Hiking with a K-1ii

osbourne one-nil · 07-26-2020, 12:12 PM - **2 Likes**

A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff!

normhead · 07-27-2020, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by gatorguy

Wonderfully calm photos of yours Norm. Where's that waterfall btw?

The waterfall is almost right dead centre of the park, no easy way in no easy way out. If you're young you cold probably make it there in a day, but not in and out in day. For old guys like me, who rest every second day when possible, and don't paddle for more than 4 or 5 hours a day, it takes a lot longer.

It's on the Nippissing River between, Nadine Lake and Ramona Lake near Gauthier's dam if you're looking at the park map.

Official Algonquin Park Canoe Routes Map Online | Algonquin Provincial Park | The Friends of Algonquin Park

---------- Post added 07-27-20 at 08:19 AM ----------

Originally posted by osbourne one-nil

A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff!

I will carry my Tamron 300 2.8 (6 pounds ) for a couple kilometres. A big camera bag, with a large neoprene shoulder strap (designed for tripods, is what I use. I've carried the Tamron 3 miles, 5 km with that set up. But not over rugged terrain.

MJKoski · 07-27-2020, 07:32 AM

I have done 60-80km (3-5 days) hikes with heavy Pentax-gear and Sony MILC-setup with TS-E Canons. The outcome is that I will never do that again. I will take P40 Pro as my camera for the next long hike. The camera gear is pure nuisance and does not give 500% better photos, just no. 1kg travel tripod and a Huawei gives me 95% of the IQ with right filters and my own plastic filter holder which weight nothing. Better to take extra food & snacks if you want to bring extra weight to the wilderness.

photoptimist · 07-27-2020, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by osbourne one-nil

A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff!

Yes, zoom/telephoto f/2.8 lenses are the cetaceans of lenses!

However, if you carry K-1 & 70-200 f2.8 lens (in your hand) on a 1 mile walk, then a 2 mile walk, then a 3 mile walk, etc. you'll soon find it's not so bad. (Great for old biceps!)

And if that training doesn't work, then at least you'll be delighted when you swap to any of your others lenses and find that the K-1 feels as light as air by comparison.

osbourne one-nil · 07-27-2020, 08:38 AM

It's going to be a fantastic lens for astrophotography, even if I need to go back to a tracking mount to use it to its full potential. There are also countless places around here with stunning views within a mile or so of any car parking space, so it might not be a walkabout lens but it will (I think) get very well used. I might even scout some routes and, if everything's looking good, make a beeline for that location early one morning or late one evening.

I used to have a Canon 70-200 f4 and got some great shots with that...and this should blow that away.

I'm trying to convince myselt!

osbourne one-nil · 08-03-2020, 11:58 PM

The lens has been returned and replaced with the f4 70-210mm. The f2.8 was ridiculously heavy for very little gain (to me) but beautifully made. If it were a telescope it would be a Questar....just a very heavy one.

Paul the Sunman · 08-04-2020, 12:16 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by osbourne one-nil

The lens has been returned and replaced with the f4 70-210mm. The f2.8 was ridiculously heavy for very little gain (to me) but beautifully made. If it were a telescope it would be a Questar....just a very heavy one.

I'm sticking with the f/2.8 (the weight doesn't worry me too much) but your choice is entirely understandable. Good luck with the f/4; it looks a great lens for outdoors.

Qwntm · 08-07-2020, 07:38 AM - **1 Like**

A lot of landscape photography can be done with a lot less focal lengths. If you were a 4x5 large format shooter, typically you would only have a 90mm (28mm on FF) a 210mm (63mm) and maybe a 300mm (80mm). So a K1 with a 31/43/77 can cover a lot of ground. And weight becomes less of an issue. (The 21mm Limited is just icing on the cake when it arrives.)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Do you really need focal lengths from 15mm-450mm?

photoptimist · 08-07-2020, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Qwntm

A lot of landscape photography can be done with a lot less focal lengths. If you were a 4x5 large format shooter, typically you would only have a 90mm (28mm on FF) a 210mm (63mm) and maybe a 300mm (80mm). So a K1 with a 31/43/77 can cover a lot of ground. And weight becomes less of an issue. (The 21mm Limited is just icing on the cake when it arrives.)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Do you really need focal lengths from 15mm-450mm?

While it may be true that the 28 to 80 covers most landscapes, it fails for others.

In the Rocky Mountains, a lot of alpine lakes require very short focal lengths to get the lake, towering backdrop mountains, and a pleasing amount of the azure sky. Likewise, broad-vista mountain ranges need wide-angle treatments. Panoramic tiling is always an option, but having an ultra-wide angle lens sure makes life easier and better.

On the telephoto side, far-distant landscape elements need longer focal lengths. A pretty lake seen from a scenic overlook often calls for telephoto although haze and atmospheric turbulence can limit image quality. Any landscape photography that includes the sun or moon as a definite disk (not an indistinct point) needs longer focal lengths. At 450mm, the sun or moon are about 1/6th the height of the frame in landscape orientation (450 is actually too short for some compositions!).

Zoom-with-the-feet may not be an option with landscapes so the landscape photographer may need a more extensive range of lenses than would a portrait, event, street, or product photographer.

Qwntm · 08-07-2020, 10:48 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by photoptimist

While it may be true that the 28 to 80 covers most landscapes, it fails for others.

In the Rocky Mountains, a lot of alpine lakes require very short focal lengths to get the lake, towering backdrop mountains, and a pleasing amount of the azure sky. Likewise, broad-vista mountain ranges need wide-angle treatments. Panoramic tiling is always an option, but having an ultra-wide angle lens sure makes life easier and better.

On the telephoto side, far-distant landscape elements need longer focal lengths. A pretty lake seen from a scenic overlook often calls for telephoto although haze and atmospheric turbulence can limit image quality. Any landscape photography that includes the sun or moon as a definite disk (not an indistinct point) needs longer focal lengths. At 450mm, the sun or moon are about 1/6th the height of the frame in landscape orientation (450 is actually too short for some compositions!).

Zoom-with-the-feet may not be an option with landscapes so the landscape photographer may need a more extensive range of lenses than would a portrait, event, street, or product photographer.

All you say is true, but my point was, in the rush to "do it all" maybe we aren't accomplishing much. There are thousands of photographers out there with all the gear and all the focal lengths, taking wonderful snapshots. Yet Ben Horne has an 8x10 view camera and seems to be doing pretty well shooting 6 frames on a 2 week trip with 3 lenses. I just recently bought his box set, and his prints make everything I've shot and most things I see online lacking in almost every way. I posted a review last night on Youtube, if you want to know more about it and my thoughts.

You Tube

And Ben's work is here:

Ben Horne

Less can be more. Photography especially is more about quality and less about quantity. Digital has moved the bar considerably into the "quantity" side of the equation in my opinion and not necessarily for the better.

Or to paraphrase Ansel Adams: "Isn't it interesting how much we progress with so little improvement."

Just an alternative viewpoint and food for thought.

photoptimist · 08-07-2020, 11:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Qwntm

All you say is true, but my point was, in the rush to "do it all" maybe we aren't accomplishing much. There are thousands of photographers out there with all the gear and all the focal lengths, taking wonderful snapshots. Yet Ben Horne has an 8x10 view camera and seems to be doing pretty well shooting 6 frames on a 2 week trip with 3 lenses. I just recently bought his box set, and his prints make everything I've shot and most things I see online lacking in almost every way. I posted a review last night on Youtube, if you want to know more about it and my thoughts. PHOTO UNIVERSE

And Ben's work is here:

Ben Horne

Less can be more. Photography especially is more about quality and less about quantity. Digital has moved the bar considerably into the "quantity" side of the equation in my opinion and not necessarily for the better.

Or to paraphrase Ansel Adams: "Isn't it interesting how much we progress with so little improvement."

Just an alternative viewpoint and food for thought.

Excellent points!

Any body of photography is going to be judged on the quality of the images taken rather than the quantity of images not taken. Thus, taking a small number of very very nice shots ultimately means more.

There is much to be said for picking a single lens and really learning to see the world through that one lens.

I'm sure that an entire great book of great landscape photographs could be made with just a 12mm lens. Likewise, a very different great book could be made with just a 450mm lens. Rather than picking the lens for subject, one can become skilled at picking the subject for the lens.

Perhaps one difference is in the personal goal of the photographer.

If the goal is to take "great landscape photographs" then a single focal length or modest set of lenses may be best because the photographer can pick and choose.

If the goal is to "photograph great landscapes" then a much broader set of lenses may be necessary because Mother Nature is calling the shots.

derekkite · 08-09-2020, 04:39 PM

I went up to a mountain lake today, and didn't bring my 150-450, but my 300 f4. I want something long, my purpose is wildlife, and I had the 35mm limited as well. Lovely spot, flowers and meadows, and the lake.

I think I'm going to look for a lighter tripod. I have a heavy one suitable for long lenses that works very well, but could probably cut a pound or more with little loss. Any suggestions?

lesmore49 · 08-09-2020, 06:13 PM

In my '60's, I would sometimes take three cameras and lenses with me. My K10D and K5...both with battery grips and both with extra batteries and my Km. All with lenses of course. After a couple of times of that, I thought enough already, that doesn't make sense.

But then I hit 70 and I find my work cut out for me, with my K1 alone, battery grip and extra battery and usually 100mm Pentax F 2.8 Macro lens or my Pentax 24-70 F 2.8.

I haven't had a precipitous loss in strength.

No, but I do have arthritis in my shoulder....so much so that I am scheduled to have an operation in the next while to replace my ball and joint so I won't experience the pain that prevents me from functioning as well as I'd like and am used to. So I adapted to my new health issue, planned what I could and couldn't do and carried the minimum.

I should be able to handle the K1 mit lens and my small Ricoh GR ll after I have recovered from the operation, however I think one camera should be enough..

But no more three cameras at one time. That will be too much and beyond me at this point. I should also be able to handle...singly...my K5 and Sigma 150-500.

I walk daily to maintain fitness. You sound like you have done very well, losing 25 Kgs and that takes a lot of discipline and will.

If your fitness level and health is up to handling the K1 and 24-70 then I would say go ahead. However as others have said, sometimes finding a bag or strap system which makes carrying equipment easier, might be in order.

As far as a tripod goes, I have an old Leitz Tiltall which I've used since my medium format film days. It is rock solid, but heavy. To carry it, I use a soft rifle case that I bought years ago and strap it to my back.

I don't carry the Leitz much anymore, and now, I'm not sure I could do so for any length of time. Perhaps a lighter, carbon fiber tripod that is stable when in use might be the solution.

What I've done in the recent past is figure out what I want to take pix of, figure out what is the minimal amount of equipment to do so, then select equipment that fits the bill. I try to ensure no extraneous amount of equipment will go with me. A kg. here...a kg. there...all adds up when you're hiking. Or at least it does for me.

So figure out the minimum you need for the photography you plan to do on a hike, possible look at a carrying system to alleviate the weight and don't over estimate what you can do. If you find you have overdone it in the weight of equipment, it will certainly wear on you .

**Tonyr99** · 08-12-2020, 04:43 PM

Maybe a bit off subject, but my wife and I commenced a cross country drive from Washington State to North Carolina and back this past July. Not exactly a hike per se...while my K1 II is on the heavy side, I felt my car could carry it along with our stuff, and I made sure to pack lightly...only to discover about 400 miles into the trip that I had left the camera bag/camera and a few lenses on my garage floor...UGH!

We did go on a few hikes during the course of the trip....but I learned that the best camera is of no use if one does not pack it or load it....on the bright side....I did load and unload my tripod from my trunk many times during the trip....

MJKoski · 08-13-2020, 07:01 AM

Extra gear is extra weight. For example weight of carried stuff I took for one 60km hike in harsh terrain was 35kg in the beginning of the hike including 10kg of photographic gear (Sony A7r, three lenses, batteries and a solid 5kg tripod & ballhead). Not very enjoyable. Huawei P20 Pro gives me the same pictures and total weight of photographic gear would be about 1.5kg including a mini travel tripod.

Hauling photographic junk into wilderness is doable, sure. Fun? No.

07-27-2020, 05:14 AM	#47
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by gatorguy Wonderfully calm photos of yours Norm. Where's that waterfall btw? The waterfall is almost right dead centre of the park, no easy way in no easy way out. If you're young you cold probably make it there in a day, but not in and out in day. For old guys like me, who rest every second day when possible, and don't paddle for more than 4 or 5 hours a day, it takes a lot longer. It's on the Nippissing River between, Nadine Lake and Ramona Lake near Gauthier's dam if you're looking at the park map. Official Algonquin Park Canoe Routes Map Online \| Algonquin Provincial Park \| The Friends of Algonquin Park ---------- Post added 07-27-20 at 08:19 AM ---------- Originally posted by osbourne one-nil A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff! I will carry my Tamron 300 2.8 (6 pounds ) for a couple kilometres. A big camera bag, with a large neoprene shoulder strap (designed for tripods, is what I use. I've carried the Tamron 3 miles, 5 km with that set up. But not over rugged terrain. Last edited by normhead; 08-13-2020 at 07:06 AM.

08-07-2020, 07:38 AM - 1 Like	#53
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	A lot of landscape photography can be done with a lot less focal lengths. If you were a 4x5 large format shooter, typically you would only have a 90mm (28mm on FF) a 210mm (63mm) and maybe a 300mm (80mm). So a K1 with a 31/43/77 can cover a lot of ground. And weight becomes less of an issue. (The 21mm Limited is just icing on the cake when it arrives.) Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Do you really need focal lengths from 15mm-450mm? Last edited by Qwntm; 08-07-2020 at 07:44 AM.

08-07-2020, 11:28 AM - 1 Like	#56
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	Originally posted by Qwntm All you say is true, but my point was, in the rush to "do it all" maybe we aren't accomplishing much. There are thousands of photographers out there with all the gear and all the focal lengths, taking wonderful snapshots. Yet Ben Horne has an 8x10 view camera and seems to be doing pretty well shooting 6 frames on a 2 week trip with 3 lenses. I just recently bought his box set, and his prints make everything I've shot and most things I see online lacking in almost every way. I posted a review last night on Youtube, if you want to know more about it and my thoughts. PHOTO UNIVERSE And Ben's work is here: Ben Horne Less can be more. Photography especially is more about quality and less about quantity. Digital has moved the bar considerably into the "quantity" side of the equation in my opinion and not necessarily for the better. Or to paraphrase Ansel Adams: "Isn't it interesting how much we progress with so little improvement." Just an alternative viewpoint and food for thought. Excellent points! Any body of photography is going to be judged on the quality of the images taken rather than the quantity of images not taken. Thus, taking a small number of very very nice shots ultimately means more. There is much to be said for picking a single lens and really learning to see the world through that one lens. I'm sure that an entire great book of great landscape photographs could be made with just a 12mm lens. Likewise, a very different great book could be made with just a 450mm lens. Rather than picking the lens for subject, one can become skilled at picking the subject for the lens. Perhaps one difference is in the personal goal of the photographer. If the goal is to take "great landscape photographs" then a single focal length or modest set of lenses may be best because the photographer can pick and choose. If the goal is to "photograph great landscapes" then a much broader set of lenses may be necessary because Mother Nature is calling the shots. Last edited by photoptimist; 08-07-2020 at 01:28 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-1ii with DBG6 Battery grip	Mikesul	Sold Items	3	09-08-2019 04:14 PM
K-1ii Video on Astrobackyard - Trevor Jones	Kevin B123	Pentax Full Frame	2	08-15-2019 12:25 PM
Finally got a K-1ii. Everything was going fine and then...	Badger Logic	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	8	01-22-2019 12:03 AM
Focus Issues with TAMRON 28-75 2.8 AF on K-1ii	Merv-O	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	21	11-16-2018 12:20 AM
Pentax K-1ii unboxing video	MarkJerling	Pentax Forums Giveaways	34	09-16-2018 03:48 PM

07-26-2020, 12:12 PM - 2 Likes	#46
osbourne one-nil Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2020 Location: Appleby in Westmorland, Cumbria Photos: Gallery Posts: 68 Original Poster	A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff!

07-27-2020, 07:32 AM	#48
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	I have done 60-80km (3-5 days) hikes with heavy Pentax-gear and Sony MILC-setup with TS-E Canons. The outcome is that I will never do that again. I will take P40 Pro as my camera for the next long hike. The camera gear is pure nuisance and does not give 500% better photos, just no. 1kg travel tripod and a Huawei gives me 95% of the IQ with right filters and my own plastic filter holder which weight nothing. Better to take extra food & snacks if you want to bring extra weight to the wilderness.

07-27-2020, 08:14 AM	#49
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	Originally posted by osbourne one-nil A near mint 70-200 f2.8 lens became available last night at (what I though) was a great price and I quickly convinced myself to grab it while I could. So from worrying about whether my kit is too heavy, I've gone and bought a lens that weighs as much as a blue whale. Perhaps I'll reserve it for short walks with views I've scouted and astro stuff! Yes, zoom/telephoto f/2.8 lenses are the cetaceans of lenses! However, if you carry K-1 & 70-200 f2.8 lens (in your hand) on a 1 mile walk, then a 2 mile walk, then a 3 mile walk, etc. you'll soon find it's not so bad. (Great for old biceps!) And if that training doesn't work, then at least you'll be delighted when you swap to any of your others lenses and find that the K-1 feels as light as air by comparison.

07-27-2020, 08:38 AM	#50
osbourne one-nil Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2020 Location: Appleby in Westmorland, Cumbria Photos: Gallery Posts: 68 Original Poster	It's going to be a fantastic lens for astrophotography, even if I need to go back to a tracking mount to use it to its full potential. There are also countless places around here with stunning views within a mile or so of any car parking space, so it might not be a walkabout lens but it will (I think) get very well used. I might even scout some routes and, if everything's looking good, make a beeline for that location early one morning or late one evening. I used to have a Canon 70-200 f4 and got some great shots with that...and this should blow that away. I'm trying to convince myselt!

08-03-2020, 11:58 PM	#51
osbourne one-nil Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2020 Location: Appleby in Westmorland, Cumbria Photos: Gallery Posts: 68 Original Poster	The lens has been returned and replaced with the f4 70-210mm. The f2.8 was ridiculously heavy for very little gain (to me) but beautifully made. If it were a telescope it would be a Questar....just a very heavy one.

08-04-2020, 12:16 AM - 1 Like	#52
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	Originally posted by osbourne one-nil The lens has been returned and replaced with the f4 70-210mm. The f2.8 was ridiculously heavy for very little gain (to me) but beautifully made. If it were a telescope it would be a Questar....just a very heavy one. I'm sticking with the f/2.8 (the weight doesn't worry me too much) but your choice is entirely understandable. Good luck with the f/4; it looks a great lens for outdoors.

08-07-2020, 09:45 AM	#54
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	Originally posted by Qwntm A lot of landscape photography can be done with a lot less focal lengths. If you were a 4x5 large format shooter, typically you would only have a 90mm (28mm on FF) a 210mm (63mm) and maybe a 300mm (80mm). So a K1 with a 31/43/77 can cover a lot of ground. And weight becomes less of an issue. (The 21mm Limited is just icing on the cake when it arrives.) Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Do you really need focal lengths from 15mm-450mm? While it may be true that the 28 to 80 covers most landscapes, it fails for others. In the Rocky Mountains, a lot of alpine lakes require very short focal lengths to get the lake, towering backdrop mountains, and a pleasing amount of the azure sky. Likewise, broad-vista mountain ranges need wide-angle treatments. Panoramic tiling is always an option, but having an ultra-wide angle lens sure makes life easier and better. On the telephoto side, far-distant landscape elements need longer focal lengths. A pretty lake seen from a scenic overlook often calls for telephoto although haze and atmospheric turbulence can limit image quality. Any landscape photography that includes the sun or moon as a definite disk (not an indistinct point) needs longer focal lengths. At 450mm, the sun or moon are about 1/6th the height of the frame in landscape orientation (450 is actually too short for some compositions!). Zoom-with-the-feet may not be an option with landscapes so the landscape photographer may need a more extensive range of lenses than would a portrait, event, street, or product photographer.

08-09-2020, 04:39 PM	#57
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	I went up to a mountain lake today, and didn't bring my 150-450, but my 300 f4. I want something long, my purpose is wildlife, and I had the 35mm limited as well. Lovely spot, flowers and meadows, and the lake. I think I'm going to look for a lighter tripod. I have a heavy one suitable for long lenses that works very well, but could probably cut a pound or more with little loss. Any suggestions?

08-09-2020, 06:13 PM	#58
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,344	In my '60's, I would sometimes take three cameras and lenses with me. My K10D and K5...both with battery grips and both with extra batteries and my Km. All with lenses of course. After a couple of times of that, I thought enough already, that doesn't make sense. But then I hit 70 and I find my work cut out for me, with my K1 alone, battery grip and extra battery and usually 100mm Pentax F 2.8 Macro lens or my Pentax 24-70 F 2.8. I haven't had a precipitous loss in strength. No, but I do have arthritis in my shoulder....so much so that I am scheduled to have an operation in the next while to replace my ball and joint so I won't experience the pain that prevents me from functioning as well as I'd like and am used to. So I adapted to my new health issue, planned what I could and couldn't do and carried the minimum. I should be able to handle the K1 mit lens and my small Ricoh GR ll after I have recovered from the operation, however I think one camera should be enough.. But no more three cameras at one time. That will be too much and beyond me at this point. I should also be able to handle...singly...my K5 and Sigma 150-500. I walk daily to maintain fitness. You sound like you have done very well, losing 25 Kgs and that takes a lot of discipline and will. If your fitness level and health is up to handling the K1 and 24-70 then I would say go ahead. However as others have said, sometimes finding a bag or strap system which makes carrying equipment easier, might be in order. As far as a tripod goes, I have an old Leitz Tiltall which I've used since my medium format film days. It is rock solid, but heavy. To carry it, I use a soft rifle case that I bought years ago and strap it to my back. I don't carry the Leitz much anymore, and now, I'm not sure I could do so for any length of time. Perhaps a lighter, carbon fiber tripod that is stable when in use might be the solution. What I've done in the recent past is figure out what I want to take pix of, figure out what is the minimal amount of equipment to do so, then select equipment that fits the bill. I try to ensure no extraneous amount of equipment will go with me. A kg. here...a kg. there...all adds up when you're hiking. Or at least it does for me. So figure out the minimum you need for the photography you plan to do on a hike, possible look at a carrying system to alleviate the weight and don't over estimate what you can do. If you find you have overdone it in the weight of equipment, it will certainly wear on you .

08-12-2020, 04:43 PM	#59
Tonyr99 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Washington State Posts: 47	Maybe a bit off subject, but my wife and I commenced a cross country drive from Washington State to North Carolina and back this past July. Not exactly a hike per se...while my K1 II is on the heavy side, I felt my car could carry it along with our stuff, and I made sure to pack lightly...only to discover about 400 miles into the trip that I had left the camera bag/camera and a few lenses on my garage floor...UGH! We did go on a few hikes during the course of the trip....but I learned that the best camera is of no use if one does not pack it or load it....on the bright side....I did load and unload my tripod from my trunk many times during the trip....

08-13-2020, 07:01 AM	#60
MJKoski Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,784	Extra gear is extra weight. For example weight of carried stuff I took for one 60km hike in harsh terrain was 35kg in the beginning of the hike including 10kg of photographic gear (Sony A7r, three lenses, batteries and a solid 5kg tripod & ballhead). Not very enjoyable. Huawei P20 Pro gives me the same pictures and total weight of photographic gear would be about 1.5kg including a mini travel tripod. Hauling photographic junk into wilderness is doable, sure. Fun? No.