Backpacks - any experience with Lowepro Rover?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I usually use a smallish photo backpack, when travelling because it is less
obtrusive than an obvious camera bag and easier to carry if walking or
hiking long distances (and you can stick a water bottle and anything else in
it). The disadvantage is the need to take the bag off and turn it around in
order to retrieve whatever you want out of the bag. The bag you are looking
at is very large and better suited to a non-urban environment, which may be
what you want, but you should size the bag for what you will mostly use it
for. It does not have to carry everything you have, just what you need.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Does anyone have any experience with Lowepro's Rover AW backpacks? These are
> models where camera gear is kept in a lower compartment, and personal items
> can be carried in the upper portion. This sort of layout seems quite
> appealing.

I just picked up the Rover Plus AW last week. None were in stock
locally, so I went in blind -- based on specs & Lowepro's reputation
alone.

I do some backpacking in my free time, and Lowepro's Rover Plus AW seems
to be built like a "real" pack. It's got a nice hip belt, sternum
strap, and the shoulder straps (and attachment) are very similar to my
Osprey Crescent pack. Inside the main (non-camera) compartment are a
few some rather large pockets for relatively flat items, and the
compartment can hold a light fleece jacket and maybe a lunch. The pack
size is deceiving -- from the outside it looks HUGE, but it's not as big
inside as you would think.

The camera compartment is a decent size. Again, not as large as you
would think because of the room taken up by the padding. The top panel
is removable, creating one large pack. Actually, all of the padded
panels are removable and the pack could be used as a large daypack.
Into the camera compartment I was able to squeeze a Canon 10D with
battery pack and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 mounted, a Canon 24-70 f2.8L, and a
flash (Canon 380EX). There's not room for much more in the camera
compartment.

Outside, the pack has two mesh side pockets, an elastic cord that can
hold a windbreaker or even a Therm-A-Rest, one more miscellaneous
pocket, smaller than the inside pockets. Two zipper pockets exist up
the side of the main compartment. They won't hold much and are an odd
size. I haven't used the pack enough to find a good use for them yet.
I put my memory cards in them when using the pack earlier this week.
Finally, there's the tripod sleeve (or maybe the small external pocket
expands to form the tripod sleeve, I don't have the pack handy). Oh,
and let's not forget the rain cover.

Negatives: The sternum strap rides too high on me and doesn't adjust
down far enough (I'm 6' 5", 190 lbs). The hip belt is way too long,
even for folks not skinny as a rail. The pack is large on the outside
and may be a bit much for urban settings. I purchased it because I
frequently carry my camera, laptop, and jacket, and had tired of
carrying mulitple bags.

John

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My own experience...

I have this Rover backpack too (not the AW version), and it has some
plus and some minuses:

+ not too noticeable (OK, when a tripod is on top of it, it shouts "I am
a camera bag!", but else it's rather nondescript)
+ well padded interior, it's not easy to destroy your equipment - on the
other hand:
- Not much space inside the top compartment (if you can, try to get the
second version "Rover AW II", which has a bigger top compartment)
- rather heavy, even when empty
- The weight can tire your shoulders (a photo vest has a better
distribution of weight in shoulders, and I prefer it when it's not too
hot).

It's not perfect, but it can solve many problems when travelling outside
an urban setting and you want to walk some distance.

Regards from Athens,
N.Fotis