Posted by Tom Kloster on February 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I am fairly picky about packs and bags, so thought I'd post a quick review for a camera pack that is the first that I've really liked -- and also seems to be a closeout item. The pack is the Mountainsmith Odyssey, and it's a 3-season day model with a built-in rain tarp. It will easily replace my Kelty daypack for photography outings.
There's plenty of room for non-photog gear in the back compartments for all but the coldest winter trips, and the camera compartment is roomy enough for a pro. In fact, for a weekender like me, there's extra room in the camera compartment, so it could really work as a 4-season pack, with survival gear stowed in the available camera space. The best part of the design is that the camera compartment is a clamshell built into the back of the pack, so you can access the hiking compartments in rainy weather without exposing any of your camera gear to the elements. The online diagrams show this feature nicely.
It has many other photography-friendly features, including an excellent tripod hitch, but it's also a nice hiking pack. Until now, I've been disappointed with the weak hiking features on most camera packs - or turned off by outrageous prices on packs that do have a good balance between photo and hiking features. If you use a camelback water system, you could probably make this work, though it's not designed for one. I don't use that system, and this pack has a couple of water bottle baskets for people in my camp on that issue.
The harness system is excellent - generous, adjustable, well-padded shoulder straps, padded waist belt with storage pouches built-in and a chest strap to hold the shoulder straps. Because there is a lot of padding around the camera compartment in the back of the pack, it also results in a very comfortable ride on your back, compared to most daypacks.
The only negative is that it's fairly heavy for a day pack - it weighs almost eight pounds, empty. That is a result of all of the padding and waterproofing built around the camera compartment, so probably a necessary evil for a pack in this price range. It's also a fairly large pack, at 20x16x8", another reason for the weight.
I paid $150 for this pack on closeout, or about $90 less than full retail as a closeout. I don't know if we're supposed to mention retailers when doing reviews, but I'll just say that I bought it from an online "trading post" named after a rather prominent California mountain range... I highly recommend this pack!
Thanks, this is a great review. I'm 6'3" and have not found a camera pack that is suitable. I have another Mountainsmith pack and love the fit. So I'm really interested.
That's a good question - I'm 6 feet and 225 lbs, so not a tiny person, but it fits just fine. I took it on my first really brushy bushwhack on Sunday, and was very happy with the performance in terms of not catching on limbs/logs. I did have to point the arms of my tripod to the back after catching on a few branches, however!
Thanks, this is a great review. I'm 6'3" and have not found a camera pack that is suitable. I have another Mountainsmith pack and love the fit. So I'm really interested.
Chris, I know this is long after you asked, but your torso length will be more important than your height. I'm 6'2" with a 21" torso (as measured for backpacks). Generally "large" packs fit me, meaning the longer frame size available.
I own 2 mountainsmith packs ( a day pack and a big multi-day backpack) and liked them well enough to use them both extensively for fifteen years.
Judging from the photo of this pack with a Bogen 3021 mounted, it is nowhere near 21 inches long. (the 3021 is 22" long folded, not counting the head). And the pack actually needs to be longer than 22" inches because you need the stays to be slightly above your shoulders to be able to transfer load between your hips and shoulders.
Also another point to mention, though Mountainsmith is not guilty of anything Lowepro and others are't doing. This pack has a volume of 36 liters and weighs nearly 8 pounds empty. My 40L daypack weighs 3 pounds and my 85L Gregory backpack designed to haul 65 pound loads weighs a bit under 8 pounds.
Discussion
3 repliesThere's plenty of room for non-photog gear in the back compartments for all but the coldest winter trips, and the camera compartment is roomy enough for a pro. In fact, for a weekender like me, there's extra room in the camera compartment, so it could really work as a 4-season pack, with survival gear stowed in the available camera space. The best part of the design is that the camera compartment is a clamshell built into the back of the pack, so you can access the hiking compartments in rainy weather without exposing any of your camera gear to the elements. The online diagrams show this feature nicely.
It has many other photography-friendly features, including an excellent tripod hitch, but it's also a nice hiking pack. Until now, I've been disappointed with the weak hiking features on most camera packs - or turned off by outrageous prices on packs that do have a good balance between photo and hiking features. If you use a camelback water system, you could probably make this work, though it's not designed for one. I don't use that system, and this pack has a couple of water bottle baskets for people in my camp on that issue.
The harness system is excellent - generous, adjustable, well-padded shoulder straps, padded waist belt with storage pouches built-in and a chest strap to hold the shoulder straps. Because there is a lot of padding around the camera compartment in the back of the pack, it also results in a very comfortable ride on your back, compared to most daypacks.
The only negative is that it's fairly heavy for a day pack - it weighs almost eight pounds, empty. That is a result of all of the padding and waterproofing built around the camera compartment, so probably a necessary evil for a pack in this price range. It's also a fairly large pack, at 20x16x8", another reason for the weight.
I paid $150 for this pack on closeout, or about $90 less than full retail as a closeout. I don't know if we're supposed to mention retailers when doing reviews, but I'll just say that I bought it from an online "trading post" named after a rather prominent California mountain range... I highly recommend this pack!
Tom
Do you imagine it would work for a tall person?
Chris, I know this is long after you asked, but your torso length will be more important than your height. I'm 6'2" with a 21" torso (as measured for backpacks). Generally "large" packs fit me, meaning the longer frame size available.
I own 2 mountainsmith packs ( a day pack and a big multi-day backpack) and liked them well enough to use them both extensively for fifteen years.
looking at mountainsmith's website:
http://www.mountainsmith.com/products.asp?productId=144&categoryId=13&subCategoryId=14&subCategory2Id=
Judging from the photo of this pack with a Bogen 3021 mounted, it is nowhere near 21 inches long. (the 3021 is 22" long folded, not counting the head). And the pack actually needs to be longer than 22" inches because you need the stays to be slightly above your shoulders to be able to transfer load between your hips and shoulders.
Also another point to mention, though Mountainsmith is not guilty of anything Lowepro and others are't doing. This pack has a volume of 36 liters and weighs nearly 8 pounds empty. My 40L daypack weighs 3 pounds and my 85L Gregory backpack designed to haul 65 pound loads weighs a bit under 8 pounds.