Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Camera Hauling

Considering I think most of us hikers take pictures on the trail I thought this would be a good enough place to try and get some advice for comfortable / practical camera hauling on the trail.

With point and shoot I always had it attached to the strap that goes across your chest but now that I have a bulky DSLR to lug around in the back country what methods do any of you use for such a burden?

Or is the concept of hauling a 7 pound camera around just too crazy for most?

Now of course you can have such a camera in your pack but who wants to have to access it every time you snap a photo? right now my best idea though untested is to try and have some sort of bungee cord across my chest that can stabilize the camera as it hangs around my neck allowing for easy access and stable enough hiking.

Any ideas?

i use a tamrac holster. You can get a harness but i just use carabiners to secure it to my shoulder straps.
It fits my xti with the 55-250 nicely. If you want, you can send me your 5d and I'll let you know if it fits.

My wife carries our 30D around her neck while hiking. More of an issue than stabilizing it while hiking has been exposure to dust. Especially out here in the West with dry dusty trails it gets very difficult to keep dust off the glass and sensor. Many of quick snapped photos have been discovered to have dust spots.

My cousin, who photographs for a living with a 5D always keeps his wrapped up and in his pack and takes it out only to photograph.

So ease of access has to be balanced with having that perfect photo wrecked by big dust spots.

That is my 2 cents. We do it both ways now.

Dean

I carried big cameras down the JMT for many summers - still would do it if I had not switched to HD video, which is actually a little lighter if you don't count batteries and solar chargers.

The SLR I usually carried with the strap over my neck and behind the right shoulder. That kept it handy and from bouncing around too much. Had to put tape on my pack's belt buckles, though, since it was tearing up the back of the camera body.

Bottom line - bring the stuff you know you will want to use, and if it is 7 pounds, then so be it.

I am currently scanning images from my 1990 hike and I am sure glad I didn't leave the camera at home that year. I have no images from my '91 - '94 hikes in the Sierra and mostly have forgotten those hikes ever happened, because I have no photos to remind me of the invididual years. They all have blurred by now into one big "those other hikes" memory.

have hiking partners that are understanding - put a sticker on your pack that reads "makes frequent stops" or "will brake for photos" - just to make sure they don't get ticked off with your photo taking. If they are real nice, they'll grab your other lenses from the side pouches of your pack so you don't have to constantly take it off.

Rogue, you should have seen the looks I got in the middle of a 100-mile trek at Philmont in '07 with my D200 and 24~120 zoom around my neck and over my shoulder. I just smile and tell 'em it's my lightweight backpacking camera. (Which it is compared to my 2-1/4x2-3/4 Mamiya RB67 film camera)

Then I pull out the 12~24 wideangle zoom and the 10.5mm fisheye (for shooting panoramas)(see the "Panoramas" pulldown on my web site)...

<enter soapbox mode>

I'll carry the camera with the biggest image area (not the same as the most megapixels) I can haul. One thing we dinosaurs who grew up with film learned early on is that the image quality is much more a function of the original image dimensions than just about anything else. Yes, you can cram 10 megapixels into a small 1/3" image sensor...IC technology is amazing...but having those same 10 Mpix in a 16x24mm sensor like my D200 or, better yet, a full-frame 24x36mm sensor like the newer DSLRs will give you better image quality hands down.

Why do you think Ansel Adams' stuff shot on 8x10 film looks better than anything I ever shot with my Nikon 35mm film cameras or even the RB67? Simple...more area, less enlargement to get to a particular print size.

That said, if all you ever do with photos is print 4x6 snapshots or post images on the WWW, your garden variety point'n'shoot will do just fine. The Nikon Coolpix 990 (3 Mpix) and 4500 (4 Mpix) that I wore out before I bought the D200 did just fine for a lot of stuff but when you look at what the larger image sensor and SLR-quality glass produce, it's worth doubling up on the weight.

There is, by the way, a practical limit to how many Mpix you can actually use. We're not that far away from it now. Using a 24x36mm 35mm full-frame sensor, the best glass Nikon (or Canon) ever made would resolve close to 100 line pairs/mm. That says something on the order of 4800x7200 pixels would be the most the lens can give you. (It takes two pixels per line pair, minimum, one for the "black" and one for the "white.") If you have somewhere around 35 Mpix AND a full-frame sensor, you've maxed out on what the best glass in the world can do, assuming you shoot at the optimum aperature, focus carefully and have the camera on a good sturdy tripod. For a half-frame sensor like the D200, 17 Mpix is the practical limit, so even my "old" (in computer years) D200 is off by less than a factor of two and I'd bet that my favored zoom lenses won't go much past 50 or 60 lp/mm, so the D200 is right at the limit anyway.

<exit soapbox mode>

Bottom line, I'll haul the D200 until I retire it and buy a full-frame DSLR. Sorry that got a bit long-winded but I've been a serious amateur photog for 40-some years and the whole megapixel wars just amuses the heck out of me when we're talking about small-dimension sensors with umpteen megapixels crammed into such a little space that the glass can't possibly use all those pixels.

That might work but it says it holds a camera up to 7 1/2 inch long and mine at the longest point which is the view finder is 8 inches long so it would be a tight fit, I also will have the battery attachment which adds 1 3/4 to the bottom if it matters.



Dust is a worry for me, not only in image quality but just in general, this camera with everything I needed cost just under 5000 so I hate for the thing to get messed up, hopefully I can work out some easy bag system like suggested above.



I know I will end up hurting with the added weight, my major hike this summer will see at one point no resupply for 15 days so all the weight anyway then close to 10 pounds of camera gear added? you'll probably see me very slowly working my way up the main Mount Whitney trail.

I'm just going to make sure that everyone I hike with knows not to stop and wait for me when I take pictures, normally I catch back up without a problem and then no time is lost.



Unfortantly for me I am quite an amature when it comes to most aspects of photography but I am trying to learn as fast as possible.

What do you think of the 5D Mark II? it is a full frame DSLR but do the 21.1MP get wasted?

I actually am not that satisfied with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens I bought because I don't like how you have to extend the lens out like your zooming out to actually zoom in and be at 24MM.

I don't know if there is a special reason it's like this, I am just that much of a noob

Thanks for all the info.

Wow, I was just about to start a thread like this and, WHAM, here it is. Well, so far the suggestion I got is a top loader case with harness.

Lowepro top loader case - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/611113-REG/Lowepro_LP35349_PEU_Top_Loader_Pro_65.html
Harness - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/98677-REG/Lowepro_LP07063_BEF_Chest_Harness_for_Topload.html

The person that suggested the case says he takes his canon 40D along with a 24-105L lens. The description of the case says it would fit a camera with a battery pack. This seems like a good system, but I haven't tried it yet. I'd be interested to hear other suggestions as well.

I am the one who uses the Lowepro 65AW and chest harness. I find it to be the best of all worlds....hiking and photography.

Here is a shot of it on me with the harness......

Great topic! I was looking recently myself for a pack to use for day hikes and longer backpacks. I like the optins mentioned, here's one I was focused on http://www.m-rock.com/ I need a DSLR case now for my new camera.

Off topic a little - I was thinking when I purchased the extended warranty for it and asking the conditions of the accidental handling coverage which included drops...I almost asked how far (Half Dome, the MR's Rte???) can I drop it and still be covered?

Hiked many a mile with my 7 year old Sony Super zoom hanging from my neck. Never had a fatal accident with it, but always needed to keep it clean and dry. The only issues I had with it was condensation and cold - taking pictures in the mist or snowy conditions were a challenge. The sensor was replaced once due to condensation/design issues.

joe

I've taken my Nikon DSLR snow camping a few times this year slung over my shoulder. It was not very comfortable especially with a heavy pack on my back.

I like the idea of top loader and harness so I will give that a try. Normally I take my point and shoot but it doesn't compare to the DSLR image quality, obviously.

Dust is a big issue for me also. I have been cleaning the sensor on my DSLR's since I can remember but always in a controlled environment like my home, never out in the field.

They make a larger one( 519 ) , that was just the one that I use




I think all lenses do that at the wide setting. The 24-70 is a great piece of glass. Enjoy it.

How does that thing perform in rain? I would be concerned hiking in heavy rain fall that it may come in through the top zipper.

As for the lens I just had noticed how the 24-105 is at 24 with it all the way in so the 24-70 is reversed.

Just used a Tamrac holster style(# 5683) for my Nikon D60 with 28 to 135 lense. Built in loops strapped right to my hip belt with camera strap binered to my shoulder harness. Worked phenomenol !!!

You have plenty of the other kind of advice, so I'll suggest something I don't expect you'll think much of, but give it a couple of years of hauling around equimpment and you may see it differently.

First though, there is a bino-harness made by Optech that does a lot better job of holding a somewhat large camera against your chest instead of flinging around. One model is made from elastic strapping. I use one for my ultrazoom in all sorts of hiking, it keeps the camera accessible and safe.

The other part of the answer is, unless you have hopes of being a famous photographer for Nat Geo or to compete with Ansel, don't takt that monster. Aside from the bulk and weight and dust issue already mentioned, you have the "necessary" lenses, which will never be on the camera when you need them, so you'll either look like an infantryman with cases and paraphernalia plastered all over your body
http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/image/24885302
http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/image/69820221
or you'll be constantly ripping off your backpack to get at the lens that is buried there, and getting plenty of dirt and fingerprints on the things you don't drop accidentally.

Get a decent ultrazoom if you want manual control...Panasonic FZ28, Canon S5 and similar, and enjoy your hike and get good photos to boot. The zoom range is accessible with no fuss, from 28mm or less wide angle to over 500mm tele, at good apertures at least on the Panasonic. Not only more resolution and quality than you'll likely ever need, but high quality movie capability if the need comes up. Stick it on a bino harness and you'll hardly know it's there, but it will be, ready for anything.

Or, if manual settings don't matter much, there are even small pocket models with 10-12x zoom such as the TZ-5.

Photography is a "loop trail" for many. From simplicity itself, to major lens lust, gear hauling, eventual realization that it's no longer fun, besides you're not getting the photos you did when it was simple. You may think all the 'pros' are there lugging big white lenses, but you'd be surprised; digital offers a lot of options to get high quality photos without the dated SLR-format remade film-cameras that are pushed by manufacturers because they're an endless income source.

You may think this is silly now, but read it in 2-3 years and see if you think the same 8^).

A little off topic but for those of you that take your slr's on multi-day hikes, how do you handle the battery situation? Do you take a grip? Multiple batteries? And what do you do to keep them warm and from losing their charge?

Multiple batteries
No
Yes
Sleep with them

Dale B. Dalrymple

As with most things, fit the tool to the job.

My wife loves her little Canon point'n'shoot (and isn't a hiker!). She is happy with the 35~105 (35mm equivalent) zoom range and never prints anything but 4x6 snapshots.

On the other hand, I have much higher expectations and want to do 8x10 and larger prints. Plus, I want the ability to shoot MUCH wider shots than even the ultra-zoom point'n'shoot cameras will do. (My 12~24 is equal to 18mm, and most of the ultra-zoom cameras stop at 28mm or 24mm on the wide end. In addition, the distortion inherent in 10x zooms are too much of a compromise for me anyway.)

As I noted, I'm much more dedicated to the quality of my images than to shaving ounces (or pounds!) on the gear I carry. I buy other lightweight stuff so I can keep carrying my boat anchors. Guilty as charged, Your Honor, and proud of it.

Hopefully, these discussions point out options and tradeoffs so people can choose their tools to suit their purposes.

As far as batteries, I prefer cameras that use AA batteries (or the AA adaptor for the auxillary battery pack for the D200). Lithium primary batteries work superbly in digital cameras. They're expensive but a set of them will take 1000+ photos with the D200. Much better than carrying multiple sets of the Li-ion rechargeables that are custom to the camera. They also work quite well in cold weather.

Actually in my case I don't, since this is my first DSLR I only have the one lens I bought and it cost nearly 1300 so I cannot afford to buy more at the moment I do wish I had a macro lens though because I like flower photography.

As with what Alan was saying I want the highest quality shots possible and for me I will likely 80% of the time use the camera like a point and shoot.

For batteries I am going to bring a battery grip that uses 6 AA batteries and just bring a massive amount of Lithium Ion AAs because I know that the Lithium battery pack standard to the camera will not last long enough and even if I buy a spare it still wont be enough so what are my options? buy a bunch of 80 dollar a piece batteries that you can hardly find in stock any where or try to find some sort of solar power charger that has a compatible adapter?

This of course only applies to a multi week hike...

Cold is not a factor with Lithium Ion batteries, they are rated to work in -40F, you camera will likely fail first.

I plan on just taking a bunch of extra batteries on my multi day trip. I get them from sterlingtek (http://sterlingtek.com/twocabp18bap.html). Great prices and they work well.

Yes, that was part of the point; sometimes it's good to back off to look where you're going, to see if you even want to go there. There are tradeoffs to EVERY choice, including the highest end full-frame SLR's. It's not just the bulk, the weight, and the cost either. One of the strongest 'plus' points of the larger SLR format is its high-ISO ability, and that's of limited use for most aspects of hiking.

I do think you're doing a disservice to other formats though, in dismissing the "point and shoots" as being for 4x6 snapshots. Put a cheap camera in the hands of a good photographer, and you might be surprised. But I wasn't necessarily offering a cheap point and shoot snapshot camera as an alternative; the FZ28 I mentioned, for example, has a Leica lens that will outperform many lenses you may buy for your DSLR. Not only the zoom range, but without having to resort to the f/5.6 or worse that the larger lenses usually do unless you get to a price tag in thousands. It also has lens stabilization, which means that should shutter speeds get slow, you have a much better chance against camera-motion blur.

That camera will do macro down to 1cm or so, with no additonal lenses, and with a depth of field that makes it MUCH easier to work with the image. It shoots RAW if desired, has a hi-res electronic viewfinder that can show a live histogram, live image preview, or give warning of highlight overexposure. Movies with sound and zoom are available at the turn of a dial. So "point and shoot, good for 4x6 snapshots"?...I'm not so sure.

Distortion...I assume you mean barrel or pincushion? I've seen horrible distortion from lenses on a DSLR...you generally get what you pay for, and a cheap lens on an SLR will give you worse photo sharpness, more distortion and more chromatic aberration and edge sharpness rollof than you'll see on that above mentioned Leica lens, which shows little to none of any of those.

As far as being proud of the quality of your images, I assume you mean the content. That again, is independent of the type of camera it was taken with. If you don't mean the content, but the quality of the particular lens and camera combination, what's to be proud of? Something you bought?

It's the photo that matters, regardless of what you used to get it. At least that's what I've always figured, but then maybe my quality standards aren't what they should be. But I'm still learning. At any rate, folks should try to realistically evaluate what they need and don't need from a camera. We all want to flatter ourselves as potential 'Ansels', but in reality a lot of the photos we take are for less lofty things, and seldom is it the equipment that's holding our photography back, unless it's because we can't dig out the lens we need and get it switched fast enough to get the shot, or we don't have the lens, or we can't get that close. Usually it's the other things that make us miss the great shot, and those have nothing to do with the camera.