Backpacking Photography Revisisted

[nats]

About a month ago I posted a question about equipment recommendations

for an extended backpacking trip in the northwest US, and I promised

to write an evaluation upon my return; here it is. I ended up taking

a Nikon F5, a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens, and a 28mm f/2.8 lens. I chose the

F5 over my other camera (an F) because the 50mm f/1.8 lens does not

work (well) with the F and my other 50mm lens weighs so much that the

F5+50mm weighs 6oz more than the F+50mm. I decided the spot meter and

matrix meter on the F5 would be worth the weight. I think I was

correct about the spot meter, but my inexperience with the matrix

meter meant I had some trouble with overexposure. I found that I used

the 28mm lens most and if I had to choose a single lens for such a

trip it would be actually be just a 24mm. I did have two deer enter

my camp one night, but they came so close I found myself using the

28mm lens rather than the 50mm for head+neck shots. (Clearly the deer

had been fed before.) The only advantage to the 50mm was that the F5

can't matrix meter through the 28mm and with some exposure

compensation, I think the matrix could have done quite well. (I used

the matrix meter during the day because my hiking partner did not stop

when I did, and I am still very slow with the zone system.) If I had

the option, a good p&s with a 24mm would have been preferable to any

of the above. If I had ND grad filters (which I assume no p&s can

use), I would definitely carry the F5 again. (The miles were hard,

but not THAT hard.)

 

I did not take a tripod, and I certainly wished I had at times.

However, I don't think I wanted one often enough to warrant the weight

for such a trip. A bag full of dirt did pretty well. I did not have

a carrying case for my camera, but keeping it readily accessible was

very easy: I just slung the camera by its strap over the top of my

pack so that the camera was hanging away from my body. No extra pouch

was necessary. I took one roll of film per 2.5 days which turned out

to be about right. Only once did I feel the need to use the 400UC

that I brought; the rest of the time I liked Velvia 100 just fine.

 

Sorry, can't post any pictures as I don't have a scanner yet.

[mbb]

:)

[bill sullivan]

Nathaniel,

 

Thanks for the good report. Glad the trip was a success.

[bernard_korites]

"If I had the option, a good p&s with a 24mm would have been preferable to any of the above."

 

I think the Leica CM would make the ultimate hiking camera, if it wasn't so %&$# expensive.

[awahlster]

An off the wall suggestion for a great hiking camera would be one of the older Canon DEMI EE-17 1/2 frame cameras you would get 72-75 exposures pre roll of 36 of course switching film speeds would be a pain in the butt. We used one of mine as our snap shot camera during a 3 week trip in Europe and it was brilliant. We still took three Canon SLR's between us I shot slide the wife shot prints the DEMI did things like take photo's through the sun roof of the car as we spead along some of those shots turned out great prefect for the album.

[andrewpgrant]

Nathaniel - thanks for the wrap-up... now get those pics scanned!!! ;-)

[andrew robertson]

Bernard, order a Fuji Natura Black from Japan. It has a 24mm f/1.9 (!) lens, which is

stunning.

[fourfa]

whoah - more details about this Fuji camera please...

[Mary Doo]

"Fuji Natura Black from Japan. It has a 24mm f/1.9 (!) lens"

 

It seems to be available in Japan only. It s/b around US$300 or below. How does one buy it from the US?

[fourfa]

also how about a Ricoh GR21, 21mm 3.5 point-and-shoot?