Long hiking photography

I enjoy doing long hikes in the mountains and forests back home in Norway, with a tent, sleeping bag, cooking gear, food etc etc. As if the weight wasn't enough already, I'm considering investing in some glass for wildlife photography and bringing it with me up there. I would probably be carrying with me something like a 100-400mm and maybe a wide prime for landscapes, as well as a proper tripod. The camera of choice would be a Canon 7D.

Does anyone on this forum have any experience with photography on long hiking trips? I would love to hear about good carrying and protection solutions, special gear, weight saving solutions and your experience overall with walking with all that extra bulk.

Cheers!

Not experienced at long hiking trips but do have experience of carrying full camping gear and camera equipment into remote areas were there was no alternative but to camp. I had lightweight camping gear but because I decided to take my 600mm f4L IS and 16-35mm f2.8L plus Gitzo 5540 tripod and Wimberely gimbal head I ended up with just over 80lbs in my rucsack. The 600mm was strapped to the outside using elasticated cord (already on rucsack) and some additional web straps. I did this for accessability. Water carried had to be reduced to immediate requirements (c. 3 litres) but as long as you have reliable water supplies in the area visited and some means of water treatment this is not too great a risk. I found a pair of Leki carbon fibre walking poles indispensible as they saved me several times from stumbling sideways due to the weight of the rucsack moving only slightly.

Although I have subsequently carried my 600mm, tripod and wide-angle lens 3500m up a mountain on a day trip I do not think I will repeat the camping experience - at least not with a 600mm lens. I would seriously consider buying a Canon 400mm f5.6L and combining it with a 1.4x teleconverter and 1D body in order to maintain autofocus. A 7D without teleconverter would be a viable and lighter alternative. I would urge you to consider the 400mm f5.6L over the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS as the 400mm is a sharper and faster focussing lens and I believe you would end up using the 100-400mm at the 400mm end far more than the 100mm end - that was certainly my experience when I owned this lens. Also, would urge you to consider a wide-angle zoom rather than a wide-angle prime. The zoom will be more flexible for framing landscapes and can be used for still wildlife you can get close to - and that need not be just flowers. There are plenty of wide-angle zooms to choose from but I would recommend the 16-35mm on a 1D body or a 10-22mm on a 7D body. Longer focal length wide-angle zooms are available in both EF and EF-S fittings.

Finally, do not forget to factor in the essential accessories - spare batteries, small maintenace kit and sensor/lens cleaning kit. Whether or not you take a flash (plus yet more batteries) may depend on what type of photography you want to do.

Sorry but forgot to mention in previous post that I own both 1DIII and 7D bodies and my reccomendation would be for the 7D if you are buying new. This recommendation is based on better resolution, at least as good if not better autofocus, 8fps burst rate and much lower price.

I'm not a specially strong person, and I've discovered that carrying to much weight totally destroys the pleasure I could get from the experience of hiking. If I was in a serious on assignment mission I would consider an extra sacrifice, but for anything related with an enjoyable experience I would not carry in long hikes anything heavier than 25Kg (50lbs).

Said that, if you start packing absolutely essential survival goods you see what weight you have left for photographic equipment. Personally I would like to own a Micro4/3 camera for long hikes, but I've used my DSLR with a 16-35 lens. If I thought I would need something longer, I would take my 70-200f4. If I would want to photograph wild animals that required longer lenses, I would try to find another place where a long hike wouldn't be involved.

I hope this helps.

cheers

alex

I agree with Alex, unless you can hire a sherpa to carry your heavy gear, avoid having to carry heavy long lenses on hikes. It's just not productive, not to mention you will not enjoy what was supposed to be fun. Go with a DSLR, a tripod with ballhead and a couple small prime lenses. Perhaps a flash too and other miscelania like cables, batteries, etc. That should leave you plenty of room for clothes and camping gear.

I like to keep things light and generally take a 100-400 or 70-300DO with me instead of my 300/500/600 lenses.

I really like the cotton carrier for biking/hiking as I no longer get neck or back strain when carrying gear either on a shoulder strap or on a monopod across my shoulder. www.cottoncarrier.com

I came across this option the other day for hiking with heavy gear http://www.carrix.ch/galeriee.html Looks interesting for those carrying heavy gear.

I think the difference between my experience/perception and the other contributors is the difference between commercial wildlife photography and wildlife photography for pleasure while hiking. I needed a long focal length lens so I could not avoid carrying the 600mm plus tripod. I also needed to camp so I could not avoid carrying all the camping gear. If you need it and you are off-road you have to carry it and there is no point in me going under-gunned and failing to get the shots I need. If your photography is for pleasure then short, light lenses are fine but you need to be clear from the outset what your aims are, and IMO for most mammals and birds you need a minimum of 400mm focal length - in other words its horses for courses.

Its difficult to be certain from the pictures of the Cotton Carrier but I suspect this would not be practical or comfortable while carrying a loaded 80-100 litre rucsack. However, looks good for day work.

The Carrix is certainly a good idea for transporting heavy gear across rough terrain but I would not subject my expensive camera bodies and lenses to the rough buffeting seen in the videos. I do not think this is suitable for heavy camera gear and could result in lens misalignment problems.

Thank you all for your helpful replies and for the recommendations! Howard; you certainly had a pretty good load there. With the 600mm weighing around 6kgs, the tripod at 3kgs, you probably brought with you close to 15kgs (33lbs) in photo gear! I would probably end up on about 6kgs (13lbs) if I take care, which I really think would both be worth it and be bearable. It's not much more than what hunters would bring in guns and equipment, for example.

How would you recommend carrying the extra lens(es) for easy access? It really is not very fun to take on and off that beast of a backpack when you just want a quick shot. Maybe with belt pouches...? Were you able to get your tripod on and off without dropping your pack, Howard? If not, it must be possible to create some ingenious system for that. Unfortunately nothing pops up at the moment. I'm thinking an R-strap-ish contraption to carry the camera could be a good option while carrying the backpack. It rests on the hip and I could fasten it tighter to the body with another clip quite easily.

A good solution for a heavy load is the base camp — lugging whatever you want to bring up in the hills over the course of one or two days, and then you can go on shorter day trips from the base camp you establish where your tent and other gear is. I'm not a particularly strong person either (young female), but I enjoy the challenge a heavy load gives. Walking poles are definitely an essential part of heavy load hiking. So are sturdy, supportive boots!

The 100-400mm vs. 400mm suggestion is a good one. I guess I'm just scared of being too close, and having nothing to fill the gap between that long lens and, say, a 10-22mm. A 70-200mm doesn't sound too bad, but I would love to be able to come up real close, without disturbing the exceptionally wary and sensitive wildlife there. I'm pretty sure I'm getting the 7D, it's just within my budget, and the added video function just blows me away.

Seems like I missed out on those two last post, there is some great advice in them! I really like the look of that Cotton Carrier, if it fits comfortably with a large rucksack, it would be close to ideal. I will be on the lookout for a real life demo, thanks for giving me the heads up. I can imagine it's good for biking, skiing, forest-lurking and the like — all great passions of mine.

While I like the idea of the Carrix, it really isn't my style I would be ridiculed from one end of the mountains to the next if I were ever to head out with a thing like that! On a more serious note, I don't want to think about what could happen with camera gear during some really rough passages.

I agree with you Howard, 400mm is really the least I feel comfortable going up with. I'll face the cost of that, physical and economical, if necessary.

My suggestion is to cut the weight of all your other gear, to make room for the camera system. I've gone from 55lbs pack weight for a 5 day trip down to 35 lbs, including camera gear, doing just that. And the hiking itself is so much more pleasant. Last fall I wrote a photo tip regarding pack weight and photography that covers most of the essentials. You can view it at: http://www.garyluhm.net/bio/tips_1009.html

I shoot Canon, and for backpacking I like the 17-40mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L. However, if there is particular wildlife to go for, I take the wide-angle and a 300mm f/4L and 1.4x, leaving the 70-200mm behind. The 400mm f/5.6L will get you about the same as the 300mm, and I think is sharper, but a stop slower. I like the built-in hood on the 300mm, less bulky than the 100-400. The 300 is great for little critters like pika, with close focus to 5 ft.

Gary
www.garyluhm.net

Hey Gary, thanks a lot. Getting a light pack weight is truly a craft in itself. I read the article you wrote, it was very helpful. I think I would be very tempted to take grab shots on the move — some scenes you only pass once.

I read on to your kayaking advice, that was great. I think you made me feel confident enough about bringing my camera out on the water now! How often haven't I been on the water in my kayak and thought "Ooh, if only I had my camera!" I can invest in a good water proof bag and head out now.

With regards to the lens choice, I am really not able to settle on any of them. Not that it matters anyway, I don't really have the money at the moment! I'm trying to weigh the ups and downs of price, image sharpness, speed, focal length, and there I think the 400mm still scores the best.

I sent an email to the Cotton Carrier people asking how it works with a rucksack.

Me: How comfortable would it be to carry a heavy rucksack on top of the CC? I'm afraid it will dig into my shoulders a bit too much. Would the weight on the front side mess up my balance?

Them: A rucksack’s shoulder straps would be placed further along your shoulder (towards the edge) than the Cotton Carrier straps (more to the neck). There would be no interference between the two.

The weight of your camera/lens on the front of your body is perfectly balanced.

How do you guys feel about a Cotton Carrier type of carrying when it comes to safety? It is very exposed if you were to trip and fall, a camera bag would at least give a bit of protection.

Holt wrote: How do you guys feel about a Cotton Carrier type of carrying when it comes to safety? It is very exposed if you were to trip and fall, a camera bag would at least give a bit of protection.

I have the cotton carrier and use it primarily for wildlife photography. It's a great product that makes hiking and biking a lot more enjoyable with bigger equipment. I can carry a 1d4 with a medium size lens pretty much effortlessly for quite some time. Typically I"m using a 70-200 or 100-400 with the carrier. I do use it with my 300f2.8is and have even put my 500mm on it when I needed to have my hands free for a short period of time.

In terms of safety, there is a strap that velcros over the lens holding it close to your body for added protection when biking or hiking in rough terrain minimizing vibration. If there's a chance you're going to trip or fall down then I guess your camera should be in a padded napsack. When I'm in the woods my camera I prefer to have it ready. Even when biking I've missed too many shots of wildlife because my camera was in a napsack.

For long back country trips you probably do need an enclosed bag for protection but for hikes when you want quick access to 1 or even 2 cameras the cotton carrier is really a great solution.

I'm glad to hear so many people are satisfied with the Cotton Carrier. I found a store nearby that sells CCs, I'll head over there as soon as possible to try out this thing with a rucksack on.

I am also wondering about the possibility of carrying a belt pouch or two together with the rucksack, is this conceivable in some way or another?

Howard Bottrell wrote:I think the difference between my experience/perception and the other contributors is the difference between commercial wildlife photography and wildlife photography for pleasure while hiking. I needed a long focal length lens so I could not avoid carrying the 600mm plus tripod. I also needed to camp so I could not avoid carrying all the camping gear. If you need it and you are off-road you have to carry it and there is no point in me going under-gunned and failing to get the shots I need. If your photography is for pleasure then short, light lenses are fine but you need to be clear from the outset what your aims are, and IMO for most mammals and birds you need a minimum of 400mm focal length - in other words its horses for courses.

That's what I said first. Even so, unless you are photographing gelada baboons, west caucasian turs, the guldenstadt's redstarts or a few other species like these you'll probably have the chance to photograph most wild species in places that don't demand such long hikes. Also, if you are on an assignment it sometimes makes sense to have help from an assistant to carry all the gear. And Howard I'm not sure if your hike experience with heavy equipment includes some foreign countries, because you should keep in mind that UK ain't the country with the most rough and remote places on Earth.

Hi Holt - I can still remember the pain of carrying all that gear but it was done out of necessity rather than desire.

Read Gary's weight saving article. It contains some very good advice which I will definitely have to follow up.

Until I saw the Cotton Carrier videos I would have recommended your idea of using a R-strap fitted with a secondary stabiliser cord/strap. I use a home made version of this strap on an almost daily basis - my biggest lens mounted on tripod and carried over my shoulder and second camera and lens on the home made strap. However, the Cotton Carrier looks a better solution for you and it looks as if it will not interfere with the shoulder straps or waist belt of a rucsack. My only reservation is that none of the videos showed attachment via a lens plate. I would be reluctant to attach a lens bigger than 70-200mm f2.8 or 100-400mm with the Cotton Carrier gizmo attached to the camera as this may put pressure on the lens/camera junction. Apparently as little as 20 micron distortion in this junction can cause side to side differences in focussing. I would be interested to know how srfnson attached a 300mm f2.8 and 500mm to the Cotton Carrier. In the Cotton Carrier videos it is emphasized that the lens should lie close to the body and its difficult to see how this can be achieved if trying to attach by a lens plate. Your wide-angle zoom lens could go in something like a Lowepro 1W lens pouch which with its sliplock attachment system should fit on the Cotton Carrier side belt or on you rucsack waistbelt or webbing - it would thus be readily accessible. However, changing lenses presents problems if you attach your camera to the Cotton Carrier - you will be left holding your larger lens. An advantage of the R-strap system, where it is best to attach larger lens by the lens plate for balance, you can leave the lens on the strap, swap lens end caps between lenses and attach the camera to the wide-angle zoom.

Weather protection for uncovered lens/camera is easily achieved with a dry bag of suitable size. They are light, completely sealable and can double as a water carrier in camp.

Carrying a tripod while hiking with large rucsack is a problem I kept mine on the side of the rucsack with two feet in an external pouch near the base of the sac and reatined higher up on the side with the rucsacks side compression straps. Not easily accessible without removing your rucsack. A monopod may be worth considering.

If you are concerned about being too close with a 400mm prime then go for the flexibility of the 100-400mm. The 400mm is the better lens but the 100-400mm is still a very good lens and does have the additional advantage of image stabilisation.

I am away for a few days after today but will check back on this thread when I return. Good luck with your hiking photography and I hope the advice given by all the contributors has helped with your decisions.

Howard Bottrell wrote:I would be interested to know how srfnson attached a 300mm f2.8 and 500mm to the Cotton Carrier. In the Cotton Carrier videos it is emphasized that the lens should lie close to the body and its difficult to see how this can be achieved if trying to attach by a lens plate.

You definitely don't want to mount large lens to the carrier via a camera body connection. Mounting by either a mini clamp or preferably a hub screwed directly into you lens plate works very well for the 3002.8. The larger lenses ride very close to your body when mounted via the lens plate. Attaching the velcro strap keeps the lens very snug to your body when you're quite active.

The carrier really isn't designed for hikes with a 500mm so just to be clear I"m mounting the 500mm via the lens plate and primarily in situations where I can't put the lens down ie in deep snow or in situations where I'm carrying the lens and tripod from the car into the field and have a stream or rocks to navigate over and want to be sure I'm not going to stumble and drop the lens. I'm not hiking with the 500 mounted on the carrier for any distance.

All my medium size lenses such as 70-2002.8is, 4005.6 and 100-400 are mounted via a hub screwed directly into the lens plate and this works out very well.

Here is a completely different direction that gives you MUCH less weight that any of the suggestions. How about a Panasonic Lumix G1 or GF1 with the 45-200 lens. The Panasonic G is a micro 4/3 camera system with a 12 megapixel sensor and those of us that have used the G series (including the GF1 range finder). The sensor is a 2x crop so that means that lens is the 35mm equivalent of a 90-400mm lens. I am absolutely sold on the Panasonic G system when weight is an issue as it would be for long hikes.

This is a timely thread for me too. I'm just in the process of gearing up to do some back-country photo hikes / camping. A long-ago amigo with whom I've recently reconnected is seriously into this, and is prevailing on me to join him on some trips into the mountains for hiking, camping and photos. I've known people who are seriously into back-country hiking & camping but not photography, or seriously into photography but not the hiking / camping side. Finally getting some local motivation from somebody serious about both may be the factor that gets me over the hump at last.

Getting ideas on how to manage the weight and logistics of everything is really good input as I build up the list of what I'm going to need. My back is already aching just looking at the list! Gary's goal of getting down to 35 lbs sounds really good; previously I was optimistically thinking it would be more like 50 lbs.

In terms of shooting logistics, I've always rejected having gear in backpacks because, like others have said, I prefer the ability to shoot subjects quickly. This has been reinforced by watching others mess around with photo packs. When I'm in the field normally, I have everything in a combination of a vest and belt system with pouches, carrying a tripod-mounted camera over my shoulder. Everything is directly in reach in seconds, and I have exactly what I want to hand however mobile I choose to be. I really dislike the idea of having everything in a pack that requires a lot of setup & teardown time at every stop.

My arrangement won't work as-is for long hikes, unfortunately, especially carrying a tripod-mounted camera. Maybe I just have to live with sacrificing a level of shooting opportunities until reaching the base camp location, and reconfiguring all the gear there. But I will look at things like the Cotton Carrier too; if I could retain some dynamic shooting options without physically killing myself, that would be nice.

I'm thinking about a Panasonic GF1 for the reasons E.J. mentions. David Clapp & I spent a couple of weeks in the Rockies just recently. David had a GF1 along for evaluation, with a couple of lenses. I liked the looks of it and the images he was getting from it. While my preference would be to retain the capabilities of a full DSLR and selection of lenses, I'm not getting any younger and weight considerations may lead to some different equipment choices...

For you Royce, I think the GF1 coupled with the 14-140 might be just the ticket!

I do a lot of hiking in the tropics and have to admit after many trails I now keep my photo gear to an absolute minimum and absolutely light weight - it consist o a D90, 12x24, 60m micro and R1 flash with a small carbon travel tripod.

I have had two many days when a bit of extra gear caused me physical distress esp after 10 k's. These days I tend to prepare for a hike as the primary objective and photography as secondary.