[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] Camera: to take or not to take.
- Subject: Re: [at-l] Camera: to take or not to take.
- From: tmcginnis@ucclan.state.in.us (Thomas McGinnis)
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:15:28 -0500
Mark, I go with Ken Bennet on this. A mileage log is a snap to write. (I
usually wrote mine in the morning last thing before the pack went on.) And
you'll really be glad you did.
Photo-wise, Take the camera. I did not plan to take a camera (I didn't
*own* one!) when I throughhiked in '79, and just figured "The memories will
serve me" as they had on *all* of my previous hikes to that point (at least
900 four season miles, at perhaps 50miles/hike). My parents learned of this
as they were dropping my off at Amicalola Falls, and insisted I take their
Instamatic. "You can always send it home if you don't want it..."
The Instamatic lasted on top of my pack (under a bungie, where I could grab
it without problem) until Shenandoah, when I dropped it on the ground and
it exploded. Bought another ($15) at the next SNP campground store, and it
went to Katahdin. I took around 500 pictures, and can remember where most
of them were taken, even 20 years later. (But I had two or three years
where I could identify *precisely* where each was taken.....)
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [at-l] Camera: to take or not to take.
Author: markusmc@hom.net at ima
Date: 10/19/99 11:40 AM
Even if I did keep one it wouldnt amount to much more than a mileage log,
so I figure why bother.
But a camera? Did anyone go on a thru hike and NOT take a camera? Did you
regret it in anyway?
Mark Pearce
Sparta GA
2000 yoyo
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | http://www.backcountry.net *
==============================================================================