Ergs are for energy... slugs are for mass. You talking about E=mc^2?
It seems to me that what I am expending in hauling around mass (RB) is energy. So how much energy will I expend in this endeavor. Just trying to make light of a serious subject.
My camera contribution is 1.2 Stone (16lbs) A Tachihara 4x5, 210mm Sironar 5.6, Caltar 75mm 4.5. One graphmatic, darkcloth, loupe, release, box of film and changing bag, spot meter and filters/shades and of course - Tripod. I can't do it for less. My Rollei SL66 system is just as heavy and I forget all about the pain when I look at the prints. The Rollei/Zeiss is good but 6x6 vs 4x5 - I like my prints large - It probably wouldn't matter if I only cared about 8x10. Now - what about the rest of the indespensables - tent, backpack, sleeping bag, stove , food water and other misc gear. - Yep - 55 to 60 lbs. Now - where is the good scenery? Mt Whitney? Kearsarge Pass? .... Nothing there under 13,000 feet. I think it might kill Sven! Then it would be 60lb pack and a 160lb dead Sven. - Way too much for an area you have to "pack it all out." I guess I'll leave Sven at the camera store. BTW - I did to this hike with even more gear last summer and - yes - it doe's need to get lighter. ---- Do I really need the tent? -- the sleeping bag - ?? Will I have time to cook anyway? Well I am working on it. I do have a LOW gear going up the hills. - I can no longer eat the junk food on a trip like this! (maybe 15 years ago) -Frank
My photos are always without all that distracting color ...
I think that your equation is excellent. I vote for a sherpa to carry the photo gear, the Doritos, and my panting butt. Of course he would probably get smart and drop me, eat the Doritos on his way to the pawn shop to hock the equipment.
As Paul Simon once sang...Some days are diamonds and then there are the boulders in my shoes.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The weird thing is that the defintion of "stone" varies.
Having an English wife, I have asked about stone. Her family and friends use one defintion (13 lbs), freinds in Newcastle 40 miles away seem to think it is 16lbs, and apparently some people go for 14lbs.
Weird folk the English...
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert Kennedy @ Apr 17 2003, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Her family and friends use one defintion (13 lbs), freinds in Newcastle 40 miles away seem to think it is 16lbs, and apparently some people go for 14lbs.
Weird folk the English...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'd call it a tie, more or less, with the USAeans.
At least the British have given grudging acceptance to the metric system. Us, here in the US haven't been able to handle that well - at all.
What we see is Speed Limit signs on the road in LARGE "M.iles P.er H.our" and, - not always - "kph" as a sort of afterthought. Liquids are still in U.S. "Gallons" (do they still use Imperial gallons in Jolly Old?)... temperature in degrees Fahrenheit... Even CANADA (gasp! reports daily weather temperatures in Celsius...
My first encounter with the metric system in "everyday life" (I've been involved in it deeply in the Metrology Labs) was during my first visit to Europe. I think it took nearly six hours to acclimate. I shudder now to think of returning to English units in the darkroom ... going back to ounces and quarts... ugh!!
I suppose there was some sort of romance in the "old" systems ... How many "gills" in a "dram" ... or "scruples" in a pint... ?
I was sort of a fan of collecting obscure measuring units ... Does any one realize there was a "Paris" inch ... Ten(10) to the "Paris" foot?
And British Thermal Units (BTU) - the amount of heat generated by burning one (1) match...
Ed Sukach, FFP.
I use both metric and English units in the darkroom depending on what I'm mixing. If I'm diluting Agfa Neutol WA 1+11 in an 11x14" tray, it's easier to mix 3 oz. of solution to 33 oz. of water, but if I'm making a batch of PMK 1+2+100, I think in ml.
I have no scruples about my pints and drams!
Old Norwegian were - and still are - different as well as confusing. One Norwegian mile is 10km - a lasting source of confusion for (British and American) tourists. The old mile was 9843m - or something like that. The everyday unit was "fjerding", the quarter-mile - on land. At sea, we still call the nautical mile "kvartmil" - another way of saying quarter-mile. a "sea-mile" is four nautical miles...
I still remember "yardsticks" marked in Norwegian inches ("Tommer"), and Norway has been metric since 1876.
So with a century lead over Britain, we are still confused!
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
and so am I.
Aggie's formula I think is missing one variable: how much extra energy does it take with all of that kit (in Lbs, Kgs, or Stones) to wander off the path every time you see something that's possibly scenic, but decide otherwise. Somewhere in there belongs a term for:
Scenic Possibilities Evaluated
------------------------------------------- * It would be worth it in (format) but not in (larger format)
Number Actually Photographed.