# Fantasy Dayhiking Kit



## rlaverty (Jul 17, 2013)

I will preface this post by saying this kit would be about 25lbs and $25,000 but its fun to dream ;D
So 2 bodies, 4 lenses.....

Future 7D2
Future Big megapixel/full-frame of choice
21 Zeiss
24-70 II
70-200(whatever incarnation works for you)
200-400(drool) would only need to take off the 7D2 if you needed 200-320

Probably .1% could carry or afford this but it came to me hiking the other day and thought i would share because having the ability to get basically a 21- 900mm focal length (unless my math is wrong) with incredible IQ sounds awesome. Discuss


----------



## bholliman (Jul 17, 2013)

Awesome, but HEAVY! I would be happy with one DSLR body. 1DX, 17 TS-E, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 4 IS, 200-400 IS and a Sony RX1. Could take some awesome pictures at about any focal length.


----------



## RGF (Jul 18, 2013)

rlaverty said:


> I will preface this post by saying this kit would be about 25lbs and $25,000 but its fun to dream ;D
> So 2 bodies, 4 lenses.....
> 
> Future 7D2
> ...



Too heavy. 

7D M2
24-105, 70-300, perhaps an UWA.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 19, 2013)

rlaverty said:


> having the ability to get basically a 21- 900mm focal length (unless my math is wrong) with incredible IQ sounds awesome. Discuss



Hi, just wondering how you got to 900, my maths makes it 640mm. 
400mm x 1.6 crop on 7D2 = 640. Did I miss something?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 19, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> rlaverty said:
> 
> 
> > having the ability to get basically a 21- 900mm focal length (unless my math is wrong) with incredible IQ sounds awesome. Discuss
> ...



200-400 has a built in extender, so 400*1.4*1.6 = 896.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 20, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > rlaverty said:
> ...



Yep missed something! :
Really should have remembered from the other threads I read. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 20, 2013)

For day hiking? How about a 5DIII with 24-105L f4 IS.
Done

If you see a particularly awesome scene that you want to get perfect, go back later with the right gear.
If I was going to take two lenses, it would 16-35L 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Much heavier, but more options.

For really light hiking, a point and shoot, like EOS-M with 22mm f/2


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 20, 2013)

Etienne said:


> For day hiking? How about a 5DIII with 24-105L f4 IS.



+1... what some of you deem a dayhiking kit i would equate more with a special ops training march!


----------



## dcm (Jul 20, 2013)

There are many types of dayhiking. It depends on what/where you are shooting, distance/elevation gain/altitude, and what shape you are in. My fantasy kit is the lightest weight setup that I can find with very wide and very long options. 

For example, my destinations are often high mountain lakes in bowls or the peaks above them in places like Rocky Mountain National Park near my home in Colorado. I'll scout my hikes on a topo map and identify some key things I might want to shoot along the way or at my destination. In the summer I might go 16 miles round trip and gain 3000' elevation in a single day with much of the trail above tree line at 11,000' to peaks above 13,000'. In the winter I might go half that far on snow shoes for a day hike. I'll easily take a few hundred photos during a 12-16 hour day, more with exposure bracketing. 

So I try to travel as light as possible, but still have a wide option and a long option. I started with 550D but now have a 6D. I might like to try the 100D/SL1 as a second body someday. 

Daylight is seldom an issue on a day hike so I don't need the fastest lenses - I'm usually shooting at f/8 or f/11. I tried using a single lens solutions with the 24-105L, but found I always shot at the extremes and they were never enough on the 550D. I like to perch on a peak and shoot the neighboring peaks a few to several miles away - it's a very different perspective than shooting from the valleys below so I will carry 70-200f4L and both extenders. Someday I might like to try the 70-300L. If I'm shooting a lake in a bowl from above or at lake level I'll need something pretty wide so 17-40L is often my second lens. With the 550D I brought the 8-15L along on occasion to go even wider and got some great shots. The rumored 14-24 sounds interesting for the wide end.

I always have a P&S on my pack strap for snaps along the way. During the climb I'll often stop and take a few snaps at every photo-op while I catch my breath since I'm not that young anymore. This works well in the morning since the mountains often cloud up in the afternoon and I don't have nearly as much energy on the way back down. I originally used a G series, then S95/100, now EOS M/22. I ordered the EF-M 18-55, but I really would like to try the EF-M 11-22. 

One suggestion I would make is to get a real pack if you plan to do some serious dayhiking, not a camera bag/pack. And get a pack larger than you need just to fit your gear. My gear would easily fit in a 30 liter or smaller pack but I carry a 45 liter pack and use the compression straps to cinch it down. Larger packs have better suspension systems to carry the weight and your camera gear is much heaver than a sleeping bag and pad. Your body will appreciate it and you will have a much better day. I usually carry a Gregory Z45 with camera gear, ten essentials, food, drink, and enough extras to spend the night in an emergency. It feels a lot lighter than a smaller pack fully loaded.

I use a similar philosophy even when hiking mountains in other states at lower elevations. I pleased with my current setup, but there is always something else to try. Suggestions?


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 21, 2013)

My Canon S90 is now my hiking camera. But I'm old and can't climb mountains like I used to. Frankly, the shots I got back in the day with a film SLR were never that compelling. Most ended up being snapshots of my fellow backpackers/climbers and that did not need a nice camera.


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 21, 2013)

I can't think of much that would persuade me to take a 200-400 with me on a hike around the block, let alone go for a day walk!

Having done a lot of mountain trips, I learned that cameras in my rucksack were pointless - stopping to get them out meant a loss of rhythm and added to already long days. This meant my camera had to be immediately available. My pre-digital mountain gear usually had an OM-2 a 24/2.8, a polariser and a GND. Occasionally, a 50/1.8 would make it into my bag but it was seldom used. 

Enter the 21st century and a period of "progress." Until a few months ago, I'd pack a 5D2, maybe a 17 TSE, 21/2.8 or 25/2 and maybe a 50/2 MP. If I was brave, there would be a 100/2 MP or a 70-200 II or 400/4 or something else. Add a couple of filters and batteries and it's lots of kilograms to lug and the walk stops being fun. If a longer lens went along, it was with a monopod which needs a lens bracket and I may as well take an L-bracket for the camera. All this adds up.

Having used a lot of lenses over more than 35 years photography, I realised that fast lenses come at a premium - backache. A moment's thought should convince you that switching from f/4 to f/2.8 has around 4-6 times the weight. (The lenses must have twice the area and be twice as thick. Frequently, there are more elements, the mechanics are more complex and the lens is twice as long.) Anyway, it got to the point that I wasn't taking my camera with me because it was just too much hassle.

All this made me give a try at a mirrorless camera for my walkabout toy. I take a 12mm Touit and a 18-55 and that's it... It's the first time in years that my camera weight approaches what it used to be. Most of all, it's accessible.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jul 21, 2013)

rlaverty said:


> I will preface this post by saying this kit would be about 25lbs and $25,000 but its fun to dream ;D
> So 2 bodies, 4 lenses.....
> 
> Future 7D2
> ...



This is obviously what your team of Sherpas would carry for you!

If taking a DSLR I'd take an APS-C with the very compact and lightweight 55-250 and an ultra wide angle such as the 10-24 (or perhaps go wider still if I thought it'd get used). Snapshots of fellow hikers? The 18-55 is tiny and light, the 18-135 is perhaps the better bet as it's relatively light and means you don't have to zoom with your feet. If I wanted shallow depth of field the 50 1.8 is so small and light it's practically free weight/pack-size wise. Shallow DoF on full frame I'd got for Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Very small and light for a f2.8 zoom in that range, also decently sharp wide open.

I think a decent compact would be preferable thoubut. Unfortunately I don't have one so it's a toss up between the extremes of camera phone and DSLR.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 21, 2013)

Always fun to dream! For myself, unless I'm specifically targeting wildlife (in which case, the Canon's come out), my current day hiking kit is a Fuji X-E1 with a couple of lenses. Very sherpa friendly. My fantasy kit would be a Fuji X-E2 with ultra fast AF tracking.


----------



## AJ (Jul 21, 2013)

Drebel with a FF sensor (plastic body, pentamirror = lightweight)
Canon 14-24/2.8
100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS mk2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> My Canon S90 is now my hiking camera. But I'm old and can't climb mountains like I used to. Frankly, the shots I got back in the day with a film SLR were never that compelling. Most ended up being snapshots of my fellow backpackers/climbers and that did not need a nice camera.


 
+1

What us old guys need is a bearer to carry our equipment. 

Imagine the days when 11 X 14 glass plates were used. A photographer usually hired a unsuspecting young but strong man to pack his 200+ lbs of gear up a mountain side. He could only get away with it once in a particular area, word quickly got around that it was not worth the money.


----------

