I’ve been incorporating photography into my backpacking for 4 years and have been constantly refining my kit. I would like to get an idea what other serious photographers are taking, and how much weight you are carrying.
My focus is landscape photography, but don’t want to miss the incidental wildlife shot, and, if I have time, I enjoy taking macro shots. I want good quality, as I sell my photos, sometimes as large as 24x36.
My big concern is weight. Many of my trips are 20-30 miles over 3-5 days, and I can’t seem to get my pack weight, minus photo gear, much below 40 lbs. With photo gear, on my last trip, a total of 26 miles and 5500 feet of elevation, my total weight was 67 lbs -- 27 lbs over what my non-photographer friends were carrying. I actually did pretty well, but I’m wondering, is that amount of weight typical for a photographer on this long of a trip? I’m guessing many pros carry even more (???)
My current setup is a Canon 40D + L-bracket mount, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 18-270 (bought specifically for backpacking), Manfrotto 190CXPro4 tripod, RRS-BH40 ballhead, a few filters, and extra batteries and CF cards. I use a Tamrac Compact Zoom Pack with a chest harness, and attach lenses and accessories to a Tamrac M.A.S. belt, making for a very comfortable carrying setup with a backpack, with gear easily accessible. On my next trip, I am considering taking my Canon EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro also, but not sure. The Tamron is OK, but is somewhat of a compromise in quality, taking the place of my Canon 17-85 + Canon 70-300 DO lenses, saving me some weight.
So, again, I’m asking what others are taking, how much weight are you carrying, and if you have any additional thoughts on this topic. Thanks.
Hi Doug, and thanks for the first official post in the landscape photo forum! Some of this might be helpful, some might be obvious...
I do a lot of backpacking with my gear, and from what you're describing, you don't sound too crazy. My base packweight varies, a lot. But if I'm really trying to push the lightweight I can get my pack to 30lbs for 2-3 nights (minus photo gear). For a single night in summer conditions I can get my total pack weight to 35lbs. Places like http://www.backpackinglight.com have articles and advice on going ultralight, though in my experience I've found true ultralight to sacrifice too much functionality and durability for what I need. But, there's a lot of gear that fits in the balance well. Make sure your tent, sleeping bag, warm clothes, rain gear, etc. aren't heavier than they need to be.
As far as camera gear, for most trips I take my 5D2, 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200 (incidentally that's the same lens kit Marc A. uses, and I think it's pretty standard among landscape shooters, including those who backpack). If I'm expecting wildlife, like I was in glacier NP last summer, I will substitute my 100-400 for the 70-200. Add to that all the miscellaneous accessories, filters, tripod/head, etc. It ends up being a lot of gear, and there's really no way around that. I typically keep everything inside my pack, since only rarely do I see something with good enough light to make it worth stopping halfway through a hike. Eventually I'll add a small light but good quality point and shoot to keep in my pocket for those moment. Having a well balanced, fitted, and packed backpack can make a huge difference as well. Personally, I can't imagine hiking with a chest harness and belt.
I tend not to weigh my pack, since I don't really want to know what it weighs, and I usually pack it at the trailhead, but it generally falls in the 60-80lb range, depending on the length of the hike (2-7 nights typical), and on miscellaneous gear that I bring (crampons, extra water, bear cans, etc.).
I wasn't going to respond because we just don't backpack for photography any more, but your mention of the Tamrac MAS convinces me I have points that may be helpful to you. We "backpack" camera gear all day long for a living as well as on our travels. We also do lots of day hikes. As we've aged and become more dependent on chiropractic care, we've consciously cut back on the type and amount of gear we carry. That's forced some hard choices, but we've made them very thoughtfully.
Addressing this only to landscape, since most shooting is done at f/8 or smaller, why carry a heavy pro-grade f/2.8 lens? Yeah, we've got them, but they're relegated to situations when we really need shallow DOF along with critical sharpness. At smaller apertures the consumer grade lenses often deliver comparable performance to the pro grade versions. It's all Nikon gear in our business, but the principle holds regardless of the name plate. My 20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 are special use lenses now, and my carry rig is simply a 12-24mm and an 18-200mm. That covers roughly the same focal length range at less than half the weight.
We make the same choices with our camera bodies. More and more our tank-like D2X's are special use bodies while the D300's are daily use. And neither is a 24mp body by any means, yet our clients have had no complaints with enlargements up to 30"x40". We're especially critical of performance for large prints too, because those are out real moneymakers. And I bet the D300 weighs less than half what a D2X weighs, much less a D3 or D3X. Together with the 18-200mm lens, I'm pretty sure that the D300 weighs less than a bare D2X body. I'm also pretty certain that The D300 and both the lighter lenses weighs less than the D2X and a single f/2.8 lens. And the D2X with those three f/2.8 lenses probably weighs three times as much!
In the Canon line, is there a worthwhile lightweight 12mp body? I'm betting that if you need larger files for a stock agency they'd never know the difference if you rezzed up to 24mp file sizes. And as for printing, could you tell the difference between the two files in a print? That's a question for you to contemplate next time you shoulder your pack.
I know I'm proposing heresy for "serious" photography, but especially for backpacking I think it pays to compare the quality of results in your own shooting between lighter gear and the heavy pro gear.
Now where was I before I climbed on the soapbox?
Oh yeah, MAS. Try leaving the MAS belt at home and simply attach the MAS pouches to the waist belt of your pack. That'll save you close to a pound right there. It won't all fit on your waist belt, certainly, but I hang my extra pouches from D-rings on my pack using small lightweight locking carabiners. They're still within easy reach, plus I can switch them onto the waist belt as needs change.
Thanks guys. That's helpful info. The chest harness is really just a pouch that holds the body and Tamron lens, and affords me quick access for taking snaps of the guys on the trail and wildlife - it's really no problem to carry. The M.A.S. belt and chest pouch allow me to shoot without a bag when I'm not carrying the pack.
That's the way I use them too Doug, but I simply loop them over my regular belt. On the job or on the road we use our larger camera bags or packs as "gear lockers" and load from them into the MAS pouches. I'm a leatherworker and have made a small shoulder bag just big enough for a couple of lenses, filters, cards and a battery. It's roughly 9x9x3 and is surprisingly versatile. Since making my own, I've filled a steady stream of requests from others that have seen it in action.... Starting with my wife, of course! Sounds like your chest harness fills a similar need. The big thing is to cut down on the unnecessary weight, however you manage it.
Have you looked into a pack with a tumpline? While I am now past lengthly excursions, it is what I used to use for long canoe trips. A well adjusted tumpline pack lets you spread the weight among your head, shoulders and waist.
Don't know why tumpline packs seem to have fallen out of favour other than perhaps they are designed for hauling rather than hiking.
Posted by Darren Huski on July 27, 2009 at 8:10 AM
Doug, I think your photo kit sounds about right on. The only way to cut corners on it mean you either run out of juice or do not have the right lens.
I'd say you have to cut the weight on the backpacking side. I have done some backpacking with medium format gear and in order to just fit it in the pack I had to reevaluate how I camped. So away went the tent and I went to using my bivy sack. That was a fairly easy transition to make since I would use that on climbs. I also ditched the stove and ate Cliff Bars for meals. That is do-able for 2-3 days. However if you are going for a week, that might get to be a tough one to swallow.
Take a look at your camping gear and see if you can do without or is there a lighter version. I spent the last 20 years using a TNF Cats Meow as my summer sleeping bag. Never even thought about anything different. Well in an effort to get lighter I researched down bags and ended up replacing it with a new Marmot 30 deg down bag. A huge different in size and weight. I can now put the bag and all my clothes in the sleeping bag compartment of my pack that used to be overstuffed with just my bag.
And FWIW backpacking with camera gear I never left with less than 60 pounds.
50 pounds would killl me, but i rarely backpack for more than a couple days. There are always ways to cut back weight though. Like Darren, if i want to save weight i eat cold and leave behind the stove (not good in cold weather though). Ill bring iodine tablets rather than the filter. My solo tent takes up less space and weight than a bivy. It helps that im a weather forecaster, since im usually pretty comfortable knowing the range of clothes to bring.
Posted by Larry Puckett on July 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I'm not being a smart ass here but might I suggest you look into renting a llama to pack in a lot of gear. A lot of outfitters use them since they are pretty easy on mountain trails and less costly to feed than pack mules. As I get older I am looking more and more at ways to allow me to still get out to the wild places without breaking my back in the process!
Hmmmmmm. Never thought of a llama! But about 1/2 the trails I've been on won't allow horses, and, I would guess that includes llamas. I've thought about getting into horseback riding, since it really is the best way to get deep into the backcountry of places such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, where I'm headed for a 5 day backpacking trip 10 days from now.
Honestly, though, I'm not really complaining, since, as I said, I've done pretty well with the weight - I just wanted to see what others are doing, and it does sound like I am taking the right amount of gear, and my weight is pretty reasonable. I have all the lightweight gear, but I figure I can cut some more weight in food and extra clothing.
Posted by Jesse Speer on July 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Your camera setup sounds great for backpacking. Most photogs I know are usually in the 50-80 pound range. "No-stove" eating, chemicals for water, tarp tents are just some of the tricks I use to minimize weight elsewhere. I'm usually around 50-55 pounds for a 3-day trip these days. And I carry my best lenses too ... granted they are DX now.
Jesse and Hank bring up good points. Although I will soon have the Canon 5DMII, I'm thinking I'll still use the 1.6x, 10.1 mp 40D for backpacking. As I said, I am getting superb quality 24x36 in prints from it. (I know you, Jesse, and you are saying, "then why bother with a full frame!" LOL - that's a whole other discussion!).
Nobody mentions bringing an external flash. I use fill flash to fill in fg shadows often enough that I would really miss it in the backcountry. The 40D's pop-up works well enough in a pinch to keep me happy, but the Canon full frames don't have one - another advantage of the smaller sensor models.
While the convenience of living off cliff bars for a few days is worth something... you're never going to get a high calorie diet off no stove food for a similar weight. You can fit over 3,000 calories into 2lbs, for the same weight you could eat 13 cliff bars for 1,820 calories. (not that I could ever eat 13 cliff bars in one day).
As for stoves.. modern canister stoves can be had for a few ounces, the fuel container of course will be a bit more. A solo titanium pot is only a few ounces. If you want to go even lighter, you can get an alcohol stove for 1oz, and 1-2oz alcohol/day to boil just enough water for breakfast/dinner. In the end, for health, happiness, and weight, I would strongly consider using a stove for dinner at least if you're going out for more than one night. Of course, stove/pot/water filter weights can be split up if you're hiking with others.
Note that once you go above 35-40lbs or so, you need to use a beefier backpack than a lot of the 'ultralight' backpacks, that right there will add about 4lbs.
A few other lightweight considerations...
tent - nowadays I bring my 2lb mountain hardwear tent, but in the past I've used my 8oz tarp. Gossamer Gear makes a solo tent that weighs just one pound.
sleeping bag - this shouldn't be more than 2lbs
filter/iodine - totally a personal choice, though 11oz for delicious mountain spring water is totally worth it to me but here chemicals will undoubtedly save you a few oz on short trips.
What I want to know is how much Marc A.'s packweight is... after he's put his waffle iron in it. No joke! To be honest, on my last 8 day trip I brought a thermus and a liter of kahlua, so I can't really say it was an ultralight trip. But it made for delicious hot chocolate
"Hmmmmmm. Never thought of a llama! But about 1/2 the trails I've been on won't allow horses, and, I would guess that includes llamas. I've thought about getting into horseback riding, since it really is the best way to get deep into the backcountry of places such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, where I'm headed for a 5 day backpacking trip 10 days from now. "
Take it from a long-time horse owner and once-upon-a-time packer, horses are grand and mules are better. Best of all are someone else's mules and horses. Owning, training, feeding, doctoring, shoveling, transporting, and recovering after horse wrecks on the trail and at home...... You could do it, but it leaves little time for photography, or for a normal life at home. And you can't just turn a key and shut them down when you don't need them.
I don't care what you have to pay a packer to haul you on a trip, it's going to be cheaper than owning the blooming things and doing it yourself.
The happiest sound in my life was the rattle of the stock trailer hauling our string down the road to new owners. Sure I love horses and mules and the service they provide. Long as they're not my own!
I work for the Dept of Interior and when we installed an acid rain collector and stream gage in Rocky Mtn Natl Park around 1982 we used llamas to carry in a bunch of the supplies.If you've visited Loch Vale then you've probably seen the setup. They were OK because they are so easy on trails compared to horses and mules. I think they're pretty common out west. In the east they use them to guard sheep from coyotes--they'll kick the snot out of one. Some folks out here keep them for pets as well as their wool--Larry
Wasn't it Tom Till in Moab who used llamas for some years, and perhaps still does? Might be another photographer in Colorado, but I distinctly recall photos of pack llamas on the overleaf of one book.
I know several breeders and have spent time around llamas and alpacas. And you're right Larry, llamas are my idea of the ideal pack animal. Truly WEIRD in some of their mannerisms compared to other animals I've known, but all the more interesting for that.
I'm gettin up there in years and have resorted to a "kit" comprised of a G9, a compact tripod, and a handful of filters. For larger prints I can occationally stitch panos or four images in a square. Those days of 60 pound packs of my youth and probably a few other factors have taken a toll on my knees and back and I'm extremely thankful I can still hike and backpack. Be gentle on yourself.
I'm a minimalist. For 2-3 days my Osprey pack will consist of my Mtn Hdwr 1 person tent, Mtn Hdwr 15+ sleeping bag, 1 extra set of clothes, outer shell (for rain), MSR stove, water filter, sleeping pad, 5-6 cliff bars, 3-4 dehy meals, 1 headlamp, 1 lighter, book of matches, multi-tool, ace-bandage, canon 1ds3, 16-35, 24-105, MAYBE 100-400, 4-5 singh-ray grads, 2 extra batteries, small gitzo tripod with RRS 50 ballhead. I weigh in at right about 30lbs. I couldn't imagine packing 60lbs. At 5'9 140lbs I would crumble underneath some of your guys' packs
You're not alone, and I'm 6'4" and 225! I'm also 58 years old and my body is the sum of all sins from my youth.
I backpacked for a living for 5 years starting when I was 20, carrying a minimum 88 pound pack 5-7 months a year, 16 miles a day round trip over 3 mountain ridges. Yeah I was young and powerful and got away with it then. But I've spent the 30 years since paying for the accomplishment. And that's the big reason I minimize my packs now and sadly can't make the really long hikes that still populate my psyche.
Minimizing weight is a great thing for long term health and well-being, no matter how fit you are now.
Minimizing weight is also a great thing for extending the range of your lens. You're just going to walk further and do more if you can carry less. A photo from a cheap POS point and shoot is infinitely better than no photo at all, if carrying the lighter gear lets you cover the distance to get the shot, while the heavier gear prevents it.
Hank--well I'll be catching up with you in about a week. I just dropped 20 lbs off my belly to make up for all the new load of cameras and lenses and tripod, etc. I have a friend who was a biologist for the NPS and now is with BLM. He used to carry 70 lb fish shocking backpaks all over Shenandoah NP and he swore by glucosamine. I followed his advice and have been gulping them the last 2-3 years and the knees seem to be holding their own--Larry
FYI, NPNer Greg Cope has some articles on his site about lightweight backpacking. You might find some of that useful.
For my last trip I was able to get everything down to 36 pounds. Although the food supply for that trip was just for 2 days/1 night and I didn't need a bear can. Before packing I just put my pack list into a spreadsheet with weights, and then figure out what I REALLY need. I've also made a decision to skip my mid-range zoom (especially since that 24-70 f2.8 is pretty damn heavy). Which I don't use it that often anyway. If anything I would just replace it with a featherweight 50mm f/1.8.
I use a Lowepro Inverse 200 AW belt pack for all my camera gear with a little room left over for socks or other odds and ends. I actually don't use it as a belt -- I instead loop it behind the shoulder straps on my main backpack. I think having some weight out in front helps keep me balanced, but while still using the superior padding of my main backpack's straps. However I don't like it that much for regular hiking. I usually just sling it over my shoulder. I'd much rather have a very lightweight backpack instead -- not sure if there's a perfect product for this though.
Posted by Eric Fredine on July 28, 2009 at 9:28 PM
I'm a fan of ultra-light principles as well, though in the Alberta mountains you can get cold weather just about any time of the year, so I bring enough clothes to stay warm. My total weight -- all in - including all camera gear is about 35 pounds for a 3 day trip.
I've really simplified my photo kit for back-packing -- I just take a Canon Rebel XTi (shock, horror), a Canon 10-22mm lens (I'm mostly a wide angle guy) and a 50 1.8 (sharp and super light). I have a light, inexpensive tripod which I'm not in love with (it's an Induro) because I'm 6' 2'' and hate not being able to shoot from full height.
Some great info already in the discussion. What I carry will more often than not depend upon where I'm going and what the conditions may be. My backpack used to weigh under 10 lbs (3-season use, not including camera gear).
Over the years its gotten a bit heavier as I've swapped gear in and out and realize what works and what doesn't, what I feel is safe and what isn't, and what I feel comfortable and what isn't. I'm now - on an average trip - in the range of sub-20lbs for a 3-season solo trip - this does not include camera gear, which I don't include in my weight list because its one of the things I don't want to compromise with (I only weigh things I'm willing to give up or exchange).
There are tons of ways to lighten up but without a gear list to inspect it makes it a bit tough to pinpoint exactly how. Some general suggestions would be to buy lightweight and quality gear, inspect and weigh individual pieces of gear and look for lighter alternatives (or eliminating that piece of gear entirely), don't purchase gear that has unnecessary bells and whistles that add extra weight (this especially includes clothes - which can have tons of weight in the form of numerous pocket zippers and the like), and last but not least - consider making your own gear...my 10lb backpack years ago consisted of almost entirely home-made gear and probably cost about 10% of the 'industry' price - and the best part is I could customize everything for my needs (of course, this may be a bit tough to tackle if one has no sewing experience, no sewing machine, (I taught myself and used a relative's sewing machine), and/or no time or inclination).
If you really want to lighten up then of course I do recommend you read the articles that Mat pointed to , as well as visit the site Floris point out (in my opinion one of the better backpacking sites online with great articles and comprehensive forums that have a wealth of information in its archives)
Hi Doug, I try to start with a low pack weight and use a ULA pack with a Z rest for my frame. I take "just add water food" either made and dehydrated or purchased it in bulk (split pea with added cous cous, or curry lentils with added cous cous). I have a Feathered Friends sleeping bag - lightest and most compact out there. My stove is made from pop cans and I use denatured alchohol for fuel (look online for building methods) and a Titanium cookpot.. Try ALDHA-West for tips on lightweight packing. I also carry a lightweight tent and light weight clothing. I carry a small front pouch for my map and compass and carry two lenses looped through the belt (See ThinkTank) and carry a ThinkTank camera bag with lens and extra batteries and cards. I usually carry 20-27 pounds into the backcountry, but with camera gear I carry 40-42 (which is still too heavy for me). I plan on getting a lighter ballhead for next season which should put me under 40 pounds. I carry a zoom lens and filters in my pack. I plan on packing back into the "Bog" Marshall wilderness next summer, so I'd like to hear how your trip goes. I also pack little or no water. I fill up and drink at streams along the way or carry a 12oz. plastic bottle during the trip. Water adds 2 pounds of weight per liter. I hope this helps, and check out the American Long Distance Hikers Association - West site when you get the chance, there are tons of links for lightweight suggestions.
This might not work for everyone, or in all conditions, but I keep my camera attached to my chest (no bag) when I backpack. I use some quick-disconnect clips that attach to my shoulder straps (made by Kinesis). My camera is always within reach and it doesn't bother me at all, even when hiking off-trail or in hard conditions. It might sound uncomfortable, but it really isn't, once you get used to it. I do carry an ultralight dry bag (4 ounces) in my pack, just in case it rains.
Definitely check out the links that others have suggested. You should be able to get under 35 lbs. pretty easily, without sacrificing too much comfort or safety.
Posted by Doug Roane on August 12, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Great feedback. Thanks everyone. I took much of your advice.
As a followup, just got back from 5 days/ 4 nights and 35 miles in "the Bob". (See my recent post in ESS, and also an interesting story about the camera - more photos to come.) I see why David called it "the Bog" - very very wet and lush. It rained for a full 16 hours on our second day, and on some of it, we were pushing through a trail that was overgrown with 4 foot, soaking wet bushes and wildflowers. Other times we were straddling large mud puddles and wading through mud on the trail. It took a full day for things to dry out, but the other days were fantastic. Definitely a trip of a lifetime!
I was able to get my pack weight down to 33 lbs (minus photo gear). With camera gear, my total weight was 47 lbs, and it handled very very well. My kit was as I mentioned above, MINUS the M.A.S. belt, PLUS a 60 mm/2.8 EFS macro lens and right angle viewfinder. I used everything except the right angle and my Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter, and was very happy with what I brought and the total weight. As far as endurance for the trip, of the 4 of us, I (at 45), left the 3 younger (non-photographer) 21-26 year old guys in the dust!
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM
At a minimum I take my 5D MarkII, 16-35mm, 24-70, 70-200, 2X Extender, Singh-Ray Filters, extra battery, tripod...... I usually leave the macro behind in most cases. For our ice walk on the Athabasca Glacier, I only took the 24-70mm/polarizer and 5DMII. Did not even take the tripod...... Have not done an over night in quite a while but every ounce counts even on day trips for me these days.
Discussion
26 repliesMy focus is landscape photography, but don’t want to miss the incidental wildlife shot, and, if I have time, I enjoy taking macro shots. I want good quality, as I sell my photos, sometimes as large as 24x36.
My big concern is weight. Many of my trips are 20-30 miles over 3-5 days, and I can’t seem to get my pack weight, minus photo gear, much below 40 lbs. With photo gear, on my last trip, a total of 26 miles and 5500 feet of elevation, my total weight was 67 lbs -- 27 lbs over what my non-photographer friends were carrying. I actually did pretty well, but I’m wondering, is that amount of weight typical for a photographer on this long of a trip? I’m guessing many pros carry even more (???)
My current setup is a Canon 40D + L-bracket mount, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 18-270 (bought specifically for backpacking), Manfrotto 190CXPro4 tripod, RRS-BH40 ballhead, a few filters, and extra batteries and CF cards. I use a Tamrac Compact Zoom Pack with a chest harness, and attach lenses and accessories to a Tamrac M.A.S. belt, making for a very comfortable carrying setup with a backpack, with gear easily accessible. On my next trip, I am considering taking my Canon EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro also, but not sure. The Tamron is OK, but is somewhat of a compromise in quality, taking the place of my Canon 17-85 + Canon 70-300 DO lenses, saving me some weight.
So, again, I’m asking what others are taking, how much weight are you carrying, and if you have any additional thoughts on this topic. Thanks.
I do a lot of backpacking with my gear, and from what you're describing, you don't sound too crazy. My base packweight varies, a lot. But if I'm really trying to push the lightweight I can get my pack to 30lbs for 2-3 nights (minus photo gear). For a single night in summer conditions I can get my total pack weight to 35lbs. Places like http://www.backpackinglight.com have articles and advice on going ultralight, though in my experience I've found true ultralight to sacrifice too much functionality and durability for what I need. But, there's a lot of gear that fits in the balance well. Make sure your tent, sleeping bag, warm clothes, rain gear, etc. aren't heavier than they need to be.
As far as camera gear, for most trips I take my 5D2, 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200 (incidentally that's the same lens kit Marc A. uses, and I think it's pretty standard among landscape shooters, including those who backpack). If I'm expecting wildlife, like I was in glacier NP last summer, I will substitute my 100-400 for the 70-200. Add to that all the miscellaneous accessories, filters, tripod/head, etc. It ends up being a lot of gear, and there's really no way around that. I typically keep everything inside my pack, since only rarely do I see something with good enough light to make it worth stopping halfway through a hike. Eventually I'll add a small light but good quality point and shoot to keep in my pocket for those moment. Having a well balanced, fitted, and packed backpack can make a huge difference as well. Personally, I can't imagine hiking with a chest harness and belt.
I tend not to weigh my pack, since I don't really want to know what it weighs, and I usually pack it at the trailhead, but it generally falls in the 60-80lb range, depending on the length of the hike (2-7 nights typical), and on miscellaneous gear that I bring (crampons, extra water, bear cans, etc.).
Hope that helps.
Addressing this only to landscape, since most shooting is done at f/8 or smaller, why carry a heavy pro-grade f/2.8 lens? Yeah, we've got them, but they're relegated to situations when we really need shallow DOF along with critical sharpness. At smaller apertures the consumer grade lenses often deliver comparable performance to the pro grade versions. It's all Nikon gear in our business, but the principle holds regardless of the name plate. My 20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 are special use lenses now, and my carry rig is simply a 12-24mm and an 18-200mm. That covers roughly the same focal length range at less than half the weight.
We make the same choices with our camera bodies. More and more our tank-like D2X's are special use bodies while the D300's are daily use. And neither is a 24mp body by any means, yet our clients have had no complaints with enlargements up to 30"x40". We're especially critical of performance for large prints too, because those are out real moneymakers. And I bet the D300 weighs less than half what a D2X weighs, much less a D3 or D3X. Together with the 18-200mm lens, I'm pretty sure that the D300 weighs less than a bare D2X body. I'm also pretty certain that The D300 and both the lighter lenses weighs less than the D2X and a single f/2.8 lens. And the D2X with those three f/2.8 lenses probably weighs three times as much!
In the Canon line, is there a worthwhile lightweight 12mp body? I'm betting that if you need larger files for a stock agency they'd never know the difference if you rezzed up to 24mp file sizes. And as for printing, could you tell the difference between the two files in a print? That's a question for you to contemplate next time you shoulder your pack.
I know I'm proposing heresy for "serious" photography, but especially for backpacking I think it pays to compare the quality of results in your own shooting between lighter gear and the heavy pro gear.
Now where was I before I climbed on the soapbox?
Oh yeah, MAS. Try leaving the MAS belt at home and simply attach the MAS pouches to the waist belt of your pack. That'll save you close to a pound right there. It won't all fit on your waist belt, certainly, but I hang my extra pouches from D-rings on my pack using small lightweight locking carabiners. They're still within easy reach, plus I can switch them onto the waist belt as needs change.
Have you looked into a pack with a tumpline? While I am now past lengthly excursions, it is what I used to use for long canoe trips. A well adjusted tumpline pack lets you spread the weight among your head, shoulders and waist.
Don't know why tumpline packs seem to have fallen out of favour other than perhaps they are designed for hauling rather than hiking.
I'd say you have to cut the weight on the backpacking side. I have done some backpacking with medium format gear and in order to just fit it in the pack I had to reevaluate how I camped. So away went the tent and I went to using my bivy sack. That was a fairly easy transition to make since I would use that on climbs. I also ditched the stove and ate Cliff Bars for meals. That is do-able for 2-3 days. However if you are going for a week, that might get to be a tough one to swallow.
Take a look at your camping gear and see if you can do without or is there a lighter version. I spent the last 20 years using a TNF Cats Meow as my summer sleeping bag. Never even thought about anything different. Well in an effort to get lighter I researched down bags and ended up replacing it with a new Marmot 30 deg down bag. A huge different in size and weight. I can now put the bag and all my clothes in the sleeping bag compartment of my pack that used to be overstuffed with just my bag.
And FWIW backpacking with camera gear I never left with less than 60 pounds.
Larry
Hmmmmmm. Never thought of a llama! But about 1/2 the trails I've been on won't allow horses, and, I would guess that includes llamas. I've thought about getting into horseback riding, since it really is the best way to get deep into the backcountry of places such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, where I'm headed for a 5 day backpacking trip 10 days from now.
Honestly, though, I'm not really complaining, since, as I said, I've done pretty well with the weight - I just wanted to see what others are doing, and it does sound like I am taking the right amount of gear, and my weight is pretty reasonable. I have all the lightweight gear, but I figure I can cut some more weight in food and extra clothing.
Nobody mentions bringing an external flash. I use fill flash to fill in fg shadows often enough that I would really miss it in the backcountry. The 40D's pop-up works well enough in a pinch to keep me happy, but the Canon full frames don't have one - another advantage of the smaller sensor models.
High carb low weight diet: http://trailplay.blogspot.com/2007/08/chlorine-tastes-best-fluff-and-eat.html
As for stoves.. modern canister stoves can be had for a few ounces, the fuel container of course will be a bit more. A solo titanium pot is only a few ounces. If you want to go even lighter, you can get an alcohol stove for 1oz, and 1-2oz alcohol/day to boil just enough water for breakfast/dinner. In the end, for health, happiness, and weight, I would strongly consider using a stove for dinner at least if you're going out for more than one night. Of course, stove/pot/water filter weights can be split up if you're hiking with others.
19lb (no food/water) Appalachian trail gear list: http://royrobinson.homestead.com/GearList.html
ultralight alcohol stoves: http://www.whiteboxstoves.com/
Note that once you go above 35-40lbs or so, you need to use a beefier backpack than a lot of the 'ultralight' backpacks, that right there will add about 4lbs.
A few other lightweight considerations...
tent - nowadays I bring my 2lb mountain hardwear tent, but in the past I've used my 8oz tarp. Gossamer Gear makes a solo tent that weighs just one pound.
sleeping bag - this shouldn't be more than 2lbs
filter/iodine - totally a personal choice, though 11oz for delicious mountain spring water is totally worth it to me
What I want to know is how much Marc A.'s packweight is... after he's put his waffle iron in it. No joke! To be honest, on my last 8 day trip I brought a thermus and a liter of kahlua, so I can't really say it was an ultralight trip. But it made for delicious hot chocolate
Take it from a long-time horse owner and once-upon-a-time packer, horses are grand and mules are better. Best of all are someone else's mules and horses. Owning, training, feeding, doctoring, shoveling, transporting, and recovering after horse wrecks on the trail and at home...... You could do it, but it leaves little time for photography, or for a normal life at home. And you can't just turn a key and shut them down when you don't need them.
I don't care what you have to pay a packer to haul you on a trip, it's going to be cheaper than owning the blooming things and doing it yourself.
The happiest sound in my life was the rattle of the stock trailer hauling our string down the road to new owners. Sure I love horses and mules and the service they provide. Long as they're not my own!
I know several breeders and have spent time around llamas and alpacas. And you're right Larry, llamas are my idea of the ideal pack animal. Truly WEIRD in some of their mannerisms compared to other animals I've known, but all the more interesting for that.
You're not alone, and I'm 6'4" and 225! I'm also 58 years old and my body is the sum of all sins from my youth.
I backpacked for a living for 5 years starting when I was 20, carrying a minimum 88 pound pack 5-7 months a year, 16 miles a day round trip over 3 mountain ridges. Yeah I was young and powerful and got away with it then. But I've spent the 30 years since paying for the accomplishment. And that's the big reason I minimize my packs now and sadly can't make the really long hikes that still populate my psyche.
Minimizing weight is a great thing for long term health and well-being, no matter how fit you are now.
Minimizing weight is also a great thing for extending the range of your lens. You're just going to walk further and do more if you can carry less. A photo from a cheap POS point and shoot is infinitely better than no photo at all, if carrying the lighter gear lets you cover the distance to get the shot, while the heavier gear prevents it.
For my last trip I was able to get everything down to 36 pounds. Although the food supply for that trip was just for 2 days/1 night and I didn't need a bear can. Before packing I just put my pack list into a spreadsheet with weights, and then figure out what I REALLY need. I've also made a decision to skip my mid-range zoom (especially since that 24-70 f2.8 is pretty damn heavy). Which I don't use it that often anyway. If anything I would just replace it with a featherweight 50mm f/1.8.
I use a Lowepro Inverse 200 AW belt pack for all my camera gear with a little room left over for socks or other odds and ends. I actually don't use it as a belt -- I instead loop it behind the shoulder straps on my main backpack. I think having some weight out in front helps keep me balanced, but while still using the superior padding of my main backpack's straps. However I don't like it that much for regular hiking. I usually just sling it over my shoulder. I'd much rather have a very lightweight backpack instead -- not sure if there's a perfect product for this though.
I've really simplified my photo kit for back-packing -- I just take a Canon Rebel XTi (shock, horror), a Canon 10-22mm lens (I'm mostly a wide angle guy) and a 50 1.8 (sharp and super light). I have a light, inexpensive tripod which I'm not in love with (it's an Induro) because I'm 6' 2'' and hate not being able to shoot from full height.
Cheers,
Eric
Over the years its gotten a bit heavier as I've swapped gear in and out and realize what works and what doesn't, what I feel is safe and what isn't, and what I feel comfortable and what isn't. I'm now - on an average trip - in the range of sub-20lbs for a 3-season solo trip - this does not include camera gear, which I don't include in my weight list because its one of the things I don't want to compromise with (I only weigh things I'm willing to give up or exchange).
There are tons of ways to lighten up but without a gear list to inspect it makes it a bit tough to pinpoint exactly how. Some general suggestions would be to buy lightweight and quality gear, inspect and weigh individual pieces of gear and look for lighter alternatives (or eliminating that piece of gear entirely), don't purchase gear that has unnecessary bells and whistles that add extra weight (this especially includes clothes - which can have tons of weight in the form of numerous pocket zippers and the like), and last but not least - consider making your own gear...my 10lb backpack years ago consisted of almost entirely home-made gear and probably cost about 10% of the 'industry' price - and the best part is I could customize everything for my needs (of course, this may be a bit tough to tackle if one has no sewing experience, no sewing machine, (I taught myself and used a relative's sewing machine), and/or no time or inclination).
If you really want to lighten up then of course I do recommend you read the articles that Mat pointed to
David M. Cobb
Definitely check out the links that others have suggested. You should be able to get under 35 lbs. pretty easily, without sacrificing too much comfort or safety.
As a followup, just got back from 5 days/ 4 nights and 35 miles in "the Bob". (See my recent post in ESS, and also an interesting story about the camera - more photos to come.) I see why David called it "the Bog" - very very wet and lush. It rained for a full 16 hours on our second day, and on some of it, we were pushing through a trail that was overgrown with 4 foot, soaking wet bushes and wildflowers. Other times we were straddling large mud puddles and wading through mud on the trail. It took a full day for things to dry out, but the other days were fantastic. Definitely a trip of a lifetime!
I was able to get my pack weight down to 33 lbs (minus photo gear). With camera gear, my total weight was 47 lbs, and it handled very very well. My kit was as I mentioned above, MINUS the M.A.S. belt, PLUS a 60 mm/2.8 EFS macro lens and right angle viewfinder. I used everything except the right angle and my Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter, and was very happy with what I brought and the total weight. As far as endurance for the trip, of the 4 of us, I (at 45), left the 3 younger (non-photographer) 21-26 year old guys in the dust!