Photographers Frame Back pack

Hi, I am a semi professional Photographer who's been hiking with my camera gear for about a year now. I am looking to up the anti. I want to start by doing about a hundred miles of the Appalachian trail. I am wondering how big a bag I am going to need. I know I want a frame or internal frame bag and it has to be big enough to carry my bivi sack sleeping bag and atleast 2 lenses and an SLR and tripod. How big should I go? 4000Ci, 5400 Ci, 6000Ci?

You'll need a pack that will carry your regular hiking gear, plus your cameras/lenses/tripod, etc. The total weight will depend on the time of year, location, and what camera gear you decide to take. Can you provide more info?

For the most part, I usually recommend a 4000 cubic inch pack (~60 liters) for year round hiking on the southern A.T. That provides enough room for winter clothing, or a large food bag, etc. It's a little on the large side, but there are plenty of good, reasonably priced 4000ci packs in the <3 pound range these days, so it's a good start. My regular pack can easily handle a DSLR and a couple of lenses, and a small carbon tripod.

For a lot of camera gear, a big tripod, heavy lenses, etc., I would want to take a much more robust pack, something like my old Gregory Shasta. More for the load carrying ability than the size, though.

Hi Paul,

Gear will generally multiply to fill available space, so it's best to 1) pick all your gear and then 2) pick your pack.

There are some basic issues to deal with; especially, how do you want to carry the camera on the go? Related of course are what camera, lenses and tripod? A D3S? An E-420? A compact CF or full-sized aluminum tripod?

There will be a hundred packs to select from once you finalize your gear list and especially have an idea of total weight. Hopefully you'll be able to use a pack that's not going to add another five pounds to your load.

Cheers,

Maybe not the solution you are looking for but I think that it is a good one...
Aarn will have out in early spring their new photo pockets.
They will attach to all of their regular sized packs (not the day packs)
The idea is to have the weight of your photo gear (not the tripod...) at the front to balance the pack weight at the back. With this system you can also access the gear as you walk. They are waterproof as well.
I use the Aarns for heavier than about 23 or so pounds, at that point the pockets really do make a big difference.
Here are the specs :
Fit on all models except Marathon & Mountain Magics
* Divided for camera body and 3 additional lenses.
* Separate waterproof Dri-liners for camera and each lens
* Separate zip entry for top and bottom compartments
* Foam stiffened for stability.
* 4 mesh exterior pockets, 1 map pocket
* Converts to a daypack with add-on shoulder straps
* One torso length fits all
* 500D cordura, 210D ripstop nylon
* Grey/black

Volume 14L + 2L / pair
Weight 470gm / pair?

( I suggested the photo pockets to Aarn Tate a couple of months ago, he sent me back the photo ans specs of the finished product, all within a few hours. He was ahead of me by a few months)
Franco


see packs here :http://www.aarnusa.com/
(more detailed info at http://www.aarnpacks.com/news/index.html)

Hi Paul-I never wanted to hike 100 miles w/photo gear. But on shorter trips here in NC Pa. we have some rugged country. As another poster stated, lay out your gear photo+camping & find the pack which it comfortably fits into. My photo gear goes into a belt pack w/3 pockets. This in turn lays inside the pack on top. If a tripod is carried make it carbon fiber with ballhead. Best advice is to be fit.
Curt

Those aarn packs look great. I am shopping for gear for photographic day hiking and the balance bags are pretty much what I was envisioning for my photo gear / optics. Hope the aarn co. can make their spring 2010 target for the photo bags.

Paul:

What photo gear exactly do you plan to be taking?

My friend carries a 5D MKII, single lens with one of those chest packs, althought all the straps seem to be a pain. So far it's worked pretty well, trips including the HST and JMT.

....funny you mention the Shasta: that's what my camera gear gets tossed into during certain times of the year

No, don't get a whoppin heavy pack just because you want to carry camera gear!

I hiked the 'hundred and Katahdin in Sept with my usual lightweight pack (SMD Starlight), but carried my Contax G1 rangefinder camera plus three Carl Zeiss lenses, flash, cable release, etc in a well-padded camera bag on a shoulder strap. Slik Sprint mini tripod was in a bag on the side of the pack, so my wife could hand it to me if needed.

So I looked goofy with a camera bag, but it worked out pretty well and I got some nice shots. The weight in front helped balance the weight in back, and I could get at the camera when I needed it without removing the backpack. The camera was well protected in the bag and was not damaged, despite some fairly rough hiking conditions. Plus, I had sewn up a rain cover for the camera bag, so the camera gear stayed dry in a few days of hiking in rain.

Generally you will need a tripod on the AT because it is so darn dark in the green tunnel.

It was a dream come true to hike the AT with a professional camera setup.

Everyone else used tiny plastic chinese digitals. Sure, if you take enough shots with a cheap point and shoot you might end up with a few good ones, which is like saying that an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters will eventually write Shakesphere's MacBeth.

Oooh, Contax G--my favorite 35mm system. I carried my G2 over my shoulder in a Zing case, which I may return to when I jump into micro 4/3. Much less bulky than a dslr.

Cheers,