foraker

Martin, at that altitude the last thing you're likely to need is a

polarizer. I've shot transparency film in the mountains in New

Zealand and in the Sierra and I never use any filtration. When I just

started out, I did use one and I can guarantee you that it will just

make your skies close to black. If I were going to be using color

transparency film at high altitude, I don't think I'd use a UV filter

but rather a color correction filter (warming filters). You should be

able to work out what sort of color temperature your light will be

and then work out the kind of filters that you need to correct back

to "normal" daylight color.

Forgive me if everyone knows about this or if this is an inappropriate post. I have nothing to do with these people but thought others might be interested. In my search for a cheap, light-weight lens shade device, I came across something called the

Flarebuster (see www.flarebuster.com). It's a plastic covered annealed aluminum wire with a clip on one end (i.e. onto your front or back standard) and either a clip or a hotshoe attachment (for Ebony users!) on the other. Either one can be had for about $23-$27.

Paul,

As someone who is also learning to lighten his backpack I can suggest

a couple of things. First, in my previous investigations into

dedicated camera packs, I've been mostly disappointed. Whoever

designs them seems to be focussed on the interior. As a result, they

tend to neglect the most important part of the pack: the harness

system. Often, these are no better than those one might find on some

cheap childrens backpack. My system is this:

I store my camera, lenses (like you, only 2 or 3) meter, and film

holders in those inexpensive collapsible coolers (I have a couple of

Arctic Zone's). They are padded and so provide good protection from

knocking about. The lenses are also wrapped in those Domke lens

covers (the funky fabric squares with the velcro). If I'm going

backpacking, I haul out the big gun pack with the super sweet harness

(a Dana Design Astralplane that I picked up as a factory overstock).

If it's just a day hike, I pull out my much smaller North Face

technical climbing pack that I picked up at their factory outlet in

Berkeley. It's rugged, is a front loader and not a top loader, has

numerous interior spaces to hide things and has a very nice built on

corde system that I can attach my tripod to. My main point here is

that I got a much better pack and harness system than I could have

picked up looking for a dedicated camera pack (and for less money).

Also, if I'm climbing and not taking pictures, I can use it as a

technical climbing pack as well! And, I didn't pay for all those

annoying padded dividers, most of which you'll probably not use

anyway. So, consider a non-photo backpack. Hope this helps.

Like many other endeavors, the tool is a means to an end. I've seen

too many people with too much obscenely expensive camera gear

producing (in my own opinion) rather bland photographs. At the same

time, I've seen poor, talented students producing stunning work with

cheap 35mm cameras. There are also several landscape photographers

who produce wonderfully grainy black and white prints from 35mm film.

My point here is that one's vision of the kind of photographs that

you want to produce should drive your choice of camera. Using an LF

camera would not make me a better wildlife or sports photographer,

for example. Also, one should be careful making such pronouncements

as it leads to thinking of onself as a "better" photographer simply

because your negative has a larger surface area. Photographs are

better judged by more aesthetic criteria.