How far will you hike with a full frame camera?

[Abitconfused]

These were taken with a Canon Mark II and Sigma 12-24mm. Heavy! But add hiking boots, a pack, water, GPS device and a few extras and the weight adds up.



Oak at 2300 feet, Santa Lucia Range near Big Sur.



Under the huge canopy.

[Downrigger]

Pretty - very nice treatments of a handsome subject. What compels the eye in a subject like this is often hard to restate as an image, and these succeed. In answer to your question, pretty darn far, once you have come across a great subject like this a few times without your gear.

[Manfred M]

I've done several hours at a time, up the side of a volcano in Guatemala and to a Hammar village in the Omo Valley in Ethiopia (had a tripod, flash and three pro lenses along for that one), plus the GPS, water, walking stick, hiking boots, etc..

It was worth it. For more casual stuff I used to carry a D90 with two lightweight kit lenses. I picked up a mFT yesterday, and that will be my main camera when I backpack.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[Glenn NK]

Not far and the distance is shrinking with time.

Many of the converts to M43 are doing so because the gear is getting too heavy.

Glenn

EDIT: I just found this comment on another forum:
MFTs probably do a good enough job for how they view their images (on screen, rarely printing let alone printing large) so why bother lugging around a full DSLR kit. My E-M5, 4 lenses (2 primes and two zooms taking me from 28mm to 600mm FF equivalent) fit in a bag barely bigger than my 7D with grip attached (body only!). But I still use my 7D for wildlife.

[Manfred M]

Glenn - I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I will lug the heavy gear when I expect to be getting high quality, printable images.

I bought a mFT recently for casual shooting or shooting in environments where I don't want to draw attention to myself. If the weather cooperates, I'm hoping to post some shots taken with the PC-E lens on the full frame and some street photography shots using the mFT when I get out over the weekend (I already owned a mFT 14-140mm and 100-300mm lens).

[DanK]

Nice images, and a good question.

When I hike, I usually carry at least one additional lens, sometimes two, and a tripod. Depending on the lenses, this is a lot of weight. I recently bought a 5D3, which adds about 130g compared to my old 50D. It's a lot to lug, but I often print, occasionally large, so I think I will live with it, at least for now. However, this is on day hikes, usually not more than 2 hours in and 2 back. If I were backpacking and had to carry all that camping gear, I would have second thoughts about carrying so much photographic gear--and for that matter, I doubt I would have room for it.

For shorter day hikes when I want ready access, I sometimes carry the camera on my chest, using a Cotton Carrier vest, leaving the tripod and spare lenses on my back. It balances the weight out a bit.

[deetheturk]

Nice Ed,worth the hassle

[RustBeltRaw]

My record is hauling a DSLR, 4 lenses, 2 flashes, and my usual fully-paranoid complement of spares through Istanbul for about 9 miles. Entirely doable, But I had a close look at what I was likely to shoot, and went lighter the next day. Looks like your haul was worth it, too.

[chauncey]

What...are you guys crazy or what. I doubt that I've ever walked more than 30 yards from my truck.

[RichardTaylor]

Good set of photographs. It looks like it was worth it.

When I was a lot younger, like about 50 years ago, I didn't think twice about carrying an SLR, with just one lens, on cross country hikes (sleeping in cabins) up to 5 days (even though you took food for a week or so, and a tent, just in case).
One guy I met was carring a 16mm movie camera and a tripod as well as his food etc.


Nowdays it is just day walks at the most, and they may be in cities or national parks etc. This was taken by my wife whilst vacationing in North America in 2008. It is at the tea house at Lake Annette (a couple of hours walk above Lake Louise), in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. I am carrying a full frame DSLR with a 24-105 lens and a 1.6 crop camera with a 70-300 lens.
In the pack is wet weather gear, some niblies and a bit of water.

IMG_0407 by dicktay2000, on Flickr

[pnodrog]

What...are you guys crazy or what. I doubt that I've ever walked more than 30 yards from my truck.

I am the same - never get more than 30 yards from a supply of wine... Mike may stay even closer...

In fact I lug my gear most places but the heavy tripod sometimes gets left behind.

[lukaswerth]

I have lugged my 8x10" gear (20-25kg) up and down mountains, and I would do so again. Full frame gear is nothing. I take it anywhere I intend to make pictures, selecting lenses for need, of course. (And if I don't intend, what is the use going there?)

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

I'm sure society is getting lazy these days. Might as well just get a helicopter to drop us off on tramps!

[Black Pearl]

Full frame (35mm) digital cameras are not necessarily heavy - for instance my D300s weighs considerably more than a 6D and only a tiny fraction less than a 5D MkIII.

I have lugged 5x4 gear around all day, hiked with a Mamiya C330f kit for years and anyway even my carbon Manfrotto weighs more than my camera so a few grams here or there on a FX/DX body is irrelevant.

[loosecanon]

If its a mile or so then ok the 5D3 and a selection of lenses( 16-35; 24-70; 70-200 + as needed) will come with me, longer walks then its the still heavy 7D and smaller lighter lenses Canon 10-22, 15-85, 70-300. Hot days maybe just the M + 15-85, or even G10.
But I still usually take either a tripod or monopod with me.

[Kris V]

What...are you guys crazy or what. I doubt that I've ever walked more than 30 yards from my truck.

+1

[ajohnw]

Simple - I have never ever tried hiking with a full frame digital and lenses. I have been all over the place with 4 primes and a film camera.

Canon crop - I found a sigma 170-500mm a bit of a cumbersome hindrance but to 300mm fine. Adding full frame wouldn't make much difference and my Canon lenses are full frame.

Then I tried m 4/3 as a replacement for a compact. E-PL1 not too bad so bought an E-P3. A lot better which caused me to abandon a crop upgrade and buy an EM-5 instead.

The earlier quote from another forum is incorrect with the right lenses on the camera. There is negligible difference in results going from crops of around 1.5 to 2. The camera though is entirely different. Also on some the behaviour of sensor / exposure is entirely different as well.

Basically I feel that crops of 1.5 are out and full frame is still in. At some point I might upgrade that. Obvious candidate for me is the 6D as for instance the joystick sticking out of of my 5D drives me up the wall. Problem as I can use some Nikon lenses on m 4/3 I have a few I would like to keep - there doesn't seem to be a Nikon 6D.

Have to laugh though. I've just taken shots to evaluate a 10 to 1 zoom 4/3 lens on m 4/3. No need to change lenses. Results aren't too bad even pixel peeping but no where near as good as more sensible zoom ranges. The flaws can be seen but at least the contrast levels are decent.

The comment from another forum is basically a load of rubbish and purely made to justify what some one does.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

Nikon's 6D is the D610.....other than the fact it is better in just about every way the price point and reason it exists are similar.

[shreds]

I have to agree with Chauncey that the four wheeled camera accessory is certainly useful.

I have no problem taking the kit required but carefully analyse what is likely to be needed before setting out. Usually a D3/D3X body and no more than three lenses.

Sometimes less.