Iceland hiking

[DrM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

 

I'm going on a trip to Iceland and plan to do some multiday hikes with a tent. Usally, i take the M240 with 2-3 lenses and hike with the camera on me in a neoprene bag and 2 lenses in the backpack using the leather lens cases stores in a plastic bag.

 

Now I was wondering how many of you do multiday hike with tent and take your gear with you? And how do you store the lenses and other gear in your backpack?

 

Best

 

Marc

[alan c. davis]

I do multi day hikes for up to 12-13 days more often than not in remote, untracked areas. Gave up taking my Leicas years ago. These days it's either a small M4/3 or a Fuju X10 worn in a waterproof waist bag. A Leica and 2-3 lenses equals at least another couple of days food.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ted Lemon]

Dear all,

 

I'm going on a trip to Iceland and plan to do some multiday hikes with a tent. Usally, i take the M240 with 2-3 lenses and hike with the camera on me in a neoprene bag and 2 lenses in the backpack using the leather lens cases stores in a plastic bag.

 

Now I was wondering how many of you do multiday hike with tent and take your gear with you? And how do you store the lenses and other gear in your backpack?

 

Best

 

Marc

 

I take one M body and one lens  - usually 35mm - on a strap when walking. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Marc,

 

 You might also consider taking a small solid table tripod with soft, non-marking slippers for its feet, that has a large ball head & a cable release. With the small solid tripod, ball head & cable release against my chest I get +2 stops of stability hand held. This combination is also useful against a rock or a tree, against a wall (soft non-marking slippers), inside or under a door way. On a car (As long as the motor is not running). Even on a table it is OK. Sometimes a cable release alone can be useful without the tripod & ball head. The combination of all 3 is a great extender of capabilities in a reasonably small, easy to carry package.

 

Example: 2 photos of the same scene: The first taken at F 1.4 @ 1 second handheld & the second photographed at F 8 @ 30 seconds on a solid tripod with a cable release.

 

The more you carry it & use it, the more ways you find & think of to use it. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited August 4, 2015 by Michael Geschlecht

[honcho]

It depends how precious you are about your stuff.  With full camping gear and suitable clothing for the season you intend to visit, a neoprene bag as well as the leather lens cases is going to be bulky and you'll need a large backpack.  Personally, I'd ditch the leather cases, (I detest them!) and find something more practical such as CCS lens or compact camera cases that you can attach to your backpack waistbelt.  You can either spray these with silicone for water resistance or put them inside lightweight Exped drybags or similar for really wet conditions when they will be inside your backpack.

 

An M240 and 2-3 lenses plus pouches is going to add quite a bit of weight and bulk to your pack base weight, I wouldn't personally bother carrying more than two lenses (including the one on the camera) and even then I'd be looking at taking just one lens.  As it's Iceland, my lens single lens choice would be a 21mm.  If it had to be two lenses, I'd add a 35mm.  A third lens would just piss me off.

[DrM]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't like the leather cases. I'm not precious about my stuff, it is made to take pictures. I'll test the drypack option and use a sock as protection . However, one lens on the body is too limited and hiking trought the Nepal mountains I disliked the fact that I took only the SX35FLE and no 90 to compress the landscape. Given the flatter Icelandic landscape I'm a bit in doubt what to take. I have VC15, 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 90/2 to chose from; A. 15/35/90; B. 28/50/90; C. 15/28/50? Any filters?

 

Thx

Marc

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In your situation in all aspects I would certainly not leave my 15mm at home and would consider leaving my 90 in favor 50. My 35FLE is also beyond doubt. The 15mm does in fact weigh nothing so 15/28/35/50or90

[honcho]

If you're intent on 3 lenses then 15, 28 & 50 would be my choice from what you have.  I can only say what I would do because I don't know you or what you photograph, but for me the 28 would be the most used of the three.

 

Filters: the same applies but for me it would be the Lee 75 system with various nd and nd grads.  At the very least I'd be taking a pola and 6 & 10 stop nd's with  2 & 3 stop hard and soft grads as a basic set of 7 filters.

[AndreasAM]

When the hike is long, hard and difficult, like mountainranges, just the Leica X1 did it for me, with some spare batteries and the optical viewfinder..

 

A not so hard and long hike,with more room to spare, means nowadays the Leica T with 23 mm. cron/ the 12 mm. VM and a 50 mm. (75 mm. Eq.) ZM.

All kept in the innerts of an Billingham Small in the topcompartment of the backpack. Camera on the chest when possible of course

Edited August 5, 2015 by AndrewAM

[fotofool]

Marc,

 

I recently did did several multi-day hikes with a tent in Patagonia.  I used an F-stop brand bag.  It has an internal camera bag.  I carried the Voigtlander 12 and Leica 21 SEM, 50 APO and 90 APO in it with my M240 and a full set of filters.  I found it to be an ideal arrangement.

 

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

I spent a fortnight in Iceland last summer, by campervan, not hiking. I had 28/35/50/90, and used 28 most of the time, backed up by the 90. In hindsight I'd have taken just 28 & 75, but my 75 was under repair at the time. Iceland landscapes are mot as vertiginous as Nepal, so I wouldn't have found much use for wider than 28, but YMMV.N

[Richardgb]

Went to Iceland in 2003, overland by 4x4 and camping.

 

I didn't have a Leica then, but the 28mm and 135mm on the (film) SLR served me very well (though the 135 was perhaps a bit long), and relatively light. As already noted, nothing 'mountainous' but plenty of crags, waterfalls. geysers, and (dirty) glaciers.

 

The coastline reminded me of northern Scotland, but the interior is practially bare, raw, rock - almost a desert - with stunted growth where it happens.

 

Fascinating, but expensive.