Lowepro Photo Trekker AW II v. Nature Trekker AW II

[larry n.]

These two seem very similar with, the Photo Trekker AW II being slightly larger.

 

Does this justify the huge price differential between the two? Are there any

other brands to consider?

[abrepsom1]

I have got both of them. They are indeed identical, except for the size. I like them very much, but can't remember the price difference. Before buying, it is worth comparing prices. In the US and Canada, they are considerably less expensive than here in Europe.

 

My Nature Trekker takes my 6x9 Ebony, angle viewer, 4 lenses, 2 roll film holders, several filters and other accessories.

 

The Tamrac Expedition series seems to be a good alternative.

[tedharris]

I have a brand new Pro Trekker AW II for sale ... conact me via email if interested.

[jerry_kirkwood]

My 2 cents: none of the photo backpacks (except the old and horribly heavy Super Trekker) have as good suspension systems as some plain backpacks costing a whole lot less. Customizing them for your outfit is easy with pieces of dense 1/2" foam cut from a sleeping pad (Walmart/Kmart camping department)and a hot glue gun. If you do any distance hiking/climbing that's going to be a lot easier on your bod. If you do all your shooting within sight of your car or need to feel like bystanders think you're a crackerjack photographer, by all means blow a couple c notes on a photo backpack.

[w_t1]

What Jerry said above. I use a "technical" daypack myself, lighter and more functional for me. I do not recommend buying a Lowepro or other photo backpack brands without seeing one in person and trying it out. A couple years ago I thought I wanted a Nature Trekker, did all the research etc. but when I went to Glazer's and actually handled and tried it on, "no way"

[stp]

I've used the photo trekker and nature trekker, and found the photo trekker to be too

large (and hence too heavy). My nature trekker is plenty big for a Pentax 645, 4 zoom

lenses, extra film magazine, assortment of filters, film, and supplies for a day hike. All of

that still weighs in at just over 20 pounds. The suggestion of using a plain backpack is

good, if you can customize it properly. I use an Atmos 35 for a large format system, but

all of the lenses are in gnass cases, the camera and film holder are wrapped in neoprene,

and the small components (filters, loupe, etc.) are kept in an internal pouch). Everything

just sits in a single compartment, and because they all have their own protection, there is

no need for customized internal foam compartments. The backpack works very well and

is a lot more comfortable on my back (plus the backpack itself is much lighter than the

photo trekker).

[eric_brody]

I found the Nature Trekker to be a bit small for my gear and a few ywars ago got a Phototrekker AW, the older model, not the "II." Interestingly, when the zippers failed on my Phototrekker AW, I sent it for repair and because it took so long, they sent me a loaner, the newer model. The newer model has better zippers, but is actually a bit smaller, heavier. Be really careful with checking weights on the Lowepro packs. I found the best source to be the B&H website. The Phototrekker Classic weighs 5.4 lb, the newest Phototrekker AWII weighs 9.2! I can't recall the empty weight of mine but it's less than the newer model, and did I say it's bigger?

 

Good luck. It's always best to see how your own gear fits into the pack if at all possible.

 

Eric

[stindphoto]

I definately second the opinion of using "real" packs instead of dedicated photo packs. For

short hikes (less than one day) away from your car where you only bring your photo

equipment and a little food, photo packs can work - but then again - for the same money

or less you get better packs. And with better I mean better carrying system, better

materials higher quality sewings which boils down to higher comfort, more flexibility and

more value for money. Check out the Hagl�fs Tight series - expecially the pro models - I

use a Tight SL Pro. And I just added a Bergans Alpine Guide 50 - Impressive pack with an

even more impressive price. Perfect attachment for a tripod - and the pack is so well

designed that I can remove the tripod without taking the pack off. Many packs with

attacment for skies and/or climbing gear will hold a tripod very well.

[stindphoto]

ooops - my typos reveal my time of day (night). Hagl?fs is Hagloefs - Swedish brand. And the

pack I use is the Tight XL Pro - http://www.haglofs.com

[abrepsom1]

I second what has been said about the carrying comfort. It all depends on the use of the rucksack. For lightweight hiking, I use the Lowepro Rover AW II. It takes my whole 6x9 gear in the bottom part and leaves the top part for food and clothes. Excellent comfort.

[biswasg]

I am shopping for buying one which will carry my Canon EF 500mm f4 IS plus two camera bodies, 70-200f4, 17-35 f2.8, 100 f2.8 macro, 580EX flash and a laptop. My primariy purpose is to have one which I can take as cabin baggage through airports. With recent restrictions only one cabin bag is allowed. I had shortlisted Photo Trekker but not sure whether all this stuff will fit in. Did someone say the photo-trekker ways 9.2lbs empty?