Wilderness Photography Question

What camera/lenses/flash etc would YOU choose to take on a five or six day hiking trip in the wilderness, for general purposes. Totally deserted, vacant, no roads, no nothing.

Also, it's in a very high rainfall alpine area.

I was thinking 350/400/450D and a Sigma 17-70 (as it has near-macro). If it wasn't heavy, the natural choice would be 1D or 5D w/ 24-105 and a flash, but Im not sure the weight would work on the 5D, with the flash required, and there's no way I'm dragging a 1D over 50-60km of rainforest and snowplains.

That's me though- what would YOU take?

There is a time when you have to just give in and take something other than a DSLR. There are many P&S cameras that would serve you well on a trip like this. If you are prepared to risk your body in the moisture then by all means take one of the bodies that you mention but they do not hold up well against moisture. If I was doing a trip like this I would take the extra weight and take a 1 series body for the weather sealing.

Dunno ssim- a 1D is just too bloody heavy. I have thought long and hard of a G9, but there's so much out there to capture before it's gone, it really deserves better than a point-and-shoot- you know what I mean?

I suppose a 1DMkII with a really light lens might work, but I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather go a better lens on a 350D, which can be replaced cheaply if flooded/damp, etc. Or a 20D for that matter. Still, good food for thought. 1DII's are cheap now. I'm just leery of carrying something that weighs more than my sleeping bag and almost as much as my tent.

What lens? 24-105 IS? 17-40?

What altitude?

I do a lot of high-altitude Himalayan hiking (between 10,000ft - 17,000ft) - am actually leaving in a week's time on a project to photograph bears - and my general rule is 1 digicam (currently Panasonic LX-1 or Canon G9) in my pocket while I am walking, and a 40D+17-40+70-200 in my backpack for golden hours shooting. Nothing more. And forget a camera bag. Wrap your kit up in socks, underwater and the sleeping bag, and keep it in your pack. Camera backpacks are the most useless monstrosities for actual extended hiking, given how heavy they are.

The more gear you carry, the more tired you are going to be and the less likely you will want to take photos. So carry as little as possible. You can even get by with a 17-70 style zoom (Galen Rowell did most of his work with a 24mm and a 35-70 Nikkor on his film camera) - often, that is all I carry. In fact, had he been a typical POTNer, he wouldnt even have managed his signature shot, Rainbow over the Potala. The 24-105 would be ideal on a FF camera, but for my tastes, isnt wide enough.

Also, when you are hiking and in your stride, the last thing you will want to do is stop and dig your camera out of a backpack to take shots, for that matter. And carrying a DSLR in the ready is an exercise in frustration as it flops and bangs around. So carry a compact.

Lastly - lose the flash.

Vandit

I would think that most of the shots you would take on a trip like that would be wide angle. P&S cameras are ideal for that kind of work. I think there are some weatherproofed ones out now, though I don't know anything about them. I do a lot of riding and just can't carry a dslr. I use a Canon A650 at those times.

Well, I'm leaving on a Grand Canyon trip in a couple weeks time and just ordered the 24-105 for my 30D. I'm hoping it'll be wide enough for the wide-angle shots but have enough reach for wildlife on the Colorado shore.
I'll probably also take along my S2 IS because it's quite a nifty P&S and has decent reach and useful wide-angle.

ecorrie wrote in post #5478438
Well, I'm leaving on a Grand Canyon trip in a couple weeks time and just ordered the 24-105 for my 30D. I'm hoping it'll be wide enough for the wide-angle shots but have enough reach for wildlife on the Colorado shore.
I'll probably also take along my S2 IS because it's quite a nifty P&S and has decent reach and useful wide-angle.

Brush up on your photo-stitching technique for making panoramas! That'll be what you want withthe Grand Canyon IMHO

Thank you all for your advice. I think I'll have a third look at that G9, S2, LX-1, and maybe at that Sigma APS digicam.

The idea of having a DSLR for the magic hours and a prosumer digicam for walking around it very intriguing. Thanks!

as a photographer tell your back to suck it up and carry whats ness..? id bring clothes and just smell bad if i could haha

wallybud wrote in post #5481892
as a photographer tell your back to suck it up and carry whats ness..? id bring clothes and just smell bad if i could haha

Well, you gotta remember- I'm walking with the wife, and she will crush my cranium while I sleep and drag me off for the Tassie Devils if I smell too bad.

have her carry your gear for you

I'd take a G9, or a 350D size and a 17-70mm/17-50mm 2.8, or a 5D and 24-105mm depending on what I thought was practical size/weight wise and use wise.

wallybud wrote in post #5482611
have her carry your gear for you

She packs, I carry. Woman brings pain, man is mule.

Condy- I'm starting to think 450D + 17-70. I've also been looking at the pricey but interesting Sigma DP1. I think I'd go for that over a G9, even with the fixed 28mm focal length. Despite all the ciritcism of menus, etc with the DP1, the pictures look pretty good from it.

I'd take a P&S.
DP1 and G9 look nice.

I'm starting to think heavier- if I'm going to take anything, it might as well be up to the job. I'mstarting to think 350D (I have), 17-40 (getting shortly) or 24-105 (I have), and a EF-S 60mm Macro. Eventually I'll upgrade to the 450XSi. Thoughts?

Rene- I just don't like the IQ coming out of most point-and-shoots- they have come a long way, but only the Sigma DP1 wows me, and 28mm is not really my preferred focal length- I'm more of a 38-60mm man, in 35mm equivalence.

The 5D is not all that much heavier than the 450D - a matter of ounces and nearly the same size so I'd go with the 5D, a small (say 430) flash and - if I'm really concerned about weight - a Tamron 28-300. It's light, near macro and gives you really good range. The new VC version (since it's stabilized) is even better, but a tad heavier. But here's the real challenge - if you're going to be in rainforests a lot, a tripod will be almost a necessity since lighting tends to be pretty subdued so shutter speeds are often pretty slow. In the confines of a rainforest, where you often need some depth of field, a tripod is essential and even the light ones can get heavy. At least use a monopod or a beanbag.