I am trying to decide between buying a Domke OutPack Photo Backpack or buying a LowePro Pro Trekker backpack. I am 6-ft 1-inch tall. I have tried smaller backpacks like the LowePro Nature Trekker, but I have been unable to adjust it so that the weight is on my hips and not on my shoulders. It just seems too short.

I will be carrying the following equipment:

Nikon F5, 24 f/2.8 AF-D, 50 f/1.8 AF, 105 f/2.8 AF-D micro, 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, 300 f/4 AF, Gitzo 340 tripod.

I would appreciate any comments concerning the Domke backpack. Thanks!

-- Miles T. Smith (miles.t.smith@erols.com), June 02, 2000

Answers

The Outpack is certainly large enough for your equipment, except for the tripod of course. I carry an F3, and FM, 24/28, 85/2.4, 180/2.8 and 300/4.5, along with a Vivitar 285HV, assorted filters and a dozen or so rolls of film in my Outpack.

I'm only 5'8" but I don't think you'll have a problem with fit. The outpack uses the same type of harness system as my North Face backpack. The shoulder straps are adjustable for different torso lengths.

The Outpack is a very well designed photo backpack and I recommend it heartily. Trying it on before buying would be advised, but I bought mine mail order.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), June 03, 2000.

I have the Domke and love it-- the real selling feature to me was the ability to access the contents without having to open the entire pack or lay it horizontal. My kit is fairly close in size to yours ( a little larger) and I have no trouble fitting it all in.

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), June 03, 2000.

Darron and Marke, thank you very much for your helpful responses. I have not found any photo stores in the area (Baltimore/DC) that carry the Domke backpack, so I may have to special order it or mail order it. Thanks!

-- Miles T. Smith (miles.t.smith@erols.com), June 04, 2000.

I currently use a LowePro Pro Trekker, and after reading your question last evening, I ventured forth to my local dealer to check out the Domke Outpack--they had two in stock. My impressions, when compared to the Pro Trekker, are as follows: 1) the first thing I noticed was that MUCH of the OutPack's (OP's) outwardly appearing inner space is in fact simply not there, as it is usurped by what I perceived to be excessive padding and excessively thick partitions between it's front access compartments. IMO, much of it's potential space is wasted because of this. 2) as a consequence of the OP's design, it's three front accessed compartments are wide enough to handle a 70-200L, 300/4L or 400/5.6L, but probably NOT with a camera body attached. In order to accomodate one of the above mentioned lenses with camera body attached, you'll have to tear apart lots of velcro connections and try to reconfigure the pack such that a longer lens will now have to be inserted from the top, projecting down through the MIDDLE of the pack (longitudinally bisecting the pack), and unlike the LowePro Pro Trekker or Super Trekker, this will leave you with little if any further internal space to carry one or two other longer lenses among the common sizes mentioned above. With the big Trekker backpacks, the design allows for maximal use of space in their longest dimensions, such that the mid section allows for up to a 600mm lens with camera attached, while each compartment to either side allows for two more longer lenses (say, the 70-200 and 400/5.6 or 300/4) to be carried. Or, one of these long paramedian spaces can be divided to accomodate additional, shorter lenses. In other words, The big Trekker packs allow for maximal efficiency and logical use of their available internal space, while still providing adequate but not excessive use of padding. 3) the OP's internal frame and harness system looks and feels rather insubstantial when compared to the Pro Trekker.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), June 06, 2000.

Kurt, thank you for your very helpful reply, and for going out of your way to check out the Domke backpack. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. I was concerned about the width and depth of the 3- lens insert from looking at pictures of the backpack. It sounds like it would be very difficult to carry an 80-200, a 300 f/4 and perhaps a 200 f/4 micro lens in this compartment. I was also concerned about inflexibility in arranging the pack. Your message confirms my suspicions.

I also received a helpful private email from Never that agrees with your opinion about the harness system; i.e., that LowePro's Trekker harness system is much better than the Domke harness system. Since the Pro Trekker weighs about 9.8 lbs empty, I think at this point I am going to continue using my Nature Trekker and keep trying to get it adjusted correctly.

Thanks again for everyone's help.

-- Miles T. Smith (miles.t.smith@erols.com), June 07, 2000.

I really like being able to access individual compartments on the OP though. I wish more backpacks were made this way. The only thing I don't like about the OP is the butt ugly styling and the rip prone shell material.

-- Tommy Huynh (tommyphuynh@yahoo.com), August 31, 2001.