Camera bag for camping
- Thread starter EOS rebel
- Start date
I looked at my last spreadsheet and with ultralight tent, bag, clothes, cooking gear, food, water, 60D, 10-22mm and 400mm 5.6 it shows around 30lbs. This is my weight for winter in Texas or for September in the Wind River range in Wyoming. Camera gear totals about 6+ pounds. In reality the whole pack with belt probably ended up a few pounds more than 30. The above weight also includes a cheapo 1.6 lb aluminum tripod that folds up to about 15" and fits in the long side pocket. It should be noted that my Mariposa has two small side pockets on top of each other on one side and a long pocket on the other side. I am able to put the tripod and my six moon trekker tent in the long pocket. The ultralight route means some compromises and in my case the tripod was one of them. If I am going to a place with distant wildlife or observing climbers I may also take my 6 oz lens2scope which turns the 400mm into a spotting scope but taxes the cheapo tripod. I also substitute the 10-22 for my 40mm or 18-55 EFS for regular snapshots.NancyP said:
Upvote
0
Thanks! The 400 f/5.6 rides on the belt, I presume. That's a great combo, 400 5.6, 10-22, and 60D. I have been using 60D, 15-85 as a one-lens landscape/plant/general nature set up (note that in the Ozarks where I shoot, there aren't many grand vistas), and adding the 400 5.6 if I think I am going to have good birding. I thought the tripod might fit in the long pocket, as shown in the older reviews of the Mariposa, but now the Mariposa Plus is shown on the GG site with 2 short pockets each side. I suppose it might be possible to get the old long pocket substituted in by the manufacturer.
My luxury light tripod is the Feisol CT3442 (no center column) plus Arca-Swiss p0 ball head, approximately 3.0 # with screw clamp, and approximately 19" long with legs folded over the (rather small) head. I haven't tried it for longer exposure astrophotography yet. My heavy duty tripod is a very similar style but larger diameter Feisol CT3742, 4# by itself.
My luxury light tripod is the Feisol CT3442 (no center column) plus Arca-Swiss p0 ball head, approximately 3.0 # with screw clamp, and approximately 19" long with legs folded over the (rather small) head. I haven't tried it for longer exposure astrophotography yet. My heavy duty tripod is a very similar style but larger diameter Feisol CT3742, 4# by itself.
Upvote
0
I put the 400 in a Think Tank lens changer pouch or Skin 75 on the belt. The skin is significantly lighter, but does not offer the protection of the pouch. The larger holsters for your camera will fit the camera with the lens attached in the pouch temporarily, but, as I recall, it protrudes enough that you can't zip it up. It shouldn't fall out if just walking around or standing, but it is not really a secure place to put it in for a long hike. I would test it for you, but the 400 I use belongs to a friend. We loan each other camera lens for such trips. As it is not my lens, I am more likely to use the pouch instead of the skin due to the pouches superior protection.NancyP said:
My only problem with using the belt system and the pack is when I have to to cross some creek in a wilderness area. Most of the time I find myself crossing using a downed tree and this can be a bit disconcerting even if you don't have a pack. But with a pack and camera gear it becomes a real problem that I have not totally solved. I bring along a large light weight water proof bag for my camera gear in in these circumstances, but the problem is what to do with the bag as you cross the river. It is best to save room in the pack for such situations. If you don't have enough room, which is usually the case for me on a trip over several days, then you have to carry the waterproof bag filled with gear separately. If you attach it to the pack it can swing around and totally screw with your balance. If you hand hold the bag, you lose a hand to grab onto something to maintain your balance. Usually, I don't hike alone in such situations and I have a friend go first and hand the camera bag over to them, but this only works well for very small crossings. The only other way is to throw a line across the river and use a carabiner to slid the bag along the line to the person on the other side. I have not had to do this yet and it comes with its own risks as I am not too confident of the strength of the attachment points for these light weight waterproof bags when carrying 5-6 pounds of camera gear. I have also thought about getting small waterproof bags, or even heavy duty zip lock bags, for each lens and the camera that will fit around the lens or camera while it is in the holster/pouch. However, whether this would survive a fall from a log into a river/creek is questionable and with the pouches/holsters on you become much wider which further complicates maneuvering through a downed tree across a river. So far, that is why I have stayed with putting the stuff in one bag and getting it across separately. Perhaps if I had better balance I would not be as anal about this.
Upvote
0
Thanks, Lloyd. I tend to hike with the camera attached to the Cotton Carrier vest, so it is available quickly and its weight is centered. I can still hold hiking poles, etc. That doesn't solve the stream-crossing problem. I haven't addressed this yet because the streams I am likely to cross are tiny, and if worse came to worse, I would take off the camera, stash it in a dry sack, go across without camera, empty pack sufficiently to fit camera in, then fetch the camera in dry bag inside pack, rearrange on the other side.
Upvote
0
Nancy, I just received the following review of the new version of the Mariposa and it appears that they are retaining the large pocket on one side and the two smaller pockets on the other side. http://southwestultralight.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-look-gossamer-gear-2014-mariposa.html It also notes that the newly designed shoulder straps are more female friendly. It also has a system for attaching hiking poles that you may be able to adapt to hold your tripod. The full description of the new model can be found at the Gossamer web site at http://gossamergear.com/packs/backpacks/mariposa-ultralight-backpack-all-bundle-568.html By the way, although I live in the same city as the Gossamer gear folks, I have no interest in the company other than as a consumer.
Take care, Lloyd
Take care, Lloyd
Upvote
0
Thanks for sending the review and info! It looks quite interesting.
I am quite impressed by the number of "cottage industry" order-by-mail backpacks out there, made or designed in the USA.
Ultralights:
Hyperlight Mountain Gear
ULA
Zpack
6 Moons
Gossamer Gear
Zimmerbuilt
Light modular external frame, can be upgraded to "hunter meat hauling"
Paradox
External frame hunter meat haulers, heavy-duty and heavy:
Stone Glacier
Mystery Ranch
My first step is to get measured at REI and try a bunch of backpacks, weighted, in the store and see what fits, what doesn't, what options are awful, etc. Simplicity seems desirable.
I am quite impressed by the number of "cottage industry" order-by-mail backpacks out there, made or designed in the USA.
Ultralights:
Hyperlight Mountain Gear
ULA
Zpack
6 Moons
Gossamer Gear
Zimmerbuilt
Light modular external frame, can be upgraded to "hunter meat hauling"
Paradox
External frame hunter meat haulers, heavy-duty and heavy:
Stone Glacier
Mystery Ranch
My first step is to get measured at REI and try a bunch of backpacks, weighted, in the store and see what fits, what doesn't, what options are awful, etc. Simplicity seems desirable.
Upvote
0
I decided to do some bricks and mortar shopping to get an idea of what I like and don't like. I have a torso length of 14", apparently, because women's packs starting at 15" are not comfortable. That limits me somewhat in the major manufacturers - I checked out Osprey, Gregory, Kelty, REI house brand packs because those were the packs that I could try out in person. I checked out kids' adjustable packs as well. Going ultralight may be something I do later on, when I am more experienced. The finalists were Osprey Ariel 65 XS women's pack, adjusted to minimum 14" torso height, and Gregory Wander 70 youth pack, likewise adjusted to 14". I walked around in the store, did squats, leaned over, etc for 30 minutes for each pack with a 27 pound load, and they both felt fine. They are 3.5 pound packs. Gregory Ariel was on sale for $210.00, Gregory Wander was full price at $200.00, and the Ariel had more convenient access to main compartment and had water bladder access external to pack body (the bladder slot is between pack backframe and pack body, so you could refill the bladder without having to unpack and repack the main chamber of the pack). Ariel also had a more comprehensive compression strap system.
Now that I have a pack that allows me to carry 30# comfortably, I can start training with graduated weight and length hikes. If I ever go look at ultralight packs, I might go for ULA Circuit, which is made in a kids' adjustable version, really the only ultralight pack with 14" torso capability, or get custom made . But that's in the future, and may never happen.
Now that I have a pack that allows me to carry 30# comfortably, I can start training with graduated weight and length hikes. If I ever go look at ultralight packs, I might go for ULA Circuit, which is made in a kids' adjustable version, really the only ultralight pack with 14" torso capability, or get custom made . But that's in the future, and may never happen.
Upvote
0
I like your approach NancyP. I've been using Gregory Z30 and Z45 packs for my hiking/fishing/photography trips and recommend this approach to others. The challenge has been how to carry the camera gear in/on the pack.
I'm going to try a new approach on my weekend trips this fall. I carried my M/22 last year and that makes a nice minimum carry, but I missed the wide/telephoto I got carrying my 6D/17-40/70-200f4/1.4x combo. I picked up the EF-M 11-22 earlier this year and recently added the EF-M 55-200. The M combo (1080g) is less than half the 6D combo (2455g). My existing collection of bags and cases didn't fit these well (with a few extra batteries and CPLs). While getting an aluminum tube made for a pair of new fly rods, I decided to try a rod tube for my camera gear. They all slide nicely into a 3" paper mailing tube so I had a 15" long rod tube made, brass caps with an O-ring seal to handle the typical afternoon showers in the Rockies. Weighs less than a pound (400g) while the gear inside weighs more than twice that. My wife stitched up a few bags from some extra lens cleaning cloths to provide protection inside the tube and I added velcro tabs to close them. This looks like the smallest and strongest solution possible with little wasted space. Initial tests look promising, sits nicely in the pack or an outer pocket.
I'm going to try a new approach on my weekend trips this fall. I carried my M/22 last year and that makes a nice minimum carry, but I missed the wide/telephoto I got carrying my 6D/17-40/70-200f4/1.4x combo. I picked up the EF-M 11-22 earlier this year and recently added the EF-M 55-200. The M combo (1080g) is less than half the 6D combo (2455g). My existing collection of bags and cases didn't fit these well (with a few extra batteries and CPLs). While getting an aluminum tube made for a pair of new fly rods, I decided to try a rod tube for my camera gear. They all slide nicely into a 3" paper mailing tube so I had a 15" long rod tube made, brass caps with an O-ring seal to handle the typical afternoon showers in the Rockies. Weighs less than a pound (400g) while the gear inside weighs more than twice that. My wife stitched up a few bags from some extra lens cleaning cloths to provide protection inside the tube and I added velcro tabs to close them. This looks like the smallest and strongest solution possible with little wasted space. Initial tests look promising, sits nicely in the pack or an outer pocket.
Attachments
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
Nope, not in my tests. The fit is fairly tight (the M barely fits) and the bags (like rod socks) eliminate any noise or wear from contact with the tube or other items in the tube. The seams at the bottom of the socks and the fold from the velcro closure at the top provide padding between items. Padding on both ends of the tube and the close fit keep it from shifting much, even if you invert the tube. When I attach a camera/lens combo to the pack strap I will likely stuff a sock or ziplock filled with air in the tube to fill the void, even in a vertical orientation. Both horizontal and vertical external attachments are possible with my pack, internal will be vertical.
It's still in the experiment stage. My first hikes are a few weekends away. I'll know better after several miles on the trail and post an update then. It might be a reasonable option for other compact camera systems, but I don't think it will scale up to DSLRs and L series lenses.
Upvote
0
Per others: if you are backpacking, get a great pack for that and put your camera gear in bags to go inside. I carry a Dana Design pack (big green one in front, pictured below) that fits like a glove. On this hike (round trip of Syncline loop at Islands in the Sky) we spent one night on the trail and I carried a 5DMKII, 70-200 2.8II, 16-35 II, 24 TS II, 300 2.8II, 1.4X and 2X converters + Gitzo tripod and ball head plus accessories. It was a dry camp, so everyone was loaded. One innovation (?) to carry my tripod and access my camera was to place a large "S"-hook above the right shoulder so I could hang the tripod with camera mounted and have the weight carried on my hips. I can snap quick pics w/o removing the tripod from the hook, or easily take it down w/o removing my pack. I've carried this set-up for up to 4 night outings when we had access to water good enough to filter. I also carried food for everyone, clothes etc. though I had my sons and a friend to help with the tents. This was a rough hike (2nd photo shows a downhill section that was the worst), but I felt fine with this gear b/c I had a great pack. I am 6'2" but only 160 lbs, so not a muscle-man (I'm far left in the 1st shot). Last shot is inside the Syncline crater - kind of reminded me of Mordor (pano w 24 TSII). I'd rather handle a heavy pack than not get the shot.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hi EOS rebel,
This is my first post here.
I think you and most other camera enthusiasts may look at the camera-bag-for-travel-or-camping challenge in the wrong way; ie which camera bag can I also put some other gear in? If you want to carry equipment and food for, say, two days or more in the field, your "other" gear, extra clothes, food, water, fuel, stove, sleeping bag, tent, etc., will easily weigh and take more space than all your camera gear. For hiking and camping, unless you go camping with a car or in a large canoe, you will be restricted to a light camera body and max 3 to 4 lenses, and if you are out for a week, that is too much even.
I pack my camera and lenses in thinner pouches (not very thick padding) that can be stuffed directly into the main compartment of my normal rucksack, or in its outer pockets. Most dedicated camera bags waste a lot of space on unnecessarily thick padding. (Camera enthusiasts tend to think their expensive gear will break otherwise, it won't if you treat the bag with some caution.)
The pouches (my favourites are "Thinktank" I guess the name is but I am not sure) can be attached to my belt, the waistbelt on the ruck, or on the outside of the ruck when I need theme readily available. They can be stored with the hood attached, and no cap, pointing down. There is a built-it rain cover if it gets wet. For checking in on airplanes, I jus transfer them to my daypack, which should be a detachable part of the main ruck.
This way you can use the best rucksack for your way of travelling with plenty of room for all gear you need while not comprising either use nor safety of your photo equipment. It shold be easy to attach a tripod to most normal rucks, but attaching tents, sleeping bag, mattress etc to a camera bag may be challenging.
I will trekk from Kashgar in China to K2 in a couple of weeks. We will use camels to haul heavy stuff but each member will carry daypacks for food, camera gear, and some extra clothes and the like. For the last ascent up to the advance base camp (in extremely steep, rough and hostile terrain), we will have to carry all our gear on our backs, enough for four days or more under extreme conditions (over glacier at high altitude, facing possible blizzards and temperatures down -30 at night etc) so the carrying equipment has to be very versatile.
For this I picked the Mystery Ranch Nice WOLF Alfa, an expedition favourite among US special forces. Not cheap by any means, > 800 USD, but the best stuff you can get. It is flexible and modular in design with a maximum volume of 100 litres, needed for the ascent up to the ABC, but the lower compartment and outer pockets can be removed to make it a much smaller and lighter 60 liter ruck for other parts of the trekk, and the top lid itself, 15 liters, can be removed and used as a cary-on luggage in airplanes.
In addition, the Wolf has two long tube-shaped outer pockets with zippers (presumably to give easy access to grenades) where my travel tripod exactly fits in. No hassle with straps and the like, and no risk of the tripod getting entangled somewhere.
These are uniques properties I have not found in any other rucksack.
Good luck!
This is my first post here.
I think you and most other camera enthusiasts may look at the camera-bag-for-travel-or-camping challenge in the wrong way; ie which camera bag can I also put some other gear in? If you want to carry equipment and food for, say, two days or more in the field, your "other" gear, extra clothes, food, water, fuel, stove, sleeping bag, tent, etc., will easily weigh and take more space than all your camera gear. For hiking and camping, unless you go camping with a car or in a large canoe, you will be restricted to a light camera body and max 3 to 4 lenses, and if you are out for a week, that is too much even.
I pack my camera and lenses in thinner pouches (not very thick padding) that can be stuffed directly into the main compartment of my normal rucksack, or in its outer pockets. Most dedicated camera bags waste a lot of space on unnecessarily thick padding. (Camera enthusiasts tend to think their expensive gear will break otherwise, it won't if you treat the bag with some caution.)
The pouches (my favourites are "Thinktank" I guess the name is but I am not sure) can be attached to my belt, the waistbelt on the ruck, or on the outside of the ruck when I need theme readily available. They can be stored with the hood attached, and no cap, pointing down. There is a built-it rain cover if it gets wet. For checking in on airplanes, I jus transfer them to my daypack, which should be a detachable part of the main ruck.
This way you can use the best rucksack for your way of travelling with plenty of room for all gear you need while not comprising either use nor safety of your photo equipment. It shold be easy to attach a tripod to most normal rucks, but attaching tents, sleeping bag, mattress etc to a camera bag may be challenging.
I will trekk from Kashgar in China to K2 in a couple of weeks. We will use camels to haul heavy stuff but each member will carry daypacks for food, camera gear, and some extra clothes and the like. For the last ascent up to the advance base camp (in extremely steep, rough and hostile terrain), we will have to carry all our gear on our backs, enough for four days or more under extreme conditions (over glacier at high altitude, facing possible blizzards and temperatures down -30 at night etc) so the carrying equipment has to be very versatile.
For this I picked the Mystery Ranch Nice WOLF Alfa, an expedition favourite among US special forces. Not cheap by any means, > 800 USD, but the best stuff you can get. It is flexible and modular in design with a maximum volume of 100 litres, needed for the ascent up to the ABC, but the lower compartment and outer pockets can be removed to make it a much smaller and lighter 60 liter ruck for other parts of the trekk, and the top lid itself, 15 liters, can be removed and used as a cary-on luggage in airplanes.
In addition, the Wolf has two long tube-shaped outer pockets with zippers (presumably to give easy access to grenades) where my travel tripod exactly fits in. No hassle with straps and the like, and no risk of the tripod getting entangled somewhere.
These are uniques properties I have not found in any other rucksack.
Good luck!
Upvote
0
Bjorn, I looked at Mystery Ranch, but all of their current packs are quite heavy, 7 pounds or more, and I am a 115 pound novice backpacker. I have a heavy enough pack (Osprey Ariel 65) at 4.5 pounds. If one uses the "no more than 25% of body weight" as a pack weight limit, I truly should pick as light a pack as I can feel comfortable using. I think I got a good "beginner" pack, and I am going to just stuff wrapped lenses near the J shaped zipper into the main pack compartment. I can hitch a belt-type lens case onto the pack belt. Filters etc can live in the "brain". Tripod lashes onto the back.
You are likely a lot larger than I am, and can reasonably take a beefy pack. The external frame military packs or "hunter's backpacks" for hauling back carcasses are flexible but by necessity too heavy for me. Paradox Pack is the lightest weight of the external packs, and I could carry them, but these are specialty items, hard to find, more or less have to wait for them and order by mail.
You are likely a lot larger than I am, and can reasonably take a beefy pack. The external frame military packs or "hunter's backpacks" for hauling back carcasses are flexible but by necessity too heavy for me. Paradox Pack is the lightest weight of the external packs, and I could carry them, but these are specialty items, hard to find, more or less have to wait for them and order by mail.
Upvote
0
Hi NancyP,
It sounds like you are doing great with your research! Kudos for putting in the time/effort to optimize your gear. To my recollection, I think the guideline is 30% of your body weight. So I suggest to help with this challenge you could....
- Gain weight until you reach the 30% number you need. If you had a body weight of say, 185, you could carry 55 lbs!! So go hit that steakhouse!!
- Lose weight until you reach the 30% of a fellow hiker and just let them carry you in their pack! If you have a big tall body builder friend that weighs say, 250, then you only have to lose about 35 lbs and you would be on the upper limit of what they could carry!
Of course, the second option means you won't have any gear or photo stuff so I guess the first option is the preferred option and you get to eat all you want in the bargain! Please provide pictures as you approach your target weight! OK, I'm a bad boy. I'm feeling kinda silly this morning. :-[
Kidding aside, good luck in your efforts and keep us posted. It sounds like you are going to discover some good methods and gear along the way here. And I am interested in what you find because my younger son is 15 but he's around your weight and size so I'm always on the lookout for gear that will work for him. He's a bit taller but he's pretty skinny so he has a small waist size. We went with a deuter SL pack for him this summer. The SL is their slimmer women's model but it doesn't look like it all.
It sounds like you are doing great with your research! Kudos for putting in the time/effort to optimize your gear. To my recollection, I think the guideline is 30% of your body weight. So I suggest to help with this challenge you could....
- Gain weight until you reach the 30% number you need. If you had a body weight of say, 185, you could carry 55 lbs!! So go hit that steakhouse!!
- Lose weight until you reach the 30% of a fellow hiker and just let them carry you in their pack! If you have a big tall body builder friend that weighs say, 250, then you only have to lose about 35 lbs and you would be on the upper limit of what they could carry!
Of course, the second option means you won't have any gear or photo stuff so I guess the first option is the preferred option and you get to eat all you want in the bargain! Please provide pictures as you approach your target weight! OK, I'm a bad boy. I'm feeling kinda silly this morning. :-[
Kidding aside, good luck in your efforts and keep us posted. It sounds like you are going to discover some good methods and gear along the way here. And I am interested in what you find because my younger son is 15 but he's around your weight and size so I'm always on the lookout for gear that will work for him. He's a bit taller but he's pretty skinny so he has a small waist size. We went with a deuter SL pack for him this summer. The SL is their slimmer women's model but it doesn't look like it all.
Upvote
0
Yep. Time to start progressive length/elevation/weight training with the pack. I wouldn't mind gaining a few pounds of muscle and losing a few pounds of fat.
Right now I just wish that the temperature and humidity would get below 90 degrees and 90 per cent. At this point, the only hiking I would want to do involves just a large hydration bladder and not much else.
Right now I just wish that the temperature and humidity would get below 90 degrees and 90 per cent. At this point, the only hiking I would want to do involves just a large hydration bladder and not much else.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
Yes! When I'm training in May-June for the summer Philmont expedition in July, I'm in my hilly neighborhood sweating buckets carrying a heavy 60+ lb pack for 3+ miles every morning in the same hot/humid conditions. I'm drenched when I get home and it's hard to breath. But thinking about the dry+cooler climate in Cimmaron, New Mexico gives me motivation to keep going. Good luck with that training! Eat lots of protein! (BTW NancyP, what part of the country are you located in and where do you plan to hike on your trip(s)?)
And remember, the training isn't just about stength and stamina, it's about mental conditioning. You're also building confidence for the various challenges of the trail. Once you get to a certain point in your training, you reach a relative plateau where you can keep going for much longer distances over different terrain as long as you maintain the will to do so. The harder and more challenging your training, the less challenging the trail will be in comparison.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
