Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Backpack Hunting
Spotter for backpacking
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RobStar" data-source="post: 1178271" data-attributes="member: 75045"><p>I guess my questions for you are what is your fitness level, how deep are you going and for how long are you living in the back country? I hiked the Appalachian Train and much of it 3-4 times making a television documentary back in the 80's. Ultra lightweight anything wasn't much of a thought back then. It was common on the first 100 miles of the AT to find piles of "thought they needed that" items at trail heads. The average AT pack back in the day started at 55 lbs and up and by the time hikers got to the end over 2000 miles later the packs were down into the 40's. Today a 40 pound AT thru hiker pack would be considered overweight.</p><p></p><p>The points I'm getting to are most folks take a lot of creature comforts but only after a lot of back country miles and living and maybe suffering do they really thin their load for efficiency and light weight.</p><p></p><p>If you're worried about the 11.5 oz difference between the swaro 65 and 85mm objectives can you honestly say to yourself that 11.5 oz, with your current fitness, pack items and personal weight is as thin and trim as it could be? Can you find 11.5 oz to trim out of your pack or off your personal weight?</p><p></p><p>Now, with all that said, I own the Swaro STX with the 65mm objective but I covet the 85mm objective all the time! There is a difference in light gathering of the 85mm and now I'm speaking as a 37 year veteran in the film and television industry and someone who owns and rents out cinema lenses that cost of $20k-$85k. I can see the difference but that is in no way to slight the 65mm. It's a matter of need to have versus nice to have.</p><p></p><p>Then there is that matter of the slight bulk of the 85mm and room in your pack.</p><p></p><p>For me I've yet to convince myself that I really need that 85mm out in the field. It's just not worth giving up those two Oreo cookies I eat after dinner every night.</p><p></p><p>Something I do with my buddies is hand them my trail ready pack and ask them to go through it and challenge everything I have inside for need, duplication and weight.</p><p></p><p>Let me know what you end up doing because I sure as hell can't figure it out for myself!</p><p></p><p>Robert</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RobStar, post: 1178271, member: 75045"] I guess my questions for you are what is your fitness level, how deep are you going and for how long are you living in the back country? I hiked the Appalachian Train and much of it 3-4 times making a television documentary back in the 80's. Ultra lightweight anything wasn't much of a thought back then. It was common on the first 100 miles of the AT to find piles of "thought they needed that" items at trail heads. The average AT pack back in the day started at 55 lbs and up and by the time hikers got to the end over 2000 miles later the packs were down into the 40's. Today a 40 pound AT thru hiker pack would be considered overweight. The points I'm getting to are most folks take a lot of creature comforts but only after a lot of back country miles and living and maybe suffering do they really thin their load for efficiency and light weight. If you're worried about the 11.5 oz difference between the swaro 65 and 85mm objectives can you honestly say to yourself that 11.5 oz, with your current fitness, pack items and personal weight is as thin and trim as it could be? Can you find 11.5 oz to trim out of your pack or off your personal weight? Now, with all that said, I own the Swaro STX with the 65mm objective but I covet the 85mm objective all the time! There is a difference in light gathering of the 85mm and now I'm speaking as a 37 year veteran in the film and television industry and someone who owns and rents out cinema lenses that cost of $20k-$85k. I can see the difference but that is in no way to slight the 65mm. It's a matter of need to have versus nice to have. Then there is that matter of the slight bulk of the 85mm and room in your pack. For me I've yet to convince myself that I really need that 85mm out in the field. It's just not worth giving up those two Oreo cookies I eat after dinner every night. Something I do with my buddies is hand them my trail ready pack and ask them to go through it and challenge everything I have inside for need, duplication and weight. Let me know what you end up doing because I sure as hell can't figure it out for myself! Robert [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Backpack Hunting
Spotter for backpacking
Top