Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Musings & Tinkerings of a BirdBrained Gram Weenie

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Re:Re: Musings & Tinkerings of a BirdBrained Gram Weenie

      jimmyjam wrote:

      BirdBrain wrote:

      jimmyjam wrote:


      I am open to suggestions. One beer down, a little more yard work, a little more beer, a little more yard work, a little more beer, then the heck with yard work give me beer.




      Cuben fiber gutter nail pouch. This is a tyvek one. Flat 8.25" long by 1.75" wide would work good for 6 gutter nails. It could have a flap 1.75" long with a piece of shock cord. The flap would be closed over the pouch with the shock cord loop holding it in place. The tyvek would work, but if you are looking for cuben fiber ideas, this would be one. Just an idea.


      BB- I already have one for my shepard style stakes in cuben. But I'll make you one. I could use some velcro on the flap or I'll use shock cord- let me know which you would prefer. :)


      The weenie answer is whichever is lightest. The polite answer is whichever is easiest. If they weigh the same, refer to the polite answer. Thank you.
      Non hikers are about a psi shy of a legal ball.

    • Re:Re: Musings & Tinkerings of a BirdBrained Gram Weenie

      BirdBrain wrote:

      jimmyjam wrote:

      BirdBrain wrote:

      jimmyjam wrote:


      I am open to suggestions. One beer down, a little more yard work, a little more beer, a little more yard work, a little more beer, then the heck with yard work give me beer.




      Cuben fiber gutter nail pouch. This is a tyvek one. Flat 8.25" long by 1.75" wide would work good for 6 gutter nails. It could have a flap 1.75" long with a piece of shock cord. The flap would be closed over the pouch with the shock cord loop holding it in place. The tyvek would work, but if you are looking for cuben fiber ideas, this would be one. Just an idea.


      BB- I already have one for my shepard style stakes in cuben. But I'll make you one. I could use some velcro on the flap or I'll use shock cord- let me know which you would prefer. :)


      The weenie answer is whichever is lightest. The polite answer is whichever is easiest. If they weigh the same, refer to the polite answer. Thank you.


      Coming to you in Monday's mail. Anyone else?
      "Dazed and Confused"
      Recycle, re-use, re-purpose
      Plant a tree
      Take a kid hiking
      Make a difference

    • Musings & Tinkerings of a BirdBrained Gram Weenie

      jimmyjam wrote:

      Would anybody else like a cuben fiber stake bag while I am making them? If you do let me know how long your stakes are, what kind they are and how many you use.
      . I'll take one if they are still available. I use 4 MSR Groundhog stakes that are 7 1/2 long. I'll send a pm with info. Thx!
      RIAP

    • OzJacko wrote:

      I know I have said it elsewhere but make pot cozys for your pots. They save fuel by removing the need for a simmer period. Keep pack clean and reduce rattles too.


      Have made several. Here's my write-up on my latest version:
      www.laughingdog.com/2014/04/backpacking-pot-cozy-v30.html

      [IMG:      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SqGxBcVfUPY/U0rkpX2a5aI/AAAAAAAAIRk/vqK5XGTEQWY/s1600/DSCF2332-1.jpg]
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • LDog wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I know I have said it elsewhere but make pot cozys for your pots. They save fuel by removing the need for a simmer period. Keep pack clean and reduce rattles too.


      Have made several. Here's my write-up on my latest version:
      www.laughingdog.com/2014/04/backpacking-pot-cozy-v30.html

      [IMG:      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SqGxBcVfUPY/U0rkpX2a5aI/AAAAAAAAIRk/vqK5XGTEQWY/s1600/DSCF2332-1.jpg]



      Bouganvillia & palm trees.....I like that bag!
      Cheesecake> Ramen :thumbsup:

    • max.patch wrote:

      ... i've seen the light and am changing. i hope. i'm even replacing gear that doesn't need replacing.

      I started looking at stuff that didn't need replacing, except that it could save some weight, in cost per ozs saved. I figured it would help me get the most bang for my bucks. I didn't realize how freaking demoralizing it would be ...

      I looked at my big four, and found by replacing my ULA Circuit with an Ohm, I'd save 10 ozs. Replacing my sleeping bag with a quilt saves 3.75 ozs. Replacing my full size Exped sleeping pad with a Thermorest NeoAir XLite Short saves 5.85 ozs, and replacing my Lightheart Gear Solo with a cuben fiber version would save me 9 ozs! That's over 2 lbs! and would cost me (gulp) $1111!

      So, where would I get the most bang for my buck?

      ItemOzs SavedCostCost/oz
      Pack10200$20.00
      Bag7.75199$25.68
      Pad5.85160$27.35
      Tent9532$59.11

      Holy crap Batman! The Cuben tent was almost $60/oz! And the "cheapest" options averaged over $24/oz!

      I didn't buy the tent ...

      Subsequent peeks into replacing stuff with other stuff with the word "cuben" in the nomenclature, confirmed that paying double per oz in saving was the "Cuben Tax." Just recently, I looked at ZPack's Cuben Fiber Arc Blast pack. It would cost $275, and save me 7.4 ozs, for a cost per oz of only $37.16

      Such a deal!

      So now, when I take stuff out of my pack that I don't need, I think about all the money I'm saving, That 1 oz can of Tiger Balm - $24. Cha Ching!

      Now, If I can only pull 11 more ozs outta my pack, I can afford that Arc Blast!
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • I spent several months in 2006 and 2007 refurbishing my whole hiking kit to lighten it up. There were spreadsheets. Here's what I came up with:

      1. Spent good money on the big-four

      - tarptent rainbow
      - granite gear Nimbus ozone pack
      - mountain hardwear Phantom 45 down bag
      - prolite 3 "shortie" pad

      2. Ditched all the Nalgene bottles in favor of a 3 liter Platy bag
      3. Ditched Whisperlite in favor of Pocket Rocket
      4. Carried an absolute minimum of clothing
      5. No more SLRs or heavy cameras

      Not much hand-crafting involved. Unfortunately the fully-loaded weight (say, 4-5 days of food and 3 liters of water) is still too high to go with a truly UL pack. If I could keep the fully-loaded weight down to 25 lbs. or so, I could switch to a 2-lb. pack instead of a 3-pounder.

      Internal-frame packs are like that... a big chunk of the pack weight is still in the frame. The higher the load, the more substantial the frame needs to be.

      Switching to the Tarptent from a Eureka Solitaire -- the Tarptent is lighter, has lots more room, but is single walled so it has some condensation issues. The Solitaire was small and cramped but it was always dry, in any kind of weather.

      Camera weight is always something I'm debating... it kinda kills me that my Samsung smart phone may be the best camera I currently own. My film cameras haven't been used in years, and my three other digital cameras are all from 2007 or earlier.

    • BirdBrain wrote:


      For those that hang their food, what do you use for line and how does it compare to 550 paracord?


      I replaced my AntiGravitygear TreeLine 40' Spectra 725 Line system. This is a small, cord-locked silnylon stuff (rock) sack, with 40' of 725# test, flat weave, Spectra cord. Costs $18.95, and weighs 1 oz. I added one of Black Diamond's small 6g, plastic "Fun Biners" for a total of 34g. Shaved a few ozs, and takes up less space in my pack. That flat weave spectra is very slippery stuff. I've never had a problem with it on many. many nights on the trail. Never felt it snag on a limb, nor did it feel like it was cutting into branches. The bag is a great rock bag.

      antigravitygear.com/shop/ultralight-essentials/antigravitygear-treeline-40-spectra-725-line/

      [IMG:      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yHrJeflIYR0/UUymU6t7hwI/AAAAAAAAGOE/haQ1v06i7Jo/s320/DSCF0057.jpg]
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • One thing we don't have to worry about here is the whole "bear bagging" thing.
      I sometimes carry a big plastic jar as a "mouse canister" for rodents and possums (think raccoons).
      But not a big issue in protecting food here when the biggest creature likely to try for your food is smaller than your boot.....
      :)
      I will never be ultralight but with a ULA pack, BA tent, alcohol stove and NeoAir or BA QCore mats I can comfortably keep my pack below 15kg (about 33 pounds). I am comfortable carrying that so while I am tinkering with it I have no need to go lighter.
      Having said that I am planning on putting together a sub 25 pound pack to do a fast solos of the Bib in a year or so.
      I am looking at 30 to 35 pounds total for the Camino in September as I am carrying a tent, a stove and pot and 2 mats in case Annie and I decide to not stay in an albergue at any point.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • rafe wrote:


      Camera weight is always something I'm debating... it kinda kills me that my Samsung smart phone may be the best camera I currently own. My film cameras haven't been used in years, and my three other digital cameras are all from 2007 or earlier.


      perhaps i'm confusing you with someone else, but isn't (wasn't?) photography one of your main hobbies? and you are talented enough that you could probably sell some of your prints. maybe i'm mistaken; with 52K members at TOS its hard to keep track of everyone without a scorecard.
      2,000 miler

    • OzJacko wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      my final pack weight including my poles and 5 days of food is 31.1 lbs.

      I have never weighed my poles and never will.
      There's no hope for you. You're doing it wrong before you start.


      I think there are valid reasons to look at both "Base Weight" and "skin out" weight. The former gives both an idea of whether you're pushing the limits of the weenie suspension on your UL pack, and bragging rights around the campfire. Oh, yeah, and comfort.

      The latter is really the weight you put on your knees and bones. (Sitting here with a tibial stress fracture from hiking might be influencing me a bit ...)

      My pack's base weight is currently just under 14 lbs. To that I often add too much food, and too little water for anywhere from 22 - 30 lbs. And that's well within my pack's specs. But, I also carry a pound of camera, a pound of poles, a pound of clothing and a pound of boots on top of that.

      Apparently, the total combined 'skin-out' weight is beyond my tibia's rated specs when operated in rocky, mountainous terrain ...

      [IMG:https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10541411_10152643459813534_1727400244567540368_o.jpg]
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • max.patch wrote:

      rafe wrote:


      Camera weight is always something I'm debating... it kinda kills me that my Samsung smart phone may be the best camera I currently own. My film cameras haven't been used in years, and my three other digital cameras are all from 2007 or earlier.


      perhaps i'm confusing you with someone else, but isn't (wasn't?) photography one of your main hobbies? and you are talented enough that you could probably sell some of your prints. maybe i'm mistaken; with 52K members at TOS its hard to keep track of everyone without a scorecard.


      That was me, most likely. I've sold many prints, enough to fill out a Form C at tax time. But it's been a few years since I gave that up. A handful of my AT pix are posted at terrapinphoto.com. (Click on The Galleries, then Appalachian Trail)

      Distance hiking is at odds with fine photography. The stuff you want to remember on a long hike is the people and the social milieu as much as the awesome views. The Awesome Views have already been done, see David Muench, et. al.

      What I mean is -- good cameras are heavy. When I'm busy making miles, photography takes a back seat. In 1990 I carried a 35mm SLR, zoom lens and a few rolls of film. That's weight I don't need. But I'm sure glad to have those images.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by rafe ().

    • TrafficJam wrote:

      Ya'll are very bad influences! I'm not a gram weenie but I'd like to go as light as I can. I have a little mad money and was going to splurge for a WM bag but I'm now thinking about the BA Ranger and a ULA Circuit instead. Any thoughts?

      I found the Circuit to be really comfortable at weights below 25 lbs, and really uncomfortable at weights above 30 lbs. I made a crack above about weenie suspensions on UL packs, and that's what I'm talking about. That drove me to reduce weight on things like my shelter, sleep system, clothing. Taking stuff out, buying lighter stuff ... At some point, the volume of stuff I was carrying was not enough to fill the Circuit, and I got an Ohm2 to save a few more ounces. Now I'm looking at a 45L Zpack Arc Blast because it's considerably lighter, and my summer load volume and weight would allow it ...

      Those iterations get expensive, I'm thinking of setting up a storefront on eBay ...

      So, a few thoughts... Maybe lighten the rest of your load as you can, and keep compressing your existing pack till you think you're at your sweet spot, then buy the pack you need for the volume of stuff you're carrying.

      Or take the Procrustes Bed approach and buy the Arc Blast now, and be forced to adopt lighter, lower volume stuff ... :/

      [IMG:http://aaagnostica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Procrustes.jpg]
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • LDog wrote:


      I think there are valid reasons to look at both "Base Weight" and "skin out" weight. The former gives both an idea of whether you're pushing the limits of the weenie suspension on your UL pack, and bragging rights around the campfire. Oh, yeah, and comfort.

      The latter is really the weight you put on your knees and bones. (Sitting here with a tibial stress fracture from hiking might be influencing me a bit ...)


      It depends on where you start from, of course, but "skin in" weight is important, too. I took up backpacking again about four years ago after far too many years away from it. In the time I've been doing it, my pack weight has lost maybe 5-10 pounds, with very little sacrifice of comfort, although some expenditure to upgrade gear. My "skin in" weight decreased by 30-40 pounds in the same time. With a considerable increase of comfort, and the expense being the pleasurable one of getting out and hiking.

      I never found the extra poundage on my person to be that hard to carry. A pound around the midsection is certainly less burden than a pound in the pack, and a pound on the boots is much heavier still. Believe me, I know this one - I live in the Northeast and don't give up hiking in the winter. I think my winter traction gear may outweigh my summer base weight. Ice axe, crampons, snowshoes are HEAVY.

      And pack base weight is also important for balance. I know that I can't take scrambles with an overnight pack that I could do easily - with a considerably heavier body weight - with a lightweight day pack.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      Believe me, I know this one - I live in the Northeast and don't give up hiking in the winter. I think my winter traction gear may outweigh my summer base weight. Ice axe, crampons, snowshoes are HEAVY.


      Yep, winter hiking adds a lot of BS gear... you get to carry all this stuff that you may or may not use, in fact you can't possibly use all at once, etc. Days are shorter, nights are longer. All sorts of obstacles and dangers. But views that you can't get in summer.
      Images

      • lions_head.JPG

        477.87 kB, 1,120×778, viewed 220 times

      • tuckermans.JPG

        437.49 kB, 1,120×782, viewed 209 times

    • rafe wrote:

      Distance hiking is at odds with fine photography. The stuff you want to remember on a long hike is the people and the social milieu as much as the awesome views. The Awesome Views have already been done, see David Muench, et. al.

      What I mean is -- good cameras are heavy. When I'm busy making miles, photography takes a back seat. In 1990 I carried a 35mm SLR, zoom lens and a few rolls of film. That's weight I don't need. But I'm sure glad to have those images.


      The large things - the sweeping views, the majestic mountains, the expanse of lakes - all not only have been done, but have a certain sameness to them. They're all rock and tree and sky, and particularly to a nonhiker, all are the same. I find that, while I still grab panoramas of the views, that I photograph the small things much more lately. The unexpected flower of a species that I haven't seen before, the odd mushroom, the butterfly, the bird, the play of light in the chinks of a shelter. And I find that these are the pictures that arouse memories, even more than, say, the group shots of grinning hikers. (The latter tend to arouse more puzzlement: what small-town bar was that? Who's that over in the corner there? What year was that taken in?)

      I surely don't take an SLR on the trail. But the pocket camera that I take today outperforms, I think, the SLR that I lugged thirty years ago. While there's no substitute for good glass, its performance is often adequate to my needs, and I've even sold a picture or two that it's taken. (I'm not in that business, but occasionally someone peruses Flickr and spots something they want to buy.) My big complaint is that there's no way to get a polarizer or UV filter onto it, so the pictures of the large things tend to merge into featureless blue.

      A camera phone doesn't quite do it for me. It's nearly a pinhole camera, at a wide angle, and can't quite capture everything I want to. Or its depth of field is too great and doesn't isolate the subject.

      What I don't get - and would like to get more of - is good action shots of hikers. I tend to get wrapped up in my own hiking, particularly where things get steep, and forget that the camera is even there. Not so much the cliche'd photos that you see in the LL Bean catalog, but the stuff where the action is needed to give orientation and scale to the shot.

      My pictures will never be technically awesome, but I think I'll always have the vice of photography distracting me from making the miles. Which is fine. I'm out there to have fun.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • LDog wrote:

      TrafficJam wrote:

      Ya'll are very bad influences! I'm not a gram weenie but I'd like to go as light as I can. I have a little mad money and was going to splurge for a WM bag but I'm now thinking about the BA Ranger and a ULA Circuit instead. Any thoughts?

      I found the Circuit to be really comfortable at weights below 25 lbs, and really uncomfortable at weights above 30 lbs. I made a crack above about weenie suspensions on UL packs, and that's what I'm talking about. That drove me to reduce weight on things like my shelter, sleep system, clothing. Taking stuff out, buying lighter stuff ... At some point, the volume of stuff I was carrying was not enough to fill the Circuit, and I got an Ohm2 to save a few more ounces. Now I'm looking at a 45L Zpack Arc Blast because it's considerably lighter, and my summer load volume and weight would allow it ...

      Those iterations get expensive, I'm thinking of setting up a storefront on eBay ...

      So, a few thoughts... Maybe lighten the rest of your load as you can, and keep compressing your existing pack till you think you're at your sweet spot, then buy the pack you need for the volume of stuff you're carrying.

      Or take the Procrustes Bed approach and buy the Arc Blast now, and be forced to adopt lighter, lower volume stuff ... :/

      [IMG:http://aaagnostica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Procrustes.jpg]


      I'm sure I can lighten up on a few things but I'm not sure if I want to. I'm fairly minimalist. My summer weight without food and water is 18lbs. (although I usually throw in a few extras so it's probably closer to 20lbs). I have never carried over 25lbs. My pack is a 50L and when packed, there is very little space left. My trips are only 2-5 days. I looked at the OHM 2.0 but the recommended base weight is 12lbs.
      Lost in the right direction.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      My pictures will never be technically awesome, but I think I'll always have the vice of photography distracting me from making the miles. Which is fine. I'm out there to have fun.


      That is part of the balance I was talking about. I can see myself carrying a lot more weight in photo gear on shorter hikes. Or short hikes taken with the express purpose of photography.

      Like other old-time photography die hards I have a lot of old-time photo gear collecting dust. I'm not sure who processes 120 roll film any more; my local guy on the corner gave that up years ago. Not sure if I want to do color film processing at home and in any case I sold my very expensive Nikon film scanner (LS-8000) years ago.

      The 35 mm film SLRs haven't seen action in years.

      There's a 4x5 outfit (Shen Hao, plus a trio of nice lenses) but again, that hasn't seen action in years. ("Infinite" DOF isn't entirely a bad thing -- it's one of the cool effects you can get with a view camera, using swings and tilts.) This camera, with proper post-processing of the film, can still out-perform digital capture.

      That leaves me with Canon G2 (!) Canon A620, Canon 10D SLR.

      None of them can do hi-res videos like the smartphone can. Image quality on the Samsung is really quite astounding, depressingly so.

    • rafe wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      My pictures will never be technically awesome, but I think I'll always have the vice of photography distracting me from making the miles. Which is fine. I'm out there to have fun.


      That is part of the balance I was talking about. I can see myself carrying a lot more weight in photo gear on shorter hikes. Or short hikes taken with the express purpose of photography.

      Like other old-time photography die hards I have a lot of old-time photo gear collecting dust. I'm not sure who processes 120 roll film any more; my local guy on the corner gave that up years ago. Not sure if I want to do color film processing at home and in any case I sold my very expensive Nikon film scanner (LS-8000) years ago.

      The 35 mm film SLRs haven't seen action in years.

      There's a 4x5 outfit (Shen Hao, plus a trio of nice lenses) but again, that hasn't seen action in years. ("Infinite" DOF isn't entirely a bad thing -- it's one of the cool effects you can get with a view camera, using swings and tilts.) This camera, with proper post-processing of the film, can still out-perform digital capture.

      That leaves me with Canon G2 (!) Canon A620, Canon 10D SLR.

      None of them can do hi-res videos like the smartphone can. Image quality on the Samsung is really quite astounding, depressingly so.


      Yeah. I know. Some of my favorite recent pictures were taken on my phone. When the light is magical, you grab the shot with whatever you have on hand!

      But even a pocket camera gives me a lot more choices for composition and DoF, and of course I can use it with a monopod (that is, a little screw widget on a trekking pole). I also like the fact that my Canon takes drugstore batteries.

      I know what you can do with large format and a tilt-shift lens. One of the instruments that I'm working on at the moment has a 29 megapixel cooled CMOS detector and a tilt-shift lens.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • TrafficJam wrote:

      LDog wrote:

      TrafficJam wrote:

      Ya'll are very bad influences! I'm not a gram weenie but I'd like to go as light as I can. I have a little mad money and was going to splurge for a WM bag but I'm now thinking about the BA Ranger and a ULA Circuit instead. Any thoughts?

      I found the Circuit to be really comfortable at weights below 25 lbs, and really uncomfortable at weights above 30 lbs. I made a crack above about weenie suspensions on UL packs, and that's what I'm talking about. That drove me to reduce weight on things like my shelter, sleep system, clothing. Taking stuff out, buying lighter stuff ... At some point, the volume of stuff I was carrying was not enough to fill the Circuit, and I got an Ohm2 to save a few more ounces. Now I'm looking at a 45L Zpack Arc Blast because it's considerably lighter, and my summer load volume and weight would allow it ...

      Those iterations get expensive, I'm thinking of setting up a storefront on eBay ...

      So, a few thoughts... Maybe lighten the rest of your load as you can, and keep compressing your existing pack till you think you're at your sweet spot, then buy the pack you need for the volume of stuff you're carrying.

      Or take the Procrustes Bed approach and buy the Arc Blast now, and be forced to adopt lighter, lower volume stuff ... :/



      I'm sure I can lighten up on a few things but I'm not sure if I want to. I'm fairly minimalist. My summer weight without food and water is 18lbs. (although I usually throw in a few extras so it's probably closer to 20lbs). I have never carried over 25lbs. My pack is a 50L and when packed, there is very little space left. My trips are only 2-5 days. I looked at the OHM 2.0 but the recommended base weight is 12lbs.


      A 12 lb base weight would allow 10 lbs of food and 8 lbs of water before hitting the Ohm 2's max. An 18 lb base weight would still allow 8 lbs of food and 4 lbs of water... I've been using the Ohm2 on something like 300 miles of trail in late spring/early summer in Virginia, and my base weight was over 16lbs. It's a fine pack, and I'm pretty sure ULA's return policy still allows you to return it if you don't like it ...
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      rafe wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      My pictures will never be technically awesome, but I think I'll always have the vice of photography distracting me from making the miles. Which is fine. I'm out there to have fun.


      That is part of the balance I was talking about. I can see myself carrying a lot more weight in photo gear on shorter hikes. Or short hikes taken with the express purpose of photography.

      Like other old-time photography die hards I have a lot of old-time photo gear collecting dust. I'm not sure who processes 120 roll film any more; my local guy on the corner gave that up years ago. Not sure if I want to do color film processing at home and in any case I sold my very expensive Nikon film scanner (LS-8000) years ago.

      The 35 mm film SLRs haven't seen action in years.

      There's a 4x5 outfit (Shen Hao, plus a trio of nice lenses) but again, that hasn't seen action in years. ("Infinite" DOF isn't entirely a bad thing -- it's one of the cool effects you can get with a view camera, using swings and tilts.) This camera, with proper post-processing of the film, can still out-perform digital capture.

      That leaves me with Canon G2 (!) Canon A620, Canon 10D SLR.

      None of them can do hi-res videos like the smartphone can. Image quality on the Samsung is really quite astounding, depressingly so.


      Yeah. I know. Some of my favorite recent pictures were taken on my phone. When the light is magical, you grab the shot with whatever you have on hand!

      But even a pocket camera gives me a lot more choices for composition and DoF, and of course I can use it with a monopod (that is, a little screw widget on a trekking pole). I also like the fact that my Canon takes drugstore batteries.

      I know what you can do with large format and a tilt-shift lens. One of the instruments that I'm working on at the moment has a 29 megapixel cooled CMOS detector and a tilt-shift lens.

      My compromise was to go mirrorless. I bought Fujifilm's X100 when it first came out. It's a strange bird with a 35mm(eq) fixed-focal length lens, but it has an APS-C sensor and weighs "only" 16ozs. It looks like an old 35mm rangefinder, and appeals to the old street photographer in me. Pretty light compared to a DSLR with battery and lens, and the IQ is very nice. The X100S is now in the stores, and rumors of a new one in the pipeline.

      Now Fuji makes several models with interchangeable lenses, and those lenses are sweet. Sharp zooms, fast primes, and more in the pipeline. The newest, the XT1 is weather-sealed! That's would be what I'd be looking at!

      See some of my stuff at: billyfatjohn.tumblr.com/

      [IMG:https://40.media.tumblr.com/32f8c1a0079c14d56283e9e3c7f8c447/tumblr_n14iqw1sty1rmbx70o1_500.jpg]
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

    • LDog wrote:

      ed to a DSLR with battery and lens, and the IQ is very nice. The X100S is now in the stores, and rumors of a new one in the pipeline.


      That's a nice photo, L.Dog. I remember when you posted it on TOS, and I liked it then, too. Nice light. I'm guessing that's a Smokies shelter... from the chain-link fence.

    • Good stuff, you two. I'm outclassed as both photographer and hiker here.

      But... I find that the shots I really like were a lot more about being there than about what camera I brought. Whether I used a flim SLR to capture coming out of the dark tunnel of a gorge to a sunlit waterfall:

      [IMG:https://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/32949408_41e4c1fefc_z.jpg]

      or a pocket camera taking a meditative gaze into a flooded trail:

      [IMG:https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7427/14061274433_8cf2a88a11_z.jpg]

      or a ton of postprocessing to fuse an HDR shot

      [IMG:https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5240/14299471823_2efe6c04e0_z.jpg]

      or the light after a thunderstorm with just a smartphone because it was what I had on me:

      [IMG:https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8330/8092852963_2ee2dcb862_z.jpg]

      it's all been about being there when the light is there.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.