Carrying camera gear on a mountain bike??

[Mark]

Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
carry some very expensive camera equipment. I am using a Camelbek
hydration pack so a backpack isn't going to work without giving that
up, which Id prefer not to do.

That means I will need some sort of rack on the back or handlebars.
Id prefer not to use the handlebars but would if its absolutely
necessary. IF there is something out there that is already available
for photography work, Id love to hear about it. I am also not adverse
to building something that can be attached to a commercially available
rack if such is compatiable with a full suspension mountain bike.

The seat post mount racks might work, but are there better options.
It had a weight limit of 25 lbs, which by the time I add some gear and
protection around it might be getting close to that limit fairly
quickly. With the flex in the suspension I wasn't sure the other
types of racks would work very well if at all.

Long term the goal is the camping gear on a pulled trailer, the camera
gear on the rack on the bike. Ride the bike to the base camp and drop
the trailer, then keep going with the camera gear. Thanks in advance
for your help.

 

[pete fagerlin]

Mark wrote:
> Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> carry some very expensive camera equipment.

Throw your camera gear in a decent hydration pack and you're
good to go.

 

[JD]

On Oct 5, 10:25 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> > photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> > carry some very expensive camera equipment.
>
> Throw your camera gear in a decent hydration pack and you're
> good to go.


Seconded

JD

 

[Mark]

On Oct 6, 3:06 am, JD <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:25 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > > Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> > > photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> > > carry some very expensive camera equipment.
>
> > Throw your camera gear in a decent hydration pack and you're
> > good to go.
>
> Seconded
>
> JD

Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available. In
the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix. IF I ever come
off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up. Bladder would
empty contents on high dollar digital body and that wouldn't be
pretty. It's worth more than the bike and its the cheapest piece of
gear I carry. IF I go the backpack route the pack has to come off.
Backpack probably isn't idea anyway because it would be much slower in
accessing the camera than just turning around and grabbing it off the
back. I couldn't get to the camera without getting the backpack off
and that may take time I don't have.

In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly. In cased in
something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.

 

[GeeDubb]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 6, 3:06 am, JD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 10:25 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark wrote:
>> > > Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
>> > > photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way
>> > > to
>> > > carry some very expensive camera equipment.
>>
>> > Throw your camera gear in a decent hydration pack and you're
>> > good to go.
>>
>> Seconded
>>
>> JD
>
> Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available. In
> the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix. IF I ever come
> off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up. Bladder would
> empty contents on high dollar digital body and that wouldn't be
> pretty. It's worth more than the bike and its the cheapest piece of
> gear I carry. IF I go the backpack route the pack has to come off.
> Backpack probably isn't idea anyway because it would be much slower in
> accessing the camera than just turning around and grabbing it off the
> back. I couldn't get to the camera without getting the backpack off
> and that may take time I don't have.
>
> In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
> hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly. In cased in
> something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
> chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.
>

Then I would suggest learning how to ride your bike so that your tendency to
crash is minimized. Both of the previous suggestions are from riders that
carry cameras (including video) and are two of the best bike handlers I've
seen. If you carry any kind of equipment there's always a chance you'll
crash and land on said equipment. You'll come out of the crash worse than
the equipment (speaking from experience). I can't remember the last time I
heard of a water bladder rupturing so that's a minimal issue. If you're
worried about missing a shot (only animal sightings come to mind) then I'd
suggest walking, carrying the camera in your hand. I know of no way to
carry a camera while mountain biking where there's easy camera access w/o
stopping and digging that camera out of some sort of protective container.

 

[JD]

On Oct 6, 7:35 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:06 am, JD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:25 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > > Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> > > > photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> > > > carry some very expensive camera equipment.
>
> > > Throw your camera gear in a decent hydration pack and you're
> > > good to go.
>
> > Seconded
>
> > JD
>
> Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available. In
> the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix. IF I ever come
> off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up. Bladder would
> empty contents on high dollar digital body and that wouldn't be
> pretty. It's worth more than the bike and its the cheapest piece of
> gear I carry. IF I go the backpack route the pack has to come off.
> Backpack probably isn't idea anyway because it would be much slower in
> accessing the camera than just turning around and grabbing it off the
> back. I couldn't get to the camera without getting the backpack off
> and that may take time I don't have.
>
> In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
> hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly. In cased in
> something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
> chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.


You need to go ask your shrink next time, fella.

JD

 

[pete fagerlin]

Mark wrote:

> Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available. In
> the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix.

It depends upon the electronics. I once shot the US cyclocross
championships over the course of three hours. The event was
doused with over 2.5 inches of rainfall in those three hours.
My electronics and that water mixed just fine.


>IF I ever come
> off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up.

You're delusional if you think that a bladder will burst due
to a simple crash.

> In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
> hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly.

Nope. Not in my experience.

>In cased in
> something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
> chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.

My digital camera, lenses, flashes, etc. have proven to be
plenty tough, just tossed into a hydropack.

 

[shawn]

Mark wrote:
> Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> carry some very expensive camera equipment. I am using a Camelbek
> hydration pack so a backpack isn't going to work without giving that
> up, which Id prefer not to do.
>
> That means I will need some sort of rack on the back or handlebars.
> Id prefer not to use the handlebars but would if its absolutely
> necessary. IF there is something out there that is already available
> for photography work, Id love to hear about it. I am also not adverse
> to building something that can be attached to a commercially available
> rack if such is compatiable with a full suspension mountain bike.
>
> The seat post mount racks might work, but are there better options.
> It had a weight limit of 25 lbs, which by the time I add some gear and
> protection around it might be getting close to that limit fairly
> quickly. With the flex in the suspension I wasn't sure the other
> types of racks would work very well if at all.
>
> Long term the goal is the camping gear on a pulled trailer, the camera
> gear on the rack on the bike. Ride the bike to the base camp and drop
> the trailer, then keep going with the camera gear. Thanks in advance
> for your help.
>


I've never heard of a Camelbak rupturing in a crash. I've been using
them and riding with lots of other camelbak users for 15 years. Not a
scientific study, but nobody here whines about them breaking either.
I have had a lid not close completely and leak a half inch of water on
passenger seat of my car, where my digital slr was sitting. Much
swearing and a couple hours of drying later, the camera was fine.
I would suggest you bring just the equipment you'll need (no "Maybe I'll
need that 500 mm lens and the macro and the 4x5 film camera if the
sunset is just right....") and not expect a photography ride to be a
gonzo ride too. Do the ride again without the camera. Gives you a
reason to ride more



Shawn

 

[Mark]

On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available. In
> > the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix.
>
> It depends upon the electronics. I once shot the US cyclocross
> championships over the course of three hours. The event was
> doused with over 2.5 inches of rainfall in those three hours.
> My electronics and that water mixed just fine.
>
> >IF I ever come
> > off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up.
>
> You're delusional if you think that a bladder will burst due
> to a simple crash.
>
> > In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
> > hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly.
>
> Nope. Not in my experience.
>
> >In cased in
> > something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
> > chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.
>
> My digital camera, lenses, flashes, etc. have proven to be
> plenty tough, just tossed into a hydropack.

No one ever plans on crashing but people do all the time. Depending
on how much a bladder happens to hold at the time of the crash is
going to make a great deal of difference. If nearly empty, it
probably would be fine. The plastic bladder I have there is no way it
could be nearly full and put my 200lbs+ on top of it and not have it
burst somewhere. Through in the possibility of rocks or tree limbs
and again that plastic just isn't going to hold. Maybe it would come
out the bite valve or pull the hose out, but there are just too many
maybe's in there for me. Make the bladder out of the same material as
a Nascar fuel cell and Id agree with you. If I never crash, it won't
be a problem. Maybe I won't, but more than likely sooner or later
almost everyone does. Though my gear has seen some heavy rain, and yes
I had the stuff to partially protect it, liquids an electronics don't
often mix well. Empty your hydration bladder on your camera for a
test. I put my equipment through enough abuse as it is and don't want
to add to it if there is a way to avoid it.

I do appreciate the input an if it works for you and meets your risk
tolerance, then that's exactly what you should do. In a back pack I
have to stop (which I would have to anyway) take the pack off and deal
with the zippers. Next finding a combination that it could travel
with the lens on the body might be a challenge or it would have to be
mounted, all the while that animal I happened upon is heading to the
next county. IF you only dealt with landscapes and such it would work
better.. Time is not an issue there usually.

To those that think that because my needs may not match your needs and
that justifies a trip to a mental professional, I pity you. I may
have to make a number of these trips to custom make what I need but
thats ok too. I suspected that might be what I had to do or at least
modify something existing. I also figured there probably is someone
out there that has likely been through this before and just maybe what
worked for them would work for me. Not this time

Yes I could take the bike part way and hike, but that also partially
defeats the purpose of the bike and its mobility.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mark wrote:
> On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>>> Well that isn't ideal no matter how much space would be available.
>>> In the event of a crash water and elecronics don't mix.
>>
>> It depends upon the electronics. I once shot the US cyclocross
>> championships over the course of three hours. The event was
>> doused with over 2.5 inches of rainfall in those three hours.
>> My electronics and that water mixed just fine.
>>
>>> IF I ever come
>>> off the bike, there is no way a bladder will hold up.
>>
>> You're delusional if you think that a bladder will burst due
>> to a simple crash.
>>
>>> In a backpack there can be very minimal camera protection, and if I
>>> hit and roll with the backpack on its going to be ugly.
>>
>> Nope. Not in my experience.
>>
>>> In cased in
>>> something solid on a rack on the back, the gear has a fighting
>>> chance. Its tough, but it isn't that tough.
>>
>> My digital camera, lenses, flashes, etc. have proven to be
>> plenty tough, just tossed into a hydropack.
>
> No one ever plans on crashing but people do all the time. Depending
> on how much a bladder happens to hold at the time of the crash is
> going to make a great deal of difference. If nearly empty, it
> probably would be fine. The plastic bladder I have there is no way it
> could be nearly full and put my 200lbs+ on top of it and not have it
> burst somewhere. Through in the possibility of rocks or tree limbs
> and again that plastic just isn't going to hold. Maybe it would come
> out the bite valve or pull the hose out, but there are just too many
> maybe's in there for me. Make the bladder out of the same material as
> a Nascar fuel cell and Id agree with you. If I never crash, it won't
> be a problem. Maybe I won't, but more than likely sooner or later
> almost everyone does. Though my gear has seen some heavy rain, and yes
> I had the stuff to partially protect it, liquids an electronics don't
> often mix well. Empty your hydration bladder on your camera for a
> test. I put my equipment through enough abuse as it is and don't want
> to add to it if there is a way to avoid it.
>
> I do appreciate the input an if it works for you and meets your risk
> tolerance, then that's exactly what you should do. In a back pack I
> have to stop (which I would have to anyway) take the pack off and deal
> with the zippers. Next finding a combination that it could travel
> with the lens on the body might be a challenge or it would have to be
> mounted, all the while that animal I happened upon is heading to the
> next county. IF you only dealt with landscapes and such it would work
> better.. Time is not an issue there usually.
>
> To those that think that because my needs may not match your needs and
> that justifies a trip to a mental professional, I pity you. I may
> have to make a number of these trips to custom make what I need but
> thats ok too. I suspected that might be what I had to do or at least
> modify something existing. I also figured there probably is someone
> out there that has likely been through this before and just maybe what
> worked for them would work for me. Not this time
>
> Yes I could take the bike part way and hike, but that also partially
> defeats the purpose of the bike and its mobility.

A) Unless you put the gear inside the bladder's compartment, even if it
ruptures (very unlikely) you'll be OK.

B) You don't seem to be cut out to be a mountain biking photographer. It's
just stuff, and you're too attached to / worried about it. Maybe try bird
watching instead?

HTH. BS

 

[shawn]

Mark wrote:
> On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:

snip

>> My digital camera, lenses, flashes, etc. have proven to be
>> plenty tough, just tossed into a hydropack.
>
> No one ever plans on crashing but people do all the time. Depending
> on how much a bladder happens to hold at the time of the crash is
> going to make a great deal of difference.

snip

You've gotten lots of good advice from some awesomely good mountain
biking photographers (or is that photographing mountain bikers?). I've
seen their photos, and video of their riding (the ones I haven't ridden
with in RL), they know of what they speak. You would do well to take
their advice, adjust as necessary, and have fun.
With all due respect Mark, if you have all the answers why are you asking?


Shawn

 

[RobDee]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
<snip>

> In a back pack I
> have to stop (which I would have to anyway) take the pack off and deal
> with the zippers. Next finding a combination that it could travel
> with the lens on the body might be a challenge or it would have to be
> mounted, all the while that animal I happened upon is heading to the
> next county. IF you only dealt with landscapes and such it would work
> better.. Time is not an issue there usually.

Take the bag off? Deal with the zippers? A challenge to travel with lens on
body?

Get up to date with what's available, e.g the Lowepro Slingshot series......

Just a few hours ago I pulled up to fire off a series of shots with a Nikon
D200 (bearing a 300mm lens) of a Lataste's Viper - without even getting off
the bike. Now had the gear been in some kind of bike mounted bag..........

<snip>

 

[pete fagerlin]

Mark wrote:

> No one ever plans on crashing but people do all the time. Depending
> on how much a bladder happens to hold at the time of the crash is
> going to make a great deal of difference. If nearly empty, it
> probably would be fine. The plastic bladder I have there is no way it
> could be nearly full and put my 200lbs+ on top of it and not have it
> burst somewhere. Through in the possibility of rocks or tree limbs
> and again that plastic just isn't going to hold. Maybe it would come
> out the bite valve or pull the hose out, but there are just too many
> maybe's in there for me. Make the bladder out of the same material as
> a Nascar fuel cell and Id agree with you. If I never crash, it won't
> be a problem. Maybe I won't, but more than likely sooner or later
> almost everyone does. Though my gear has seen some heavy rain, and yes
> I had the stuff to partially protect it, liquids an electronics don't
> often mix well. Empty your hydration bladder on your camera for a
> test. I put my equipment through enough abuse as it is and don't want
> to add to it if there is a way to avoid it.

You need to read my previous posts again. My equipment has
survived more water exposure than simply emptying a bladder on
it. Your fears of the bladder bursting are irrational. At this
point I would suggest that you buy yourself a portable meteor
barrier to protect your equipment from meteorites.


> I do appreciate the input an if it works for you and meets your risk
> tolerance, then that's exactly what you should do. In a back pack I
> have to stop (which I would have to anyway) take the pack off and deal
> with the zippers. Next finding a combination that it could travel
> with the lens on the body might be a challenge or it would have to be
> mounted, all the while that animal I happened upon is heading to the
> next county. IF you only dealt with landscapes and such it would work
> better.. Time is not an issue there usually.

Photography while riding a bike is not as complicated as you
think it is. Sorry.

Good luck with the meteors.

 

[Corvus Corvax]

On Oct 6, 10:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I do appreciate the input an if it works for you and meets your risk
> tolerance, then that's exactly what you should do.

This is totally what you're looking for:

http://tinyurl.com/3bbnmr

HTH

CC

 

[GeeDubb]

"RobDee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, pete fagerlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Mark wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> In a back pack I
>> have to stop (which I would have to anyway) take the pack off and deal
>> with the zippers. Next finding a combination that it could travel
>> with the lens on the body might be a challenge or it would have to be
>> mounted, all the while that animal I happened upon is heading to the
>> next county. IF you only dealt with landscapes and such it would work
>> better.. Time is not an issue there usually.
>
> Take the bag off? Deal with the zippers? A challenge to travel with lens
> on body?
>
> Get up to date with what's available, e.g the Lowepro Slingshot
> series......
>
> Just a few hours ago I pulled up to fire off a series of shots with a
> Nikon D200 (bearing a 300mm lens) of a Lataste's Viper - without even
> getting off the bike. Now had the gear been in some kind of bike mounted
> bag..........
>
> <snip>

Link to photos?

 

[JD]

On Oct 6, 7:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> To those that think that because my needs may not match your needs and
> that justifies a trip to a mental professional, I pity you.


You pity us? That's a laugh. Why don't you do the World a favor and
go ride off of a cliff. That would make a great photo.

JD

 

[Default User]

Hiya Mark

My favorite ia a Lowepro Off Trail 2 beltpack.

http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Beltpacks/modular/Off_Trail_2.aspx

Takes a digital SLR with lens and 2 extra long lenses. The side pods can be
removed if you're not going to need more than 1 lens. I can still use a full
size hydration daypack with the Off Trail tucked in underneath. Advantages -
you can lift off the seat to absorb some of the shock from rough terrain,
you can spin the beltpack around to the front for quick access to catch the
wildlife you just surprised! Disadvantages - extra weight is carried by you,
not the bike so the backside can get tired on a long ride.

Hope this helps

Blueroo

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well as a photographer I am going to be using my bike to do some
> photography in off the beaten path areas. I am going to need a way to
> carry some very expensive camera equipment. I am using a Camelbek
> hydration pack so a backpack isn't going to work without giving that
> up, which Id prefer not to do.
>
> That means I will need some sort of rack on the back or handlebars.
> Id prefer not to use the handlebars but would if its absolutely
> necessary. IF there is something out there that is already available
> for photography work, Id love to hear about it. I am also not adverse
> to building something that can be attached to a commercially available
> rack if such is compatiable with a full suspension mountain bike.
>
> The seat post mount racks might work, but are there better options.
> It had a weight limit of 25 lbs, which by the time I add some gear and
> protection around it might be getting close to that limit fairly
> quickly. With the flex in the suspension I wasn't sure the other
> types of racks would work very well if at all.
>
> Long term the goal is the camping gear on a pulled trailer, the camera
> gear on the rack on the bike. Ride the bike to the base camp and drop
> the trailer, then keep going with the camera gear. Thanks in advance
> for your help.
>