I am planning on hiking significant portions of the pacific crest trail and setting out on a full excursion in the next year or so. What gear should I bring?I immediately thought of something like a Pentax K1/k3-3 and the 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6. It would give me a complete weather sealed kit with okay battery life.But I was thinking it would actually be ideal if I could find a film setup. I would save so much weight. No (significantly less) batteries, no laptop, no power banks. I would just stop off at one of the many towns along the route and mail the film out, have them developed and scanned then returned to my parents house. I can have the scans emailed to me and uploaded from my phone.But I am open to any other good solutions, what is your go-to here? Remember single lens solutions only.
>>4338787Spend 6 months learning how to correctly use a view camera then take that. If you're scanning 8x10 will be best. If you are going to print them in a darkroom do 4x5. The enlarger is much easier and cheaper to acquire.
>>4338788>Spend 6 months learning how to correctly use a view camera then take thatno faggot. I am going to be literally walking across the country. I am not taking a huge ass camera with me. I am not that autistic.
>>4338792Then why should anyone care?
Would a film camera really be less space with all the canisters? Almost nowhere sells resupply.
>>4338807>Would a film camera really be less space with all the canisters?It would be more space, but a weight savings overall especially with the lack of a needing a computer to offload the jpgs or batteries and power banks, etc.>Almost nowhere sells resupply.I hadn't actually thought of this. I'm not sure where I would get more film along the way. I'd have to either carry 5 months worth of film or find a way to have it shipped ahead of me somehow? If I could find a couple amazon lockers along the route, and film I can buy off amazon, that would work. Or maybe my parents can ship some to a place I'm going to be. But I still need to solve the problem of which camera and lens to even bring with me first.
>>4338787>>4338808>no laptopMost modern cameras have apps to offload images to your phone without the need for a computer. 2 spare rolls of film takes up the same space as 2 spare batteries which would likely be overkill already, considering that you can charge your camera whenever you charge your phone.>no power banksIf you don't need one for your phone, you won't need one for your camera. If you need one for your phone, then you'll already have one for your camera.
>>4338812>considering that you can charge your camera whenever you charge your phone.this is a good point>If you don't need one for your phone, you won't need one for your camerabut powering my phone and camera will require more power and I expect my phone will be off for significant amounts of time.>Most modern cameras have apps to offload images to your phoneMost modern cameras are mirrorless, does pentax have a usable form of this?
>>4338815>but powering my phone and camera will require more power and I expect my phone will be off for significant amounts of time.To be honest the camera only needs to be switched on for the shot so it can be as economical as you want. I am of course assuming that rapid fire or long duration (e.g. timelapse) shooting is out, which is true anyway if you were considering film, but with digital at least you have the option if you're near a power source.>>4338815>Most modern cameras are mirrorless, does pentax have a usable form of this?No clue, just a reading suggestion.
>>4338818>No clue, just a reading suggestion.Thanks, I appreciate it. I will look into how to do this with pentax.>To be honest the camera only needs to be switched on for the shot so it can be as economical as you wantThat's fair. I guess I'm just used to leaving my camera on during day hikes. I should start taking mine out and see how it does. Maybe you're right and power won't be a huge deal. It's not like I'll be taking photos for hours or anything. I'll start testing out the battery life and see if it's actually an issue. Especially if I can get something with a transfer application, like you suggested, that would be ideal.
>>4338787Probably will want to go mft for the weight savingsEvery gram matters when long distance hiking
>>4338820why transfer photos at all in the field? just bring a handful of memory cards and worry about processing when the trip is over>>4338808if you can figure out how to restock on film and unload exposed film along the way, that seems better imo. you might have a bulkier load but you won't have to recharge batteries. ( i am biased toward film)
I would only shoot film if you're absolutely sure you can handle it and it's right for you on the trail. Wildlife doesn't wait around and you won't have hours to wait for it, so having a camera you can turn on, adjust the ISO on (impossible on film), and fire off burst shots (likely impossible especially if you're taking a light camera), then turn around and shoot a landscape at ISO 100, do astro at night when you're somewhere with 0 light pollution, do macro easily... and not worry about running out of film. I love film and I love hiking but digital wins here easily. My step mom backpacked and traveled throughout her life and frequently has told me how much she appreciates digital and how awful film was to deal with. You should also try your hardest to make your phone work, including maybe buying a new phone, as it'd be weather sealed and lighter than anything else you can haul along. Other consider a TG-6 or an Olympus weather sealed camera, but only after you are certain any phone can't do what you want. Also consider swapping between your phone and your camera, and using that as a way to avoid bringing a lens (eg a standard zoom) for the camera.Here's another thought, and one I've tried to follow more: this trip is for documentation and exploration. Figure out the spots you want to return to during this trip, with the right lighting (time of day and time of year, weather etc) and do another trip just through one of those segments with your nicest gear (could be film!), with extra days built in just for getting the shot. This is how Real Photographers used to do nature photography. You'll be surprised how much more fun you can have not doing an insane through hike and having no agenda all day. Plus, if during your PCT trek you see something beautiful you can just snapshit, take a note and move on knowing it'll be waiting for you later. Less pressure during your strenous hike = more fun before and after! (I speak from experience here)
>>4338787Olympus e-m1 ii/iii and the 12-40mm f2.8 or 12-100 f4 depending on how much low light capability you need.
>>4338787I'd honestly go for the film setup.Even excluding the potential weight benefits, if I were taking a once in a lifetime hike like that I would want to spend as much time as possible disconnected from digital technology.In regards to gear, maybe a smaller SLR or a decent point and shoot? I know Olympus sold some analog point and shoots with weather sealing. Either way I hope you get some good photos Anon!
>>4338839Those are big boys. I'd go with the E-M5.2, a capture clip, and something like the 12-45mm f/4 (better iq, less range) or the 14-150mm (worse iq, but perfect for hiking). Also consider a 1.8 prime or two in a plastic bag; they're very small and light and can be used when you want better iq, assuming the weather's good. In Washington you may as well mail anything not weather sealed home lol, assuming fires don't keep you from hiking here.
>>4339000Ugh. Check the equivalent apertures… just shoot film for that 36mp full frame but with good colors sovl. Even a 35-80 f4 type zoom would be better than mft and its “fast” f5.6-8 equivs.
>>4339031NOOOO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE SAME PICTURES AS FULL FRAME
>>4339037Imagine going on an epic hike and coming back home to the daunting task of running AI processing cope on a bunch of bayer color noise vomit covered and diffraction smeared photos (in addition to being soft due to being shot wide open at a whopping f11 equivalent)Or, imagine going on an epic hike and coming back home to beautiful film photography
>>4338787Something weatherproof
>>4339042only one weather sealing system has ever consistently kept water out of cameraseverything else is rated with a>*harmless ingress allowed during IP rating process AKA camera still has water in it, water damage not covered under warranty[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4339041Op be like>muh weight muh bulk muh weak calvesSad.
My local grocery megamart chain sells 3 packs of Fuji 200 and 400 in every single store I’ve been to, including the ones in remote towns. Do with this information what you will.
>>4338829>why transfer photos at all in the field?Mostly I just want to share the hike online with my friends/family as I am going. I feel like it's much more fun to get updates during an event than after the fact. In general, the trip isn't about photography, it's about the experience and honestly I'm not that concerned about the photographic output from a technical sense, but since I already do photography I figure it might be a fun thing to do during the trip.>if you can figure out how to restock on film and unload exposed film along the way, that seems better imoI would prefer the film solution, but no one has yet to recommend me a camera/lens setup for it and despite my attempts to google something, I can't find anything. It seems like all weather sealed film bodies are very old to the point that you couldn't really rely on the weather sealing to still function. I do agree that it would be far more kino on film though. I think what I'm going to have to do is just start going out on test trips for several days, and just try it and see what works and where the pain points are.>>4338838I am comfortable shooting film, I currently do it. I'm not terribly fussed if I miss a shot. I don't plan on doing any wildlife, maybe some nice landscapes here or there, but mostly I'll just be on the lookout for interesting/compelling human things or odd events that might happen along the trail. Although doing some astro might be sick, so I'll consider it.>Here's another thought, and one I've tried to follow more: this trip is for documentation and exploration. Figure out the spots you want to return to during this tripthis is a great idea, thanks!>>4338844I agree. Do you happen to know the model numbers? I couldn't find anything by googling. I'd like to make film work, as it would be my preference.
>>4338787Be a legend and just do it. You always have your phone anyway.
>>4339043this is correct. You have to be prepared for everything to get soaked. It rains a lot in the PNW. You need a drybag for your camera, tinder, firestarting equipment (unless you're using a steel)
Honestly, unless you hate yourself, I would probably just get a new iPhone. The camera is damn good for the size, you can even shoot RAW, it's multipurpose, can act as a GPS rescue device if shit gets fucked up... there's not much to recommend any digital camera on an endurance hike like this. Every ounce counts and you will find a camera becomes an anchor you resent dragging.That said, you could always bring a little film camera and if it does get too heavy, ship it back to yourself when you tire of it.
>>4339140just use mft at that point. even the newest iphone is really bad on anything with detail. for modern architecture its ok, like excessive high iso shooting, but once the sharpening and hdr (even in raw) rear their heads it goes to shit
>>4338787Nikonos V (and start practice shooting it now bc you won't like it having to figure it out on the trail). It weighs as much as your head, and you'll have to fuck about with film cartridges and worry about # of shots, but they will be beautiful.ORAnd just like fucking roll with me for a sec, but lets reconsider the hated Nikon ZF, + a 14-30 f4 lens. On a trip like this, you're gonna take 3 kinds of images.1. vidya2. quick snaps for your feed3. very fucking fine hi-res landscapes.1.It does fine and great but through that fucking excellent glass2.Only does at 24mp, which, nigga that's still huge compared to how far down you're going to crop & resize for posting anywhere, and with that lens they still look goddamn spectacular compared to any shitty phone pics.3. Great big Fuck Off landscapes actually work pretty well innawoods bc the wind's not moving every damn thing around so much that it doesn't work. Set your timing so it blasts em fast & the merge in post does the rest. Use a simple light hand-sized tripod and a strap to mount it on stable rocks or around tree trunks so it's still, and BAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAM there's your 140mpx mega wide panorama of the beautiful PNW. The rest of your life you will see them and be thankful you took the effort. People will tell you to publish them in a book but you will know better.The nicety of the ZF is that with lens off, it's flat as fuck and packs down nicely anywhere you want to put it, including carry-ons, outer pack pockets and jacket pockets. The 14-30 is a stout little fucker, small enough to sit in your other jacket pocket. Not as compact as a P&S, but shoots the kind of images you're going to want at a quality far better. Fuck I should get another one. I had one and sold it bc I had to have a Sony. Fuck the Sony was made by engineers, not designers. Fits in the hand like shit, trying to do anything requires the misery of their menus. Rather gouge my eyes out with skewers.
>>4339151Oh yeh, plus that bitch is weathersealed. ...the ZF & Z lens, not the Nikonos V. The V is fully waterproof, blast proof, and everything else proof. But again, you'd have to have someone mail you film drops at places on your route so you can pick them up and ship completed rolls out to the dev as you go. But man, when you're out there you're never going to be happy having to ration shots bc you only get 36 exp on a roll. A bunch of lightweight hi capacity cards and a solar charger are your friend. Then at night when you want to fuck around you can review your images from the day on cam & weed your bad shots to kill the hours of darkness when the mood hits you. And it will.
>>4339151>2. quick snaps for your feedmodernity was a fucking mistake, istg
