GroovyGeek Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Fotografpaul wrote:
Not really, as not every bag is made for hiking. In fact, that genre is a niche.
There are plenty of other bags then hiking backpacks.
Absolutely, there are plenty of other bags
But I stand by my assertion that most camera bags are terrible at carrying weight for prolonged time without all the weight ending up on your shoulders. Sure, most non-hiking photographers don't need to spend 5-6 hrs with all their gear on their back, so the design criteria are different. That does not make my statement incorrect - they stink at carrying weight ;-)
EB-1 wrote:
Yes and hiking is not always climbing 3,000 feet.
EBH
Absolutely, but that is almost irrelevant when it comes to how a bag handles weight. The distinguishing characteristic of hiking (rather than a short stroll) is that there is meaningful distance covered, e.g., 3+ miles. For most people that means spending 2+ hrs with the full weight of their gear in the pack. Most photo oriented packs lack internal frames and instead rely on a beefy looking waist belt, which in the absence of a frame does very little to prevent the full weight of the pack ending up on your shoulders within an hour.
This is not bad in the absolute sense. The photo oriented packs often offer niceties such as easier compartmentalization and photo-oriented niceties such as "swing around" capabilities. But they still suck at carrying weight :-)
|