Hello everybody, I would like some suggestions as to what to take on a future trek.
I say "trek", its more just "walking all day in English/Welsh countryside over terrain that may occasionally be steep".
Ive realised that the distance I can comfortably walk is directly proportional to the weight on my back (Im a genius, I know) so I'd really carry as little as possible - ideally nothing at all but I do need a backpack for water/food/extra layers.
This puts me in a dilemma about what to take. Normally I would just bring my DSLR and SLR, but together they add up to a fair amount. So What combination of DSLR (Nikon D3100)/SLR(Olympus OM-2n)/Film compact (Olympus Stylus 115)/Digital compact (Sony W-30) should I use?
I only have a 35mm/1.8 lens for the Nikon so I'd get pretty much the same images as I would with the Olympus (see sig.)
Regarding film I have a choice of TMAX 100,400 (2x36 at each speed) and a stash of slightly expired (May 2011) HP5 and FP4 - I got 7 rolls for £10.95 delivered - if you were watching it on eBay yes that was ME!
Is there any special reason you need both film and d*g*t*l on the same trip? I usually take one or the other, or perhaps a film kit with a negligible-weight d*g*t*l compact in a pocket.
-NT
Nathan Tenny
San Diego, CA, USA
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, they are about the same distance apart.
I would reccomend a Nikon N75 with 28-80mm G lens.
I have been considering a F80 actually to complement my D3100, but right now Id like to stick to my current gear.
Is there any special reason you need both film and d*g*t*l on the same trip? I usually take one or the other, or perhaps a film kit with a negligible-weight d*g*t*l compact in a pocket.
I guess you're right, the most sensible thing is to stick to the one system that serves me the best - which when im travelling is digital because the practicalities far outweigh the generally less satisfactory images produced (at least in my hands). However on this trip I dont anticipate taking a large number of photos (countryside tends to look samey around here) or being in low light situations (my little D3100 is excellent at ISO 6400), which is why Im seriously considering the less practical but far more fun route of 35mm BW photography.
Hmm perhaps just my OM-2n and 400 speed film will do, I'll always have my iPhone 4 on me anyway.
What do you take pictures of? What do you want to do with the images? If it's just to illustrate a web story about your hike, digital sure is easier and a small point and shoot is perfect. If you want wall hanging art from the trip bring an SLR. I usually carry a small digital point and shoot and a 4x5 or Hasselblad if it's a photo trip. If it's just a hike with the family I bring the point and shoot digital most of the time, since they get impatient with the time I spend with the larger cameras to take a shot.
Since you are considering similar formats decide whether or not you want to develop film. Personally, I think film is the best of both worlds since you can print or scan or both. Neither sounds very heavy and could easily be carried in a decent backpack. You didn't mention a tripod or cable release. I would be partial to 400ISO since lighting conditions and decent depth of field would probably be helpful for landscape images. A couple of filters ie yellow, orange and light green would come in handy.
I use a Tamrac camera backpack and have often carried up to 25lbs plus a carbon fiber tripod comfortably. (I'm far from being a youngster but fortunately in good shape) I would add appropriate footware helps.
I also do these sorts of 'treks'. For me the most important thing is weight as I find I can go further and get to more interesting places if I carry less. With that in mind, I would choose your OM2, but I would suggest seeing if you could add a wide angle lens and use that rather than the 50. One camera, one lens and a few rolls of film will fit into one of those belt pouch type camera bags like this. If you've got both hands free could then perhaps consider a tripod.
As a regular (long-distance-)hiker, it's a dilemma I've also often faced.
For the most part, I've gone over to the "dark side" on longer walks because of the weight advantage.
When still using film, I'll either choose a rangefinder kit (more compact and slightly lighter) or a lighter SLR.
My own lens choices are along the lines of 20, 35 & 90mm (depending on the system used).
You could (should?!?) definitely add a wide-angle to your 50mm, maybe a 28 or a 24mm.
People frequently, landscapes/architecture occasionally.
If you want wall hanging art from the trip bring an SLR
Im always on the lookout for the next piece of art I can hang! Uploading to flickr/facebook just does not compare to printing and mounting. But I do the former primarily. I currently scan & print at 8x10 because a local supermarket sells nice black 8x10 frames cheaply.
since they get impatient with the time I spend with the larger cameras to take a shot.
This I did not consider.... Having said that, Im no slouch with my OM gear!
Since you are considering similar formats decide whether or not you want to develop film. Personally, I think film is the best of both worlds since you can print or scan or both. Neither sounds very heavy and could easily be carried in a decent backpack. You didn't mention a tripod or cable release. I would be partial to 400ISO since lighting conditions and decent depth of field would probably be helpful for landscape images. A couple of filters ie yellow, orange and light green would come in handy.
I have a lovely B+W Orange filter and B+W Linear Polariser that I intend on taking. Cable releases and tripods are just things I dont see myself using here; I rarely use them anyway and certainly I dont need the extra weight.
As for backpacks I thought about sticking to my Jansport Trinity. Its a popular school/college backpack - indeed I used it for school originally. I ruled out a cheap but decent North Face one because it was 3L smaller and that extra 3L meant I could carry my sleeping bag, as I often do when couch surfing across the UK. But it does come with proper back support and extra straps etc, so perhaps in the name of comfort It would be worthwhile.
if you could add a wide angle lens and use that rather than the 50
Yeah, when I travel I always want to go wider. Sadly I sold my Tamron 28mm Adaptall and Canon EOS setup (EOS 1n, Canon 22-55mm) in the "Great Equipment Cull of Summer 2011" because I mainly shoot portraiture with my film cameras. Perhaps it would have been prudent to wait a short while, but I hate hanging on to stuff I dont use.
Ok thanks for the advice so far. Ive determined that I need an SLR of some variety. I dont want to get into a film v digital debate (though perhaps I have!) But Im leaning slightly towards B&W film since my best work has come from that, and I need all the help I can get on what will probably be a very dull overcast day
When I need to carry the smallest and lightest photo equipment for hiking and/or biking, I only carry one camera and one lens. Rarely is the camera an SLR because I have the following compacts and rangefinders (listed in descending order of preference) that are smaller and lighter than my smallest and lightest SLR:
1. Compact 35mm film camera with 27mm Vivitar lens
2. Argus C3 rangefinder with a 35mm f/4.5 lens
3. Canon Canonet QL17 G-III 35mm rangefinder with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens
4. Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm rangefinder with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens
5. Argus C3 rangefinder with a 50mm f/3.5 lens
Adv Reply
