Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: HSakols on March 25, 2015, 09:53:32 am
-
This summer I plan on backpacking for 30 + days in northern Yosemite. This is a once in a lifetime adventure, that I want to do while I'm still physically capable. We will have friends help resupply our food and supplies and hopefully we will get some pack animals to deliver our beer. I keep going back and forth regarding what camera to bring a Nikon D800 or an Olympus micro four thirds. I never print larger than A2 and rarely at that. Still I find that the files are easier to work with in Lightroom, especially correcting highlights and I prefer the light meter. I definitely see the difference in better dynamic range when shooting in low light. Right now I'm looking at bringing a Nikon D800, the 16-35 zoom, a 50mm 1.8, and the 70-200 f4. I also will carry a carbon fiber tripod. I am working hard to save weight in other areas so I can carry my gear. I know only I can answer this question and if it weren't for the weight question the decision would be easy.
-
On two occasions recently I took smaller, less capable cameras with me on backpacking trips where I was shooting video. I got paid to shoot the video and the still camera was just for myself. Unfortunately you never know what you might find when you might want greater dynamic range and larger files. I have regretted my decision on both of those trips. I can't advise you on what to do. I can only say I wished I had made a different choice and carried the heavier weight.
-
As you say, only you can decide - as I had to recently when I went to Japan. I had to balance the little bit of extra resolution and DR I would get with my D600 kit against the greater freedom and enjoyment of the non-photographic aspects that the E-M1 gear would provide. I ended up taking the latter, with the 12-60 and 50-200mm zooms. I have never regretted the decision and I am printing up to 18 x 24 inches. Of course the D800 offers more of a resolution edge over M4/3 than does the D600. Anyway, sounds like a great trip!
-
How leisurely is your pace? I assume you are training with your expected pack weight or a bit more. If you are going to take time outs for photography and 10 minute rest stops every 2 hours to change socks, wolf down some trail calories, and hydrate, you may be fine taking that weight. If by the time you go, you haven't trained up to carrying the full pack weight all day with some elevation, you probably should trim the weight some.
-
You don't say how old or in what shape you are in. If you are young enough and fit enough, take the Nikon, although I would forget the zooms and take a few primes. The telephoto is for what? Animals?
That said, I have some shots done with an Oly m4/3 that are widely accepted in gallery exhibitions at 13x19 print size, and you would probably shoot more with the smaller camera.
-
If you can carry it why not?
You could replace the 16-35 with a 18-35 ( I just bought one after weeks of going back and forth) or a 20 F1.8. Half the weight with similar quality for the 18-35. You will lose some weather resistance but won't miss the VR if you'll have a tripod anyway.
Come to think of with a D800 and 18-35/20, 50, 70-200 F4 you could be only 2-3 pounds ahead of a more rugged m43 kit, I'm thinking EM-1/GH-4 with 12-40 F2.8, 25 F1.4 or F1.8, 35-100 F2.8 or 40-150 F2.8 (add a pound for the latter in return for more range). You'll need more batteries for m43 also but you'll also gain some extra weather resistance if don't care for a waterproof sleeve.
-
You had me at "this is a once in a lifetime adventure"
Take the D800. And the long zoom. The 70-200 f4 is one of the best lenses I own.
-
This is a tough question. I'm a hiker, which is my passion outside of photography (which is work). I prefer to go as light as possible, mostly because at my age I need that. So for me, a P+S is fine, and a mirrorless is a luxury. But I am not hiking to take photos.
So here's my question: what is the primary purpose of this trip? If it's photography, then by all means take the D800 and the tripod and the lenses. (That 70-200 would be key for a lot of landscapes, at least the way I like to shoot.) If the purpose is the hiking part, and the photos are just to document that, then I would take a smaller camera.
Making good photos -- good enough to justify carrying the gear -- is a time consuming project, *and* you need to be in the right spot at the right light. That may mean stopping very early in the day if you find a good photo opportunity but need to wait for evening light. It may mean spending several hours in one place shooting wildflowers, or waiting for the sun to illuminate the peak reflected in the small glacial lake. All of those things are wonderful, but if you have to make miles for any reason, they will prevent you from doing so.
There is no one right answer. I hope you have an amazing trip. (Also, having pack animals bring you beer is the greatest idea ever.)
-
Hiking is my thing: go for the better IQ. By the time you put in your backpack a change of shirts, sweater, shell, lunch, beverage, tripod and a couple of lenses the difference in the weight of the bodies is really immaterial. My approach is to mount a zoom while moving (24-120/4) and to bring out appropriate primes once there. YMMV.
Enjoy the trip.
Jack
-
Nothing has changed since the old days, take along the best camera you can carry (and a pano head if quality is really important to you).
There are many other items, starting with yourself (no idea if this applies to you of course), your pack and shoes, whose weight can be optimized without real negative impact on your hiking experience.
The weight of the camera body is all but negligible in the grand scheme of things when doing multi-hiking.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Take the D800. And the long zoom. The 70-200 f4 is one of the best lenses I own.
I concur and I use this focal length quite a bit. Thanks for all your thoughts.
-
To put it in perspective, consider packing in the weight of a 4x5, 2 or 3 lenses in boards, a wooden tripod strong enough to support the camera, and a dozen loaded film holders. That's what our Adams, Weston, et al predecessors felt was the reasonable price to pay to make the images they wanted. Do you want to make the best images you can make or do you want to make the best images you can with the equipment you have with you?
-
Yes, Weston and Adams had some solid mountaineering skills as well as stamina. The early Sierra Club Trips today would be considered brutal, yet these trips were not short of participants. Before digital I would backpack with a Bronica Sqa, 3 lenses, and could go for six days. This included the bulky bear can that everyone is required to store food in. Sorry I ended my sentence in a preposition. On this trip I will have to carry two bear cans, a 1.5lb voltaic solar charger, and my D800. We will obviously have to base camp early on to allow us time to lighten the load (eat). I just replaced a down sleeping bag I have used since 1986 with a 2 lb down bag that compresses into nothing.
-
This is a great question. You'll get all kinds of replies. But I don't think the answer is really related to your equipment -- it's much more related to how young and fit you are!
When I was in my 20s and in the prime of life, I was able to run a marathon under 3 hours and would have thought nothing of hauling a camera as heavy as the D800 with a few big lenses on a long backpacking trip. No big deal.
At age 56, well, let's just say I bought a Nikon D5200 last year for hiking and haven't regretted it at all. I carry with it just one lens -- the Nikon 18-140 -- on backpacking trips and long day hikes. Weight does matter when you are hiking all day in the mountains at age 50-something. It matters a lot.
One point that doesn't get discussed enough is the hassle of changing lenses while hiking in the wilderness. That really slows you down when you pause to take a shot on the trail. And it annoys your hiking partners if they have to wait very often while you fiddle with lenses. When you're on the trail, you want to keep moving.
I have a D800 and 2 of the 3 lenses you mention. I don't take them backpacking. That's OK. The D5200 and my travel zoom do a good enough job. Just get out there and put on the miles! Don't worry too much about your equipment.
John Swenson
Bend, OR
-
Steve, just as there are big 135 format cameras and small 135 format cameras, there are lightweight 4 x 5 cameras and lenses, and heavyweight 4 x 5 cameras and lenses. There are 4 x 5 field folders and 150mm ("normal") lenses that weigh less than 2 kg in all. A popular lens, with shutter, weighs 4 oz/ 130 grams. The real weight is in carrying the film holders.
-
With failing health, and two brutal surgeries in the past year, many "once in a lifetime" trips are beyond me now. So from my perspective, take the best camera you own, train like heck to be in peak physical shape, and don't look back!!!
-
Lets put things into a perspective. Years ago when the 5D (mkI) came out I would haul that with big lenses on my trips. That was an excellent camera. I didn't think twice. That was my "D800" back then. Now a days my E-M1 blows it away, and also matches my 5DmkII easily. In the last few years ive traveled on some amazing trips with just an X100 and a Leica M8 and made amazing images. I've also traveled with a P45 when I wanted "extreme quality." In reality, I found my best images were not gear specific at all. It was all timing and being in the right places. Any of my cameras would have made the exact same image were I in the same place at the same time. A little bit of extra resolution would have made no difference, as would any extra dynamic range. (bracketing anybody...?) I have a 150" x 24" panorama in my living room that came from the X100. Its detail up close is astounding. Yes there is a difference in certain situations between the cameras...but most situations don't take advantage of that is what I have found.
I much prefer my E-M1 in most situations with the 12-40 and the 40-150 than carry extra weight. It allows me to work more efficiently than my Canon DSLRs too.
You won't be losing anything in the end. Its just perceived. And if you know how to upres a file properly and edit it for the size of the print, you can still print decently large with 12mp. I have 30" prints made from the E-M1 that nobody would think twice about. The sensor size drove me nuts for a long time since I am a large sensor fan...but once I saw that I could easily make large prints if the effort from beginning to end was there...the E-m1 won the battle.
Take what you love to work with and enjoy using the most. Bottom line. I love medium format...but when im not working, I leave those bricks at home.
-
It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it ...
Always and without exception.
-
This would be a once in a lifetime trip for me, and I'd want the best I could get in terms of quality, so I'd take my D800. The trick when it comes to carrying extra weight, is to keep your own weight down (ensure you're not carrying a beer-belly), and make sure that you're hill-fit. If it were me, I'd also carry my X100s as a back-up.
-
It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it ...
Always and without exception.
Geez, you sound like my wife :D!
-
It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it ...
Always and without exception.
If this were even remotely true I would not be able to lift my backpack -- or my camera bag.
-
This summer I plan on backpacking for 30 + days in northern Yosemite. This is a once in a lifetime adventure, that I want to do while I'm still physically capable. We will have friends help resupply our food and supplies and hopefully we will get some pack animals to deliver our beer. I keep going back and forth regarding what camera to bring a Nikon D800 or an Olympus micro four thirds. I never print larger than A2 and rarely at that. Still I find that the files are easier to work with in Lightroom, especially correcting highlights and I prefer the light meter. I definitely see the difference in better dynamic range when shooting in low light. Right now I'm looking at bringing a Nikon D800, the 16-35 zoom, a 50mm 1.8, and the 70-200 f4. I also will carry a carbon fiber tripod. I am working hard to save weight in other areas so I can carry my gear. I know only I can answer this question and if it weren't for the weight question the decision would be easy.
Depends on:
1. What is the real purpose of the trip...photography or the hiking?
2. What is your opinion of the quality difference of the images and how will you feel having one versus the other?
3. Will carrying the heavier gear hinder the other participants or jeopardize your ability to enjoy the experience?
I tend to hate the carrying of the equipment, but am usually glad I did afterwards. Think of it like working out. You might not want to go work out, but after the little bit of pain experienced during it, you get lots of enjoyment and satisfaction afterwards!
If I had to choose between my D810 or D7100, I would 1st determine if I could get the images I wanted with each. If both can execute the images, I probably go for the D810. Of course this is swayed by the fact that the lenses and other gear wouldn't change all that much so I'm just comparing weight and size or the bodies.
-
This summer I plan on backpacking for 30 + days in northern Yosemite. This is a once in a lifetime adventure, that I want to do while I'm still physically capable. We will have friends help resupply our food and supplies and hopefully we will get some pack animals to deliver our beer. I keep going back and forth regarding what camera to bring a Nikon D800 or an Olympus micro four thirds. I never print larger than A2 and rarely at that. Still I find that the files are easier to work with in Lightroom, especially correcting highlights and I prefer the light meter. I definitely see the difference in better dynamic range when shooting in low light. Right now I'm looking at bringing a Nikon D800, the 16-35 zoom, a 50mm 1.8, and the 70-200 f4. I also will carry a carbon fiber tripod. I am working hard to save weight in other areas so I can carry my gear. I know only I can answer this question and if it weren't for the weight question the decision would be easy.
I would take the D800 if you can carry it and a small backup camera. I think you would regret it you didn't and you had amazing opportunities during your hike.
-
I'm In late 60s , lost a vision in one eye, a city guy, travelled by myself. D800e, 16-35, 28-300, 80-400, Gitzo tripod, various accessories. Travelled thru' N.M, Utah, Az, Nevada, hiked thru' all national parks. Travelled by myself thru' India same gear, I wouldn't change a thing. Now I switched to Leica M & Leica V-Lux. Not a significant savings in weight from D800e & Leica M, But the D.R of D800 series guarantees you that you don't lose a single shot. To me it is a no brainer - take your D800 & grab appropriate zooms, if you must take bean bags in lieu of Tripod. IMHO.
-
Sean, you may be a big guy. I am a small woman. If I use the "carry 1/4 of your body weight" limit often cited by backpackers as a good guideline to safe packing, that's 30 pounds. I have done 1/3 my body weight, 40#, but it wasn't pretty and I was s-l-o-w. Some, perhaps a big chunk, of that 30# may be in water, if you are traveling through areas where water is widely spaced. How much gear you can carry depends on your size and your terrain. Answer will be different in different situations.
-
http://postholer.com/journal/viewGearlist.php?sid=3f4fd020c44d6012cdaba7ec3ac1dd32&event_id=2332
Take a look at my ultralight through hiking gear list which includes the d810 setup, 3 lenses, tripod, and required electronics and filters. The total setup weighs 10.4lbs. The rest of my gear comes out to around 11lbs.
+1 Ken: Valid point, if you look at my etsy, 60% of these are shot on a Pentax WG3 a P+S that weighs 5ozs. The RX100 is a fantastic P+S choice.
+1 Nancy: my tachihara 4x5 setup weighs less than my d810 setup.
-1Herbc: The 70-200/4 is good for compression
-1 Jack/Bernard: 10lbs of additional weight is hugely significant, I count ounces when packing for long through hikes and losing ounces often costs heaps of money
+1 Photogap: Life is short!
-5 John: This is the advice of an extreme novice with no experience
Bring your d800 and an rx100 as backup. Ditch the solar charger, bring extra batteries. Talk to me about gear choices, I have spent way too much of my time researching gear choices. Your stove for example should cost you $4 and weigh 3 grams; you’ll use denatured alcohol for fuel. You don’t need 2 bear cans, bring one; I promise you’re not going to have bear problems. You can always hike from bear box to bear box to stow the surplus. Plus you have VVR and Muir trail ranch to resupply at if you’re going south.
-
I will add that this is one area where digital lags film in an odd sort of way. Basically you could carry and F4 or a FM and the image quality was identical and based more on lens, film and technique. With digital, the quality ceiling is built into the camera.
This is why I find it hilarious when, all else equal, anyone would choose a camera with worse image quality over one with better performance.
-
-1 Jack/Bernard: 10lbs of additional weight is hugely significant, I count ounces when packing for long through hikes and losing ounces often costs heaps of money
Yes, it is. I don't think I ever wrote the contrary. In my view a D810 is typically less than one lb heavier than a Sony a7r, that is a lot less than the differnce between the body weigth of someone doing 30 min excercice a day and someone doing too little. Or the difference between a lightweight pack and a normal one.
I used to be able trek 15+ miles a day over 4,000+ feet altitude difference with a full 4x5 kit then with a D3x and 300f2.8 + 5 series Gitzo tripod and pano kit representing about 24 lb of photo gear... so I know what too heavy is. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it ...
Always and without exception.
iff "have something extra" costs nothing.
-
It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it ...
Always and without exception.
iff "have something extra" costs nothing.
While costs of all types always need to be considered, the statement from John Koerner is always true. The fact that we might not be willing or are unable to pay the cost does not negate it. In that case we have chosen or have been forced to have less.
In the particular case of the OP, the cost is size and mass to be packed and carried.
-
Ah, Excel. Nice list, Maddogmurph! "Vitamin I" (that's ibuprofen, folks) - funny. Best value per milligram on the trail. Trail geek + photo geek = geek squared.
-
While costs of all types always need to be considered, the statement from John Koerner is always true.
Only if we take "need something extra" to be absolute.
Is it really the case that there will be an absolute need to have such-and-such IQ for a particular photo; or is it that having such-and-such IQ for a particular photo may lead to certain benefits, and we should think about costs & benefits.
-
In my view a D810 is typically less than one lb heavier than a Sony a7r
I spent a lot of time deliberating between these two setups. The a7r takes 340 shots on a 1.5oz battery @ 1080Mah. The d810 takes 1,200 shots on a 3.0oz batter at 1900Mah. If I'm estimating taking 500 shots per day that's 3,500 shots in 7days.
The a7r would need 11 batteries vs 3 batteries on the d810 which makes the total carried weight difference 9oz between the two cameras under a 7 day field trip. This basically negates if you do any night shooting, or if you're out in the field for longer term periods.
31oz(Camera) + 9oz(Batteries) = 40 oz for d810
14.5oz(Camera) + 16.5oz(Batteries) = 31 oz for a7r
In regards to the "It is better to have something extra and not need it ... than to need something extra and not have it"
The fact is that typically you need very little. Need vs want relates to survival. You don't need a camera at all, you want it. You don't need toilet paper, you want it. If you're going to bring items you want that are heavy, you need to have the rest of your list only include the things you need otherwise you'll likely encounter problems with injury, lethargy, exhaustion, & fatigue which can cut your trip short and keep you from achieving your goal, or worse.
-
If you want to enjoy your trip and do hiking, I would try to carry minimal gear. If you primary reason for the trip is shooting, take a mule if you can.
-
D800's internal metal frame near the tripod mount can be easily broken and this is a well-known issue. If it ever happened to you on the hike, it would definitely ruin your photography. Perhaps you can carry some other camera instead.
-
D800's internal metal frame near the tripod mount can be easily broken and this is a well-known issue. If it ever happened to you on the hike, it would definitely ruin your photography. Perhaps you can carry some other camera instead.
Even if that were the case, Arca swiss compatible brackets such as the RRS L brackets remove any possibility of this happening and have been considered for years pretty much mandatory for field tripod work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have walked the Annapurna Circuit several times with SLR or DSLR systems, last time with Canon EOS-5D and 24-105 zoom. Also once with fairly large Canon XH-A1 video camera (actually a total of 52 days of trekking), and last year we hiked to Annapurna Sanctuary with D800e and 24-120mm zoom. During the film days I carried two Olympus OM bodies and 3-4 lenses + Widelux F7 panoramic camera, plus 5 kg of film…
Never regretted having the gear with me, the results speak for themselves. And yes, getting maximum dynamic range is more beneficial than a lot of pixels, but with D8xx cameras you have them both. I do not carry tripods by the way, heavy and clumsy. Leaning against trees etc or resting the camera on a rock or something works well enough for me.
-
I used to lug around a Pentax 6x7 with 3 lenses, film and a heavy tripod. Yes, the setup delivered great photos...but with all that weight came fatigue which in turn affected my photography.
Bottom line, if you get too tired from trekking, you'll most likely not shoot the same as if you were fresh. Keep you entire setup to minimum weight and you'll enjoy the experience much more. I found this to be true for my photography. Being tired ruins the joy in photography. Every ounce hurts when you are trekking.
-
IMO if you are thinking about leaving the D800 to save weight, the better solution is just to leave one D800 lens behind rather than to drop down to lower resolution gear.
-
Even if that were the case, Arca swiss compatible brackets such as the RRS L brackets remove any possibility of this happening and have been considered for years pretty much mandatory for field tripod work.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, they can't because it's a defect inherent to D800.
-
No, they can't because it's a defect inherent to D800.
Never heard of it, never experienced it. Besides, the way the RRS brackets spreads the physical stress over the full surface of the underbody of the D800, there is just no way a possible weakness of the tripod attachment part would have any impact.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
D800's internal metal frame near the tripod mount can be easily broken and this is a well-known issue. If it ever happened to you on the hike, it would definitely ruin your photography. Perhaps you can carry some other camera instead.
They used to say that you could use a Nikon as a hammer without any problem...
I think it will still counts for the D4 bodies, but not for the d800's...
On the other hand; the d800 bodies have been working flawless for me from the beginning they were introduced.
on topic: yes i would carry a d800 body and some lenses if i think i would want to do some serious photography.
And also a tripod - for where i usually go - above 2000m- there are no trees. For me 'the standpoint' is one of the most important things in making a photograph.
-
Yes, the limiting factor here is how much weight I can safely carry. At least I do know what I'm getting myself into. I've backpacked in the Sierra Nevada hundreds of times. What is strange is when I traveled to Turkey this fall, I brought along just an Olympus EPL5 with no tripod and was satisfied. However, I was traveling with a group of friends and the main purpose of the trip was not photography. This is different because it is what I'm most interested in photographing and eventually printing. I will carry a carbon fiber tripod and my d800 has a L bracket. This is essential for mounting my 70-200 in a vertical position. Once again I appreciate everyone chiming in and behaving themselves. Over the weekend (well over the last two years) I rebuilt my website. If you look at my Tuolumne Meadows Gallery you get a sense of what I like to do.
www.yosemitecollection.com
-
If it were me, I thnk if take the d800 and just a 50mm lens (small). I'd crop cor short telephoto and shoot panoramas for wide angle an stitch in the computer.
Just one question: how will you charge the batteries?
-
Thanks to a recommendation from these forums. http://www.voltaicsystems.com/7-watt-kit
-
For what it's worth, I'm glad I took my D800e, RRS -24L tripod, three Zeiss lenses, and the RRS multi-row pano kit on my multiday hike of the Mildford Track in New Zealand a few years ago. The Milford Track is regularly listed as one of the top 5 multi-day hikes in the world, and I was doing it just to take pictures.
Now, because I went on the trek with 4 days notice, I went with the fully supported option. That meant I only had to carry a day pack holding a change of clothes, lunch, water, rain gear, and my photo gear---no tent, sleeping bag, or multiple days of food.
I'm glad I did it. The memories are incredible; the photos are some of my best. Could I have captured the same images with a "lesser" set up? Sure. But, I would know the difference when I looked at the prints---others probably wouldn't notice. So, I have the memories and the images.
Take the camera. Take a good lens or two, and a tripod. And have a great trip. I'm jealous you're getting to do it.
Jeff
-
this sounds like a golden excuse to sell both and buy something else
-
Sean, you may be a big guy. I am a small woman. If I use the "carry 1/4 of your body weight" limit often cited by backpackers as a good guideline to safe packing, that's 30 pounds. I have done 1/3 my body weight, 40#, but it wasn't pretty and I was s-l-o-w. Some, perhaps a big chunk, of that 30# may be in water, if you are traveling through areas where water is widely spaced. How much gear you can carry depends on your size and your terrain. Answer will be different in different situations.
:) Nancy, I'm 5' 6.5" @ 170lbs, so not in a great hiking shape by any stretch of imagination, just a strong desire for good photography & common sense that's it.
I agree with Bernard @ RRS L-bracket quality it can take a abuse & have no effect on D800.
-
Sean, you may be a big guy. I am a small woman. If I use the "carry 1/4 of your body weight" limit often cited by backpackers as a good guideline to safe packing, that's 30 pounds. I have done 1/3 my body weight, 40#, but it wasn't pretty and I was s-l-o-w. Some, perhaps a big chunk, of that 30# may be in water, if you are traveling through areas where water is widely spaced. How much gear you can carry depends on your size and your terrain. Answer will be different in different situations.
First, everyone has to consider their own situation and limitations. Some people have lower thresholds for pain and discomfort. Others very high. As a point of comparison, "The average weight carried by a soldier on a dismounted operation is about 100 pounds, including a 30- to 40-pound rucksack..."
The original poster mentioned 2 options and so we should be concentrating on those 2 options for him; giving advice to the best of our knowledge to help him make his own choice. Since we don't really know all the details it becomes hard to give concrete advice. I'm the type that will lean toward better quality photography. Others might want to 'enjoy' the trip more. I can honestly say that I have never gotten back from a trip and said "I'm glad I didn't pack the good equipment!" I'm more likely to skimp on everything else because from the time the trip is over until I die, the photos will be what I cherish. I'll forget the pain, but remember the photos.
BTW, w/ respect to D800 frame cracks, I was under the impression that it was on the back plane and not the bottom. I know the D810 was redesigned to have a thicker frame and not turn the tight corner where the crack occurs on the D800. But I can't fathom how using a custom plate would not be better than screwing into the tripod socket.
-
My L bracket (Kirk one-piece) saved my 6D's bacon about two weeks ago when I slipped and came down hard on my side, elbow, and left rear corner of the camera. There's a decent scratch in the L bracket (and on me), and a perfectly functioning 6D.
-
Even if that were the case, Arca swiss compatible brackets such as the RRS L brackets remove any possibility of this happening and have been considered for years pretty much mandatory for field tripod work.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's true if the force imposed is toward the bracket. The fact there is a thick plate under the camera has no influence if the force is not directed toward that plate, such as when carrying a camera mounted on a tripod. Forces in other directions stress only the tripod attachment point of the camera.
-
True enough. So I am happy the camera landed on its L bracket.
-
I too have been photographing the Sierra Range for decades, when you say Northern Yosemite are we talking
out of Twin Lakes area? If yes, then make sure you include the lakes east of Finger Peaks (Sawtooth Ridge),
Slide Canyon has numerous places, Seavey Pass area has some pretty lakes hidden away from the trail that
are worth visiting, Matterhorn Canyon from the Burro Pass area can be sublime with the right light as can be
the Upper McCabe Lake area at sunset.
Agree with the folks who say that you should carry the best equipment (including tripod) you can carry, period.
For snapshots along the trail and during harsh light take a small point and shoot, when your doing your serious
stuff I am assuming you will be taking the time to scout out locations each day so you can go back for the golden
hours to capture those money makers with you D800.
-
That's true if the force imposed is toward the bracket. The fact there is a thick plate under the camera has no influence if the force is not directed toward that plate, such as when carrying a camera mounted on a tripod. Forces in other directions stress only the tripod attachment point of the camera.
No, that is not the case. Torque will be carried mostly by the under body plate. I would argue that it is when a torque is applied that the reduction of stress on the tripod attachement point is the most valuable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nope. Have travelled with my D800e and recently D810 on such outings.
I have a small collection of excellent small(ish) light (kinda) lenses - 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 70-200 f/4 VR. And a great, less often utilized Zeiss 35 2.0 (manual focus). Perfect for me, great selection. Some days I leave a lens or two back in the car/hotel. Small bag. GREAT image quality. There are some fantastic mirrorless systems available now too... but I wouldn't spend the money to acquire one if I didn't have it already.
Having said all that, I shoot primarily landscape so the corner/edge performance is really really important for me. If I was shooting street, candids, or other then I wouldn't be so particular about corner quality.
Hope this helped a bit.
Stephen
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenstarkman
-
I agree with Bernard's reply.
-
Ok, I need someone to explain this to me. If a camera is attached to an Arca style aluminum plate by a single screw into the tripod socket of the camera, and the plate is clamped into a tripod head, how are the forces on the camera any different than if the camera was directly screwed to a tripod head using the same tripod socket? I can see how downward forces would be better distributed if the Arca plate covers more of the camera's bottom plate than a tripod head would. But if, for instance, you pull straight up on the camera, the plate supplies no additional support or force distribution at all no matter how big the plate is. If you push forward or backward on the top of the camera there's a little more support across the front edge or back edge of the camera's bottom plate, again, *if* the Arca plate covers a larger area of the camera's bottom plate than a tripod head alone would. But the forces acting on the camera's tripod socket are the same. It would be different if the Arca plate were glued to the camera, but it's just attached at a single point, exactly like it would be if there were no plate and the camera was attached to the tripod head directly by its tripod socket. I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't get it.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I'd vote to endure the pain of the heavier camera on the backpacking trip too.
-
Ok, I need someone to explain this to me. If a camera is attached to an Arca style aluminum plate by a single screw into the tripod socket of the camera, and the plate is clamped into a tripod head, how are the forces on the camera any different than if the camera was directly screwed to a tripod head using the same tripod socket? I can see how downward forces would be better distributed if the Arca plate covers more of the camera's bottom plate than a tripod head would. But if, for instance, you pull straight up on the camera, the plate supplies no additional support or force distribution at all no matter how big the plate is. If you push forward or backward on the top of the camera there's a little more support across the front edge or back edge of the camera's bottom plate, again, *if* the Arca plate covers a larger area of the camera's bottom plate than a tripod head alone would. But the forces acting on the camera's tripod socket are the same. It would be different if the Arca plate were glued to the camera, but it's just attached at a single point, exactly like it would be if there were no plate and the camera was attached to the tripod head directly by its tripod socket. I'm willing to be wrong, but I just don't get it.
You are obviously correct that there is no difference if the force applied is a straight pull, but most failures - I would imagine since I have never heard of one - do happen more when a strong torque is applied to the screw.
The RRS brackets have a lot of value here because they wrap around past the edge of the bottom plate and therefore are able to increase the size of the area resisting the torque. They are indeed de facto larger than most tripod support plates.
But this is again very theoretical since I have never heard of a particular failure in this area, nor have experience it and I am not particularly kind with my cameras and tend to use heavy lenses... and it is indeed not the point of this thread. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
then make sure you include the lakes east of Finger Peaks (Sawtooth Ridge)
Oh yes we will be there!
-
I’m sure I’m in the minority here, but I’ve not been overly impressed with Yosemite and the Sierras. I’d chose Utah over Yosemite any day. I do very much enjoy the bristlecone pines however.
I did a week in the Sierras with a 5D2, 16-35, 100 macro, and tripod. I survived. The biggest challenge was getting all the food in the bear-proof container. (Take Tuaca instead of beer. It is lighter, tastier and doubles as dessert.) I think you need to simplify your kit. I recommend the D800, 16-35, and an 85mm or 100mm (macro not required). The 50mm is too close to 35mm and therefore can be covered by cropping a 35mm shot. And I think the 70-200 is overkill. If you need something longer, just crop the 85/100 image a bit. For me personally, I'm not into really wide angles, so a 24-105 would be all I would need.
-
Well, I did take my D800e on a trip though India. On last day, as bell hop (yes, same chap from Grand Budapest Hotel) ;) came over to pick up the luggage to take me to airport for a flight back home, I reached down to hand him the bag, the camera slipped off the shoulder & fell @ 3ft on to the pristine marble floor of Umaid Bhavan palace Hotel, Jodhpur. Of course it hit at the thinnest edge where battery compartment door & frame met. It cracked, I couldn't get the fully charged battery out, I could've but didn't try hard enough. Upon arriving back in US of A, went straight to camera dealer (who I did not buy the camera from, in fact it was a gray mkt, purchased in Mumbai, hence no RRS plate. he fixed it as good as new in may be 30 secs. He said that bottom plate can be replaced but it don't need be. He also said that's the first time he saw it broke, I must've hit it at the perfect angle, but it did kept on working, I traded it in after 18 more months of perfect usage & more travel. Extremely rugged camera. :)
-
This week our crew had the week off from work so we decided to get started even though the biggest storm of the year was heading our way. We pretty much bush whacked our way in and slogged through snow on our way out, with a few novice Nature Bridge (http://www.naturebridge.org) instructors. What was most helpful was to discuss realistically how much we could carry and to think about what light food we could eat. I learned that I must have the Nikon D800 as well as my Olympus EPL5 with a 17mm lens. Unfortunately, toward the end of the trip, I slipped into a creek with my Olympus briefly soaking it. I still haven't powered it up. I have attached some some photos.
-
I took my D800E and 24-70 f2.8 backpacking on the black forest trail in PA last year...While hiking it spent most of its time in a bag I had lashed to my backpack and really only came out when I had camp setup and went out to do some exploring, or had stopped to take in a view.
Just be careful, don't take any chances or do anything stupid and you should be fine. Also, make sure to get it insured. I have all my gear insured through Farmers insurance.
All that said, I am really looking to go a smaller camera for those trips and am thinking of the Nikon 1/J5 mirrorless. This isn't because I am afraid of damaging the better camera I have (which is now a D810), it's because of the weight of the larger camera and lens.
-
All that said, I am really looking to go a smaller camera for those trips and am thinking of the Nikon 1/J5 mirrorless. This isn't because I am afraid of damaging the better camera I have (which is now a D810), it's because of the weight of the larger camera and lens.
The J5 appears to be a major advance for the Nikon 1 series. This being said, even though the new sensor seems to deliver much cleaner images at low ISO, I still doubt it could come close to the Sony a5100 from am image quality standpoint, without being that much smaller.
Btw, I used the 1 series for some time and I used to own pretty much the full lenses set and several bodies. To me the system still has the best AF short of high end DSLRs. The 32mm is a truly excellent lens with a great look and the 18mm is also very good, I was less excited by the rest of the range.
I am also looking for a credible super light landscape set up, and my intent is to try some of the Leica M lenses with an adapter for the a5100.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just keep the lens detached from the body. Even well packed and padded, the D800 is known to be fragile and many of these have developed cracks in the magnesium frame causing nikon to say that the camera is totaled. I slipped and fell onto my butt. The backpack never hit the ground. My 70-200 snapped right off the camera mount from the sudden deceleration and torque.
-
Here is the bottom line.
You take the M4/3 and a long lens, the nikon and a wide lens.
You shoot 90% landscape ( I doubt 500 images a day)
When you get home you will see you didn't use your long lenses much and the pix with long lenses aren't the ones you like the most.
Ex went to the central Artic to shoot the caribou migration of the Beverly Herd I had two systems cannon with 500 m f4, normal and wide and carried film Rollie with three lenses, filters and etc 45lbs incl tripod!
Imagine the images I took and which one were printed, a close up of a caribou is not that interesting but a wide angle picture of colorful bogs with a stream of clear fresh water bordered by wild flowers might be.
Have a great trip,
-
After hours of planning, we are finally ready to take some photographs!! Here is our blog written by my wife. yosemiteoffthetrail.wordpress.com
-
D800 and two lenses 24-70 and 70-200, one SB flash with remote triggers. Cracking good night shots possible. Also use your head torches to good effect, (just remember to check the histogram as what looks good and well exposed at midnight is likely -1.5 stops in reality).
CF tripod.
Shutter release cable for long exposures.
Consider a ND filter(s) too?
I carry a Lumix LX5 in my waterproof jacket too & I do this sort of thing all the time.
-
I would take A7II or A7rII and the kit 28-70mm lens. The total weight of this is 2.07 pounds, about 2 pounds less than D800 with 28-300mm lens (4.1 pounds). You would be giving up the 70-300mm range, but would get sharper pictures. In my case 80% of the pictures I would take while hiking can be done with the Sony kit lens. What's missing is a fast medium telephoto for portraits, and a wider lens for certain landscapes. You could take one extra lens in a pocket, for the wide shots or telephoto and still be less than the Nikon weight. I find 2 pounds can go on my neck during hiking, but 4 pounds is uncomfortable. If you plan to take pictures of people in sunlight you will also need to bring a HSS flash, and some ND filters.
==Doug
-
If this is a once in a life time then take to D800. Pain is temporary, the pictures are forever.
-
Some people hike with 8x10 studio monorails. The D800 is a toy by comparison. I guess it depends who you are.