciated everyone's advice and look forward to anything else anyone has to offer.

 

Lilly, please do not fear for my ability. I have been backpacking at least twice a year since I was 10 and have more often than not used a pack twice my weight because of inequal food/crew gear distribution or extra fun and heavy items that I have brought along. As part of a 3 week trek last summer I did a 28 mile day including two 13ers and some significant bushwacking in a day-long rainstorm after a 10-day food pickup (no, I was not the one who planned that), and while the night was miserable (because everything I owned was wet), I think I enjoyed that day as much as any. The only reason I was considering the F5 over the F is its ability to meter past one second exposures (and actually the F's meter get's a bit iffy when gets under 1/4 second). As the F was my primary camera for years, I have no illusions that I need AF. The more I contemplate bringing the 135mm lens the more I think I shall leave it at home (as per yours, and several other's advice). I am now considering bringing the 28mm lens and possibly a 50 for the extra stops.

[nats]

Ooops! That should have been half not twice my weight for my pack. I don't think I could ever go very far with a pack twice my weight! Sorry about that.

[bill sullivan]

Nathaniel: I would like to see your picture. A photograph of you. I keep trying to figure which one of my favorite NFL or MLB athletes you must most closely resemble. You've got to be a jock. Do you do weights? I've done a little math. 21 days at 20-25 per day is a good 400 miles, and I figure 2-3 mph is a very swift speed, so 7 hrs per day to 12.5 hours per day. HOWEVER, this is a forum on nature photography not backpacking, and you weren't asking for backpacking advice, so I bite my tongue. Crunch!

 

I am going to repeat my suggestion that you carry one of your 50mm lenses as your first. I love a 28mm for a lot of things, but as you with with your deer at your campsite, I have been in too many situations when I have had the 28mm mounted and the wildlife has just been too far away. Sure the heavy 135mm would be preferable, but for all situations go with the 50mm. OTOH, the 28mm probably won't add that much to your pack, so take them both if possible for tall trees, canyon walls, and big skies. After the hike, I'd be interested in knowing what one you go to most. I am going to guess you find more comfort with the 50mm. I am not a Nikon owner, so I cannot opine on the F versus the F5. I would also vote for trying to find room for a tripod. Have fun.