Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
Thread started 12 Sep 2015 (Saturday) 10:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Hiking with gear is cumbersome!

 
AnnieMacD
Oops, me again
Avatar
3,271 posts
Gallery: 548 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 5846
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Applecross, Scotland
     
Feb 04, 2016 17:40 |  #31

John from PA wrote in post #17885692 (external link)
Most of us that hike and enjoy photography should probably access what we carry. About 5 years ago I did some hiking in the Swiss Alps and went to a store to rent/buy some basic hiking equipment beyond my photography needs. On the wall of the store was something published by a Swiss organization that stated that when a backpack exceeded about 15% of body weight, then it was highly probable that balance was affected and the risks of falls and back injuries went up considerably. 15% translates to about 30# for a 200# person; about 22# for someone at about 150#. The recommendation was to not exceed 10% of body weight if hiking in rough terrain or for extended distances.

Interesting. Percentages don't really make a lot of sense in all cases. We all need to carry safety gear etc and because I'm small and fairly light it's a huge percentage of my weight >15% when I have my minimum camera gear. However, if a man weighing 200lbs was carrying my pack it would be less than 10% of his weight. No wonder I struggle up the hills! BTW I tend to hike on very rough terrain and generally extended distances but it's the amount of ascent that really determines how hard a hike it is!


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Feb 04, 2016 18:18 |  #32

Get these hiking/trekking poles: http://www.outdoorgear​lab.com …iamond-Alpine-Carbon-Cork (external link)


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,729 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Feb 04, 2016 21:35 as a reply to  @ AnnieMacD's post |  #33

I think your example exactly illustrates why the percentage rule of thumb might work. In other words, a small person has more trouble carrying and balancing 30 extra lbs than a larger person would.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
troehr
Senior Member
695 posts
Likes: 222
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Chiang Rai, Thailand
     
Feb 05, 2016 09:23 |  #34

MalVeauX wrote in post #17707837 (external link)
Heya,

On a weird, related perhaps note, I went "light" today. Left the 600mm at home. Instead, I took three cameras. On a kayak.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yE6N​qT  (external link) CRW_0390 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yCoD​21  (external link) CRW_0389 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ymPM​2T  (external link) IMG_8489 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

My 1D2 + 200F2.8L + 2.0x TC literally fits in a lunch box, it's so small, yet it's a 1D with a 400 F5.6 that is sharp wide open and fast. I bird with this from the kayak.

EOS-M + 22F2 pancake for wide stuff, fish shots, landscape, etc. Video too. I like being able to just stick it to a stake pole and let it pick up footage or grab stills. It fits in my shirt pocket!

10D + 40 F2.8 pancake. I took it just for S&G's, because it's a $40 camera that I bought recently to wreck. Does great with the 40 and it's still small. Yet it's built like a tank, magnesium alloy body and all. I didn't even need to take it, it served no real purpose. I honestly should have left it at home. I just "wanted" to use it I guess since it's a new (old) toy.

Ultimately though, the 1D2 + 400 F5.6 setup, and the EOS-M + 22 F2 setup together are a great adventure combo for me on the water. They fit in that lunch box!

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yE61​Dc  (external link) IMG_8483 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Small, potent, 400mm on APS-H.

https://flic.kr/p/ymH1​VQ (external link)LE1M3256 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/yCnW​rd (external link)a42_stitch_mark (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

More food for thought!

Very best,

What kind of kayak is that?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,002 posts
Gallery: 1460 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9455
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Feb 05, 2016 09:27 |  #35

troehr wrote in post #17886868 (external link)
What kind of kayak is that?

Ocean Kayak, Prowler 13. Base model. I just add stuff myself.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
troehr
Senior Member
695 posts
Likes: 222
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Chiang Rai, Thailand
     
Feb 05, 2016 09:29 |  #36

MalVeauX wrote in post #17886877 (external link)
Ocean Kayak, Prowler 13. Base model. I just add stuff myself.

Very best,

Thanks,




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AnnieMacD
Oops, me again
Avatar
3,271 posts
Gallery: 548 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 5846
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Applecross, Scotland
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:16 |  #37

Nathan wrote in post #17886442 (external link)
I think your example exactly illustrates why the percentage rule of thumb might work. In other words, a small person has more trouble carrying and balancing 30 extra lbs than a larger person would.

Yes and no. If I followed the 'rule' then I just couldn't go up the hills safely or I would have to leave my camera behind. This I am not willing to do so have to live with the consequences. It just takes me twice as long to complete a hike as the quoted times in guides -partly as I stop to take so many photos. I'm usually first on the hill and last off - or the only person on the hill!


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:21 |  #38

AnnieMacD wrote in post #17887071 (external link)
Yes and no. If I followed the 'rule' then I just couldn't go up the hills safely or I would have to leave my camera behind. This I am not willing to do so have to live with the consequences. It just takes me twice as long to complete a hike as the quoted times in guides -partly as I stop to take so many photos. I'm usually first on the hill and last off - or the only person on the hill!

Do you have trekking poles yet? Wouldn't they help with this "rule?"


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AnnieMacD
Oops, me again
Avatar
3,271 posts
Gallery: 548 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 5846
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Applecross, Scotland
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:35 |  #39

idkdc wrote in post #17887082 (external link)
Do you have trekking poles yet? Wouldn't they help with this "rule?"

Yes, I have great trekking poles (Leki Cressida) and I sometimes have to stow them in my pack when scrambling - which just makes the pack even heavier!


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3292
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Feb 05, 2016 13:56 |  #40

.

The percentages that were given in John's post seem to be a recommendation for the layperson that just happens to hike / backpack once in a while.
The "real" outdoor adventurist types that spend every weekend and every vacation on backpacking trips carry far more than 15% of their body weight on a regular basis.
There's just no way anyone can go on an extended wilderness expedition, have everything they need for many days of wilderness living, and keep it within 15% of their body weight.
In fact, the folks I know who are really serious hikers carry about 35% of their bodyweight any time they go on anything more than just a day hike. And the terrain they traverse is often very rugged and steep.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,002 posts
Gallery: 1460 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9455
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Feb 05, 2016 14:09 |  #41

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17887192 (external link)
.

The percentages that were given in John's post seem to be a recommendation for the layperson that just happens to hike / backpack once in a while.
The "real" outdoor adventurist types that spend every weekend and every vacation on backpacking trips carry far more than 15% of their body weight on a regular basis.
There's just no way anyone can go on an extended wilderness expedition, have everything they need for many days of wilderness living, and keep it within 15% of their body weight.
In fact, the folks I know who are really serious hikers carry about 35% of their bodyweight any time they go on anything more than just a day hike. And the terrain they traverse is often very rugged and steep.

.

Heya,

I have similar experience with this. Most of us that hike seem to take more than 10%~15% weight. Several of us do more so that we're conditioning for a heavy load, but take a lighter load, so that it's a lot easier when you go on the "big" hike. Depends where you are of course. I've not been up a mountain. I do swamps and I need a ton less to carry for the hike compared to someone who needs to deal with freezing weather.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
8,548 posts
Likes: 628
Joined May 2003
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
     
Feb 05, 2016 20:20 |  #42

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17887192 (external link)
.

The percentages that were given in John's post seem to be a recommendation for the layperson that just happens to hike / backpack once in a while.
The "real" outdoor adventurist types that spend every weekend and every vacation on backpacking trips carry far more than 15% of their body weight on a regular basis.
There's just no way anyone can go on an extended wilderness expedition, have everything they need for many days of wilderness living, and keep it within 15% of their body weight.
In fact, the folks I know who are really serious hikers carry about 35% of their bodyweight any time they go on anything more than just a day hike. And the terrain they traverse is often very rugged and steep.

.

Yes, perhaps the numbers were for a "layperson" but the numbers were based on studies of the Swiss Army as I recall, or perhaps some other government group. And the people carrying 35% of their bodyweight, for the most part, are not carrying $3000 to $5000 worth of equipment on their back. Sure, under some conditions, some people can carry huge amounts on their back. I went to one of our nation's service academies, and can tell you that I carried 80# (about 45% of my body weight) for 20 miles. But I can also tell you that the last 5 to 8 miles was borderline staggering with solely the finish line the goal. I do not want to carry my camera gear under such conditions. 15% is about it for me, that is 22 to 25#.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Feb 05, 2016 22:11 |  #43

Just bring a bitc...I mean family or friend to carry part of the load for you! :D. Or a pack mule (this can also be a family or friend)! I do it all the time :DD

To be serious though, I do wonder if I ever want to downsize my hiking gear. Prob not going to happen anytime soon because there's always that missing focal length that I always want, and the mirrorless versions aren't any lighter (100-400).


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
796 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 240
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Nethawked.
     
Feb 08, 2016 09:03 |  #44

I've done a few international treks, a couple with Swiss in the party. They missed the memo - they carry as much, or more than anyone else.

I often hover around 10% body weight on day hikes, but as several have proclaimed this is impossible to do on any other backpack venture without air support. In some areas of the world, and on some trips I've easily carried 1/3 of my body weight. No, it's not easy but sometimes necessary. We do what we must, and optimization for comfort and safety don't quite fit into any mathematical equation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 08, 2016 21:59 |  #45

Strictly applying the percentage rule would be a big incentive to fill up on Big Macs and KFC before leaving!

I weigh 73kg and commonly carry 20-30kg on extended treks in the mountain (Himalayas, Andes, etc.). Most of that is camera gear - the camping gear is usually on a pack animal, sometimes travelling separately. I offload it onto porters, yaks, llamas or mules wherever I can, but, sometimes, you just need to carry it...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,612 views & 69 likes for this thread
Hiking with gear is cumbersome!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is FocusPoint70
679 guests, 339 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.