Tamrac Expedition 7 anyone?

waterskier

Veteran Member
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
0
Location
Knoxville, US
I was looking at this backpack and it appears that it would be very comfortable, carry a lot of gear and be with me a long time.

Has anyone has any experience with the Expedition 7 or 8 ?

Here is one review I found.

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1412&page_number=1

I already own a LowePro OffRoad which works well for a short trip with a light lens accompanyment, but I'm not as impressed with LowePro's harnesses on their larger backpacks.

Any thoughts?
 
Thanks for the information. The D17 lookes like it can hold a lot, but it doesn't look like it was designed for long hikes in the mountains.

I'll be a little more specific. I'm looking for something with a frame, shoulder harness and waist belt, a secure vertical tripod mount, and room for a lot of equipment. I've used ruck sacks in the past and I'm looking for something closer to a ruck sack than a back pack.

On long hikes ventilation makes a huge difference or your whole back becomes a large sweat stain. A secure waist belt makes a back pack a lot less burdensome to carry and helps steady a tripod.
 
I sent Thom an email and he has already abandoned the Expedition 7.

Thom recommended that I check out the Mountainsmith Paragon for a lightweight inexpensive backpack, but I am leaning towards the more versatile LowePro.

It appears that the LowePro Trekker AW II is more adjustable and with the Daypack it comes with to separate hiking stuff from the camera stuff and the ability to put the tripod on left, right or center back is nice, it is starting to look more viable. I'm also wondering if I could get another tripod mount and put two tripods on it.
 
I have the Expedition 5 because the 7 was to bulky for my purpose. Build quality is excellent! The 5 is bit to low (ie not deep enough) to store the D2X but the D70 will fit fine, but again; I preffered the size of the 5 which hold my full set + all the other gizmo's I like to take with me.

For hiking the 5 and 7 are perfect because of the carrying harnass. Personally I think the Lowepro are a bit overrated (in relation to the pricetag) - I had a Microtrekker which changed color with the first days of sunlight...

Nils
--
I bought a D2X so I can't blame my camera.
 
I have the Expedition 5 because the 7 was to bulky for my purpose.
Build quality is excellent! The 5 is bit to low (ie not deep
enough) to store the D2X but the D70 will fit fine, but again; I
preffered the size of the 5 which hold my full set + all the other
gizmo's I like to take with me.

For hiking the 5 and 7 are perfect because of the carrying harnass.
Personally I think the Lowepro are a bit overrated (in relation to
the pricetag) - I had a Microtrekker which changed color with the
first days of sunlight...
Thanks for the feedback.

FWIW I can get a LowePro Treker AW II for the same price as an Expedition 7 and it has adjustable height and three places to put the tripod. So far I am very happy with the one piece of LowePro equipment that I have.
 
I have the Expedition 5 because the 7 was to bulky for my purpose.
Build quality is excellent!
Nothing wrong with the build quality--it may be higher than LowePro. But the key problem with the E7 is that with a real load in it, it can't be adjusted to carry properly. There may be bodies that the design fits as is, but it's not even close for me, and I have a pretty mid-range backpack measurement (20").

At Backpacker, we ran hundreds of packs through tests. The difference between one that can be properly adjusted to carry the load on the hips and one that can't is dramatic, especially when you start getting into the 20-30 pounds of equipment range. The E7 flunks that test, IMHO.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
Hi,

Something else you might consider; a non-photo backback "converted" to a photo backpack. I got this idea from someone on a Photo.net forum a year or so ago after getting frustrated with the bulk, weight and bad harnesses of the photo backpacks. I bought, tried and returned a couple of LowePros including Photo Trekker AW and some Tenbas. I'll never try another "photo" backpack again.

I use an Osprey Eclipse 32 daypack (large) with a Pelican 1450 divider replacement set plus some assorted additional dividers/pads and some LowePro S&F pouches.

The Osprey is not a photo-specific backpack, but it is a panel loader, has a very nice harness and "straight-jacket" side panels which are padded much like a photo-specific backpack is padded.

Here's Osprey's URL. They have other and bigger models too. You want a "panel" or "front" loader, not a top loader if you go this route.

http://www.ospreypacks.com/eclipse_32+5.htm

Google on "Pelican cases" or "Pelican case replacement divider set" and you'll find just the divider set; no need to get the entire Pelican case.

It's not custom-built for photographic equipment of course, and each item won't have it's own special padded compartment like a photo backpack, but I think photo backpacks are over-padded, over-weight, and the harnesses often aren't that good. The pelican case insert gives you the compartments for most items, but I still have a few loose items stuffed here and there.

Here's what I can carry in it to give you a feel for what it holds.
It's "packed to the gills" with all this stuff, but it's still pretty comfy.

4x5 Large Format field camera
80mm Schneider Super-Symmar
135mm Rodenstock Sironar-S
300mm Nikkor W
20 Quickloads (film)
Quickload film holder
Dark cloth (spread out and used for additional padding inside).
Pentax digital spotmeter (in Lowepro SF pouch on outside of pack).
2 Loupes.
Cheap reading glasses.
D70 OR F100 (only fits 1 small camera if carrying LF equipment)
Nikkor 80-200
Nikkor 35-70
Nikkor 17-35
Cokin P filiter holders, adapter rings for every lens.
2 Gradual ND filters.
Circular polarizer on each Nikkor lens, plus pola for Cokin P holder
Gitzo 1227 CF tripod (straps on back or sides or I carry it).
GPS (clipped to outside)
Small umbrella
Lightweight nylon cover which also serves as a tarp to lay pack on ground
2 trekking poles (Can stuff them on the sides if not in use).
2 litres of water (on sides).
Power bars, trail mix, etc.

I'm good for about 7 miles and 1500 foot ascent/descent with this, but any more than that and I'd probably not make it. More miles less elevation change perhaps.

It is probably slightly slower to access equipment than a photo-specific backpack because the whole back doesn't "peel away" exposing everything like a photo backpack does. However, for me the most time I spend with a photo backpack is taking the thing off and finding a place to lay on the ground or putting down the nylon cover to prevent it getting muddy/dirty, etc. A few extra seconds digging around doesn't bother me.

Without the large-format equipment, I can easily carry 2 small-format camera bodies (D70 and F100 for example), film, a 90mm macro and 50mm fixed, and I'm pretty well covered, and about 3 pounds lighter. I'm reasonably sure the D2X would fit nicely in place of one of these cameras.

This pack is longer and narrower than most photo backpacks I've tried, which I think makes it more confortable; it hugs your body a little more that way I think.

Anyway, something to think about. You have to be willing to not have everything perfectly compartmentalized, you'll need a few extra pads from various other bags you've purchased and have stopped using, and it's not "one stop shopping" to get it all to work well, but I actually found it kind of fun to pick and choose peices from different vendors that work well together. The various parts you need cost combined about the same as the photo backbacks.

Good luck in finding your "ideal" backpack. Nothing's perfect and it's a never-ending quest I think (which is why I have some 12 camera bags collecting dust).
 
Is Tamrac Expedition 5 (model 5575) appropriate for Nikon D2X? I've looked the dimensions and I think it's not deep enough. Some experience?

M.M.
 
What about taking a properly fitting harness system from a serious backpack and fitting it to a camera bag?

It's obvious from reading the Osprey documentation where they fit you by your back length and hip size and then have adjustments for raising and lowering the back panel that they really care about fit.

I may check out the local hiking stores and see what I can learn there.

Even though we don't have any decent sized photography stores in town, we are blessed with a number of great hiking stores.

I'll see if it looks feasible for me to modify a backpack that I can test for proper fit locally and then order the guts for online.
 
It's obvious from reading the Osprey documentation where they fit
you by your back length and hip size and then have adjustments for
raising and lowering the back panel that they really care about fit.

I may check out the local hiking stores and see what I can learn
there.
Well, if you're at a good store you'll learn that all your carrying capacity is on your hip bones, not your shoulders. And that all good pack makers measure from your L5 to the top of your hip to determine the proper "fit." Some go further, and adjust hip belts both for waist size and for cant (women generally need a different arrangment than men).

Further, you'll learn that the shoulder and sternum straps are not there to carry any load at all. They're there to keep the load from shifting as you move. Finally, the "load lifters" (run from the shoulder strap to the top of the pack) really need to run relatively horizontal to be effective, and aren't really so much lifters as something designed to keep the pack upright on your back (rather than pulling into your neck and putting weight on your back or falling backwards and making load shifts likely).

At present, only LowePro comes close to providing all the right adjustments, though even they fall short IMHO. The Mountainsmith I mentioned would also come close if it fits you (it doesn't have back length adjustment). The Kinesis I used for a while also comes very close, but it is falling apart after less than a year in the field. That's one of the reasons why all of us are still looking for "the right pack."

If any designers are out there:

1. Must have established backpacking adjustments (height, waist, load lifters, etc.). Absolutely must allow you to transfer weight to the hips while stabilizing the load to your body. Target: 17-21" back adjustment or more.

2. Needs to be airline friendly. That means it must not only make the 22" requirement but it should be relatively light in weight. It's okay if you have to disassemble it (as with the NatureTrekker's auxiliarry pouch) to get it to fit the 22". Target: 22" and

3. Doesn't need to go out of the way with padding. We generally don't bang these things around. Modest and light padding is okay, and we don't need massive internal padding to keep lenses from bumping each other--the primary use of dividers is as dividers. Target: equipment survives 2 foot drop.

4. Should have room somewhere for: water bottle(s), rain jacket, hat, sunscreen/repellant, lunch, and some other basic hiking essentials. This can be a pouch, ala the Trekkers, or internal dedicated space ala the Paragon. Target: 500-1000 ci extra space.

5. Carries: 2 D2x bodies, 70-200mm VR, 2x TC, 17-55mm, one extra modest lens, two SB-800, extra batteries, filters, releases and cables. Bonus (the "large version"): carries 200-400mm, extra SB-800, Coolwalker or PDA. Target: 20-30 pounds carried comfortably.

6. Must have method of quickly lashing/removing tripod. Target: 22" pod with head.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
I am an engineer and I've actually designed a number of products over the years. At one point I was actually working on a hard shelled waterski case for airline use, but SportTube beat me to the punch. I have sources for most of the materials that go into a backpack. The last product I designed and had manufactured only sold about 300 units worldwide before I almost sold it to a guy who was going to take manufacturing to China. I also have a connection for manufacturing in China, but that is really long term thinking.

Stepping back to the near term for a minute...

A hybrid option may be a good choice for something sooner rather than later. If we can find the ultimate Frame/harness/support system and can find a good way to mate that to a high quality camera bag or a series of camera bags, we may actually have a chance to get something to people this year.

Thom could you look at the bags that you have and see what commonality there is between them. Is there an easy way to open a couple seams and remove the existing straps to replace them with something better?

Also if we did something like this we may be able to persuade the backpack support manufacturer to create something similar to our hybrid.

You can email me, if you would prefer.

If that fails, the initial prototyping and testing for a new product will not be cheap to be done right, but if a few people got together, it could be very feasible. My gut reaction is that the tooling costs for a product like this are not that high, but that it would be impractical (ie. the customer cost would be to high) to do a production run of less than 500 units.
 
2. Needs to be airline friendly. That means it must not only make
the 22" requirement but it should be relatively light in weight.
It's okay if you have to disassemble it (as with the
NatureTrekker's auxiliarry pouch) to get it to fit the 22". Target:
22" and
Let one pocket fit a laptop.

For flights I like to carry on my 12 PB in a neoprene sleeve in the front pouch of the nature trekker then switch it out for rain coat and flexfill disks when hiking.
When this ideal pack is designed I would hate to lose that capability.

K.
 
I don't have experience wtih the bag you're considering, but I do encourage you to take a look at the Kata bags. Their website is:
http://www.kata-bags.com/index.asp

I have the R-103 backpack and love it. These are quality bags (they make GREAT body armor too, for those of you shooting in not-so-safe areas, lol).

Good luck wtih your choice, whatever you do. I think I spent more time researching and looking at bags and packs, then I did at lenses and cameras!

Frank
--
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/frankvigil
 
Waterskier:

I should have added this to my first post. The Kata R-103 that I mention is a rucksack, has excellent padding and shoulder straps, is "kit style" meaning, you can add on to it with all sorts of pouches and bags, has a tripod cup on the cover and has excellent ventilation where it lays against the back. Check it out! It's on Page 23 of their downloadable .pdf catalog.

Frank
Thanks for the information. The D17 lookes like it can hold a lot,
but it doesn't look like it was designed for long hikes in the
mountains.

I'll be a little more specific. I'm looking for something with a
frame, shoulder harness and waist belt, a secure vertical tripod
mount, and room for a lot of equipment. I've used ruck sacks in
the past and I'm looking for something closer to a ruck sack than a
back pack.

On long hikes ventilation makes a huge difference or your whole
back becomes a large sweat stain. A secure waist belt makes a back
pack a lot less burdensome to carry and helps steady a tripod.
--
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/frankvigil
 
I noticed that the Kata HB-207 says it has completely adjustable shoulder straps, 6-point adjustable waist belt and lumbar pad.

It doesn't look like the Kata R-102/104 has that same level of adjustment. It mentions having a 5 point adjustment mechanism, but that is it.
 
Well, to be honest, I don't think I can answer this in the detail you may want. I believe it came with a waist strap that I used once or twice, but have not used it since then (detachable), as I"m too often taking the pack off to get at stuff. I know that I can adujst it to fit me very, very well, and that I have no backaches or pains from it and the ventilation ribs seem to work better than anything else I've used. Also, in terms of durability, this rucksack seems better constructed than anything else I've looked at. (I figure, if these guys are famous for making bullet proof vests for the Israeli Defense Force, they certainly ought to be able to protect camera geear!) Thus far, that seems to be holding true.

You might want to check with Kata on those specifics.

Frank
--
Whimsy is salvation for a life taken too seriously.
http://www.pbase.com/frankvigil
 
Hey - we're on the same page here! I've been dying to find a pack that is almost exactly what you outline here, Thom!

A couple of things that I would add:

1. Internal frame would be very welcome. I have a Domke Armadillo, that the internal frame and hip belt are wonderful! I just wish that the internal arrangement were more like a traditional photo backpack. Trying to fit equipment through the small openings can be a little tricky sometimes.

2. I'd love to see an implemented hydration pack. It is a lot easier to carry a couple of litres of water spread out between the pack and my back rather than in bottles hanging around the pack IMHO. I've snagged too many waterbottles on trails and had them drop or caused me to momentarily loose balance.

3. Tripod mounts on sides, front or bottom of pack - depening on the trail I am hiking, I might choose any of those mounting points. Not to mention that an additional mount could be used to carry a small tent, or fishing pole, etc. :) (hey, I like to mix hobbies!)

Just thought I would add my $0.02 worth - build it and they will come! At least 2 of us...

Dave
If any designers are out there:

1. Must have established backpacking adjustments (height, waist,
load lifters, etc.). Absolutely must allow you to transfer weight
to the hips while stabilizing the load to your body. Target: 17-21"
back adjustment or more.
2. Needs to be airline friendly. That means it must not only make
the 22" requirement but it should be relatively light in weight.
It's okay if you have to disassemble it (as with the
NatureTrekker's auxiliarry pouch) to get it to fit the 22". Target:
22" and
3. Doesn't need to go out of the way with padding. We generally
don't bang these things around. Modest and light padding is okay,
and we don't need massive internal padding to keep lenses from
bumping each other--the primary use of dividers is as dividers.
Target: equipment survives 2 foot drop.
4. Should have room somewhere for: water bottle(s), rain jacket,
hat, sunscreen/repellant, lunch, and some other basic hiking
essentials. This can be a pouch, ala the Trekkers, or internal
dedicated space ala the Paragon. Target: 500-1000 ci extra space.
5. Carries: 2 D2x bodies, 70-200mm VR, 2x TC, 17-55mm, one extra
modest lens, two SB-800, extra batteries, filters, releases and
cables. Bonus (the "large version"): carries 200-400mm, extra
SB-800, Coolwalker or PDA. Target: 20-30 pounds carried comfortably.
6. Must have method of quickly lashing/removing tripod. Target: 22"
pod with head.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top