I am looking for a backpack to fit....

midnight_rider wrote in post #6432746
I already wear a 30-40 pound tool pouch almost all day carrying this on my back is not a problem. Carrying more than one bag is. ( especially ones with wheels on a trail ). I am asking this as an honest question and although I enjoy humor just as much as the next person This is not an unrealistic request.
Thank you all for your responses.

I wore this backpack all day at the San Diego Zoo and a few weeks earlier all day up in the Sierras in Bodie Ghost Town.

The pack weighed 50lbs. or more with all my best guesses. It was not light, nor easy, but it's certainly doable.

I carried my whole kit at Bodie because I didn't know when I would be able to go back again so I wanted to make sure I was prepared for anything and everything since it was primarily a photographic trip.

By the end of the day my back was sore and I was pretty sweaty but no worse than a day at the gym or working in the field.

cowboylife wrote in post #6433084
I wore this backpack all day at the San Diego Zoo and a few weeks earlier all day up in the Sierras in Bodie Ghost Town.

The pack weighed 50lbs. or more with all my best guesses. It was not light, nor easy, but it's certainly doable.

I carried my whole kit at Bodie because I didn't know when I would be able to go back again so I wanted to make sure I was prepared for anything and everything since it was primarily a photographic trip.

By the end of the day my back was sore and I was pretty sweaty but no worse than a day at the gym or working in the field.

Sounds like a good trip. I am very accustom to carrying a lot of weight on my back. I use to go camping a lot. There is no way my gear can out weigh my tent, pots, pans, propane tank, fishing gear, ect. I am really looking into that bag. It looks about perfect for what I want. I do not have all of the gear on that list yet but I am hoping that within the next year or so I will. I am just getting tired of endlessly buying bags to fit my gear as I get each piece. I purchased my flipside 300 about and a half months ago and it is too small already. Now I want to get the bag that has plenty of room so I will not lose money on it in a few weeks.

midnight_rider wrote in post #6433203
I do not have all of the gear on that list yet but I am hoping that within the next year or so I will. I am just getting tired of endlessly buying bags to fit my gear as I get each piece. I purchased my flipside 300 about and a half months ago and it is too small already. Now I want to get the bag that has plenty of room so I will not lose money on it in a few weeks.

Been there done that. You're smart for wanting a bag that will let you grow into it, and not just wanting to fit into what you have now. I currently have 7 bags/cases and have had another 6 or so that I have bought/sold that were not the right fit.

No matter what hobby I'm buying bags/cases for, I usually buy bigger to accomodate future growth.

argyle wrote in post #6432543
I sure hope that you don't plan on walking/hiking very far with all that gear. The Tamrac alone weighs close to 8 pounds by itself. Seriously, that's an awful lot of gear to have strapped to your back, and that's not including accessories such as filters, remote releases, etc. Not to mention a tripod. I'm not sure why anyone would need all that stuff at the same time, especially in a backpack.

SuzyView wrote in post #6432605
LOL

Okay, get yourself 2 roller bags and we'll talk. The 300 is already too big for a backpack! Really, this request is unrealistic. You need 2 bags, at least and you cannot imagine lifting that on to your back.

Not too far off what I have in a Domke F-1x or F-7, actually. 1D3+70-200 2.8IS, 5D+24-70 2.8, Sigma 15-30, 100-400, 1.4xTC, 35 f/2, 2x580EX, spare batteries, cards, lens pens, microfiber, filters . . . And that may be over one shoulder or using the Domke or Tenba backpack straps. The thing is, if you need it, you need to have it, and there are many situations (air travel, trails, stairs or escalators to name a few) where the fewer bags the better and wheels just don't help.

Forget about the back, gang. It's all about the tumpline.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Jon does fit a ton in his Domke (a shoulder bag), but a backpack with that much stuff is really hard. And I saw one that would fit all that camera gear in a magazine, it looked like that first image you put on, Donald.

midnight_rider wrote in post #6433203
Sounds like a good trip. I am very accustom to carrying a lot of weight on my back. I use to go camping a lot. There is no way my gear can out weigh my tent, pots, pans, propane tank, fishing gear, ect. I am really looking into that bag. It looks about perfect for what I want. I do not have all of the gear on that list yet but I am hoping that within the next year or so I will. I am just getting tired of endlessly buying bags to fit my gear as I get each piece. I purchased my flipside 300 about and a half months ago and it is too small already. Now I want to get the bag that has plenty of room so I will not lose money on it in a few weeks.

Holy cow! I have a 2 day kit with raingear, gloves light lj bottoms, stocking cap, etc. and everything else I need for 2 days in a 3 season environment that weighs 8.5 lbs. before consumables and 13 lbs with consumables. That allows me to carry a needlessly heavy camera gear load of 8 to 12 lbs. of gear consisting of 2 bodies, 3 to 4 lenses, monopod, possibly tripod, etc. and still come in at only a "light" 25 lbs. for a 2 day outing. Am I the only one thinking that your strategy could use some improvement? Have you considered paring down your view of what's "necessary" for an outing? Just because one owns a lot of camera gear by no means requires it to all be in the same bag at the same time. I think gear can be selected for the trip at hand without having to carry everything one owns "just in case".

Have you considered stretching yourself to see how little camera gear you could possibly use for an outing and forcing yourself to get good pics with that. Then when you've accomplished that, feel free to carry an extra lens or two for the just in case scenarios. There's a whole group of folks out there who think one ought to be able to do with one lens and still make pics that make a statement. If that's doable then 2 to 3 lenses is adequate for luxury if reasonably planned. To splurge in that sense might mean 4 to 5 lenses occasionally (for the truly unknown scenario). At a serious outing I'm wearing 2 cameras at once with a couple extra lenses (and extension tubes, possibly a flash, of course batteries, cards, etc.) in the bag. It's not like I don't have plenty of options with 4 lenses and two cameras when it comes down to it. EDIT: By the way one of the bodies is the 5D. The full frame as one body allows me to carry less lenses because lenses automatically become wider on that body. That's a part of the overall strategy.

Here's .02 for your bank account. Don't spend it all in one place! (I'm hoping that you and your back might one day become lifelong friends.)

What's the photography version of the saying, "His eyes were bigger than his stomach"? ... just askin' LOL

being overly selective means limiting your shooting options... load up the GF as well, I say... particularly when you won't be getting a second chance, and you don't know exactly what you'll find.

edit: I should qualify that by saying I go on holiday for the pics, not the experience If I don't come back with some great shots, I feel like I've wasted my time and money going on a scenic trip. Sure, I'll go spend some time doing nothing someplace, just to unwind, but it makes me anxious if there's anything to be seen and I'm not shooting it.

fishfoto wrote in post #6430480
With some creative packing you can fit this kit into a Mountainsmith Parallax, and certainly inside a Mountainsmith Odyssey.

Are you packing a single 40D or a set of 40D bodies?

I discuss the Mountainsmith Parallax on my site for traveling photogs at www.flyingwithfish.com

I'd like to see what you're referring to on your linked page. I'm not interested in hunting through a 20 page long link to do it. Could you be more selective with your link or provide useful instructions on how to find it? This is the 2nd time I've looked at your page for something you referred to and the other time I bagged looking. I'm really interested in your input, maybe you could help out with that.

milorad wrote in post #6435482
being overly selective means limiting your shooting options... load up the GF as well, I say... particularly when you won't be getting a second chance, and you don't know exactly what you'll find.

edit: I should qualify that by saying I go on holiday for the pics, not the experience If I don't come back with some great shots, I feel like I've wasted my time and money going on a scenic trip. Sure, I'll go spend some time doing nothing someplace, just to unwind, but it makes me anxious if there's anything to be seen and I'm not shooting it.

I shot 25k pics in the last year and am on course to do the same this year. I have a full time job that's not photography and I still did that. I'm 50% likely to go semi-pro next year, nearer to 100% in the following year if not by then. I take pics and enjoy the outing later when I get home to look at them. I'm so obsessive about getting pics that I don't like to invite non-photogs along because I know either I'll be losing pics or I'll be abandoning my friends or family. Believe me, I go for pics 1st. I have one non-photog friend that's pretty accommodating of my shooting when we go backpacking etc., but I still compromise somewhat when we go on an outing. The reality is that I'm not sacrificing the ability to get decent pics because I'm deliberate about which L lenses and specialty gear go in my kit. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

With 2 photogs going out shooting with swappable gear I see nothing wrong with coordinating your gear so that between the 2 of you you could cover more wildly unlikely shots between your collective kit. With 8 to 10 lenses between the two of you that should be quite easy to do. That seems like a pretty good idea.

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6435451
...Am I the only one thinking that your strategy could use some improvement?...

Apparently not, but to each his own. If someone wishes to carry that much gear at once, a better situation would be to get a 'real' backpack, such as an Osprey Atmos, for example. These have real harnesses and suspension systems that will definitely make carrying that kind of a load that much easier. All that's needed is to place each lens in its own lens case and stash them in the pack. And you can even strap a camera with a walkaround lens (24-105L) to the D-dings on the shoulder straps...keeps a load off your neck and keeps the camera accessible without having to take off/put on the pack. The very last thing that I'd carry that much weight in is a 'camera' backpack that's not ergonomic. The Tamracs are nothing but a padded box...I know, I have an Expedition 7, which now rarely sees the light of day.

If one wants to compare specs, the Expedition 8 is very close to weighing 8 pounds empty, the Osprey Atmos 65L (which I also have) only weighs a tad over 3 pounds. Add in all that gear, and a water bottle or two, food, and other essentials, the weight quickly climbs. Also, the OP has plenty of overlap with some of his lenses, which makes paring down that much easier. If you're outside shooting landscapes, who needs a slew of 1.8 and 1.4 lenses? The extension tubes can also work in lieu of a dedicated macro lens, and are much lighter. Another option is using alternative prime lenses, such as Olympus OM lenses. Granted, they're all MF lenses, but extremely small and extremely light, with excellent IQ...perfect for backpacking because of the their size and weight. But hey, if the OP really wishes to carry all of that around, that's his decision. Just trying to provide a few options to make it a little easier...

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6435561
With 2 photogs going out shooting with swappable gear I see nothing wrong with coordinating your gear so that between the 2 of you you could cover more wildly unlikely shots between your collective kit. With 8 to 10 lenses between the two of you that should be quite easy to do. That seems like a pretty good idea.

I thoroughly agree... between you, that's plenty of kit, which is part of the reason I (jokingly) said to load up the GF ... I tend to shoot alone though most of the time, unfortunately, so I can be found with maybe 50% more kit than the next guy, and its usually only a couple of lenses more. My extra kit comes from always wanting both my tripod and my monopod with me, as well as my lappy.

That's sound reasoning if you have someone to swap kit with though. Having one lappy between you for instance, is plenty. Resume not necessary to support free-standing logic, but an interesting read nevertheless.

Cheers!

argyle wrote in post #6435790
Apparently not, but to each his own. If someone wishes to carry that much gear at once, a better situation would be to get a 'real' backpack, such as an Osprey Atmos, for example. These have real harnesses and suspension systems that will definitely make carrying that kind of a load that much easier. All that's needed is to place each lens in its own lens case and stash them in the pack. And you can even strap a camera with a walkaround lens (24-105L) to the D-dings on the shoulder straps...keeps a load off your neck and keeps the camera accessible without having to take off/put on the pack. The very last thing that I'd carry that much weight in is a 'camera' backpack that's not ergonomic. The Tamracs are nothing but a padded box...I know, I have an Expedition 7, which now rarely sees the light of day.

If one wants to compare specs, the Expedition 8 is very close to weighing 8 pounds empty, the Osprey Atmos 65L (which I also have) only weighs a tad over 3 pounds. Add in all that gear, and a water bottle or two, Also, the OP has plenty of overlap with some of his lenses, which makes paring down that much easier. If you're outside shooting landscapes, who needs a slew of 1.8 and 1.4 lenses? The extension tubes can also work in lieu of a dedicated macro lens, and are much lighter. Another option is using alternative prime lenses, such as Olympus OM lenses. Granted, they're all MF lenses, but extremely small and extremely light, with excellent IQ...perfect for backpacking because of the their size and weight. But hey, if the OP really wishes to carry all of that around, that's his decision. Just trying to provide a few options to make it a little easier...

I own the Osprey Atmos 50. It's the most comfortable pack I own. It weighs more than necessary and the space is not especially "friendly" to a photographer with the hump in the middle of the bag. It also takes a big hit in comfort past 25 lbs. in weight. It's my favorite pack though if I'm not packing photography gear. I absolutely love the suspension system, I just wish it were more friendly to loading photography gear and weighed less, because it's a very comfortable pack when everything works out. It has now become the one I loan out to my novice backpacker friends who are short on gear to get them outdoors with me. I'm surprised that the Osprey 65L weighs 3 lbs as my 50 weighs almost 4 with the map case installed.

I'm with you on the Oly gear. I'm taking a real hard look at the E-3 for my long lens camera. I'd still carry the 5D for the landscape part of the kit I think. The Oly with 2x crop, the super amenities of the E-3 body, the IS for every lens, and the fact that a lens like a 150mm 2.8 becomes 300mm 2.8 (small, light, fast aperture) before you even add a TC is incredibly impressive to me. It can't hurt that Oly has the only 2.0 aperture zoom lens on the market (that I know of) as well.

To each his own "of course". Included in those considerations should be a real understanding of what the vast majority of photogs are doing too. Experienced photogs can pull off what they need to with far less kit than is on the OP's list. The real world factors involved in that should be mentioned if one truly wants to consider a well rounded view.

milorad wrote in post #6435860
I thoroughly agree... between you, that's plenty of kit, which is part of the reason I (jokingly) said to load up the GF ... I tend to shoot alone though most of the time, unfortunately, so I can be found with maybe 50% more kit than the next guy, and its usually only a couple of lenses more. My extra kit comes from always wanting both my tripod and my monopod with me, as well as my lappy.

That's sound reasoning if you have someone to swap kit with though. Having one lappy between you for instance, is plenty. Resume not necessary to support free-standing logic, but an interesting read nevertheless.

Cheers!

LOL

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6435863
...I'm with you on the Oly gear. I'm taking a real hard look at the E-3 for my long lens camera. I'd still carry the 5D for the landscape part of the kit I think. The Oly with 2x crop, the super amenities of the E-3 body, the IS for every lens, and the fact that a lens like a 150mm 2.8 becomes 300mm 2.8 (small, light, fast aperture) before you even add a TC is incredibly impressive to me. It can't hurt that Oly has the only 2.0 aperture zoom lens on the market (that I know of) as well.

Actually, I'm using the Oly OM system wide angle prime lenses (each about 25 years old) on my 5D with an adapter...several of them combined weigh much less than a single all-encompassing modern-day AF zoom. These lenses are so small and light, that I'm able to stack an Oly 21 and 24, along with a Leica 35, in the same padded compartment of a pack. When hiking/backpacking, I try to lighten my load as much as possible...these lenses allow me to do that, and I don't suffer from any image quality issues.