View Full Version : Duluth Pack---any opinions?
Has anyone here used a Duluth Pack for hiking with a LF camera(especially 8x10?) Any thoughts/suggestions/recommendations for day hikes? My California Cooler cart thingy gave up the ghost at my daughter's seventh birthday party where it was pressed into service as a cooler, and the Duluth Pack seems like it would be a better fit than the ALICE and less bulky than my LowePro---its also very retro, which I find appealing in a masochistic sort of way.
I've never understood the headstrap on those things...
I don't know why it wouldn't work - tho I don't know how structured the interiors are, and what accessibility would be like (as opposed to a drop front pack like the lowe).
Retro - yes... very. Retro 70's... 1870's.
Traditional Duluth packs are big heavy canvas bags with some shoulder straps, made to be yanked in and out of canoes. I think you would find a lot of broken photo gear if stuff was not packed into other cases/padded boxes.
If you were actually operating out of a boat and camping,
It would work pretty well if you wrapped your camera and lenses in clothing, sleeping bags, ect.
I think it would be a miserable way to back pack.
The head straps come in real handy when you are carrying everything you need for a week of paddeling, including an iron Dutch oven. Canoe/boat camping allows much more stuff and weight to brought along than backpacking, although you pay for overpacking on a long portage.
Kerry L. Thalmann
Wow, you must be a real masochist to even consider carrying an 8x10 in one of those packs. In addition to the lack of internal padding, from the photos, the Duluth packs appear to have thin, unpadded shoulder straps, no waist belt and no frame, internal or external. Sounds like a very painful way to carry anything more than about 15 pounds for an distance greater than a quarter mile.
Seriously, ANY conventional backpack, either internal or external frame, big enough to hold an 8x10 will offer far more comfort when carrying a heavy load over considerable distance. If you're not hiking more than a quarter mile from your vehicle, something with wheels would be easier to haul around, protect your equipment better and probably keep your gear more organized than an unpadded canvas rucksack.
P.S. regarding the 'head strap", it's called a tump line. Early fur trappers used a similar arrangement when hauling heavy loads (often over 100 lbs.) on their backs through the mountains of the American West. It does help increase carrying capacity, but is not exactly the most comfortable solution. I'd much rather have a modern pack with a real suspension and decent padding in the right places.
OK, so its the Duluth Pack for canoe travel and something else (better) for the places where I'm likely to be taking my 'dorff. Thanks for the advice!
I'd go with the F64 extra large pack.
Here's another option if you are looking for a very large, very well made pack:
These packs have an excellent suspension system and internal frame - and a tumpline. I have a Wabakimi and my XL F64 would fit in it with plenty of room to spare.
when i was akid in new england in the 30's all we had available were duluths' i can tell you if you want to carry anything other than a blanket roll [no sleeping bags then] you would die. turned me off to packing until GERRY came along. god i cringe thinking about them. frank
Kerry is right. I have a couple and use them regularly but the straps are miserable and cut into your shoulders, no internal framing, etc. They are great at what they are: canoe packs that you can stuff the grand canyon into, but they are not backpanking solutions, especially for LF gear.
Just one more thought. Several months ago I took a month long solo canoe trip down a local river. I took the 8x20, 11x14 8x10 with a 5x7 back too. All those things went into Pelican cases and all my camping stuff went into two Duluth Bags. They do best what they are designed for.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.