gary_gervin

I avidly pack, and that has proved my motivation to get better with

photography. Photographically communicating what it's like on a

10,000 foot ridge with 360 degrees of mountains as far as the eye can

see is an exciting challenge I hope you are faced with soon. For this

challenge, I respectfully disagree with advice to take only one lens -

unless it's a zoom with a fairly wide lower end.

<p>

Because the subject excites me, I'm tempted to repeat everything said

already, but instead I'll observe a 70-200 zoom and a teleconverter

and a tripod in your list of gear. Is your intent to create a long

zoom? If so, believe it or not, you may not need the tripod. I found

an old used Rowi shoulder stock which I bought for $40. It's

made of aluminum and plastic, is strong, collapses, and weighs less

than a pound. I use it for my Tokina 400mm f/5.6, and absolutely love

the combo. Because the lens is only about 2 lbs, it's very useable on

a shoulder stock, and they definitely go into the wilderness with me

(that's why I bought 'em!). Len Rue recommends stocks for anything

300mm or less, and Moose Petersen recommends 'em for light 400mm's,

too. They are also great for extra stability with wide lenses, IMHO.

In any event, while a tripod may be nice, I don't think there's

anything in your equiptment list which requires one. In packing,

lighter is better, and you can find shoulder stocks which are both

more compact and lighter than any tripod.

<p>

I wish you many great photo opps, and many happily worn boot soles...

I couldn't reccomend fanny packs highly enough, although I'm not using

any of the above. I like longer hikes, and hate wearing daypacks, so

I always take my Dana Designs "Galliath" (? I think that's the model),

which allows me to take my ten essentials plus a jacket, plenty of

water (up to 3 quarts), food for the day, and my camera gear (a 24mm,

a 28mm, a 2x teleconverter, a 400mm and collapsible shoulder stock,

film, light meter, along with the body and a 45mm which go around my

shoulder). I use LowePro lens cases, which I attatch to the fanny

pack compression straps. With all this, the fanny pack is very

comfortable for treks of 10 miles or more.

<p>

My point isn't to emulate what I've done, and carry 25-30 pound fanny

packs over hill and dale. I just wanted to point out that if you need

to take more than just photo gear with you (which should be done on

any hike), the photo bag companies just don't give you a lot of

flexibility. Other big fanny packs can be easily adapted to carry the

photo gear plus a lot more, while being easier and more comfortable to

carry. If you are interested in increasing your hiking distances, the

comfort issue could become important.

<p>

The big hiking fanny packs - the Dana, and the Mountainsmiths, and a

recent REI design - all have much better hipbelt designs which come

from backpack design expertise. The photo bag companies are literally

using 15 to 20 year old hipbelt technology which just doesn't handle

weight as politely. (I find this old technology situation especially

suprising with LowePro, since they are the same company as Lowe, which

makes some very nice backpacks.)

<p>

Anyway, that's my 4 cents worth. :o)

I think you should try asking this question of the Minolta mailing

list. They are a very active list, and are likely to have comments on

the specific lenses you ask about. Try this web page:

<p>

http://www.isc.rit.edu/~ecl6895/Minolta/Mail/date.html#start

<p>

I am dyslexic, so I won't guarrantee the transcription. If that

doesn't work, use a search engine to locate the Minolta Users' Group

web page, and look for the link to the mailing list. Hope it helps:)

The author of the book, "Bear Attacks: Their causes and avoidance" is

Staphen Herrero. The publisher is Lyons & Burford. I can't recommend

the book highly enough. It's very helpful safetywise and fascinating

to boot.

<p>

By the way, an equally fascinating source of info on animal reactions

and danger signs, especially with reference to getting too close, is

"How to Photograph Animals in the Wild" by Dr. Leonard Lee Rue III and

Len Rue, Jr. It includes great shots of big, truly pissed animals and

plenty of detail on when it's time to forget the photo and run. The

authors seem to spend a lot of time talking about what happens when

you get too close (especially in rutting season), but I can't recall

any time spent cautioning about spooking animals with fill flash.

<p>

Really, the Rues' emphasis on the dangers of getting too close as a

main cause of animal attack accords pretty well with what Herrero says

re: bear safety. Herrero's book isn't concerned with bear photography

as an end in itself, but he does make reference to some campers who

were attacked by bears (I forget the species). Their camera was found

near the scene, and when the film was developed, it was clear that

they had repeatedly moved closer and closer, untill the bears finally

attacked. The theme of getting too close is repeated over and over in

Herrero, both in reference to grizzly attacks (along with the theme of

sudden encounters) and to black bear attacks resulting in minor

injury.

<p>

I'm using an old manual focus which syncs at 1/60th of a second, so I

haven't really bothered to learn fill flash technique, and can't

comment on the effects of flash on bears firsthand, but based on all

my reading, I think too close is much more important than too bright.

<p>

Again, for definitive info on bear safety, Herrero can't be

recommended enough.