Looking for a day hiking backpack that I can use to carry my Olympus OMD-EM1.2 mirrorless camera and 2-3 lenses. Would like one that can hold a hydration bladder and one that is someone size adjustable. Been looking around and came across the Shimoda and also Atlas Athlete. Anyone have any experience with these two? I note the hydration bladder is on the side of the Atlas Athlete so I am wondering if that makes it imbalanced. However, I do like how the hip straps are removable while they are not on Shimoda.
Any opinions or other suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.
I have an Atlas Athlete and for your purpose it's just about perfect. It's very well made, and just the right size for your Oly gear. I like that the hydration is in a separated part of the pack. It carries very well, with true outdoor pack features and is one of the very few packs that work as a real pack and as a specialized camera pack. Atlas has done their homework.
OTOH, for a third of the price the Osprey Skarab 32 has a separate hydration reservoir and a bunch of space. It does not have a rear opening, nor is optimized for camera gear. But with a small load like yours, adding a smallish camera insert is cheap, and you have a light, well-made, daypack/camera setup for under $150.
I had the Mammut Trion 50+7 version. It is a nice pack for sure, but the Osprey Kamber 42L I find is a MUCH better pack for photo gear. The access point on the back of the Osprey is quicker to get to than on the Mammut.
There is more padding on the Osprey as well, and more pockets. Comes with a removable lid and a rainfly. Both are about the same price, $200. The Mammut is a climbing pack, and the Osprey is a backcountry ski pack. Both have nice attachment points of the exterior, but the Osprey has "beefier" straps, as it can accommodate split boards and shovel, and a helmet (which both accommodate a helmet).
And remember, both these companies have been around for a "while". Mammut started in the 1800s as a rope company, and Osprey is still privately owned since the mid 70s, and have a LIFETIME warranty. Osprey primarily only does packs. There is ALWAYS compromise with any pack. Even my Arcteryx Bora 63L has a few compromises I have to deal with, and that pack is $549. Just my personal experiences.
Gotta go with Dustin here. I have owned a Loka, Tilopa, Targhee, and as of tonight a Kamber. The Kamber is a beauty, blows away all of the above mentioned packs. Loweorow, TT, or any of the dedicated photo packs are not even in the same league when it comes to hiking. Throw in a third party medium ICU in it and you can have a fully functional hiking backpack for $180 ($135 for the pack, $45 for the insert, I have the receipts to prove that it is possible at the right time of year). A Tilopa will set you back over $400, not carry weight nearly as well. (full disclosure - I own far more pairs of hiking socks and Give and go boxers than street socks and underwear. TMI, I know).
Dustin Gent wrote:
I had the Mammut Trion 50+7 version. It is a nice pack for sure, but the Osprey Kamber 42L I find is a MUCH better pack for photo gear. The access point on the back of the Osprey is quicker to get to than on the Mammut.
There is more padding on the Osprey as well, and more pockets. Comes with a removable lid and a rainfly. Both are about the same price, $200. The Mammut is a climbing pack, and the Osprey is a backcountry ski pack. Both have nice attachment points of the exterior, but the Osprey has "beefier" straps, as it can accommodate split boards and shovel, and a helmet (which both accommodate a helmet).
And remember, both these companies have been around for a "while". Mammut started in the 1800s as a rope company, and Osprey is still privately owned since the mid 70s, and have a LIFETIME warranty. Osprey primarily only does packs. There is ALWAYS compromise with any pack. Even my Arcteryx Bora 63L has a few compromises I have to deal with, and that pack is $549. Just my personal experiences. ...Show more →
The Kamber 22 I am unsure if the back opens up like on the 32 and 42. I am pretty sure an ICU will fit in the 32, and it has the same features the 42 has.
Gregory targhee 32 is a VERY nice pack. The medium ICU is a perfect fit in the 32M and the large ICU fits great in the 32L. Fantastic pack and I prefer it to the kamber 32 for camera gear.
The problem with the Kamber is that the back is molded with a large S. This is great for using the pack in the snow, but not so good when using an ICU and/or trying to maximize capacity. Otherwise, it's a great pack.
Could you specify what type of hiking you are gonna do and when? Is it summer? Winter? All year round "one pack to rule them all"?
I use m43 and Olympus as well btw, usually carrying one E-M1 MK II and sometimes an E-M1 Mk I together with 12-40 PRO, 40-150 PRO and 60mm Macro combined with some filters, macro tubes and an extra battery.
I'm constantly looking a more and different packs for hiking, photo and combined. The camera is always with me in one way or another when hiking but if it's a long hike with lots of gear sometimes it's in the "back seat" so to speak.
The Mammut Trion Pro 50 is an amazing backpack all together, it's probably one if not the most versatile pack I have. Big opening on the backside combined with the ability to top load. You've got great attachment points for a tripod on the outside or you can put the tripod under the top lid depending on how you want to carry the weight. I am still looking for a good insert for all my packs though.
I also have a Lowe Pro Photo Sport 300 AW II which works fine as a small day pack. The problem would be a hydration bladder but it could be done. Otherwise it holds a camera and two extra lenses quite fine. Loading stuff on top of the insert you can easily fit a piece of clothing like a sweater and some food and a burner.
Those two are my most used hiking photo packs, depending on what I need to carry with me. Winter hiking requires more stuff as I tend to over pack and easily get cold. I've got packs ranging from 7 liters (running packs) to 110l (large, multi day/week hiking pack) and like @Dustin Gent said, there is always compromises to deal with. I've got 10 or so packs, not one is perfect, specially not as a "do it all" pack.
Picture This! wrote:
Gregory targhee 32 is a VERY nice pack. The medium ICU is a perfect fit in the 32M and the large ICU fits great in the 32L. Fantastic pack and I prefer it to the kamber 32 for camera gear.
It is nice, but not nearly as nice as the Kamber. I have them both, the Kamber beats the Gregory in practically every respect as a photo-oriented backpack. Slightly better harness, MUCH better straps, a few more mesh pockets to keep things slightly better organized. The only thing the Targhee does better is the way the rear flap opens. On the Kamber you have to unclip two clips that serve the role of stabilizer straps. This is not as much of an advantage as you might think, as the bottom of the Targhee is narrower and it takes a bit of finagling to open and close the zippers all the way to the bottom.
Todd Warnke wrote:
The problem with the Kamber is that the back is molded with a large S. This is great for using the pack in the snow, but not so good when using an ICU and/or trying to maximize capacity. Otherwise, it's a great pack.
I disagree. An ICU fits in there effortlessly - both an F-stop medium PRO sloped, as well as a Pacsafe medium. The S is a thing of beauty, nudges the weight into the seat of your lower back and reduces the opportunity of the pack to slip and transfer the weight to the shoulder straps. I find it easier to keep the pack in place and don't have to tighten the waist strap as much.
My intent was for summer hikes - vacations, etc. Mostly just for excursions lasting a few hours and specifically one that I can put a hydration bladder in. I have a very small Pacsafe V17 pack that I like for general around town use but when I used last year at the grand canyon with a water bladder, I found it wasn't the most comfortable when fully loaded (it does not have a supportive hip strap).
