Backpack recommendation

[wimswyzen]

Need a solid backpack that can carry 2 bodies ( 1D MIII ) and another and also fits for my Canon 500mm

and 70-200mm + 2 smaller size lenses,flash and tripod with Sidekick. Want to use it for longer hiking

trips.

Backpack should ideally be weather proof. Also, carrying my Mac Book Pro what be a nice feature but this

is not a must.

Please advise.

Wim

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I prefer a real backpack to a photo backpack because they are lighter and much more

comfortable. My favorite is the Kelty Redwing. I purchased mine, modified for LF, here:

 

http://www.photobackpacker.com/home.asp

 

You may want to consider one of their modified packs - they install a nice waterproof zipper

that opens wider than the original zipper. You can skip the other accessories that are geared

towards LF and just use lens cases and such for protection.

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

I agree with Robert, especially if you are actually going into the back-country very far. Most

camera packs are made for around town, or very short hikes (not much room for

clothes/food/etc.). I would also leave the computer at home. I have padded cases for my

lenses when I carry extras climbing or skiing. I don't have a big lens like that though -

sounds like you will need a large overnight size pack (4-5000 cubic inches) to fit all that in

along with your other hiking gear. REI has many good packs in this category. I've used

Osprey for some years and found their quality to be excellent.

[alan_gage]

As the other two posters mentioned, I greatly prefer a real backpack and finding a way to

fit my photo gear into it. If you're planning to do some serious hiking with it then from

what I've seen I don't know how a dedicated photo pack could work out. The strap

systems on most of them are pretty pathetic and very few even have a hip belt, let alone

more then a thin piece of nylon.

 

IMHO, once you head out into the wilderness photo gear has to take a back seat to stuff

that can save your life; like food, water, clothing, and emergency shelter if you suddenly

have to spend a night somewhere. Photo backpacks don't seem to take these things into

account and don't leave much room for essentials. It's easy to find a traditional backpack

though that will allow you to fit all your photo gear in it.

 

But then you're idea of "longer hiking trips" could be much different then mine. If you're

into wildlife photography and you're plan was to hike a relatively short distance from the

vehicle (or shelter) and then sit and wait for something to come by then that's a totally

different situation then finding yourself over 15 miles away from the car. You could get by

with less "essential" gear and dedicate more space to photo gear in that case.

 

You're talking about hauling a tremendous amount of gear so I can't imagine you're

planning on going too far, unless you're built like an ox.

 

FWIW this is my setup when I want to take a long day hike mostly dedicated to

photography. I've since switched from Pentax to Canon but it's essentially the same kit.

 

 

 

 

 

I took all my gear into a well stocked outdoor store and spent over an hour trying out all

the packs until I found the one that fit both me and my gear. It was a pretty fun way to

spend an afternoon.

 

Alan

[m_barbu1]

You don't necessarily need to be built like an ox to carry a good amount of weight. I'm not a weakling, but I'm not a body builder by any stretch, either. Yet, I can easily carry 70 lbs of gear with a properly fitted backpack that contains a frame and properly transfers the weight to my hips. I would visit an outdoors store with your gear and see what packs they have that could carry it. They'll help you make sure that the pack is fitted correctly as well.

 

An aside... you probably already know this, but make sure you have proper hiking boots with both wool and polypropelene socks to eliminate chaffing. Your trip will be ruined very quickly if your feet aren't happy.

[jay a. frew]

I assume you have added-up the weights of the items you listed. Looks like the total weight could easily top 30 pounds!

 

Even if you don't plan to hike very far, you would also have to add at least 2 or three pounds of water (you will likely need much more than that to hump that load) and maybe even a little food and weather clothing. So you will approach a 40 or 50 pound total. I don't know if there is a photo backpack designed to carry that much weight safely and comfortably.

 

You might want to go to an outdoors store or hiking outfitter and tell them what your requirements are and see what they recommend (I am thinking pack-frame or a pack with internal frame).

 

Cheers! Jay

[crabseye]

MountainSmith photo backpacks are designed and made by a real backpack company, and it sounds like their Traverse (or larger) will carry what you describe. B&H carries them (special order).

 

I got the Traverse and it's a great pack.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>For longer day hikes my Rover AW pack from Lowepro works quite well. It has a lower section that can accommodate several lenses and a camera body - or quite a few

lenses if you carry the body somewhere else. (more on that later) It incorporates a very effective tripod carrier that handles my very large Induro C313. It has a separate

upper section that I use mostly for non-photographic trail stuff.

 

<p>While it isn't large enough for overnight backpacking with camera equipment it is definitely large enough for day long trips, even in difficult conditions of weather and

terrain. It carries well also. It has a integrated rain cover that seem effective - not only for rain but for providing a cleaner area to put down the pack. The pack has two

weaknesses, though neither is a deal breaker for me. First, while the raincover is effective, it is not large enough to cover the pack and a very large attached tripod. Second,

for a _backpack_ of its size it is rather heavy. A non-photographic backpack of this size would likely weight no more than 2 pounds, but the padding and attachments

increase this pack's weight considerably.

 

<p>I frequently carry my camera (5D) in one of the large chest-strap-mounted Lowepro Topload bags - this provides ready access to the camera and perhaps even a

second lens.

 

<p>For actual overnight backpacking you'll need something else entirely. I've <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/08/26/thoughts-on-my-summer-2007-

backpacking-photography-kit/">outlined my approach in an article</a> at my web site.

 

<p>Dan

[gdanmitchell]

It occurred to me that you might wonder what I carry in that Rover AW pack and how it compares to what you intend to carry.

 

Canon 5D w/L bracket, 17-40mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, 24-105mm f/4, 70-200mm f/4, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, a couple filters, extra batteries, remote release, Induro C313 tripod with

Acratech ballhead, and a few odds and ends.

 

While it is possible to cram all of this in the lower section of the pack, I'll frequently carry the camera either in the upper section (in good conditions and on shorter hikes) or in a chest pack

where it is more accessible.

 

The upper section of the pack handles the usual stuff you might need on a long hike and varies depending upon conditions, terrain, and weather: water, food, dark glasses, extra clothing,

LED headlamp, etc.

[zml]

Don't have a solution, but a comment. <br>

 

You need a mule or a Sherpa if you relly wanna hike with <i><u> 2 bodies ( 1D MIII ) and another and also fits for my Canon 500mm and 70-200mm + 2 smaller size lenses,flash and tripod with Sidekick.</u> </i> (and a laptop...plus probaly a remote release, filters, holders, cleaning stuff, clothes, food, etc.) I have yet to see a hiking backpack that can hold the above stuff and be comfortable on longer hikes/treks. Geez, 3 bodies and a 500mm..? I can barely hike with one body + 300 + 24 + tripod (carbon fiber) + some assorted junk, clothes and food for a day or two in an Osprey hiking bacpack fitted with padded dividers and lens cases.

[obakesan]

Michael

 

I don't think that many people mean 2 or 3 day hikes when they say backpacking. I think its more "3 hours there and back" and someone else carries lunch. Looking at some of the kits here I see no space for food or sleeping bag.

 

I've cut my hiking kit down to a 5 megapixel compact with a decent wide angle that handles raw (it had been a single body a 50 and 24mm lens).

 

On a typical 3 day trip, assuming I off load the tent to my partner, after I put in my sleeping bag + mat, only my share of the food, small gas bottle / cooking pot, drinking water, rain / warm gear, first aid I'm already at 12Kg with out adding 5 or more of camera / tripod. I could lighten the load by switching from my Karrimor to something like your Osprey, itd only be another 2Kg at most.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I don't think that many people mean 2 or 3 day hikes when they say backpacking</i></p><p>OK, so how about when they say "for longer hiking trips"? ;-)</p>

[alan_myers]

Among the LowePro line of packs, the smallest that will accomodate a 500mm lens is the Photo Trekker AW. This is one size down from their largest back pack.

 

Unless it's been changed since I bought mine some years ago, it does not have a built in frame and so may not be as helpful for longer hiking trips. I do use this pack with this lens and can assure you it fits. There is room on either side of the lens in the main compartment for a lot more equipment, or for rain gear or whatever, separated by modular padded dividers. There are also external pockets, removeable mounting for a tripod and tabs on which you can hang more pockets or straps if needed.

 

Another option, there's also a modular long lens case made by LowePro. You can add pouches for lenses, tripod, water bottles, or whatever to it, to best accomodate your particular equipment. The main case (Lens Case 600 AW?) will accomodate up to a 600mm lens, so your 500mm is no problem and you actually might be able to fit in a few smaller things above, below or around it. I have not used it myself, but have looked at it and considered it. I think there are couple other manufacturers who make a similar large lens case (perhaps Tamarack, Kinesis, others?), but I have no experience with them.

 

There are a couple different strap methods that can be used with the large LowePro Lens Case (600 AW?), I believe. One that I've seen in use is a sort of modular photo vest, that allows you to distribute many of the smaller items around your body in various pouches bought separately, for better balance while waking, than when everything is on your back.

[obakesan]

Hi M

<P>

looking at just one link (as suggested above)

<IMG SRC="http://www.photobackpacker.com/images/3100_genesis_zoom_600.jpg" ALT="back pack" BORDER=0><br>

I don't see much space for much else in there. No stove, no fuel, no water and no food. Wotcha gonna eat? Or (as Michael suggested) is that being carried by the "sherpa"?

<P>

now, on the other hand folks who have replied with "<I>I prefer ordinary backpacks</I>"

might just go out on longer hikes. But I doubt they're carrying 20Kg of camera

kit. Given that army combat troops carry 40Kg or more. I'm not saying <B>you</B>

don't (do you?) but suspect many don't.

[obakesan]

M

<p>

just a question for you, I just noticed you said "<i>can easily carry 70 lbs of gear with a properly fitted backpack</i>"

<P>

If you mean the same pounds measurement I'm familiar with, that's nearly 32Kg. I am about 170cm and weigh 70 so Kg so that's getting towards half my body weight. I've normally heard that 30% of your body weight is the normal maximum load for hikes.

<P>

just wondering what landscape photographers (apart from me) carry normally.

[m_barbu1]

Yes, that's the same measurement; I'm about 183cm and 111kg.