Sorry, no dogs and the yooungest kid is 20.
...but they are nearly indestructible :-)
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:06:43 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >
> >>When the hot weather ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
When the hot weather arrives, go to the corner drug store or Wal-Mart
and buy some of those foam rubber covers for keeping your beer can
cold on the beach. They cost $1.00 each, they can hold viewfinders
(or lenses for that matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > When the hot weather arrives, go to the corner drug store
> or Wal-Mart
> > and buy some of those foam rubber covers for keeping your beer can
> > cold on the beach. They cost $1.00 each, they can hold viewfinders
> >
Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When the hot weather arrives, go to the corner drug store or Wal-Mart
> and buy some of those foam rubber covers for keeping your beer can
> cold on the beach. They cost $1.00 each, they can hold viewfinders
> (or lenses for that matter), and they are i
When the hot weather arrives, go to the corner drug store or Wal-Mart
and buy some of those foam rubber covers for keeping your beer can
cold on the beach. They cost $1.00 each, they can hold viewfinders
(or lenses for that matter), and they are indestructable.
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, 17 Mar 200
Don't they come with a case, that will fit in the backpack?
I use a Lowepro Micro Trekker 200. Brilliant for walking - keeps you back
safe!
Can contain a samll 35mm/*isr D or a 6x6 Pentacon Six outfit.
http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Backpacks/classic/Micro_Trekker_200.aspx
Jens Bladt
m
Thanks for the suggestion. I am sure that my wife will be very pleased to hear
that.
Village Idiot
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Village Idiot"
> Subject: Camera bags/backpacks
>
>
> >I am looking at my camera bag and it needs to be retire
- Original Message -
From: "Village Idiot"
Subject: Camera bags/backpacks
I am looking at my camera bag and it needs to be retired. I would
like to replace it with a backpack, but I have not figured out where
to put my LX viewfinders. Where do you put the viewfinders in
I am looking at my camera bag and it needs to be retired. I would like to
replace it with a backpack, but I have not figured out where to put my LX
viewfinders. Where do you put the viewfinders in a camera backpack? Any
suggestions?
Village Idiot
Hi,
The problem with much of the good quality stuff is that (I get
the impression) one pays a significant portion for the name on
it. Whether this can be fairly attributed to R&D costs, etc.,
I'm not really able to tell.
Certainly, "good" names don't seem to be of higher quality in
proportion to
Bob Sullivan and I saw one of those at the Helix store in Chicago last
year. Wow! That's one big lens, and in a moment of greed and lust I
did a mental calculation of my bank balance ...
Thoughts of that lens brings up a question. When using a teleconverter,
the effective focal length of a le
- Original Message -
From: David A. Mann
Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
> William Robb wrote:
>
> > Another case of 6x7 misconceptions.
>
> To be honest I had assumed that you had some bigger/heavier
lenses.
> Don't you have the just-short-of-40-pounds 80
On Sunday, March 17, 2002, at 02:44 PM, William Robb wrote:
> I have a MiniTrekker that does well for my 35mm gear (it holds
> an amazing amount of equipment), but I don't think it is deep
> enough to take the 6x7 body with prism and lens.
I don't know about the new version, but the old MiniTre
I have the old-style LowePro MiniTrekker. This weekend, I had the 67
with the 75mm attached at the top and the ME Super on the winder ME II
with the A* 200mm f2.8 attached at the bottom, with the 67's 105mm,
helicoid extension tube and my Sekonic 308 down one side and three 67mm
filters in bo
ot it custom-made from them ?
Thanks in advacne.
Anand.
>From: Kevin Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
>Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:59:49 +
>
>My main bag is actually a cyclists' courier bag
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a MiniTrekker that does well for my 35mm gear (it holds
> an amazing amount of equipment), but I don't think it is deep
> enough to take the 6x7 body with prism and lens. Also, I do
find
> the backpack to be a bit unhandy. One of the things I was
- Original Message -
From: Gianfranco Irlanda
Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
> JeffW. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For my 35mm, I have a Lowepro MiniTreker. A good bag but I
> never could get
> > the medium format equipment to fit.
>
> Hi,
>
> I am
JeffW. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For my 35mm, I have a Lowepro MiniTreker. A good bag but I
never could get
> the medium format equipment to fit.
Hi,
I am eventually able to post something to the list after a week
so busy I couldn't imagine...
William's question is interesting, and I was a b
derrated device.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Ca
Another pack that has not been mentioned in the Beseler Sedona 920. I use
one for my Kiev88 gear. I like the upper compartment as I can keep the prism
and 250mm lens mounted on the body and it fits with no problem. The lower
will hold several lenses and other items.
For my 35mm, I have a Lowepro
002 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
>"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I am in the market for a new backpack for my 6x7 gear, as I have
> >outgrown my previous camera bag.
> >I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
> >Super Trekker
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am in the market for a new backpack for my 6x7 gear, as I have
>outgrown my previous camera bag.
>I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
>Super Trekker AW
>Pro Trekker AW
>Photo Trekker AW
>Phot
William wrote:
>I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
>Super Trekker AW
>Pro Trekker AW
>Photo Trekker AW
>Photo Trekker Classic.
>I am wondering if anyone has used any of these backpacks and can
>comment, either favourably or otherwise.
>The pack will
it was quite a bit heavier than the 67 kit.
I personally don't find the 67 as heavy and unwieldy as many believe
it to be.
Bruce
Saturday, March 16, 2002, 10:36:00 PM, you wrote:
WR> - Original Message -
WR> From: David A. Mann
WR> Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
>&g
- Original Message -
From: David A. Mann
Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
> A body and three lenses is easy. Even I've done that, with
an RB67
> kit of all things. My comment was directed at the body plus
_seven_
> lenses... that weight's going to add up quickly.
Paul,
I did similar when I was in Hawaii recently. We did the Diamond Head
hike and I took the 67 with 55, 90 and 165 lenses and miscellaneous
items. It was heavier than a 35mm, but the results were worth the
effort.
Bruce Dayton
Saturday, March 16, 2002, 8:22:58 PM, you wrote:
PS> If you
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> If you want to shoot big film, you carry what you have to carry. I
> hiked quite a few miles into La Jolla canyon last month carrying three
> lenses (including the large 300/40, a 6x7 body, handheld meter,
> several filters, and tripod. It was not a burden, and I didn't gi
If you want to shoot big film, you carry what you have to carry. I hiked
quite a few miles into La Jolla canyon last month carrying three lenses
(including the large 300/40, a 6x7 body, handheld meter, several
filters, and tripod. It was not a burden, and I didn't give it a second
thought. I carri
camera bag.
> I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
> Super Trekker AW
> Pro Trekker AW
> Photo Trekker AW
> Photo Trekker Classic.
> I am wondering if anyone has used any of these backpacks and can
> comment, either favourably or otherwise.
> The pack will h
check out.
Bruce Dayton
Saturday, March 16, 2002, 6:02:17 PM, you wrote:
WR> - Original Message -
WR> From: Doug Brewer
WR> Subject: Re: Camera backpacks
>> To differ from the popular opinion, I like my photo backpack.
WR> It is a mini trekker and I've had a 67II
William Robb wrote:
> I am in the market for a new backpack for my 6x7 gear, as I have
> outgrown my previous camera bag.
> I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
> Super Trekker AW
> Pro Trekker AW
> Photo Trekker AW
> Photo Trekker Classic.
> I am wond
Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:14 PM
Subject: Camera backpacks
> I am in the market for a new backpack for my 6x7 gear, as I have
> outgrown my previous camera bag.
> I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
>
I can certainly second the problem with backpacks. It seems that
getting things in and out quickly just doesn't work well. I prefer
more of a shoulder bag that I can set down and flip the flap back and
grab the camera/lens. My backpack would have to be taken off and
unzipped and then ge
made packs
and comfortable to wear. My only criticism is that they are not lightweight,
however this is in comparison to regular backpacks I think that the camera
padding adds a lot of weight. From memory I think the nature trekker is
about 6 lbs. HTH
If you decide you might be interested in a N
William Robb wrote:
> The pack will have to carry a 6x7 body with meter prism and 7
> lenses, plus filters and other dreck.
And you're going to carry that?!?
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
At 14:14 16/03/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>I am in the market for a new backpack for my 6x7 gear, as I have
>outgrown my previous camera bag.
>I am looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
>Super Trekker AW
>Pro Trekker AW
>Photo Trekker AW
>Photo Trekker Classic.
Well I
looking at the following backpacks from LowePro:
WR> Super Trekker AW
WR> Pro Trekker AW
WR> Photo Trekker AW
WR> Photo Trekker Classic.
WR> I am wondering if anyone has used any of these backpacks and can
WR> comment, either favourably or otherwise.
WR> The pack will have to carry a
>But what about the rest of the stuff, the f***ng heavy photo gear
>which I have to struggle with all the time and which bogs me down
>slowing me way behind fellow hikers ;-)
Sorry to jump in late here...
I haven't managed to find a photo backpack that I like yet, so for now
I'm usin
Hi Albano and Alin,
thanks to both of you for suggestions.
I like Lowepro's S&F system quite a lot (although it's expensive, I
was able to buy few bigger pieces at "sale-out" //is that the right
word?// bargain prices, I am considering getting such a small case
into which a camera
Thursday, February 07, 2002, 9:02:49 AM, Pål wrote:
>>[...]
>>Any solutions?
PAJ> Yes. As I said, the Orion AW. The Orion AW is a backpack with room for
PAJ> other stuff as well.
Hi Pàl (can't get the a with circle right , sorry), but I think
that Orion AW is a "daypack" - it certainly isn't 80li
Looks like the difference is that the Trekker cannot be split up.
Raimo K
Pål Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Raimo wrote:
>
>
> >What´s the difference between Orion AW and Orion Trekker? I have the
> >Trekker right
> >here for trial - should I get the AW instead?
>
>
> I'm really not t
Raimo wrote:
>What´s the difference between Orion AW and Orion Trekker? I have the
>Trekker right
>here for trial - should I get the AW instead?
I'm really not that familiar with the Orion Trekker. The Orion AW can be
split up and uses as both backpack, shoulderbag or beltpack. In addition,
AIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 07. helmikuuta 2002 9:25
Aihe: Re: Backpacks (WAS: Re: Take two MZ-S's and call me when you get back)
>
>Yes. As I said, the Orion AW. The Orion AW is a backpack with room for
>other stuff as well
I'm not sure if I'm helping or not, having missed the first bit of the
conversation, however I own a LowePro S&F Rover AW "system" which includes
the backpack, harness and dedicated waist belt (Approx USD 150 new). The
backpack breaks open in the middle and reveals a smallish compartment with
the
Hi Frantisek,
I carry a 80 l regular backpack too and found the Lowepro Off Trail 1
the best solution for having the camera handy, om my hip.
Additional gear that doesn't fit in the bag goes in the backpack,
in similar Lowepro interchangeable bags.
Servus, Alin
Frantisek w
Frantisek wrote:
>PAJ> The LowePro Orion AW works in the same manner. I highly recommend it. In
>PAJ> fact, I would not recommend anything larger than this.
>
>I think the original poster wrote about stuffing MZ-S in backpack, not
>"daypack". For mountain hiking or what he wrote about, 65-85l ba
Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 3:31:45 PM, Pål wrote:
PAJ> Aaron wrote:
>>If you haven't seen them, you should check out LowePro's Street & Field
>>backpacks. The one I'm thinking of specifically is a half and half
>>bag -- the bottom half is a traditiona
47 matches
Mail list logo
