Heavy classic camera's on the trails...

[peter_korzaan]

<p>I like shooting landscapes and I have tried in the past just to bring the minimum equipment for the shots I think I'll be taking. But it always seems that I wish I had brought that other lens for a shot that I had not anticipated for, or, different film. ... So I've gone back to what I normally shot with. Three classic Nikon camera bodies, with different rolls of film. B&W, print and often slide film, with usually three lenses, 28mm, 50mm and 80 to 200 tele. But that's allot of weight, when you add water for the hike, in the ole day pack. It adds up fast. Especially if your using slower film, and need a tripod along.<br>

I'm 65, and the legs are not as good as they had been, so I modified an old golf push / pull cart to set the bag in, and take the weight off the legs, but it's a bit of a pain to maneuver on the trails, as I've narrowed the wheel base, but it's been useful as I like to take to get pictures of the red rocks. <br>

I know I must not be the only one in this predicament in using the heavier classic camera's, with there size and weight. I wonder what others have done, as it seems that a lot of us are of the older generation and have similar conflicts? What's your thoughts and suggestions.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I don't know if my response will help a lot or not. I'm 48, and in good shape. My longest day hikes with a bunch of cameras have been about 3 miles, but that was partly into the Grand Canyon in July, and back out again. It wasn't terribly far, but it was steep and hot.</p>

<p>I take several cameras, but no lenses because none of the cameras have interchangeable lenses. On the particular trip / hike above, I had a Rolleiflex and 35mm Widelux in a shoulder bag, plus film. Then a Kodak Panoram in an old Domke bag, worn as a fanny pack. I also carried a borrowed early digital Minolta, but the battery died quickly, so it was just dead weight. Water was carried in a Camelback on my back, and replenished at a well 1.5 miles in, at our turnaround point.</p>

<p>Loaded that way, I stop as needed to rest. But I am similarly loaded for college classes now, and walk several miles a day on campus. Students smarter than me use wheeled luggage, like you.</p>

[gene m]

<p>If you were <em>any</em> kind of man at all, you'd be carrying one of these with you. Quit your whining ! 65 is the new 45.</p>

<p><img src="http://rlux.com/Huge4x5_cameraphoto.jpg" alt="" width="860" height="576" /></p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Three cameras are too much. Sometimes you need to decide is it going to be B&W or Color for the next 24 shots. For the Nikon system 28mm is a good lens but I would drop the 50mm. Use a 105mm f2.5 or an 180mm. I once tried a 2 body system and several lenses and found that it was a waste of time switching from B&W to Color. It was also too heavy and I spent much too much time thinking about which camera and which lens and should the shot be in color or B&W. It was an experiment. Give deeper consideration to the photoshoot of the day. If you feel that you did not cover it all with one camera and two lenses. Do the hike over again with different equipment. Do not try to be a perfectionist because often the great pieces are made with less concentration and more experimentation.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Right, film is too cheap to carry three bodies.</p>

[george_shihanian]

<p>I don't know why you'd need a tele for landscapes. Use your feet as the zoom. Take 1 body, the 28mm and a 105. Rather than carry so much gear, just take this minimal kit and even if you can't get as close as you want, take the shot at what focal length you have, and crop it in the darkroom.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I'm going to be 70 this year and have medical conditions. I however for many years now have taken car trips with my wife throughout NE,NY and Pennsylvania. My rule of thumb is no computer, leave it at home! As for cameras, a point and shoot tiny digital and a rangefinder or Slr 35. On the rangefinder, usually a Leica D or M3 and one lens, either a 35 or a 50. On the Slr, a 35 to 70 zoom. That's it, I don't want to lug a heavy bag of photo stuff. I've even spent a whole week with a Bessa L fitted with the wonderful 15mm Heliar, no other film camera. The small digital is a 2003 Nikon Coolpix 2100 using CF media. The 35 SLR has been either Leicaflex SL or Nikon F2, or Canon F-1n, the lens a Tamron 35 to 70 adaptall from some 20 years ago BBAR with 3 to l close focus.</p>

[jonathan_edens]

<p>Points2Shop</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I'm 58 and I USED to carry stuff like you are. Cut it down.<br>

Since I prefer B&W, I leave all the colour shots to my wife's TINY digital - a 7 MP Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX07. Makes great 11x14 prints but 99% of the time all we print are 4x6s. I take two 4 GB SDHC cards and a spare battery with us. The charger is at the hotel.</p>

<p>I would dump the ZOOM. Use your feet. Take the 28mm and get an 85mm or a 105mm. Bring Skylight & Yellow fiters for each lens.</p>

<p>Take one body, two lenses. Pick a film. Just use it.</p>

<p>I have found that a rangefinder 35mm is a lot lighter than an SLR. So are the lenses. I uses a Contax IIa and a Leica If or IIIf for wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck triming down your kit!</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>I'm 66. When hiking I use my Rolleiflex TLR which is FAR than my Arax 60 AND can use a much lighter tripod. I've been using an old Gitzo and recently bought an even lighter Benro tripod that seems perfectly adequate for the Rollei. I suspect that the little Ikonta A I recently bought as a travel back-up for the Rollei will see a lot of use when I'm out for longer hikes.</p>

<p>When I'm absolutely sure I'll need other than a normal lens I'll take my Arax 60, with just a couple of lenses, and my old Tiltall tripod which isn't TERRIBLY heavy (but twice as heavy as my Gotzo; three times as heavy as the Benro). I leave my large bag, which holds the Arax and six lenses in the car--it weights 30--40 Lbs.!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've started out around the Campus Lake (2.3 miles or some such) with a Pentacon 6TL, and an Zeiss Biometar 80mm, 120mm, Sonnar 180mm f/2.8, and a 50mm Flektogon. I usually leave the Mir 45mm behind.<br>

I usually don't make it to the half-way point, and I've noticed people on the path look at me very strangely.</p>

[peter_korzaan]

<p>Gene... what a laugh, what a camera, my gottt, how, where, when & why? Thanks I'll quit whining.. but meanwhile... ;-)</p>

<p>Steve... ah now to the flux of the situation. Good point, bring what you need, I've tried that and it hasn't worked, as the light changes, the sky contrast with clouds (when we get them) ect, that going back on the same hike, and I've done many of them more than once, doesn't get you the same instant as there was. But you hit the nail on the head with:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do not try to be a perfectionist because often the great pieces are made with less concentration and more experimentation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm ... well said and guilty as charged. Although I have tried with less equipment, I think I didn't change the head space. I do have the tendency of having <em>been </em>a perfectionist, that I now try to twist that, into more meaningful excellence within the reality of the moment. That letting go, allows the creativity to flow through. Right On!<br>

So... trying to get out of old head space, I rarely shoot B&W landscapes. When I have, its been a zone thing. Ok, one can go back for the shadows and light. Most of my successful ones have been at Oak Creek anyway, not up in the hills, as I was this morning. No camera's, scouting for new possibilities with a walk with my wife and dog, but alas, there where several shots. ;-)<br>

It's true that I rarely use the 50mm, so will leave that at home, or better yet in the car. So it's there if needed. Perhaps in a second bag of tricks. Hmm... will also see what else I can leave behind, in the old head set, equipment, space. Will give it a new try. Thanks...</p>

<p>John ..its true film is cheap, but the reason I got in photography again, was because of the classic camera. It makes you slow down. I rarely shoot a full roll of film the same day. Its pick, and compose. I'll go out several times before I finish the roll. When I shot with the digital, seems like so long ago now, it was click, click click. So what! Now, because it isn't instant gratification, there is more of a balance and eagerness to make the shots count. </p>

[starvy]

<p>I am 35 and I hate carrying anything heavy when out and about. The old favourite used to be a Bessa R mounted with Jupiter 8 50mm and the little f2.5 35mm Color Skopar when I wanted to shoot wide open. These days, I have gone even more basic. An old 1958 Zeiss Ikon Nettar that taken 6x6. It is light, has a maximum shutter of 1/200 and wide open 6.3 with no meter. The shutter is very quiet and while I have only carried this heavy rig with me for a fortnight, this is my future!</p>

[peter_korzaan]

<p>Wow by the time I got the other response out, so many more came in. Thanks for the reply's. It's diffidently reworking the program. ;-)</p>

<p>A note: The reason I use the Zoom and tele is that the ground is uneven. When you walk up to the formation, you may be to close and its all above you. On a ridge across the way, you may be at a similar elevation, and you can get the shot, by narrowing the distance with the zoom.</p>

[gene m]

<p>Lots of old people here.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>Old <em>cameras</em> anyway Gene; as far as I'm concerned "old" starts 15 years before my birth date :-)</p>

 

[david_l3]

<p>Two weeks ago I packed my Deardorff 8x10 around Galveston Island State Park. Backpack, camera, two heavy lenses on Copal 3 shutters, accessories, and several film holders in the pack was about 45-50 pounds. Then the big Gitzo tripod on my shoulder. At least it was flat, not uphill both ways.<br>

The shots I made were worth it, the toll on my 55 year old body was okay after aspirin and Tylenol. I have an arthritic hip joint , that is due for the a new titanium model, and it lasted one more outing for the gimper.<br>

Back in the day I did mountaineering with two Nikon F2's and a bagful of prime lenses. Then later hiked with my infant son into wilderness areas. I'm still not about to go with a compact P&S. A micro 4/3 camera might be nice but there's one major drawback - they don't use sheet film. Oh well.</p>

 

[jodys]

<p>I used to go out with twin Canon F1Ns with motor drives, 300 and 800mm lenses, tripod and/or monopod, with a 4x5 Crown Graphic & Symmar convertible as a 'backup'. I can't imagine hauling all that around now; the 800mm alone is too much to carry more than half a mile. I've found that limiting myself to a single camera and possibly 2 lenses, with a pocketable mini flash, serves more to force me to use my imagination and work with novel perspectives and techniques rather than rely on gear to produce images that, while technically excellent, lack artistic merit. Plus a little FED rangefinder with a normal lens is a lot easier on the shoulders and knees. I'll switch to a vintage SLR if I'm going somewhere I feel I might need a bludgeoning weapon, or to a 120 folder or Rolleiflex if I want the bigger negatives. I do still keep a wide range of gear in the car, I just don't ever carry it all.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I would suggest you leave the camera with slide film home if you can. Get a Tamrac, LowePro, or similar photo backpack. They distribute the weight well with plenty room for snacks, water, first aid kit, GPS etc.. A few days a week at the gym to improve core strength might be beneficial. Unless you're hauling Gene's camera above. Then just get a couple of pack mules. </p>

[christopher_ward2]

<p>I like to carry a basic kit hiking. A Nikon F2 (B&W) a F2 (slide) 24f2.8 ,35f/2 ,105micro ,200f4 and a mono pod/walking stick. Most of the time I carry an Olympus XA with color print for grab shots in my pocket. Unless we are car camping a tripod rarely comes along. A fanny pack or small shoulder bag works for me.<br>

chris</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Well I'm a youngster here at 33, but while I was out a couple of weeks ago with 2 bodies, 28, 50, 43-86 and 80-200 lenses, film and a few filters in a shoulder bag, after a couple of hours I was definitely wishing I had brought my backpack bag instead. It's a bit of a pain to have to take the bag off and set it down every time I want to change lenses, but it's definitely more comfortable. I have an old Canon branded bag with nice wide, padded straps that can hold 2 bodies and several lenses with no problem. It also has straps on the bottom for slinging a tripod underneath.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>This may be the only time that a Mamiya RB67 is mentioned in a thread relating to weight savings, even in passing - but, a MF system with interchangeable backs, even though more bulky than a 35mm body, ends up being less to carry than all those bodies and lenses... Not much - but one of the reliable stanby's in 645, or even a Koni Omega Rapid with removable backs... anyway - the backs are key here. Plus, you get those lovely big negs.<br>

Mind you, most of the people I know faced with this either suck it up (until they fall down, that is), compromise or give up. Of course then there are those who succumbed to the digital epidemic and use photoshop instead of film, lenses, tripods, composition, exposure or any prior objections to crimes against humanity...</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>I think you have to have some particular objective in mind, to go to the effort of lugging film into the hills. I recently spent a couple of days in the ranges behind our place with a super-fit twenty-something son; I lugged a Mamiya 645 Pro with two backs and three lenses, specifically to photograph some conservation work in one of the more remote valleys. The son lugged a Canon Powershot G12 digital.... At the end of the day, we used many more images from the G12 than we did from the Mamiya, and I know who had the easier trip. There are certain subjects and projects I have in mind for film, but on a day's walk, with the years catching up, one has to wonder about the wisdom and comfort of ignoring the digital revolution...</p>

[tom_price1]

<p>Galen Rowell was said to have taken a lot of his images with a 2-lens setup of a 24mm and 75-150 or similar zoom with a 35mm camera. You really don't need to cover all of the focal ranges.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Here is the equipment I may carry when I shoot landscapes:</p>

<p>Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder with fixed 65mm lens (28mm equivalent)<br>

Fuji 6x7cm rangefinder with fixed 90mm lens (50mm equivalent)<br>

Canon G11 digital compact with fixed zoom lens (28 to 140mm equivalent) – provides telephoto, serves as light meter, and provides test shots<br>

Handheld light meter<br>

Tripod (Tiltall or Tabletop)<br>

Cable release<br>

Filters<br>

Polarizer<br>

Graduated neutral density<br>

Graduated warming<br>

Graduated tobacco<br>

Warming filter to reduce blue cast of open shade<br>

Magenta to reduce green cast of tree shade<br>

Soft focus for special effect</p>

<p>When I need to carry a lighter load, here are some options:</p>

<p>Option 1: Fuji 6x9 plus light meter</p>

<p>Option 2: Fuji 6x9 plus Canon G11</p>

<p>Option 3: Fuji 6x9 and 6x7 plus light meter</p>

<p>Option 4: 35mm film rangefinder with one lens or Canon G11</p>

<p>In all of the options, I do not carry a tripod. Instead, I use rocks, trees, or whatever support I can find in the surroundings.<br>

.</p>