Camera Weight

Paul Garland , Jun 25, 2009; 09:28 a.m.

Recently I have been reading several books by Galen Rowell and also one by his wife Barbara Cushman Rowell.

One of the things that hits me square in the face is that the Nikon 35mm camera/lens combination that Galen usually carried with him on his wilderness travels weighed much less than my D300, which has the MB-D10 second battery. I find that many times when I am going out hiking in the wilds I leave the D300 at home and bring along the D40 with a prime lens mounted on it. There are many things that the D40 won't do quite as well as the D300, including using a GPS, but the D40 is so much lighter that I really do notice the difference.

The Op/Tech camera strap I recently added helps greatly on the D300, but with a good lens mounted on it the combination is still really heavy. I have several old Nikon 35mm film SLRs that I could use, but I vastly prefer digital (RAW) primarily because of its immediacy and the vast range of opportunities that you get through good software like Photoshop and Capture NX. It is just too bad that all the really good cameras, which approach the resolution and color depth of 35mm film, are so darn HEAVY!

Nikon D300

Responses

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Last

Breogan Gomez , Jun 25, 2009; 10:02 a.m.

Usually I carry a D40x+35/2 in a side bag all day with no problems. That should be around 750gr... If I take my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 then, at the end of day, I can feel it. I wonder how It could be with a D300+17-55 or a D700+24-70, I guess that is not specifically designed for walk around shooters!

I am just curious, which were those cameras+objectives that Galen Rowell carried? Just to see how material is changing with time.

Kent Staubus , Jun 25, 2009; 10:24 a.m.

How about a NIkon 5000D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? That would be a very light combo with the D300 sensor in it. When I need to cut weight, I've started using my older D80 plus Nikons 18-55mm VR & 55-200mm VR. The reduction in weight is noticeable while the reduction in image quality is not.
Kent in SD

Matt Laur , Jun 25, 2009; 10:25 a.m.

Paul: what's a pound or two, against your overall body weight? The key isn't the weight of the camera/lenses, but the rig you're using to carry them. All of that weight being on one shoulder, or on your neck... ouch. D40 or D3.

In doing some of my dog stuff, I'll be out for ten hours straight, walking miles up and down hills - and I ain't my 25-year-old self anymore. I carry a D300 with grip, a 70-200/2.8, a 10-20 ultrawide, a TC17, a strobe, a 30/1.4 prime, a monopod, batteries, phone, 2-way radio, water, etc.

It (and more) all goes into a Think Tank Speed Racer, which I sometimes use as a shoulder bag, and sometimes as a hip bag. When the weight is on your hips, you hardly notice it. When I'm in a more complex situation - typically less in the field, and more in a venue - then I hang other Think Tank modular bags on the belt system for fast lens changes and whatnot.

Wearing it on my hips allows me to just have my usual chip on my shoulder (and that always hurts!).

Raymond Caprio , Jun 25, 2009; 10:29 a.m.

Below is a link to Galen Rowell's camera bag.
http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

tobey bilek , Jun 25, 2009; 11:00 a.m.

Agree with Matt. Get a back pack or better carry. A waist belt attached to a shoulder bag is an immense help you will not believe until you try it.

It also keeps the bag from flopping around so your walk is more natural and thus less tiring.

Breogan Gomez , Jun 25, 2009; 11:07 a.m.

Well, a waist belt is a must for a backpack bag if you intend to carry a bit of weight, no matter what are you going to put inside (photo equipment or a tent with a sleeping sack and a pot :-) ).

Jose Angel , Jun 25, 2009; 11:14 a.m.

Anyway, if you are looking for certain results, photo gear weight is not an issue at all. A bag full of photo gear, digital or not is not heavier than a climber`s bag, with ropes, carabiners, climbing shoes, etc. My heaviest set-up near my limit is 13kg. on a Lowepro backpack including tripod, LF camera, film holders and several lenses. A serious DSLR photographer could be served with a D300 size camera, two or even three lenses and other stuff with a total weight under five kilos. Think that three old film primes weight is closer to one current pro zoom, and only two of them are heavier than a consumer zoom.
From the point of view of a snapshooter, digital gear is certainly heavy. This is one of the reasons I like to use a D700 + 50mm prime!

Dan South , Jun 25, 2009; 11:21 a.m.

Why do you need the MB-D10 in the wilderness?

Maybe pick up a D90 or a D5000 for extreme hikes. Mr. Rowell used F4's and F100's, but he also liked the N80 and took the lighter body along when he wanted to minimize weight.

The bigger problem today is the massive size of pro-quality zoom lenses. Compare the weigth of three f/2.8 zooms to a handful of fast primes. VR adds additional weight, too.

Hopefully, you're not one of those folks who hikes with a laptop.

Breogan Gomez , Jun 25, 2009; 11:37 a.m.

Hike with a laptop? So you can check your email at the end of the trial? :-P I rather hike with a camera than a laptop anytime!

I guess with still photography you can take 2 or 3 primes and a small body and carry on with some croping. You get to the place and think: "wide, normal or tele?", measure light... blah, blah.

Zoom are more handy on fast situations where you can't change lens fast.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Last

Notify me of Responses