[photoptimist]

Great article! I like the two concepts of hiking for photography and hiking photography (and personally skew toward the 2nd group.) Part of my hiking photography comes from hiking to the same favorite destinations and getting pictures of some of the same subjects taken in different seasons, times of day, weather, and lighting.

I agree with your reasons for using Pentax -- rugged, great photographer-centric controls, plus awesome image quality.

In addition to "hiking for photography" and "hiking photography" here's also "photography for hiking" which could be defined as taking photographs to help plan future hikes. I live in a mountainous state (Colorado, USA) with over 2,400 peaks above 10,000 feet (3000 meters). I often see mountains that have no trails that might be fun to summit. However, not being a true mountain climber, I need to find a hikable route to the top. To do that, I will take photos of the flanks of the mountain from other vantage points during hikes in the surrounding areas. Then I study my photos, satellite photos, and topo maps to find passable terrain (e.g., no cliffs, scree slopes, swaths of fallen trees, thick vegetation, fields of large boulders, etc.) to reach the target hiking destination. A K-1, a modest telephoto, and pixel peeping really helps find a good route.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I'm very much someone who goes for a walk and happens to take a camera along, and it's personally important to me to never let the photography feel more important than the walk itself. If the photography were to become the whole point of the walk, I'd risk feeling that the walk was a waste of time if I didn't end up with any decent photos.

I'm also wondering about the difference between a walk and a hike. Even if I spend a whole day doing who-knows-how-many miles out on Dartmoor, I think of it as a walk rather than a hike. Hiking sounds like such hard work. So I suppose my personal definition of the terms would be:

Hiking for photography would be those guys (always men) who I often see out on Dartmoor kitted with arctic grade harsh weather gear and a huge backpack full of camera equipment, even in the mildest weather. I think perhaps for them it's the gear that really matters.

Hiking photography would be the men and women who are wearing more genuinely practical clothes and carrying a lot less camera gear. You tend to see them further out on the moor than the "all the gear and no idea" types.

Actual Dartmoor folk are the ones wearing a tatty old jacket with a couple of sweaters underneath, carrying a light canvas bag with a couple of sandwiches and a beaten up old camera inside.

And then of course there's the Royal Marines. They are the ones yomping 30 miles over the moor in full battle kit weighing over 30lb.

As for professional landscape photographers hiking miles out into the wilderness. . . well, I often see photographs of Dartmoor taken by that type. There's always an accompanying story about how they spent a week in a tent waiting for that one perfect moment of light, and it's always actually a location no more than half a mile away from the nearest car park.

[Suhail]

I definitely hike or walk to take photos, sometimes to a spot, but more often for new experiences, even if it's a trail I've been on. I will tend to go as light as possible, but usually shorter hikes, 12 miles or less. I'll always have a camera with a long lens in case wildlife is spotted, wildlife doesn't wait for a lens change, where a macro or landscape usually will. I've got a holster and chest harness that carries a body with the DA*300 and 1.4 converter, and a small sling that will carry another body, with 20-40, 55-300PLM, or sometimes a Sigma 50 or Tamron 90 macro, and the 15, and sometimes a tripod is carried along. I can take the same holster setup on my bicycle. I've also bought a kayak for photography, a pelican case holds the gear there, the body, tc, 300 or 55-300, and 18-135, however I have only changed lenses on the kayak once when the water was still.

I like your gear.

One reason why hikers can't be master of wildlife photography is because of the following reasons:

Professional wildlife photographers recommend following steps for taking top quality wildlife shots:

1. Sun at your back: What is the probability of a hiker running into wildlife with sun at the back?

2. Wind at your back: Birds fly into the wind they say. As above

3. Separate the background from the subject: Perhaps possible at the cost of time and remember time is a valuable commodity for a hiker.

4. Take the shots at the eye level of the subject: As above

5. Go where the activity is: Unless one is hiking through a national or provincial park teeming with wildlife, this is not going to happen

6. High shutter speed: This can be achieved.

7. Shoot at AF.C rather than AF.S: Again, this can be achieved provided one does not forget to bring it back to AF.S for shots other than wildlife.

[Kiwizinho]

Dad took photos of hikes (or tramps as we call them in NZ), I hike to take photos, but I think there's always some overlap.
Dad took some nice photos in his life, and I'll take some purely record shots that are not meant to be particularly artistic, even if the main purpose of my adventure is photography.
Even coming from the perspective of going on adventure for the purpose of photography, I agree with the need to handle a diverse range of subjects.
Some people might be pure landscape, or nature photographers, but I'm interested in anything photogenic, although I tend to have a particular interest in natural history, and I think that also could be divided into two similar categories, of those who take photos of nature, and those who go to nature to take photos. Of course going into nature often involves hiking, so there's some overlap there.
In my case, I like to get a good photo if I can, but I'd rather get an average or even poor photo and record some species I've seen than no photo, as I'm somewhat addicted to the citizen science platform iNaturalist.

A solution I've found that works well a lot of the time that would probably apply even better to those more interested in the hike than the photography, is to carry two cameras.
I have my K-70 with a DA 55-300 WR and an Olympus TG-6 P&S for macro and underwater pictures of fish and invertebrates, and for landscapes if I have to. It's fully waterproof and shoots raw, it's field of view overlaps with the K-70 with DA 55-300, it also weighs less than carrying a second lens and has GPS.
It has a small sensor and only 12M pixels, so isn't great for high ISO, or big enlargements, and it's harder to use than the K-70, but I find the two a good compliment for each other as I can instantly switch from wide angle as I can have the TG-6 on my wrist and the K-70 around my neck. I'm not likely to print any macro images so large that 12M pixels will be an issue.
If I'm not expecting birds or macro subjects, I'll take the D-FA 28-105. I know 16-85 would be better on APS-C but I got the 28-105 cheap, and it's equivalent to 42-157, so similar to the F 35-135 of the film era in terms of field of view on APS-C, and a good, light, weather sealed zoom.

I think there is something I'll call Murphy's inverse law of outdoor photography: The more remote the location, and thus the less likely I am to be able to return, the more likely I am to want to carry more equipment in order to photograph the location in as much detail as possible.

[Suhail]

Great article! .......

In addition to "hiking for photography" and "hiking photography" here's also "photography for hiking" which could be defined as taking photographs to help plan future hikes. .........

Hi,

Thank you for liking the article!

Photography for planning purposes is something new for me. Perhaps, subconsciously, I may have done that while hiking in provincial parks closer to my city.

However, Canada and its provinces are so big that it is highly unlikely that I would get to hike in its national parks more than once. My family and I visited 4 Quebec national parks in the summer of 2020. We traveled 1100 km one way to visit those. Now, because of the beauty of those parks, I would like to visit them again, but the probability is low.

Once again, thanks for encouraging comments and value adding input.

Regards,

[Kiwizinho]

As for professional landscape photographers hiking miles out into the wilderness. . . well, I often see photographs of Dartmoor taken by that type. There's always an accompanying story about how they spent a week in a tent waiting for that one perfect moment of light, and it's always actually a location no more than half a mile away from the nearest car park.

Oh, you have them too? Here in New Zealand though, they typically do have to venture further than half a mile from the nearest car park. At least some of them are Pentaxians. There was a TV documentary here some years ago about some of our rivers, and the narrator was a professional landscape photographer, and I saw quite clearly that he was filmed holding a Pentax 645 of some description. It was a fleeting image, so not sure whether it was film or digital, but the bulk and Pentax brand were unmistakeable.

[Suhail]

I'm very much someone who goes for a walk and happens to take a camera along, and it's personally important to me to never let the photography feel more important than the walk itself. If the photography were to become the whole point of the walk, I'd risk feeling that the walk was a waste of time if I didn't end up with any decent photos.

I'm also wondering about the difference between a walk and a hike.........

Hi,

I think you have nailed the definitions and the differences.

I personally had thought that 'walk' is just the UK equivalent of US/Canada's hike. I hiked through two UK national parks in the UK in October 2022 - New Forest and South Downs. The brochures and park rangers always used the term 'walk'. When I clarified to the park rangers that I am hiking a particular trail, they always opened the page in the brochure that had details of that trail and the headline always stated 'walk'. The brochure of Lake District NP also used the term 'Walk'. Unfortunately, I was not able to visit that park due to my struggling with Bursitis.

US/Canada always use terminology of (i) hiking and (ii) backpacking if one is carrying gear to stay in the backcountry for 2 or more days, often a week.

Then there is an international term of 'trekking', which I think means backpacking for longer durations in the mountains.

Regards,

[Kiwizinho]

1. Sun at your back: What is the probability of a hiker running into wildlife with sun at the back?

I guess 50%?

2. Wind at your back: Birds fly into the wind they say. As above

If you generalise into to 180 degree hemispheres, then I guess again 50%
Multiply 1 and 2, 25%.
At this point still not too bad odds.

3. Separate the background from the subject: Perhaps possible at the cost of time and remember time is a valuable commodity for a hiker.

This is where the odds really start to look bad. Birds have this strange habit of sitting in trees. Trees have lots of branches, twigs, and leaves, which not only provide lots of background distraction, but also attenuate much of the ambient light.
Forget 1. and 2. and think more along the lines of the odds of winning your national lottery.

[robgski]

I am probably more of a hiker who takes photos than I am a photographer who takes hikes.
Most often, I like to grab my camera holster and head out for a hike, whatever camera and lens I’d in the holster is what I will use. My purpose is to get out of the house and go for a hike, I am probably set at AV, f8, ISO 800. If I see something and I want to take a picture, I stop and take out my camera, compose , maybe change a setting, and open the shutter. Camera back in the holster and I am on my way.

If I have a location or subject in mind which requires a hike, I select the best combo for the situation. I might also throw a tripod into a rucksack along with other gear, including a Cotton Carrier harness. I usually have a long lens combo on the harness and I make my way to my intended destination to capture a few images.

[que es tu]

I am definitely a hiker who takes photos!! I am sometimes out for multiple days with a set itinerary, so I really just document what I find along the way, which I have lots of fun doing. No stress and pure enjoyment, especially when a photo turns out just the way I want!!

The WR was THE reason I initially chose Pentax after taking my Canon super zoom on a couple backpacking trips when it rained. I checked B&H for water resistant cameras and Pentax popped up! I knew I wanted a viewfinder and was intrigued with ILC’s, so I got a KS2 and it has been big fun ever since!! I have even met other hikers who have called me a PHOTOGRAPHER!!!!! If they only knew!!


But seriously, I have found that photographing while hiking helps me to see more and deepens my experience in the wilderness. I become more involved instead of just passing through! Plus the photos let me share the woods with others who may not have the physical or mental stamina to see the places I have been to! So we both benefit!

[gatorguy]

I am probably more of a hiker who takes photos than I am a photographer who takes hikes.

Just the opposite for me. I nearly always hike with photography in mind and rarely for the walk itself, tho I have 3 times in the past three years AFAICR, and only once found satisfaction from it. So as a rule I don't.

My furthest walk in that time has been 16 miles and that was a hike with very little in the way of photos. Uncharacteristically I liked that one, because it was a group of three very good friends. Typically for me now it's solo between 3 and 5 miles on wilderness/marsh photo hikes, in just before dawn and back home by 11 at the latest, and this time of year definitely once and maybe twice a week.

I'm a wuss carrying a camera who loves flat land, marked trails, and breakfast at home. I'm not a hiker who takes photos.

[luftfluss]

I've never had an issue with any of the gear I've taken on a hike, whatever the weather. All the modern stuff is equally as good and capable, as far as I'm concerned.

[ramseybuckeye]

1. Sun at your back: What is the probability of a hiker running into wildlife with sun at the back?

This is where the odds really start to look bad. Birds have this strange habit of sitting in trees. Trees have lots of branches, twigs, and leaves, which not only provide lots of background distraction, but also attenuate much of the ambient light.
Forget 1. and 2. and think more along the lines of the odds of winning your national lottery.

I swear that many types of birds will intentionally put themselves in a position that the sun is directly behind them when you see them. Kind of a joke, but I think it may be an actual defense mechanism.

[ramseybuckeye]

Great article! I like the two concepts of hiking for photography and hiking photography (and personally skew toward the 2nd group.) Part of my hiking photography comes from hiking to the same favorite destinations and getting pictures of some of the same subjects taken in different seasons, times of day, weather, and lighting.

I've tried to do that four seasons photos, but have never managed to get all four for some reason or other, usually just forgetting it.

[normhead]

I've tried to do that four seasons photos, but have never managed to get all four for some reason or other, usually just forgetting it.

There's an app for that.