Long hiking trip

I'm considering some long hiking trips. I'm mostly a film photographer. It is common for me to go on day hikes with a full 4x5 setup, multiple lenses, lots of film, etc., but film photography is greedy for storage space and since I'd like to now consider long hiking trips I need to change things up. Ultimately I'm thinking of hiking the Pacific Crest Trail as a thru-hike. That means 4.5 months of hiking. And that's probably next year. This year is the year for training and so I plan to take weekend hiking trips and some week long ones to build up endurance and whatnot... Anyway.. on to the photography

My experience with quality digital cameras is nil. I have a cell phone camera and a small Kodak HD pocket Play Sport and a cheapie Kodak digital camera I think it's an Easyshare not sure of the model.

My ideal backpacking camera would be the quality, weight and size of a Leica M9-P and the pricetag of an entry-level DSLR. That's ideal and impossible I know. But somewhere along the line there has to be a happy medium.... for example in the 35mm market there are some decent point and shoot cameras like a few from Yashika and Contax that rivaled the performance of cameras costing 10-20 times their amount. I'm looking for something along those lines. I think I cannot consider a DSLR, too big and too heavy.

I'd love some input from some folks who have some good experience on this topic

While I don't have one myself, I've heard really good things about the Canon G series (what are they up to now, G12? G14?). Good lens, compact rangefinder format. Leica also makes some compact-ish digital rangefinders that take excellent photos - I had a Digilux1 back in the day which was terrific for a 5 megapixel camera. Dunno what their offerings are at the moment, but I think they collaborate with Panasonic to make a compact rangefinder that takes interchangeable Micro 4/3 lenses. And now the'res the Nikon 1 series. Another compact camera system that takes interchangeable lenses.

Perry...I don't know where you're from, but speaking as someone who's logged about 450 miles on the PCT (most of OR and southern WA), it's a fantastic experience up here, and I imagine equally amazing down in CA, though I've never been on the PCT down there.

When I hiked in '05 and '07, I used my Canon S70, a compact camera, but one that had RAW shooting capability and a (comparatively) large sensor. I'm a Canon user, so I'm not really familiar with other brands, but in terms of current Canon models, I'd look at a G12 or a G1X. Plenty of manual control, RAW shooting mode, and the G1X has a sensor approx. the same size as Canon's Rebels and the 60D (APS-C format). Non-interchangeable lens, though, and I feel like the focal length range is a bit limited on the G1X...I'm hoping they fix that on the next generation. Also consider the S100 if small and light is most important. If you don't need RAW format shooting, there are lots more options from all the manufacturers.

Another option, slightly larger, might be to look at one of the "Micro-4/3rds" cameras from Panasonic, Olympus and others. Interchangeable-lens cameras with sensors about the size of half-frame 35mm. Getting a fairly compact zoom to go with one of those might be a good choice as well. When trying to make the kind of mileage a PCT thru needs to make, you might not always have the option to "zoom with your feet" if you go with a prime lens.

I've carried a T2i (digital rebel) on some 2- and 3-day trips (with 2-3 lenses), but I probably wouldn't consider it for a thru, either. But I have met some hikers who have carried an SLR at least as far as southern WA. No point in dumping it there, you've already made the first 2000 miles!

Lastly, if you weren't already aware of it, let me point you to the archives of the PCT-L, an un-official PCT email-list:

http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/

Some time in the last couple of months there was a discussion about hiking cameras. You might find a few more ideas there. Can't remember whether I posted to that one or not...

Good luck, with both your hike and your camera search.

--Greg

(Looks like TheFlyingCamera and I have very similar ideas!!)

Ooops!! I mis-spoke.

Half-frame 35mm is 24x18 mm.

Canon and Nikons entry-level SLR sensors (APS-C format) are about 22x15.

Micro-4/3 sensors are 18x12.

It's a great idea to get the camera stuff sorted out early to really get to know your new camera...There are a lot of things you might only get to see once in your life, like the top of Forrester Pass (or Mt. Whitney, if you choose to hike up), Crater Lake, or the knife-edge in Goat Rocks.

--Greg

First figure out what kind/size of output you want. This will start to narrow the field.
Some other choices that will help. Do you require:
- interchangeable lenses?
- a viewfinder and want it built-in?
- stabilization?
- GPS?

Thanks guys, you've given me a head start on my journey and some food for thought as I assess these models. From what it looks like the Nikon 1 series looks interesting but I think it would lack the image quality I'd be seeking (since I'm pretty much a large format photographer) for as a primary digital camera but still the features seem impressive to say the least. I bet with the 10mm lens alone and a few filters and lens hood and a few memory cards and extra batteries I could fit that all inside a tiny bag that would be negligible in terms of total size/weight.

Sure would like that Leica M9-P though...

If you go with interchangeable lenses, do you have any way to control dust? I would expect it to be a serious consideration on a trip like that.

4.5 months? What about batteries? Film might end up being lighter...


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.892346,116.426954

chuck94022 said:

4.5 months? What about batteries? Film might end up being lighter...


---
I am here: Google Maps

Click to expand...

Especially when you consider that most digital cameras require proprietary rechargeables - you could well get stuck somewhere for an extended time period without means to charge your batteries (unless you're planning on carrying around a solar power station, which would obliterate and then some any weight savings over hauling a 4x5, lenses and film.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Especially when you consider that most digital cameras require proprietary rechargeables - you could well get stuck somewhere for an extended time period without means to charge your batteries (unless you're planning on carrying around a solar power station, which would obliterate and then some any weight savings over hauling a 4x5, lenses and film.

Click to expand...

There are places along the way to refuel, refood, recharge, etc. There are also portable solar rechargers.. something to consider I'm sure. But in any case it's not like it's 4.5 months of solid wilderness. So I could have a handful of batteries and recharge them every week or two.

To follow up my previous post, if I were going out on an extended hike, and wanted a dead-reliable imaging tool, I'd be considering something manual with film, first and foremost. I'd probably start by considering a Nikon FM, or (what I have) an FM3A, which can work both electronically and manually. But both are rugged and can be used as hammers for pounding in tent stakes if necessary (just kidding, don't try it!).

Smaller and lighter, I'd probably go with something like a Yashica or an Oly 35RD (I own one of the latter). Still full frame film resolution, but single lens, which is probably fine for your hiking/landscape photography needs. Lenses can be heavy, so you do want to think through what you really need with any system you choose.

I think it is worth asking yourself how much shooting you will be doing in one stretch. Do you really expect to be in the wilderness for 4.5 months without resupply? That's a mighty long time for any system, but certainly you'd be better off without lugging batteries around. Film is light and reliable. Batteries are heavy, and will lose charge all on their own as you lug them around. At best you can figure on getting about 250 shots per charge, so you can do the math for your wilderness needs.

Final note - compact digital point and shoot cameras won't give you much control over depth of field, due to their small sensor. Plus, your resolution and color rendition will be questionable. I would be concerned with any digital camera smaller than an APS sensor size, assuming you want more than "family snapshot" quality images.

Lightweight film cameras, assuming you choose a good camera with quality glass, produce results that rival the best DSLR cameras. Even the light, cheap Oly 35RD came with a wonderful 40mm F1.7 Zuiko lens, and can produce excellent images. I got mine for $35 a few years back. It uses a small battery for the meter, but you can probably live without metering at all, just use Sunny 16 rules.

For film, I'd probably pack Kodak Portra 160 or Portra 400 (or both) for all my shooting, due to its incredible latitude. I'd skip the B&W film, and just convert to B&W in post, to save on carrying extra filters and different films.

An extra battery and charger are fairly light. The typical thru-hiker has access to mains power every 4-8 days, and it doesn't take that long to recharge lithium ion batteries. 2 batteries should get you somewhere between 300-1000 pictures, depending on the camera and careful use of the rear LCD. Guessing how much film you'll need to put in each resupply box, plus carrying unused film...

I definitely think digital is preferable to film for long-distance hikes. Micro-SD cards don't really take up any space.

--Greg

gmikol said:

An extra battery and charger are fairly light. The typical thru-hiker has access to mains power every 4-8 days, and it doesn't take that long to recharge lithium ion batteries. 2 batteries should get you somewhere between 300-1000 pictures, depending on the camera and careful use of the rear LCD. Guessing how much film you'll need to put in each resupply box, plus carrying unused film...

I definitely think digital is preferable to film for long-distance hikes. Micro-SD cards don't really take up any space.

--Greg

Click to expand...

Ah, every 4-8 days is quite a different scenario than being out for 4-5 months! Still, though, I would maintain that the IQ of a compact point and shoot digicam is going to be less than what can be captured on film. Even my Nikon D200 can't match the resolution and color rendition of my Nikon FM3A with Portra 400. (And that's 400 speed film.)

I'm assuming then that there is some mechanism for resupply on these long hikes? How does it work? Do you pre-drop supplies at locations along the way? If so, I'd still use film, and scatter my film supplies along the way.

Anyway, it doesn't much matter what I think. The important question is for the original poster: what is the purpose of the images - fine art landscapes, or just snaps to remember the trip? Will they be printed, or just shown on the web?

Sounds like either approach can work. I happen to prefer film (reliability, IQ, latitude), others prefer digital (sharpness, compactness, convenience). I guess we're not helping much!

This thread is not over! Days later I am rethinking that Nikon 1. I think I want higher quality. The fastest focus is a nice feature but in landscapes fast focus not really that important eh. The purpose of these photos would be for fine art landscapes, otherwise I'd just bring my Kodak PlaySport for video and my Blackberry for snapshots.

I don't own a camera that would be a worthy trail companion. Something Chuck said got me to thinking about all the angles. If I had the money, it's a no brainer, I'd buy a Leica M9-P. But I don't have the money for that so .. weight wise, a Bronica RF645 is smaller and lighter than a Nikon F100 and probably a digital as well. What does a Nikon DSLR with a prime lens wind up being weight wise? Anyone know and can answer quickly? A Bronica RF645 with the 75 mm lens is 2.44 pounds. As far as I'm concerned there's no digital camera around that can compete with medium format film. I have a Bronica ETRS with a 75mm lens and the negatives I've gotten off it are some of the best I've gotten ever on 120 film, so I'm sure I'd be well pleased with the RF645 given the reviews I've read.

Well, Perry, if you're leaning toward medium format I have the answer for you: Mamiya 6MF. It is a rangefinder, and the lens collapses into the body making it extremely compact. It is smaller than any DSLR, and most 35mm SLRs for that matter. The lenses are some of the best made, especially for landscape work. I recommend the 6MF over the 6 (non MF version) only because the winder was made a little more rugged on the 6MF. (Ken Rockwell disagrees and says to get the 6 over the 6MF - personal preferences.)

The 6MF does use batteries, but they last at least a year or more (I can't remember the last time I changed mine) and anyway, they are just two little round watch batteries - the body cap includes a slot to hold spares.

I love shooting landscapes with mine. It is my go to camera when the hike is too much or the area too unknown for me to commit to my Wista 45DX.

My wife owns a Nikon 1. Its a great path forward from a point and shoot, it focuses fast and takes consistently great shots with no effort. But it does eat the batteries, and if you intend anything more than web presentation, you might feel that 10 megapixels is a bit lacking.

I would have originally suggested the Mamiya, but thought you wanted to keep things to 35mm or less. But the Mamiya 6MF is a serious competitor, weight and size wise, to any SLR or DSLR. You can probably get one for less than a new Nikon 1, but I haven't shopped for one lately. The system has three extremely sharp lenses: 50mm wide angle, 75mm normal, and 150mm long lens. They are great for landscapes, not as great for portraits (the fastest is only f/3.5), and they aren't macro lenses. But the system is perfect for landscapes and for walkaround street shooting. Leaf shutters built into the lens make the camera extremely quiet too.

Edit: I think between the Bronica and the Mamiya, the Mamiya wins hands down. Check the reviews, I think you'll find it is very hard to beat (except perhaps by the Mamiya 7, but personally I prefer the 6).

Edit edit: Or not... you'll find folks in both camps.... Choose what you love, but if you tend to shoot landscapes in, um, landscape orientation, you might have issues with the Bronica (its shooting and viewfinder orientation is portrait).

Hi Perry,

An acquaintance of mine and fellow photographer starts on the PCT next week. Here is a link to his website ( he does some great landscapes )

Dead Link Removed

We were discussing a similar topic at his von-voyage party last week, although it was more around all the electronics he was taking. Kindle, iphone, gps, ect. ect. I got the impression he was only taking a smaller point n shoot, not his DSLR gear.

My experience backpacking with my photo gear, whether it be my D200, M645 or 4x5, is that it adds a lot of weight and it is hard for me to go and do good photography after a long day of hiking. Works best when I have layover days.

If I were to hike the PCT, I would leave the big guns behind and take something like the Nikon 1. Seems to fit the bill well to me. Small, lightweight even with a couple lenses.

Then again...... an MF rangefinder would be fun. I'm sure you could make it work.

R Shaffer said:

My experience backpacking with my photo gear, whether it be my D200, M645 or 4x5, is that it adds a lot of weight and it is hard for me to go and do good photography after a long day of hiking. Works best when I have layover days.

Click to expand...

I was actually thinking of capitalizing on some layover days. The best parts of the trail would be me hiking in and stopping for a day or half a day if I get the feeling there's something worthy of printing later on months later after I go through everything and no longer on the trail. In other words I sort of picture myself not hunting for a photo, but waiting until I just come upon one worthy to stop for. Along the trail it might be 1 minute delay getting that shot or it might be a half hour to get to a better location to take the shot. The way things usually are for me, I am hunting for shots when I put on my photo-backpack. And I haven't gotten any lately as in the last month.. because I'm hiking on weekends now in a training mode and hitting the same trails I know I can get 15 miles a day.

chuck94022 said:

Well, Perry, if you're leaning toward medium format I have the answer for you: Mamiya 6MF.

Click to expand...

I've considered that camera, well actually the non MF model I would have no use for those confusing lines in the viewfinder as I would never put 35mm inside that camera. Also I like the original Mamiya 6 with the Zuiko lens... yeah that lens I believe is an award winning lens and if you get the 1950's model you get a coated lens. I've really considered that camera quite a bit. It alone would be the reason to shoot a square format. But the modern Mamiya 6 is just so costly sounding and for what? To get the glass. That's why people pay the price....

chuck94022 said:

Choose what you love, but if you tend to shoot landscapes in, um, landscape orientation, you might have issues with the Bronica (its shooting and viewfinder orientation is portrait).

Click to expand...

Okay, this is where I might make some enemies. I am not all that super impressed with Mamiya Sekor lenses. I mean yeah they are sharp and all, contrasty and take great photographs, so do many other lenses. Then I did some trading one day and traded a 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphic for a Bronica ETRS with a Zenzanon 75mm f2.8 I believe it is.. Yeah, that's one fu**ing fine piece of glass has the most fu**king awesome bokeh I've ever seen on a medium format camera. I have taken so many hot damn good photos with that camera on so few rolls of film that I half considered dumping all my 6x7 and 6x9 gear. What I'm saying is that if that Bronica RF645 has glass anything like the ETRS I have, I want that camera over the Mamiya 6. There's a few extra goodies. Metering is better, so I read. And there's two auto modes, makes it super sweet and easy to use for quicky shots that you run across. That ETRS also had the same kind of ease to it and if metering is similar between the two cameras then I want the Bronica RF645 over the Mamiya 6.

The only place I see the Mamiya 6 as superior would be that it can be made to be a little smaller than the Bronica RF645 since the lens hides halfway inside the camera. The older Mamiya 6 is a folder though.. and that's the only camera that would make me turn to 6x6 format. Not sure of the weight between the two though. But the Bronica weighs in at 2.44 pounds equipped with 75mm and filter and hood and strap. That's doable to me on a long hike because I don't bring along Kindles and IPods and other stuff like that. If I were bringing along something that would be similar to what a Kindle is for a book worm, I'd be bringing along my guitar. Hahah, so instead I'll be the dude singing to myself and talking a lot because I don't have some entertainment to shut me up...

Hi Perry,

For what its worth (sounds like you have your heart set elsewhere), the Mamiya 6 with 75mm lens is 2.51 pounds. My suggestion for the 6MF is primarily for the more robust winder. I find the extraneous markings in the viewfinder to not be a distraction at all, but your mileage may vary. I actually use the marks in a variety of ways: first, to help with alignment when I want things to align horizontally (especially with wider lenses), and also to help previsualize crops if I'm considering a non square crop.

Good luck with whatever choice you make!

It's fun dreaming about all this camera gear, but the reality is you don't have room for all this stuff on a through-hike. Food, fuel, and other essentials come before pounds of camera gear. Lot of places in California and even Washington are going to require a bear canister, and that takes up a lot of space.
Personally, I think interchangeable lenses are for section hikes; if you want to keep your pack weight reasonable you'll want a camera that is small and light. I still use an Olympus XA when hiking; it lives in a pocket on my pack shoulder strap. I got an Olympus E420 because it's tiny for an SLR and the images are much better than a point-and-shoot, but even that is too big for a long hike. Start weighing every -- those ounces add up fast

Perry,

I'm considering the PCT as well, though it will certainly (of course) be no sooner than 2013. One question you have to ask yourself is, "Am I going to hike the PCT, or photograph the PCT?" Everybody intending to finish the PCT in one season will be hiking all day, nearly every day. Hike, eat, sleep. Most successful thru hikers average 20 miles a day, a bit more than you're preparing for. That doesn't leave much time for "real" photography (setting up, waiting for the light, etc.). And you will regret every extra ounce you carry. That turns out to be a pretty simple equation, with a fairly simple solution these days. It seems to me that it would be worthwhile rethinking your MF quality versus digital sensor stance.

Accordingly, most, if not all thru–hikers carry a light P&S (6oz. to 8oz.), even if they are accomplished photographers. No film or lenses to change or carry (no tripod!). An extra card and battery or two will only add a couple of ounces at most, or you can seed replacements with your resupply. Batteries and cards are now so much cheaper than film anyway. I recently carried and used 8 batteries and an extra 32GB card for 6 days on the river with me (no resupply), as shooting stills and video was the primary intention. But most hikers carry small solar recharge panels (charging while walking) to juice up their cameras, batteries, smart phones, and GPS.

The class of "professional" or enthusiast P&S are close to, and may soon surpass, the quality and sensor size of lower class DSLRs. So much so that many DSLR owners no longer carry their changeable lens system cameras, including the micro 4/3 systems. Unless doing fine art photography with the goal of making your own prints, I don't see why anyone who is already taking on as big a challenge as a PCT thru hike would elect to carry anything but a light P&S. With this kind of undertaking, need versus want, must be paramount.

There's a lot of experience here.

A small film camera with a high-quality lens will give you a much higher quality than a small digital camera.

If I were you I would opt for something like an Olympus XA, a Rollei 35, a Yashica T-3 (which is also weatherproof).

The Yashica T-3, which I own and use while on the trail, is probably the best option as it also has a waist-level viewfinder, useful for taking pictures of flower or for easily checking composition while putting the camera on a rock. It also has some close-focus capabilities. And, very importantly when hiking, is weatherproof. A Yashica T-3 needs a battery but that lasts for months, and you would need certainly no more than a safety spare one. I would be more worried about getting film along the trail. Every now and then you should mail your impressed rolls at home. Try to number them so that you can sort them out better when you come back home.

If you go for a digital one, choose a camera which has GPS capabilities, or a voice recorder, or both. After months of hiking you'll have quite a problem remembering what is what and where is where if you dont' take notes. A Voice recorder and/or a GPS make notes easier. Digital might be the right choice if you are not sure to find film along your journey. I would avoid the small digital cameras as you could regret one day not to have brought with you a camera capable of better image quality. I would not go for anything below the Canon G series as general quality is concerned.

People climbing the 8000m mountains in the '50s and '60s would typically bring Leica IIIx with them. Light and reliable. If you use slide film you need some form of light metering though.

A hiking camera must enter in a readily available pocket. You don't want to have to put down your rucksack and open it every time you want to get a picture. That ends up in not taking the picture when you are tired or when you don't want to "break the rhythm". I would not consider anything that I cannot take in a vest pocket or a waist-bag with me for most of the day.

A Yashica T-3 is the perfect fit for your purpose if you are content with a fixed-length 35mm lens. I really mean T-3, not T-4.

Diapositivo said:

A hiking camera must enter in a readily available pocket. You don't want to have to put down your rucksack and open it every time you want to get a picture. That ends up in not taking the picture when you are tired or when you don't want to "break the rhythm". I would not consider anything that I cannot take in a vest pocket or a waist-bag with me for most of the day.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. I used an Olympus XA for many years. It lived in a small pocket on my pack shoulder strap so it was always available with no effort.