I don't think it matters which system a photographer shoots anymore. Nikon and Canon are just about the same — great cameras, great lenses. A few years ago, I'd give a big edge to Canon, but Nikon's D3 and D300 are very good cameras. I use a D300 because I like the smaller sensor — it makes the 400 a 600 and with a 1.4 teleconverter the 600 becomes an 840mm. Nikon's early digital cameras sucked. The D1 was awful and the D2H nearly as bad. My favorite camera for people and landscapes continues to be my Leica M6. I can carry it in a pocket and take a quick picture and people don't even notice until you walk up and ask them their name. It also slows you down and makes you think about what you're doing. Everything is manual — the meter, the aperture, the focus. I shoot maybe 20-40 rolls of film a year. All of it Fuji Velvia. It's a great alpenglow film. Being a rangefinder, you can also hand hold at very slow shutter speeds — I've hand held many a picture at 1/15th of a second and more than a few at 1/8th of a second.

For wildlife and birds it's all Nikon digital. The autofocus is extremely fast and the lenses are great, but heavy and expensive. The Nikon D300 with a 400mm lens and a monopod weighs 14 pounds — add a full pack with tent, sleeping bag, food, clothes and survival gear and you're carrying 50 to 60 pounds — heavier than that in the winter. At least in the winter you can use a sled. People ask if it's worth it, particularly if they see me slogging up some switchbacky trail with all that crap.

It's always worth it, I say.

Just don't ask my back.