I found this on a photography forum. Made me smile. Someone wrote "For me, the camera gear is essential so I don't even bother thinking about the weight of it."
The reply was "That's how I feel. I just don't understand the need for a compromise (lighter) tripod or head, etc, just because you're hiking. With a good pack & good shoes, any experienced hiker should have no problem going all day with 70 lbs on his back.
Aloha

First of all, I would have trouble even getting a 70 pack off the ground much less walking very far carrying it. Hiking would no longer be fun. For soldiers on the ground in Iraq, however, 70lbs. is standard.

Well sure, I do have the ability to carry a 70 lb pack all day. Most able bodied men and women should be able to. However, you'd be moving a lot slower and a lot less comfortably. I'd rather be able to cover more ground each day, so I can see more things to take pictures of. If you are unwilling to compromise quality for weight savings, then don't. Just lower your pack weight everywhere else. I have a buddy who is obsessed with photography. He has a base weight of 15 lbs. 10 lbs of his base weight is photography equipment. He takes professional quality pictures with his setup.

-Sid

I am in no way a photographer but I want a camera that is light enough for me to want to take it with me and simple enough to use that I don't mind getting it out to take a few quick pics. With a big heavy complicated camera with multiple lenses, I would be hesitant to take the camera and would hate to spend the time to take it out, set it up and snap pics. I do however appreciate the people that do make that sacrifice like the ones that won the BPL photo contest. I love to check out great pics of places I can't visit.

LOL...35lbs nearly breaks me in half and 70lbs? That would no doubt kill me or destroy my back etc in very short order. Try being 52 years old with 30 years of smoking ( I quit 9 year ago) under your belt and surviving 6 heart attacks. I think I am doing quite well to be doing any backpacing at all so I go for light everything as much as I can. My girl friend is only 32 and has never smoked and can run and hike very stroungly and 35lbs is enough to wear her out as well. You must have to be a big strong young marine to handle this 70lb stuff.

Maybe it's because I do most of my hiking at 9 to 13 thousand feet and live at sea level the rest of the year. But 70lbs? No way. That would certainly take the fun right out of it for me and her. Plus I only go for trips of a week or less and we have everything we need for that amount of time at 35lbs a piece.This year I am going to add a nice dslr but it's only a few pounds. Not a massive set up with 30lbs of lenses etc.

Edited by Fishfinger on 12/25/2009 15:48:33 MST.

Way back in 1991, there was going to be a Total Solar Eclipse visible from the Big Island of Hawaii. I went there and shot it. However, there was no lodging available, and there were no rental cars available, so I used lightweight gear techniques to help. There is no running water on either of the two volcanoes (Mauna Kea or Mauna Loa), but I was going to need to be up pretty high on one or the other to get above the predicted cloud layers. I figured that I would need to be self-sufficient for four days maximum, so I had to carry four days worth of water. I figured on one gallon per day. Do the math, and that is about 32 pounds of water. Ten pounds of camera gear. Pack, clothing, SB, food, etc. The whole pack was 67 pounds when I rode a taxi up to the trailhead. Kicked my butt! Shot the eclipse from 12,000 feet, well above the clouds. Hit the Mauna Loa summit (almost 14,000 feet) and then descended the other side. It could not have been done without lightweight techniques.
--B.G.--