Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Why 7x17?

  1. #11

    Why 7x17?

    I'll chime in with my reasoning. I started with 8x20 simply because years ago I aquired a old 8x20 holder and built a crude homemade camera for this holder. Later, I bought a more holders (S&S) and eventually a beautiful 8x20 Korona. So here I am ... an 8x20 devotee. I like the fact that the 20" dimension is about as ULF as you can go. However, if I was starting from scratch I might seriously consider 7x17 if only for the fact that many more lenses fully cover 7x17/11x14 than 8x20.

  2. #12

    Why 7x17?

    Michael - I do not know what National Parks you hike into but I have seen and utilized pack stock in Yellowstone, Glacier, Teton, Rocky Mountain National Park as well as every wilderness listed in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado that I have checked. Sometimes you need to file for a permit but most of the time you let the guide do that for you.

    I did not mean to turn this into a debate about pack animal use in our National Parks, but since you asked...

    I guess it all depends on what area of the country you are referring to. Where I live, Mt. Rainier is the closest National Park to my house, and the one I am most familair with. Of the 240 miles of trails in the park, only a few short sections of the PCT (which barely enters the park in a couple short stretches along the park's eastern boundary) and the relatively low elevation Laughingwater Creek Trail (which provides access to/from the PCT from Hwy. 123) are open to stock use. Within the park, these two trails are far from the mountain and mostly in forest with few, if any, views of Mt. Rainier. The only backcountry camp in Mt. Rainier National Park that is open to stock is the Three Lakes Camp near the junction of the Laughingwater Creek Trail and the PCT. The rest of the park, including all other maintained trails and off-trail areas and camps are closed to stock use. For example, the entire 93 mile Wonderland Trail is "hiker only". For anyone who wants to do photograph Rainier and it's environs, hiking is the way to go. For all intents and purposes, Rainier is a hiker's park. 97% of the park is designated wilderess (so no mountain bikes, ATVs, hang gliders, cars or jet skis) and over 95% of the trails (by mileage) and all but one of the backcountry campsites are closed to stock animals.

    Other National Parks in the Pacific NW (Olympic and North Cascades) are more "stock friendly", but again, stock access is mostly limted to lower elevation valley and forest trails below treeline. The high elevation trails and camps are "hiker only". This is done for a number of reasons, including safety as Michael mentioned above. Also, it helps protect the fragile alpine environment (the growing season above treeline in these parks is very short). So, again, for the photography I like to do, hiking is the only way to go (the only way allowed in many places).

    This also goes for many non-National Park areas in the Northwest. For example, other than a short portion that is coicident with the PCT, the Timberline Trail around Mt. Hood is closed to stock. So, like Mt. Rainier, the best views of Mt. Hood are "hiker only".

    So, trying to tie this all back into the original "Why 7x17?" question... For me, 7x17 is the largest format I can practically carry on my back into the alpine regions near my home where I wish to photograph. For most of those areas, stock animals to help carry the load are not an option. If you are in better shape, don't wish to hike great distances, live in another part of the country, etc., you may very well reach a different conclusion.

    I do agree 100% with Michael's statement:

    My point is that you make the serious commitment to be in the kind of physical shape necessary to safely participate in this form of mobilized photography or you are not.

    Although I am planning to take my completed 7x17 camera and all it's heavy, bulky accessories into the backcountry for long day hikes and even a few one and two night backpacking trips, there are places and times when I will opt for the lighter 4x5 (or maybe 4x10). A week-long solo trip during mid-October above treeline in the Cascades is no place to compromise safety margin just for the sake of carrying a bigger camera. When the weather can turn bad, you better be prepared with proper food, clothing and shelter - even if it means leaving the 7x17 at home.

    Kerry

  3. #13

    Why 7x17?

    I agree Kerry that it is serious business off the trail.

    Furthermore, the statement from above " Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in National Parks is simply not accurate and I do not want the reader now of in the future to be mislead on such an important subject. When I searched across the United States, Canada, and even Australia on the subject I found that most National Parks or set aside Federal Land that is under protective status is highly supportive of four legged pack stock as a form of access and in fact encourage its use. For the LF and ULF photographer it is a viable alternative when utilized correctly. Your area is very unique in the need to protect tundra at elevation and I can understand that unique condition.

    I own a set of pack saddles and panniers and have had many marvelous experiences with this form of access to places remote and would encourage others to explore this option. A week above tree line will make you appreciate running water and a soft bed and insure that you do not turn into a lollypop unintentionally. In fact, the Photographers Formulary has a special pack trip in the summer that goes into the Bob Marshall Wilderness of Montana specifically for the LF photographer. How COOL is that?

    Onward!

  4. #14

    Why 7x17?

    Michael - Furthermore, the statement from above " Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in National Parks is simply not accurate and I do not want the reader now of in the future to be mislead on such an important subject. When I searched across the United States, Canada, and even Australia on the subject I found that most National Parks or set aside Federal Land that is under protective status is highly supportive of four legged pack stock as a form of access and in fact encourage its use. For the LF and ULF photographer it is a viable alternative when utilized correctly. Your area is very unique in the need to protect tundra at elevation and I can understand that unique condition.

    I stand corrected. My statement was based on experience with my "local" parks. My statement would have been more accurate if I had changed the wording to read:

    Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on some trails in National Parks.

    Or perhaps:

    Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in some National Parks (such as Mt. Rainier).

    If you do plan to depend on pack animals to carry your heavy ULF gear into the backcountry, check the rules for stock use in the park(s) you plan to visit as the rules and regulations vary from park to park.

    It just so happens that most of the trails I hike here in the Pacific Northwest are closed to stock use. That includes everything from sea level hikes along the wilderness coast in Olympic National Park, to low elevations hikes in the Columbia River Gorge, to the higher elevation trails of Mt. Rainier, the Olympics and the North Cacades. There are trails to many scenic areas in Oregon (the Wallowa Mountains) and Washington (the entire PCT) that are open to stock use, but your choices are far fewer than if you are willing to go on foot and shoulder the load yourself.

    Just to be clear, I'm not trying to advance any kind of anti-stock agenda (I used llamas once and enjoyed their company and appreciated the weight they carried). I'm just pointing out that not all areas are open to stock use and it's best to know what's permitted in the areas you plan to visit before buying into a format that may be too big and heavy to carry on your back for great distances - if that's what you want to do.

    Kerry

  5. #15

    Why 7x17?

    One of these days Kerry when you complete your 7x17 consider a pack trip to Colorado to one of the many wilderness areas and we can burn sheet film like it is going out of style.

    I will line up the four legged friends and a good packer and bring the appropriate "trail tonic" to suit the occasion.

    Cheers!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    471

    Why 7x17?

    Ah! The trail tonic is the key. Might I suggest something of scottish heritage. Bottled...say...18 years ago or so. It would serve nicely.

  7. #17

    Why 7x17?

    Why both 7x17 and 8x20? I suspect both sizes are the result of cutting down formerly popular sizes 14x17 and 16x20. Same with 12x20, cut from 20x24, and 4x10, cut down from 4x20, (I think...) One cut, no waste, nice aspect ratio for a panorama.

    I wonder why there aren't people building cameras for films cut the other way... 8.5x14, 10x16, 10x24? Lack of holders, perhaps, but those are either home-made or hand-crafted enough anymore that odd sized shouldn't cost much more.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    83

    Why 7x17?

    Mark, I think you've got your maths wrong...

    12x20 is indeed cut in the other way (on the long side of 20x24) than 7x17 (on the short side of 14x17...),
    and 4x10 is of course 8x10 cut in half...

    As to other "odd" formats, 7x11 and 5x12 come to mind...

    PJ

  9. #19

    Why 7x17?

    Patrick- Yes, 12x20 is cut from 20x24, but I'm surprised I've never heard of a 10x24, (same film cut the other way).

    Same with 7x17 cut from 14x17; why no 8.5x14?

    Same with 8x20 cut from 16x20; why no 10x16?

    We're seeing more 4x10, but no 5x8...

    Not so much long side versus short side, but the usual way versus the unusual way. Do we want to work in a format that already has an established tradition? Or is it just that's what's available?

  10. #20

    Why 7x17?

    Michael - One of these days Kerry when you complete your 7x17 consider a pack trip to Colorado to one of the many wilderness areas and we can burn sheet film like it is going out of style.

    I will line up the four legged friends and a good packer and bring the appropriate "trail tonic" to suit the occasion.


    I may take you up on that offer sometime. I have relatives near Colorado Springs and an old backpacking buddy down SW of Pagosa Springs. Unfortunately, I don't make it over that way nearly often enough. I keep getting distracted by things closer to home, and when I do head down that way, I rarely make it further than SE Utah (although techically, I did set foot in Colorado last March when we took the kiddies to the Four Corners).

    The one time I have packed with stock, it was with llamas rented from an outfit out of Colorado. I did a six day trip in Grand Gulch with a large group. I still had to carry all my camera gear, clothes, tent, etc., but the llamas carried the food, fuel, stoves, pots and pans, etc. We ate like kings. We had bacon and eggs every morning, steak the first night, plenty of libations, etc. Normally when I backpack, I eat single serving freeze dried heat-n-eat meals (sort of mushy pasta with wallpaper paste) and lose several pounds over the course of a trip (not a bad thing). On that trip, I spent six days hiking in the desert and didn't loose a single pound. The llamas were well trained, very sure footed (started the trip with five dozen eggs and not a single one broken while being carried by the llamas) and strong (started the trip carrying 195 lbs. between the two of them). If only they were allowed more places I like to go, I would probably own one, or at least rent on a regular basis. Unfortunately, that's not the case. So, things like camera weight and bulk are always a consideration for me. Too bad llamas are automatically lumped in with other stock animals. With their soft padded feet and comparitively light weight, they are much easier on the trail than horses or mules. The also have very little impact on the alpine environment (their natural habitat) - especially if you bring pellet food and don't let them graze in the meadows.

    I have gone back to Grand Gulch for a backpacking trip (didn't eat nearly as well), but I've always thought it would be a fun place for four or five photographers to spend a week with a string to llamas to help carry the heavy camera gear. I just took my little Toho and three lightweight lenses and 75 sheets of Velvia Quickloads on that six day trip as I had to carry it myself. It would be a great place to take the 4x10, or even 7x17 with the help of some llamas.

    Kerry

Similar Threads

  1. Shen-Hao 7x17
    By e in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2005, 12:24
  2. Considering the options for 7x17
    By Robert Skeoch in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23-Mar-2005, 18:57
  3. 7x17 Verticals
    By Peter Galea in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2005, 23:53
  4. Just Got My New Phillips 7x17
    By Richard K. in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 17-Nov-2004, 23:20
  5. Looking for 7x17 camera
    By orndorf in forum Resources
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16-Aug-2000, 20:47

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •