Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Image Upload

end

Archive 2008 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

dennisgibson
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Looking for opinions on the Tamrac 787 - Extreme Super Photo Backpack or the Lowepro Super Trekkerr AW.

They both look like they'd hold all my gear:

D300/grip
Tokina 12-24
Nikon 24-70
Nikon 70-200
Nikon 200 f2 VR
Nikon 200-400 f4 VR
Kenko 1.4x tc and extension tubes.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Dennis

Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Paul B
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

As far as the Lowepro is concerned, I think a more appropriate comparison with the Tamrac would be the Pro Trekker (the next smallest size down from the Super Trekker) and it would save you 2.5 lbs. Fantastic bag--great protection and lots of space--but heavy.

Two other points. I'm not really familiar with the gear you list (I'm only a Canon guy

Apr 24, 2008 at 02:24 AM

stompyq
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

I think you'll be better served with a pro trekker than a super trekker (No idea about the tamrac as i've never owned one). The supertrekker is a "huge" pack. Half of it will be empty with what you show.

Apr 24, 2008 at 03:34 AM

Rodney O
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

As a Tamrac bag user myself, maybe this will help. The large Tamrac 787 seems bigger than you need and it does not look like it meets the current airline carry-on size limits.

I would suggest either the slightly smaller Tamrac CyberPack 8 (model 5258) or the Tamrac Expedition 8x (model 5588).
Tamrac CyberPack 8 (model 5258)

Tamrac Expedition 8x (model 5588)

I find the CyberPack 8 an excellent bag for travel with plenty of space and excellent padding for the camera, lenses and accessories. With it, I have had no problem with the airline size limits either domestically or internationally. It does have a padded space for laptops which may or may not be useful for you. Personally I would rather have that space for camera items, since I carry my laptop in another shoulder carryon anyway.

However, these backpacks are not light packs. They are made to really protect your gear while traveling. So for trekking and hiking, I would suggest a modular system based around something like a Kinesis lens case with modular additional pouches. Then you are carrying what you need for the specific day's photography.
Kinesis System Intro page
Kinesis L511 Long lens bag

This second link shows the long lens pack that is the central core of my backpack for an on the go pack. With shoulder straps, belt and additional pouches, the system will let you more easily carry items specific to the day's photography, tripod, main long lens, 1 or 2 bodies, additonal short lenses, batteries, gps, water, etc etc.

hth

Apr 24, 2008 at 04:54 PM

Eldor
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Paul B wrote:
As far as the Lowepro is concerned, I think a more appropriate comparison with the Tamrac would be the Pro Trekker (the next smallest size down from the Super Trekker) and it would save you 2.5 lbs. Fantastic bag--great protection and lots of space--but heavy.

Two other points. I'm not really familiar with the gear you list (I'm only a Canon guy

) but do you actually need bags that are as big as the Tamrac and the Pro Trekker? Also, you may want to consider (if you haven't already) to what extent you'd actually be loading up all your gear in one bag. I have both the Pro Trekker and Super Trekker. They're nice but probably not for any serious hiking. The bags themselves are heavy and when you load them up you've got a major load. I would probably use them mostly for car trips (where they sit on the front seat next to me) and transporting lots of gear in and out of cars/hotels/motels. I'd use some type of Kinesis set-up with only a couple lenses for hiking trips.

I'm reviving this thread (instead of starting a new one) as I'd really like some more opinions about the Lowepro Pro Trekker and Super Trekker bags...

I just received my new Koboko (the Andy Biggs bag) and while its purpose is to be the largest bag that fits airline carry-on regulations, I find I need an even larger bag. And it doesn't have to be (and certainly won't be) within carry-on regulations.

I'm going on a nature photography workshop which will involve a boat trip to an island and then an uphill walk of just under two miles. And we'd be on that island all day long and must be pretty self-sufficient. Weather is likely to be an important factor (cold and/or rain) and I need to be prepared, in addition to carrying the photo gear I will need. Once we get up that hill, the bags won't have to be carried so it's only for the daily trip up and down that hill that I'd have to suffer under the weight of my gear.

Somewhere I read that the Super Trekker is very uncomfortable and that the Pro Trekker is much more comfortable, but I'm afraid it won't be large enough.

Here's a partial (tentative) list of the gear I plan to carry:

2 Bodies (currently 5D II)
500mm f4L IS
300mm f2.8L IS
70-200 f2.8L IS
24-70mm f2.8L
24mm f3.5L tilt/shift
17mm f2.8L
180mm f3.5L Macro (probably)
580EXII (two of them)
Better Beamer (two)
Gitzo 3541L tripod
RRS BH55
Full Wimberly head

Drinking water, rain gear, etc. Extra batteries, memory cards, etc.

I'm really thinking that the Super Trekker would be the best choice foe me in this case.

Any comments or advice?

Mar 27, 2009 at 02:27 PM

gearhead5
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

That is a ton of gear to carry, have you considered a porter?

Mar 27, 2009 at 04:58 PM

Eldor
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #7 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

gearhead5 wrote:
That is a ton of gear to carry, have you considered a porter?

Yeah, I have! But then I'd not only have to pay the porter but pay to get them a place on the workshop too!

The only good thing is that I'll only have to carry this gear in to the location and then out at the end of the day. Once on-site, I'll pretty much be able to leave the bag on the ground.

The workshop is one being given by Christopher Dodds and it'll be to photograph the gannets on Ile Bonaventure the first week of June. Chris tells me it's just under a two-mile walk (uphill on a trail) to where we spend most of the day. So it's not like I'm going to be carrying this stuff for hours. Chris actually has the Super Trekker bag and carries even more gear than I'm planning to.

Mar 27, 2009 at 06:43 PM

Michael White
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

I have a Tamrac Cyberpack 8 and a LowePro Photo Trekker they are real close in size and the Lowepro is heavier than the Tamrac by a pound or so IIRC.

Mar 27, 2009 at 08:42 PM

KevinJames
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Are you nuts?

Just kidding, but I did buy a LowePro SuperTrekker AWII a couple of years back on a PBS auction for $200. What's not to like at that price?

I knew it would be big, but this bag is HUGE! It took up two-thirds of my wife's back seat in the Toyota Corolla. It will certainly haul all your gear, and a couple of small children, if you pack them tightly. I have never even strapped it on my back, but I use it as a container for all the seldomly used artifacts of 20+ years of camera compulsion.

The SuperTrekker is a great bag, but it may be more than you need. For that matter, it's probably more that 99% of photographers need. It's too bad that most stores won't carry such a low-volume item, so you can't test it.

Last word: BIG!

Kevin

Mar 27, 2009 at 09:08 PM

KevinJames
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

As an added note, I do love LowePro. Great bags for the price.

Kevin

Mar 27, 2009 at 09:12 PM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Eldor wrote:
Paul B wrote:
As far as the Lowepro is concerned, I think a more appropriate comparison with the Tamrac would be the Pro Trekker (the next smallest size down from the Super Trekker) and it would save you 2.5 lbs. Fantastic bag--great protection and lots of space--but heavy.

Two other points. I'm not really familiar with the gear you list (I'm only a Canon guy

Mar 27, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Eldor
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

KevinJames wrote:
Are you nuts?

Of course!

Just kidding, but I did buy a LowePro SuperTrekker AWII a couple of years back on a PBS auction for $200. What's not to like at that price?

I picked up a new Super Trekker AWII yesterday at my local Montreal dealer (the Pro Trekker was just too small) and got a great price... CDN$370!!! (That compares to the B&H price of US$450 plus shipping which would come to almost $600 Canadian. So I too am really happy with the price.

I knew it would be big, but this bag is HUGE! It took up two-thirds of my wife's back seat in the Toyota Corolla. It will certainly haul all your gear, and a couple of small children, if you pack them tightly. I have never even strapped it on my back, but I use it as a container for all the seldomly used artifacts of 20+ years of camera compulsion.

In spite of feeling the bag was HUGE while in the store, once I got home with it I removed all the dividers first and then simply placed my 500/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS lenses in it (all with hoods reversed) to see how it would all fit. And then I started feeling the bag was going to be small!!

I could really use some tips about how to set up the dividers for best organization for the equipment I want to carry. It doesn't look like everything will fit. Does anyone have photos of a loaded bag showing how it's been organized? Do you put any lenses into the (removeable) side pockets?

(Of course I might not be able to even lift the bag if everything was in it!

Anyway, any packing/organizing tips would be very much appreciated.

Eldor

Mar 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

I'd stay away from the Tamrac Expedition series of bags...they're very heavy when compared to other packs (my Expedition 7 weighs about 7 pounds empty) and not very functional when it comes to hiking. They'll hold a ton of gear, but that's about it. If you need to carry along other necessities to stay self-sufficient (food/snacks, rain gear, water, first aid kit, extra layer of fleece, etc), you're pretty much out of luck. The Expedition is basically a padded box that hangs on your back.

I use Lowepro packs (Rover AW and Dryzone Rover), but these probably won't suffice for what you're looking to carry. The Rovers do have a second compartment to carry all of the necessities (and then some), and the Dryzone Rover has an internal, removable water bladder as well. Believe it or not, the Rover AW is very lightweight, and weighs as little as my Osprey Atmos 65 (a hair over three pounds). You may want to consider a "real" backpack with internal framing and a good support system if you really plan on carrying all that gear.

Mar 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Eldor
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #14 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Mike Ganz wrote:
I'd stay away from the Tamrac Expedition series of bags...they're very heavy when compared to other packs (my Expedition 7 weighs about 7 pounds empty) and not very functional when it comes to hiking.

Hi Mike,

Gee, you're complaining about your bag weighing 7 pounds when empty... my new Lowepro Super Trekker weighs 13 pounds empty!!!

I'm just glad that I'm not going to have to carry a loaded bag far or often.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to best organize the bag and get everything to fit. That huge bag is suddenly starting to look very small. SIGH

Mar 28, 2009 at 01:58 PM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #15 · Large Tamrac or Lowepro backpack

Eldor wrote:
Mike Ganz wrote:
I'd stay away from the Tamrac Expedition series of bags...they're very heavy when compared to other packs (my Expedition 7 weighs about 7 pounds empty) and not very functional when it comes to hiking.

Hi Mike,

Gee, you're complaining about your bag weighing 7 pounds when empty... my new Lowepro Super Trekker weighs 13 pounds empty!!!

I'm just glad that I'm not going to have to carry a loaded bag far or often.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to best organize the bag and get everything to fit. That huge bag is suddenly starting to look very small. SIGH

Wow...never realized that the Super Trekker weighed that much. You have my sympathy

. But you're pretty much right on about bag size...no matter which one you have, it just never seems big enough.

Mar 28, 2009 at 04:36 PM


FM Forums \| General Gear-talk \| Join Image Upload end