Capacity of Lowepro Photo Trekker AW

I'd like to replace my present backpack with a Lowepro Photo Trekker

AW. I've read the archives and am confused about the capacity of this

backpack, partly because I gather there have been different versions

of it. My equipment consists of a 4x5 Technika V, five lenses (90mm,

135mm, 150mm, 210mm, and 300mm (the 90 and 210 are pretty large, the

others are small) all on lensboards (the 150 could stay home but it's

a G Claron so it's tiny), a Linhof Optical Viewfinder, meter, loupe,

BTZS darkcloth, plus the Lee rubber band filter system (very small)

and a few other little gadgets. I like to carry at least five normal

film holders or a Readyload holder and box of Readyloads, plus a few

other gadgets. Also a small water bottle. With a lot of squeezing all

of this fits, just barely, in my present Domke Outpack. Could someone

who has the current version of the Photo Trekker AW let me know

whether they think this gear would fit in it?

 

The archived messages I've read indicate that all of this would fit

in the Lowepro Pro Trekker AW but I gather there are problems fitting

that model in the overhead compartment of an airplane, plus it's

quite a bit heavier and more expensive than the Photo Trekker. The

interior dimensions of the Photo Trekker aren't much smaller than the

Pro Trekker (Photo Trekker is 12" x 6" x 19" whereas Pro Trekker is

12" x 6.5" x 20.5") which seems like a pretty minimal difference

considering the difference in weight and cost so I'll buy the Photo

Trekker rather than the Pro Trekker if it will hold my gear.

Yes, I think you would have no problem fitting all that gear in the Photo Trekker AW. I use it for a 5x7 or 8x10 Canham woodfield. With the 5x7 I carry 4 or 5 lenses, 5 film holders, loop, etc. Although I generally am willing to sacrifice lens speed for size, so all my lenses are small. With the 8x10 I generally carry the film holders in another bag because the outer pocket will only take a couple, and I like to have 5 holders with me. But I still take 4 lenses with me on most trips. I hiked around Yosemite with this setup with the canham 4x5 back on the 5x7 with around 15 4x5 holders. It was no problem. Technikas are small, so you should have lots of room left over after the camera gets in the bag. You do have to become very creative in placing the dividers if you want to put a bunch of stuff in the pack. After many iterations I have it down to the point where I only have to change two dividers to switch from the 5x7 to 8x10 cameras. I find the comfortable for walking long distances. I've spent all day wandering around with it on at Point Lobos or in Yosemite. The rain cover is nice when the ground is wet but overall its not too easy to use. Its easy enough to get out but stuffing it back in its little pocket when the pack it full can be a bit of pain.

 

I haven't been on a plane with either of these set ups, but it appears that the pack itself will fit into an overhead bin. I guess I'll find out this summer as I'm heading back to California to visit my folks.

 

All in all I think its a great pack. Oh, I found the tripod holding setup that comes with the pack not to be up to the Gitzo 1325. A smaller tripod yes, but the 1325 is long enough that it was very unbalanced strapped on the back of the pack.

I've got both the Photo and Pro Trekker versions for my 4x5 set-up (Arca

Swiss field w/ folding rail, 6 lenses, rest of kit similar to yours) and have

experimented with each. I too noticed that the specified interior dimensions

weren't substantially different between the packs but in practice the Pro pack

seems to have a considerably larger capacity.

 

Regrading the Photo Trekker, I have flown with it about 20 times and it will fit

in the overhead compartment although sometimes you have to shove it in

pretty hard. For the record, when full of gear it is larger than the maximum

allowed carry-on size for most of the airlines but the few times it's been

questioned I've been able to talk the airline folks into letting me carry it on.

But there is a risk even with the Photo Trekker that you may be forced to check

it at the gate.

 

When I use a minimal kit (which is similar what you described above) it will all

fit into the Photo Trekker but it will be tight (for me that usually means 4

lenses, just a few filters, and one box of Quickloads). Not much room left for

extra film, water, lunch, a jacket etc. You can fit extra gear onto the top or

back of the pack or use the optional mini-backpack attachment that LowePro

makes but in my experience all of these solutions redistibute the weight of the

pack in uncomfortable ways. In addition, in order to take a photo I often end

up unpacking almost every item in order to pull out the ones I need.

 

For these reasons, I always use the Pro Trekker. My gear is much better

organized and accessible making the set-up significantly quicker and causing

less wear to my equipment. It is also a more comfortable pack when carrying

the weight of a 4x5 set-up partially because it distributes the weight to your

waist better and partially because it can carry more gear close in to your body.

There is plenty of room for extra film, water, lunch, extra lenses etc. If you are

willing to skip the tent and sleeping bag you can even get away with 2-3 day

hikes with this pack while still carrying a reasonable set of photo gear. I like

this set-up so much better than the Photo Trekker that now even for shoots I fly

to I usually pack most of my expensive/fragile gear into a hard case carry-on

and then pack my clothes in the Pro Trekker which I then check as normal

luggage.

Greetings,

 

I concur with most of the advise given so far. I have the Photo Trekker AW, but have no expereince with the PRO (it didn't exist when I bought mine.)

 

You'll have no problem fitting the equipment you listed in the Photo Trekker. The easiest way to carry a tripod is to mount it on the side of the pack using straps (not supplied with the pack) If you mount it on the bottom, it will not be very stable. You can fit an extraordinary amount of gear in and on the pack if you pack it properly, but with that said I find this pack extremely uncomfortable for the long haul. I use mine strictly for transporting gear on planes, cars, busses and the occasional short (1 mile) walk. When I'm really going on a hike, I use a real backpack and pack my gear in bags, clothing, etc for protection.

 

The Photo Trekker will conform to carry on standards, but not when fully loaded. The outside pockets will probably need to be empty in order to truly conform. A few years ago, some airports had templates surrounding the x-ray machines and a fully loaded trekker wouldn't fit, but with the pockets emptied no problem and it easily fits in the overhead storage.

 

For reference, mine is loaded with the following: 4x5 Canham DLC with Cambo reflex viewer. 135mm Schenider APO, 72XL Schneider, 210mm Rodenstock, 305 APO Nikkor and 159 Wollensack all mounted on boards. Additionally, I carry a Hasselblad 500CM with 50mm, 80mm & 150mm lenses. Two light meters, extra Hassy back, lots of filters and a bunch of other miscellaneous stuff. I don't always carry a Polaroid back and film/QuickLoads, but when I do it gets straped to the outside of the pack. I can fit it into the pockets, but then I have to rearrange stuff.

 

Regards, Pete

I have experience with the Photo Trekker AW and with the Pro Trekker AW. Once the

Pro came on the market I sold the Photo Trekker and kind of regretted it. The Photo

Trekker used to come with a large zippered external pocket that was very useful for

food, clothing, collapsible reflectors/diffusers and small items such as flash cords.

The Pro was better constructed but a lot heavier and lacking the external pocket. You

can get an external small pack that can be attached to the Pro but I never liked this

solution. The Pro holds a bit more as it is larger but both will hold your equipment.

As the Pro was too heavy and big to my test I sold it and got the ... Domke Outpack.

Yes, probably the same you are currently using. The Outpack looks smaller and is a

lot lighter but amazingly fits about as much equiment. I still use the Domke because I

like the different doors to access different parts of the bag without making all my

equipment open to the elements.

I carry 35mm and 4x5 equipment including an F5 with 3 lenses (20, 28-70/2.8, and

80-400) and flash, and a Wisner 4x5 Pocket Expedition with 5 lenses (65, 90, 135,

200, 300), a Kodak holder, a box of Quickloads, loupe, spotmeter, and BTZS

darkcloth. A small water bottle fits in the side pocket.

I think the new Photo Trekker doesn't have the external pocket.

Have you considered the Tamrac system. I have the Tamrac 787 photo backpack with large side pockets. It holds everything needed for a day of shooting. Including raingear, water bottle, lunch, etc..

Regarding the ProTrekker, it is true that it doesn't always fit in the overhead bins. Having said that, I've still never had to check the bag as shoving it under (or kindof under) the seat in front of me has always quelled the flight attendents. The harness on the bag is amazing, certainly a step above the PhotoTrekker and well worth considering if you want a truly comfortable hiking experience. You can read my brief review of it here: http://www.robertjwood.net/equipment.shtml

 

Cheers

Alright, regarding my previous comments, it turns out I had no idea what I was

talking about (no surprise there). I've got the Super and Pro Trekker bags, so

the big bag I discussed is the Super and the little bag I discussed is the Pro.

Sorry for the confusion, it's been a while since I purchased them.

 

So, I rountinely flew with the Pro for over a year and successfully stuffed it into

every overhead bin (but not without effort). Just don't pack it too deep with

non-compressible items. It's the Super Trekker I've really fallen in love with

for both it's comfort and it's room for extras without resorting to all the

annoying strap on pockets. I've never used the Photo Trekker so I can't

comment on it.

Thanks to all who responded. I bought the Photo Trekker AW from a place called Carman's Foto Source in Ontario. The price was $150, about $80 less than B&H. They expedited delivery and so I've already got it and have put everything in it. It does indeed hold everything, though there isn't any extra room but that's fine. It's so nice seeing everything laid out and right at hand by opening one big pocket rather than having to deal with five or six zippered pockets as I was having to do with my Domke Outpak. It is a little heavier and a little bulkier than the Domke but seems comfortable so far. Thanks again for all the help.