Talusdancers

Mountain Hardwear Dome Perignon. Near Cathedral Peak. Copyright Dan Mitchell.
—–

Outdoor Research Seattle Sombrero. Fletcher Lake. Photo copyright Dan Mitchell.
—–

Light hikng boots, The North Face shorts, Moonstone tights, Marmot windshirt, Nordic Gear hat.
—–

Syltarp set up as a windbreak. Fourth Recess Lake. Photo copyright Dan Mitchell.
—–

Nordic Gear hat. Pioneer Basin. Photo copyright Dan Mitchell.
—–

(Back to Dan’s Equipment List main page.)

There are a number of options here, and your choice will depend on why you take pictures – and the extent to which you want photography to dominate your backcountry experience. The variables – and to some extent they are mutually exclusive – are price, optical quality, versatility and features, size and weight.

A warning… or perhaps an invitation? Backcountry photography can easily come to dominate your packpacking experience if you begin to slip past merely taking snapshots to record your adventure. On the plus side, it focuses (unintended pun) your attention and awareness much more deeply than might otherwise be the case – you begin to notice every little shape of cloud, texture of rock, color of plant, line of ridge and so on. I see much more and much more intensely when I’m carrying a camera and on the prowl for images. On the other hand, you may find that this interferes with other parts of the backpacking experience. First, and significantly, you will carry pounds – possibly many pounds – of extra stuff. Once you slip over the edge and become a tripod-toting, multiple-lens using photo-freak your pack weight will increase significantly. And, in order to keep the equipment handy you are likely to end up with gear hanging from your neck, belt, and pack. And your mileage will diminish. On average, I think it is fair to say that I cover about half the normal distance when I’m focused on photography (another bad pun!) and sometimes less. It is even possible to spend an entire day exploring a single lake. But maybe that is a good thing…

I have come full circle over the years. Many years ago photography was almost my primary reason for backcountry travel. In fact, there was a time when my wife and I took long Sierra trips and carried two cameras, multiple lenses, close-up extension tubes, tripods, filters and perhaps 20 or more rolls of film.

Eventually I got tired of carrying all the extra gear and of feeling obligated to record every experience, and I began to take fewer photos. I reduced my backcountry photo kit to a single miniature Rollei 35 camera and later replaced it with a small Olympus Zoom camera, either of which could be carried in a small bag on my belt.

Lately I’ve been focusing on photography (bad pun!) again during my backcountry travels and adopting the habit described above.

Here are some equipment options to consider.

• Some people don’t take a camera because they feel – with some justification – that it can interfere with the full experience of the backcountry. I sympathize, but I still virtually always carry a camera.
• Friends of mine sometimes carry small disposable cameras. The quality is pretty poor but you can record your adventure on them, and they are small and light and it isn’t a tragedy if you damage or lose one.
• I used to carry a small 35mm SLR camera with telephoto, macro tubes, and a small tripod. This was a great setup and I have lots of great (and lots more not-so-great) slides from trips going back many years. However, this eventually ended up being too much trouble (and weight) and I gave it up.
• Later I got a very small Rollei 35 camera – a very small, completely mechanical camera that almost fit in my pocket – a backcountry photography classic.
• Later I replaced the Rollei with a very nice little Olympus compact film camera.
• Two or three years ago I made the switch to digital and I haven’t looked back. My first good digital camera for backpacking was an Olympus D-40 Zoom, a small 4 megapixel camera that runs on 2 AA batteries. This camera takes surprisingly good pictures – most of the photos on this site prior to April 2004 were take with this camera.
• Though I don’t use one, I’ve seen quite a few people using very compact digital cameras – tiny enough to fit in a pocket. My wife has a nice little Minolta model and I recenty saw good reviews of a Sony 5 megapixel model. Given their small size and extremely light weight, these can be great cameras for capturing the adventure. They will fall a bit short for creating images that can be enlarged and hung on the wall. Battery life also tends to be somewhat short with these models, a problem that is compounded by their reliance on odd proprietary rechargable batteries. If you go out for a weekend and take a few shots this won’t be a problem. If you go out for a week or two and take lots of pictures you are going to need lots of batteries.
• In April 2004 I purchased a very nice Canon Powershot Pro1 digital camera. It is a bit larger than the D-40 but smaller than a 35mm SLR. It weighs a bit more than 1 pound. Its 8 megapixel images are very good and the 7:1 zoom covers plenty of ground. The only downside is that it requires proprietary batteries and will not run on AA batteries.
• See below for a more recent 2005 upgrade of my backcountry photo setup.

My lightweight 2004 backcountry photography kit (which I still use on occasion) includes:

• Canon Powershot Pro 1 camera with neck strap and lens cap
• Small padded LowePro camera bag for camera and a few accessories
• Multiple 1 GB compact flash cards
• Extra rechargable battery with contact cover for longer trips
• Clear UV and polarizing filters, kept in small case attached to my belt or inside a belt pocket pack
• Velbon Maxi-sf tripod
• Lens cleaning fluid and cloth
• Remote control for camera
• Small semi-hard case for small accessories, extra memory cards, and extra batteries

However, my updated DSLR system has largely supplanted the one described above. It currently (April 2006) includes:

• Canon Digital Rebel XT 8 megapixel DSLR
• Canon EF 17-40 f4L lens, Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, Canon EF 50mm f1.4 lens, Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L lens – or a subset of these lenses.
• Velbon 540 Carmagne tripod (“Carmagne” = carbon fiber and magnesium)
• Acratech Ballhead
• Polarizing filter
• Many CF cards – up to 7.5 GB (about 800 images shooting 8 megapixel RAW images on the Rebel XT)
• Batteries – up to 3
• Canon wired remote
• Assorted cleaning and maintenance products
• Extra lens cap and body cap
• Small Tamrac Zoom or Lowepro Toploader bag for camera – worn under pack sternum strap

I have not weighed this setup yet but it should be getting into the 10 pound range. Sigh. Compared to my Canon Pro 1 setup this is slightly heavier. However, the image quality is noticably better. I can get good 12″ x 18″ prints with the Digital Rebel, which is beyond the ability of the Pro 1.

Since everyone has a photo gear wish list, here is mine:

• 1.4x extender
• Canon 5D body
• Neutral density filter
• A couple of graduated filters and holder

***On the trail

• I carry the camera in the small Lowe or Tamrac case strapped around my neck. I tend to run the bag’s straps underneath the sternum strap of my backpack to help keep the camera close to my body. I keep one extra memory card and the electronic remote in this bag with the camera.
• I carry the small bag containing the filters, lens cap, and lens cleaning cloth in a small bag attached to my pack belt. Alterntively I may carry filters in a small filter case attached to the camera bag.
• I keep the tripod in an outer pocket on my pack – typically an easily-accessible outer mesh pocket that doesn’t need to be unzipped. I wish I could keep the tripod more accessible since this system pretty much requires removal of the pack. I do not have a good solution to this yet – so I make do.
• The small back containing extra accessories such as batteries and additional memory cards rides in the top pocket of my backpack. (Be careful to bring some of this equipment along on long day hikes. It won’t do you any good if you leave it back at your base camp.)

A hint for those who wish they could be Ansel Adams but who don’t want to carry view cameras: With a decent digital camera that will shoot in RAW mode (uncompressed format) and a small tripod you can stitch together multiple images to create very large and high quality images. I sometimes shoot exceptional scenes as 2 or more overlapping exposures that I can stitch together in Photoshop to create the equivalant of a 16 megapixel or greater image. Be sure to use manual camera settings – rather than automatic – to ensure consistency of color, exposure, and focus among the shots. The quality can be quite good, but there are some downsides to be aware of. You will consume the storage capacity of your memory cards much more quickly. You’ll need to carry extra batteries. The process is time consuming in the field and back home in front of the computer – this is not for snap-shooters.

***Film or digital camera?

I suppose my answer is obvious by now. At this point in time I really believe that digital has the advantage for almost all users. Two exceptions are, oddly enough, found at opposite ends of the photography spectrum: users of cheap “disposable” film cameras and those admirable characters who tote large format view cameras into the backcountry. (Who, by the way, normally scan the resulting film images into their computers before using digital techniques to prepare and print them.) One situation that may demand film is a trip so long that you cannot possibly carry sufficient batteries for digital photography. The advantages of digital photography in other cases are compelling.

At the low end, an inexpensive digital camera with a couple of memory cards will let you take hundreds of photos and free you from ever having to buy film again. You can probably afford to share your results with more people electronically than if you had to print pictures for all of them. If you will only make small prints or, more likely, post pictures on the web or email them, a simple 3 or 4 megapixel camera may be all you need.

Ultra-light backpackers who want to record their experience will find that the lightest and smallest options are now digital. Some of the newest compact cameras are incredibly tiny, and the best of them take quite decent photos.

Those with more serious aspirations can use one of the “prosumer” “digicams” which, like my Powershot Pro 1, can take very good pictures indeed. These cameras are so versatile that they may eliminate the need to carry extra lenses or close-up lenses. (For example, the built-in lens on my Pro 1 covers a 35mm-equivalent range from a 28mm zoom to a 200mm telephoto.) Such cameras are also small and light, at least in comparison to SLR models. Many of them will let you shoot in uncompressed “RAW” mode so that you’ll have the best possible images to work with when you return home.

Digital SLRs with 6 or 8 megapixel sensors are replacing SLR film cameras for quality photography. Those with investments in film SLR cameras may find that they can at least bring their old lenses into the digital age by using them on one of the new cameras. The sky is the limit in terms of quality… and price. Photographers with deep pockets and the willingness to carry the weight can get SLRs that will produce up to 16 megapixel images. Medium format digital backs with 20+ megapixel resolution are available – for about the price of a new car. But beware – head too far down this path and your focus may shift from backpacking to photography as the weight of your pack doubles.

One of the biggest advantages of digital photography is that the cost of film is not an issue once you purchase enough memory cards. This allows you to take many more pictures and to learn from experience. On a day-hike I may shoot the equivalent of two rolls of 35mm film. I could never have afford to do that with film. I can transfer the images to the computer as soon as I get home and immediately get to work on the pictures while the experience is still fresh in my mind. On several occasions I have noticed something about such a picture, lamented the fact that I could have taken the shot differently, and then gone back the next day to try again.

Don’t be surprised if you return to this page in the near future and find that I’m carrying a digital SLR with multiple zoom lenses. (Update 4/2005: I have upgraded to a DSLR as described above, though I am still carrying only one lens. Additional Update 11/24/05: I’m now carrying multiple lenses, as described above.)

A bit more about my choice of the Canon Digital Rebel XT: I looked at the more expensive (and somewhat larger and heavier) Canon 20D but chose the Digital Rebel instead because it is about $350 less expensive, it has virtually the same image quality, it is smaller and nearly a half pound lighter, it has all the features I really need, and it works with the same high-quality Canon lenses. Another factor is that digital camera bodies are, in a sense, disposable. In the days of film cameras, nothing much changed that would compel one to replace cameras very often. However, now that the “film” is a digital sensor built into the camera, the rapid pace of improvement in sensors leads to more frequent camera replacement. I’d rather replace a $880 camera body than a $1320 camera body in 18-24 months. And right now I’d rather invest the cost difference in good lenses.

The rest of my camera kit remains largely the same with a few exceptions:

• The Digital Rebel uses different batteries than the Pro 1 so I had to pick up some extras. The Rebel batteries are smaller but probably last about as long on the DSLR since the Rebel uses less power.
• I bought a larger and more padded Lowepro Topload Zoom 1 bag – although I often prefer to use the slightly smaller Tamrac Zoom bag.
• I started out using the Canon EF-S 17-85mm zoom which is equivalent to a 28-136mm zoom on a 35mm camera. This is a pretty good all-in-one lens if you don’t want to get into the multiple lens routine.
• I picked up a small wired remote shutter release to assist with tripod shots.
• I purchased a more substantial and costly carbon fiber and magnesium tripod: the Carmagne 540 from Velbon. Including its 3-way head it weighs a bit more than 3 1/2 pounds. I replaced this head with the Acratech Ballhead – very expensive, but very nice and more than a half pound lighter.

We’ll see how long the Digital Rebel body lasts. Digital camara technology moves forward fairly quickly. As of this writing there are now 12 megapixel Nikon and 16 megapixel Canon DSLRs along with 39 (!) megapixel medium format backs – at stratospheric prices. However, if the pattern holds, these types of sensors should make it to cameras that I can afford before long.

I think that a nice 32 megapixel camera would be about right… especially if it weights a pound and a half or so.

… though in my dreams I imagine a very small medium-format view camera with a 25-35 megapixel back that would only weigh a few pounds. It could happen.

Of course, there is more to becoming the next Ansel Adams than acquiring a fancy camera…

(Back to Dan’s Equipment List main page.)

—–

Updated info on Mammoth to South Lake 2005.
—–