Patagonia Stormfront Pack
- This topic has 25 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Aug 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m looking for a waterproof backpack and this one is high on the list. I think someone on here bought one a few years ago and I was wondering how well it has help up?? I’m looking for something to allow me to take a DSLR on the trial with me and waterproof is a must. Padding would be my second priority but I can make my own padding.
What do you guys use when your going to be in places where water intrusion or immersion is a good possibility?
How often does this scenario crop up for you, Mike?
The least expensive solution is to take whatever camera bag you already have and drop it into a dry bag with backpack straps. The SealLine Boundary Dry Pack is a good one, available on Amazon.
If you are looking for a waterproof pack dedicated to camera gear, you might as well get one that is ready to roll without mods. I use a LowePro DryZone, and they cost about what the Stormfront does but you get padding and re-configurable compartments all built-in.
None of these options are really great backpacks, they are all basically compromises. If I am going to be hitting the trail for any type of hike other than casual, my strong preference is simply a good backpack (Arcteryx, Gregory, Osprey, etc.). All of these keep the weather out quite well. For added piece of mind, sometimes I will stick the camera gear in a dry bag inside the main pack.
Mike,
I have one – you’re welcome to take a look at it.I agree with Brett- it is a compromise. Not the most comfortable pack to wear all day – I only keep the camera in it when I’m doing treacherous wading or in the yak.
Jason
Hmmm, the Sealine with a satchel type camera bag inside it might work out perfect.
A wading/fishing load would be a med body, one wide lens, maybe a flash with remotes, a few misc filters and at times a gitzu traveler with an UL ballhead. My day trip hiking load would be all the above plus a long lens or 70-200.
That LowePro DryZone has turned up in many of my searches. Are you satisfied that it’ll hold up and remain waterproof? Is it not very comfortable when loaded.
Thanks Jason I may take you up on that. I’d like to lay hands on one. Do you feel confident that the zipper is going to last a long time?
Mike,
Let me know if you want to take a look. Like anything by Patagonia, it is solidly built and I expect the zipper to hold up for a while. If you want padded compartments, you’ll need to add some extract inserts. The one it comes with (which doesn’t take up much of the pack) might hold most of your stuff, but not the 70-200.It may not matter to you, but I went with the zippered Patagonia bag to make the camera easier/quicker to access vs having a roll-top bag, which are usually cheaper. That Lowepro looks even better for quick access.
Jason
Oh how I have agonised over water proof backpacks and generally carrying camera gear around the water. lol
I have tried many things including the Dryzone that Brett mentioned, but IMHO it’s a poor design and I ended up hating mine like a politician.
The best I had till recently was a normal Lowpro Rover pack that I lined with a lightweight drybag in case of rain.
That was a cheap option that worked well.
At the moment I’m using an Ortlieb Flight pack, witch is VERY comfortable and a perfect with the padded insert from the Rover.
That’s more expensive, but lighter, more roomy and more comfortable.
Not long after I got the flight they started making a camera specific pack – it looks good as well, but I’ve never tried one – might be a better option ?Here’s some notes from my experiences –
Waterproof zippers are a pain in the ass and need lube and cleaning to work, they’re also fairly stiff.
That said, the Ortlieb ones are better than my previous Dryzone zippers.
You can get a huge range of padded inserts in many shapes and sizes so don’t be afraid to adapt a non camera pack to your needs.
Dry bags are cheap and light and even though my pack is ‘waterproof’ I have 2 or 3 as lens bags and one for my jacket just in case.Lowepro have a new roll top dry pack that might be the goods with a padded insert – the roll appeals for it’s simplicity – but the pack is shocking yellow.
There’s a lot of similar packs on the market in other colour and sizes.The Patagonia pack looks good, but does not have a solid enough waist belt and that (in my experience) makes carrying any weight a drag after a while.
With a good waist belt you can take the weight off your hips when walking in & out and take it off your shoulders when fishing.Good luck – hope you get something thats suits.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Mike: My DryZone has been fine in terms of durability but the point I want to underscore is this:
Based on the price of $300, I’m just not very satisfied with any waterproof pack system I have tried. When I drop 3 of the best on a product, I hope to get a lot of enjoyment out of it. Nothing I have tried delivers, which jives with what David is saying about this market segment being a real tick on the scrotum of fishing photography.
I have looked at a lot of options over the years, and I think my next play will be a dedicated photography pack that just nails my use case. It will probably be one of fStop’s Mountain series packs:
http://www.fstopgear.com/product/mountain
Several of my associates use these, and they are functionally weatherproof but not waterproof. I would keep a dry bag in the pack, and use that for situations of high risk.
Waterproofing a pack causes all sorts of ergonomic and accessibility challenges. You lose great fitting shoulder and waist straps, well-designed padding, and intelligent gear access. If you are dead set on a waterproof backpack, just understand the compromises and be prepared to not love your choice.
IMO you’ll be more satisfied picking a pack that exactly fits the bill in all areas but waterproofing, and then dry-bagging it in scenarios when you might go in the drink.
Thanks for the advice and opinions. I’m still looking…
David the Ortlieb stuff looks really nice. The V-SHOT might just be a perfect fit forI want. I could attach that to a belt, and dry bag my lenses, flash , etc, in a pack of some sort.
http://www.ortliebusa.com/prodInfo.asp?pid=379&cid=2
Hilarious:
…this market segment being a real tick on the scrotum of fishing photography.
Those f-stop packs look sweet! Perfect pack for small stream fishing where you are covering a lot of ground and seldom more than ankle deep. But I’ll still take something submersible, like the Stormfront pack, when fishing in a yak, the surf, or wading large rivers, but it’s not a comfortable pack to wear all day. I fished Cape Cod a few weeks ago using the Stormfront and my back was sore for a few days afterwards (most of this is me doing a poor job distributing weight in the pack, but the lack or structure and wait belt doesn’t help).
Jason
When I drop 3 of the best on a product, I hope to get a lot of enjoyment out of it. Nothing I have tried delivers, which jives with what David is saying about this market segment being a real tick on the scrotum of fishing photography.
You have a literary gift Brett.
I will echo the sentiments already shared – I have struggled with this same issue for years, and have yet to find a perfect solution. If you want a truly submersible pack, you have to go with a roll-top. Zippers inevitably leak if submerged for extended periods of time. That being said, you probably don’t need something truly submersible. I’ve found that when I take a dunking, I’m out of the water very quickly. The downside of a roll-top design is that it makes access difficult and time consuming. And, as others have already pointed out, the strap / belt systems on both the roll-top and zippered waterproof packs tend to be very poor.
For trout fishing, I have settled on using a quality backpack, and I put my camera in a drybag inside. The drybag is actually unnecessary, but I still use it for piece of mind. I have taken a fair few dunkings, and even though my pack is not waterproof at all, I have never gotten any substantial amounts of water inside the pack.
For flats fishing, I have found the issue even more difficult because ease of access is paramount when you’re surrounded by half a mile of water in every direction and no place to set down your pack. I previously used a roll-top waterproof backpack, but accessing my camera on the flats from inside the pack was a pain. The pack itself was uncomfortable, but not unbearable (I put up with it everyday for an 8-day trip). I recently purchased the Ortlieb Aqua Cam (http://www.ortliebusa.com/prodInfo.asp?pid=41&cid=2) to use on the flats, and I am quite happy with that choice, although I have to wait until October to truly test it. It is padded and is big enough for my 50D with lens, and a spare lens, although I don’t think a telephoto would fit. The industrial grade zip-lock style closure is robust, but also gives easy access to the camera. I will likely start carrying this pack on the river with me as well, in combination with a normal backpack.
Wow Brett, that Fstop stuff does look and good thanks for the link. 🙂
I’ve been looking at a new larger camera bag / backpack for non fishing photo stuff and will have a closer look through their range.I agree with you 100% about the tick – lol
A couple years ago I even sent an email to Think Tank with a list of suggestions for what was then, and still is now, a big hole in the market.Ahhh well, something to dream about besides hooking up with a supermodel..
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Found this on Amazon. This would convert just about any pack into a camera pack. Just thought I’d share.
Looks good for $29 Mike !
Geez, this stuff is getting cheaper and cheaper .www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
I agree with the other posts. The LowePro DryZone is well-made, but heavy, terribly inaccessible, and I sold mine. That said, I think one has to start with what’s being carried. If just a small body (M4/3 or the like), flash and couple of lenses, a shoulder bag is probably OK. If a full-size DSLR and assortment of lenses and accessories, a well-designed backpack may be necessary to carry the load. Assuming the former (a reasonably light load), I’ve found the Stormfront to be OK. Not great, but workable. You’ll need either individual component protection, or some insert to protect the pieces. As mentioned earlier, the insert that comes with it isn’t too great. Generally, though, I don’t like backpacks for working from; they just don’t allow quick or easy response.
One shoulder bag that I’ve used with some success (again, the perfect solution has eluded me thus far) is the Watershed Ocoee (drybags.com). It’s robustly constructed, and is waterproof, using basically an industrial grade ziplock-type closure. Watershed has a camera-specific insert for the Ocoee, or you can fashion your own protection. And they have other bag designs as well. What I like best about this bag is that it’s easy to slip on and off, and gear is reasonably quickly accessible.
If you find yourself not carrying your camera because of the hassle, or skipping shots because you just don’t want to go to the trouble to get to your camera, it’s probably time to make some changes.
Buzz
I have been decently lucky but I’ve also proven that camera gear is pretty tough. I usually just put my lenses in a zippable LowePro sleeve, likewise for my speedlights, and then I’ll put them in a water resistant backpack (lots of packs meant for skiiers and snowboarders have water resistant zippers).
That’s enough to protect camera gear from anything other than full, lengthy submersion. You can absolutely swim out of a river in that situation and be fine. Remember, almost every DSLR is weather-sealed enough to survive a serious rainstorm. (I’ve proven that). The better stuff can survive outright submersion (also proven that) provided you dry it out to prevent fungus.
This stuff is meant to be used. In my experience the further in the bag you bury it, the less likely it is to be used to take pictures. If I am not going to be doing much wading I’ll just carry it around my neck/one shoulder.
Speaking of which, these are fantastic: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/661579-REG/Black_Rapid_RS7_1BB_RS_7_Camera_Strap.html
I modified mine by removing the 3/8ths inch screw clip it comes with and instead clipping its carabiner to the adjustment ring of my Manfrotto RC2 quick release plate. That way if I want to tripod-mount it I can just unclip the carabiner and pop it in. No unscrewing. Everything is probably robust enough for me to hang from a tree with so I am not worried about the camera.
Zach
Huh, interesting. I see they have actually made a version of the RC2 with an even more robust adjustment D-ring. This is overkill with anything other than a flagship, 8-pound camera, I assure you. My Manfrotto RC2 has been fine with my D600 and a lot of lens on it in some lengthy use this year.
I’ve got an older Orvis safe passage backpack that works great for camera gear but my gawd at all the stuff hanging from it! It’d take a week to get through a wall of rhodo with that thing on!
I’ve been using the OpTech strap for years Zach. Great products and made in Montana. Kinda surprised you don’t use an L bracket.
Zach, I understand how people like the Rapid strap, but there are now quite a few threads on the camera boards where people have had the camera body separate from carrying the weight of the body and lens from the tripod screw.
When I bring my DSLR out fishing I use a Clear Creek Swing Back Pack. Works great for my D5100 with a 70-200 lense, a 18-55 lense and set of filters in the lower compartment and 2-3 fly boxes in the upper compartment. I also bring a gorilla pod, water etc. When I want the camera it swing around and the camera is right there ready to shoot in no time. Not listed as waterproof but held up under a slip into the drink. inside is padded too. check it out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.