make my DLSR mountain-ready!

[Bob Gross]

"Yes, and as I said, it took them quite a while to add it… yet you still insisted on attacking me."

No, I did not attack you at all. I simply pointed out the error of your statement, and I was being informative. Look, I'm sorry that you were misinformed, but I just wanted to set the record straight before that misinformation got propagated around here.

–B.G.–

[Rakesh Malik]

"Look, I'm sorry that you were misinformed"

I wasn't misinformed, I was out of date.

[Bob Gross]

Then I just wanted to set the record straight before that out-of-date misinformation got propagated around here.

–B.G.–

[Rakesh Malik]

Then you should have shown some courtesy when you did it… which you're still refusing to do — starting with the "misinformation" approach was an attack, and you should have known better.

[Bob Gross]

Rakesh, as I stated previously, I did not attack you, the person. I attacked the outdated misinformation that you were trying to spread. I was just setting the record straight.

Too many people these days live by Google and similar search engines (even here). They find their way to too many sources of misinformation. Then they feel that if they found it on the Internet, it must be true. That's why I like to halt the sources of misinformation.

–B.G.–

[Rakesh Malik]

Reality check: it wasn't misinformation. It was the most common criticism of Canon's cameras for years. The correct approach would have been to point out that Canon added that feature. The "misinformation" label, since it was NOT misinformation, wasn't appropriate no matter how you justify it.

By putting the "misinformation" label on the message, you were overtly claiming that I was lying, which is an attack no matter how you attempt to defend it.

[Bob Gross]

No, Rakesh. If I thought that you were lying, I would have stated that. Instead, the information that you had stated was just wrong and misleading. If the information had been introduced with a phrase like, "It used to be that… " then it might have been defendable. I was simply setting the record straight with facts.

–B.G.–

[Peter Burke]

"Nikon D60 with the stock 18-55 lens."

nothing wrong with that lens – if you want wider and aren't opposed to doing some post processing, you can alway stitch a few images together with tools like Photoshop or the free Microsoft ICE.

I just completed the JMT with a D90, 18-55 and 55-200 and a battery grip so I could use Lithium AAs between resupplies. No case – just stuff the thing into the bag when the weather gets bad. Worked absolutely flawlessly and even though the lenses aren't the top of the line, the weight to performance ratio on these lenses can't be beat.

I was on the fence regarding a 10.5mm or something along those lines, but now looking back, I know I would have barely used it. For Panoramas I actually dislike wide angles, because you don't get the detail in the distance, no matter how good the lens. Stitching a batch of 50mm shots gets you detail that can be printed in 3×8 foot posters at 300dpi (about 280 megapixels in my biggest one).

I left my ultra-light tripod made from tent poles at home this year. Could have used it once or twice for long star exposures, but I found me a few rocks that did the job and with the little remote you can do those things nicely without touching the camera.

take a peek at my 2010 gallery (link on top left on this page): Muir Trail Galleries

all this done without a really wide lens. Check out the panoramas on the right – that's just one way to display stitched images, and if 360 degrees isn't wide enough for you, nothing will be. Obviously, there's that perspective distortion you get with an ultrawide, but really, how often do you need that extreme point of view when you're couting ounces with your gear.

Next year I may go back with a motorized panorama head and a nice 300mm ED lens to do some gigapixel work. Not part of the light packing idea any longer, but sometimes you just got to do what you got to do to get the right image.

[Adam Rothermich]

I'll second Peter's endorsement of the 55-200VR. Definitely not a pro level lens, but stop it down to f8 or f11 and you won't be able to tell a lot of difference. And for hikers the all plastic construction can be twisted to be a positive because its light. All the same goes for the 18-55. You aren't going to be able to find a much lighter set up than those two lenses and your D60.

Personally I bring my D40, 55-200VR, and 24/2.8 AIS of pretty much every trip. The 55-200VR gets left mounted on the camera and stored in a Tamrac belt holster attached between the shoulder straps. The 24mm goes in the front pouch of the holster. Sometimes I bring along a 50/1.8 Series E and wrap it in a lens cloth and stick it in the front pocket too. I just got a 55/3.5 Micro that might being replacing it in the future though.

If you want to go really wide get an old FE or FM and slap the 24mm on it. Or, if you want to stick to digital, a D700, but you can say goodbye to weight savings :D

Adam

[Author]

Posts