Hey guys so I have the Nikon d500 for wildlife and I love it. I like to hike with it and I photograph any animal really and then I also do landscapes. My issue is that my backpack is so heavy after I add a ton of water, snacks, and other basic stuff. And I am very experienced with hiking so I’m not taking useless stuff with me. Here is a weight breakdown of my gear D500: 2 lbs Nikkor 200-500mm (wildlife): 5 lbs Nikkor 24-70mm (scenery): 2 lbs Nikkor 70-300: 1 lb
So without anything else in my bag I have 10 pounds of camera gear. I like all of those lenses because they basically give the full range of 24-500mm.
So to those who hike or travel a lot and do not use tripods, what do you do with heavy gear? Like do you only go out to shoot one type of thing at once so you don’t carry too much? Or does the bag make a huge difference? I previously had a lowepro but after getting the 200-500, I obviously needed a bigger bag if I even wanted to carry water. Is this just something I will have to deal with?
Sorry if this is not the best question, my back is killing me and I hate to miss the opportunity of a good picture if I don’t have a specific lens on me. I only have one body which is also a pain to switch often.
Oh and does anyone have any ultra lightweight bag recs that are not a bazillion pounds but can hold 3-4L of water?
Thanks
Olympus O-M5 + 12-200mm
Switch to m43 and learn to take only 1-2 lens at a time
Most people will not likely become those masters whose shot worth tens of thousands each. You’re just having fun, not working , missing shots is totally fine
Or does the bag make a huge difference?
Yes, it absolutely does.
I bought a new bag when I added some new gear a few years ago, and the difference in how comfortably I could carry all that stuff around with me was astounding. I would definitely recommend seeing if you can’t find something that fits you better, it might be all the change you need.
It’s Fuji time!
Other people have commented on the lens selection and reducing that.
Regarding the bag, it makes a huge difference in carrying weight. You have 10lbs for camera gear and while you can reduce that, it’s not a lot by (non ultralight) hiking standards. My fstop bag is great when its 10lbs but miserable by time the bag is 20lbs.
In general photo bags, even ones billed as outdoor, sport, or adventure are crappy compared to a dedicated hiking bag. They tend to be too heavy, poor fitting, and have a poor harness.
You probably don’t want an ultralight bag because while the light weight is enticing, if you are having any kind of pain or fit problems they will exacerbate the issues.
Take a look at hiking bags like the osprey Atmos. I’m not suggesting you get this bag for photo hikes but people can comfortably carry 50lbs in it for multiple days. That’s because the harness and suspension is great. It is not an ultralight bag.
Figure out the weight you would typically carry then find a bag designed for that weight that fits you well. I can’t understate the importance of fit. You won’t find a photo bag that’s as good as a hiking bag but some may be good enough. Many photogs also prefer to use a hiking bag even though it’s less convenient for photography.
24-105 and 200-600 on Sony A7r iv. I don’t struggle with 60-70lb bags over hilly and/or mountainous terrain with switchbacks, but I can pack out under 60 lbs for 3-5 days so long as I can filter water. I stopped carrying a jet boil, and the rest of my gear is light enough. Food related stuff adds up. I really hate having to hump a bear vault, but I can stash other stuff in it. I hike on homemade pemmican and peanut butter. It works for me.
I run into the same problem when I go hiking. I like to be ready for pretty much anything that comes my way. I shoot a Pentax K-1 as my main camera.
The lenses I take with me are: 28-105 f/3.5-5.6, 100mm macro, 150-450, and a 1.7 TC.
About the only gap is 100-150 and I can always crop an image from 105mm if need be.
I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8, but I’ve been using the above and it seems to work for me.
I also have an Olympus E-M5 mk II and the 14-45 and 45-150 lenses along with the 30mm macro. So I will occasionally take those instead of lugging the Pentax gear around.
Bro just my camera and 70-200 2.8 weight over 6 lbs!
Leave the 70-300 at home, and why are you carrying 3-4L of water? That seems excessive.
I have different gear for different scenarios. While I love my Nikon gear, I have Micro 4/3 gear for when I need to go light. You can cover the range you want with a much lighter set of gear. There are obvious compromises; the Olympus camera I use focuses fast enough for most animals but too slow for airshows. The pixel resolution is less. But it sure is a lot easier to carry!
A bag is only going to get you so far. Some will have better padding (which will make the back actually heavier). If you really want to help look for some will have some belts or clasps that pull the straps together to help distribute the weight better but that makes it more difficult to put on and take off. Tamrac makes some nice backpacks that do this. I have an older Tamrac Expedition that does the “Professional:Anvil” series is basically the updated version of them, but if you’re carrying 16-18lbs you’re carrying that weight. If I absolutely have to carry nearly 20lbs, I’d take a 1lbs heavier backpack with a sternum strap and a hip belt to help distribute the weight.
My best recommendation is if you’re having trouble with the weight either deal with it and enjoy the workout, try to plan ahead as far as what you need and except the limitations of not having a full range.
If you’re going out for birds, then don’t bother with the 24-70mm. If you’re going out for scenery don’t bother with the 200-500mm. If you’re going out birding and really want to have some wide options get a 28mm, 35mm, 50mm f/1.8 (or even a 24 or 28mm f/2.8) prime that will let you go wide without carrying a 24-70mm. If you want to go a little wider than what you have, you can always stitch a panorama and if you need to go slightly tighter you can always crop.
You can also look at other lenses Sigma makes 100-400 or 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses that are lighter than the 200-500mm. You lose a little in aperture but you save a pound or two in weight and you might not need the 70-300mm (do you really need to cover 70-100mm?).
Take one lens and one lens only, you’ll get better pictures.
Imagining that you need to cover 24 to 500 is not smart.
Just take the longest lens you got and make it work this why I be dragging my 70-200 GM II f/2.8 every where I go 😭😭
You really only have a couple options:
- Don’t bring so much stuff
- Get lighter gear
- Get stronger
- Keep doing what you’re doing and deal with it.
I’m not being snarky, but there isn’t really a perfect solution for you since you can’t just attach balloons to the strap lugs and make your camera neutrally buoyant.
Obviously
There’s too much shit on me.
