Anyone have a Lowepro Dryzone 100 or 200 rucksack?

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

11/10/2004 10:51:08 AM · #1

We're off to the Antarctic soon and I know we'll be making regular excursions in zodiacs. Shore landings will also often be into (shallow) water and then wade to shore.

I currently have a Lowepro Mini Trekker Classic which I love.

Am considering the Dryzone 100 which seems about same internal size but 100% waterproof.

Can't find ANYTHING on the weight difference between the two bags when empty.

Does anyone know or have experience?

THANKS

Chiqui

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

11/10/2004 11:24:35 AM · #2

Cant really be of much help. Just wanted to say that I had been looking at the pack and it looks awesome.....except for the price tag :P I would assume it is heavier than the mini trekker due to the rubber or whatever it is that makes it waterproof.

June

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/10/2004 11:29:11 AM · #3

I played with one recently in a shop, and found it a real pain to open and close. Of course if dryness is what you need, then it can save 100ds of $$ in damages, but as a general purpose take everywhere pack I think It wasn't good. I need to get my camera out often and fast.
I can't comment on the weight other that it was a little heavier, but not excessively.

11/10/2004 04:13:44 PM · #4

Thanks folks...
Yeah I'm assuming it's heavier due to materials hence wanting to check weight.
Accessibility issues also worth looking into further - perhaps I need to go and look at one in person before ordering...

jmassung

Nikon D70

11/10/2004 04:38:09 PM · #5

Not to push you onto another product but I have been looking into purchasing the Kata R-102 backpack. It has an easy access zipper as well as the full open zipper. Also it is water and dustproof and comes with an additional "elemants cover" to put over the entire bag in rain and snow as an additional protector. You can also attach your tripod onto your bag. I have not read into reviews of product yet but you can check it out at
Adorama or BH Photo in the specs it gives the wieght of the bag.

11/10/2004 04:48:20 PM · #6

Thanks Jmassung.
I looked at the specs but... although it tells me that water proof material is used in the construction it doesn't say that the bag itself is actually waterproof and the inclusion of an elements cover makes me think that it isn't.
When shopping for waterproof and thermally lined ski pants today I discovered that there are those that are simply made from water repellant fabric. Then there are those that are made from waterproof fabric but that aren't classed as waterproof. And then there are those that are made from waterproof fabric AND have taped seams. THESE are actually waterproof. Even the second option allows water in through the seams.
The thing that attracts me to the Lowepro Dryzone is that the bag, once zipped, is entirely watertight. They even point out that it can be dropped into the sea fully loaded and will not only keep the water out but will float too.
Given that we're going to be spending several hours on Zodiacs out in the choppy waters of the Antarctic sea and I'm clumsy at the best of times (see my recent Should Have Taken The Bus thread) I figured that fully, truly waterproof was a good thing.
DOWN sides = added weight, expense and possibly difficult access to the gear itself.
Aaagh I hate decisions.
MUCH appreciate you taking the time to offer an alternative though!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/10/2004 05:17:42 PM · #7

another option would be a pelican case. Less portable, could be used as a roll-on for the plane.

//www.pelican.com

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 17:17:57.

11/10/2004 05:21:27 PM · #8

Yeah I thought about a pelican case but figured it wouldn't be as easy to carry about once ashore...

It's definitely an option though...

11/11/2004 05:38:53 PM · #9

Looked at a Pelican case today and I decided that given it's weight and given that it wouldn't exactly be convenient to lose a hand to carrying it the whole time when on shore it just wouldn't work for me.

I checked out the Dryzone 100 and whilst it IS a pain to open that waterproof zipper and to reach the items at the bottom end of the rucksack I decided it was the best option for this trip.

I had seen it online for Â£139.99 + Â£6 postage and packing (next day delivery) and I printed this and took it to Jacob's with me.

Jacob's is a central London store with staff who actually know about photography and they do price match to an extent but usually only to local shops. They were retailing the bag for Â£178.99 so I didn't think they'd match but I showed them the print out and asked.

They checked out prices at local competitor stores online for me out back and then decided they could do the bag for me for Â£140!

And it comes with a year's guarantee from them plus lifetime from Lowepro apparently!

:o)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/20/2004 05:38:26 PM · #10

Just thought I'd let people know that the rucksack performed fine on the recent trip to Antarctica and although it didn't fall overboard there were some big splashes during zodiac transfers to and from shore so we felt better having it.

It IS hard to open and close the waterproof compartment seal but that kind of makes sense. Once we were ashore we didn't bother sealing that, just closed the inner zip.

And because of the design it is a touch harder to access stuff at the bottom of the safe compartment - but not hugely so.

All in all we're glad we took the dryzone.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/20/2004 07:19:02 PM · #11

I heard a story about a lady who used hers as an impromptu flotation device for some time after falling overboard.

Message edited by author 2004-12-20 22:01:25.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/21/2004 07:14:52 AM · #12

LOL
It says all over it that it is NOT intended for use as a personal flotation device, can't remember the wording!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/21/2004 10:41:36 AM · #13

Originally posted by Kavey:

LOL
It says all over it that it is NOT intended for use as a personal flotation device, can't remember the wording!

Well, sometimes it's better to ignore the warning labels

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/21/2004 05:17:43 PM · #14

Yup!
When we were in the zodiacs we were always wearing life jackets but if I'd ever have fallen in water and had the bag with me you can be sure I'd have been working out real fast if it floated!

VisiBlanco

Canon EOS-5D

12/21/2004 08:20:09 PM · #15

Okay, I have a Pelican 1550 and as said, it isn't exactly something you want to use while on expedition. It's great for storage and if you are flying somewhere and need to check it.

I just received a Lowepro Dryzone 200 today. I'm not sure why I chose the 200 over the 100 other than it was a higher number and I do carry 2 bodies and wanted a bit of extra room for hiking essentials. I got the bag new from ebay for $180 which was considerably cheaper than any of the stores I checked. The pack feels great and fits great (I'm 5'11") and it has a number of strap adjustments. Quality wise, it is 10x better than my Computrekker was. I think weight wise both are pretty similar.

You may need to consider how quickly you need to access your gear, the waterproof zipper takes some effort to zip/unzip so it does take some getting used to - it's not much slower than your normal backpack. If you are looking for something that would be decently protective and much easier to access you could consider a chest vest by Newswear. //www.newswear.com/

I would definetly consider this bag for an expedition or even hiking. If you read Pop Photo last month, there's a story about a girl who was on an expedition and fell off an iceberg. The bag (she had a dryzone 100) kept her afloat and above the ice - pretty cool story. For short trips or vacationing I would say it is just a bit too bulky - better off with a Domke shoulder bag there.

Anyway, let us know what you end up doing. Also let me know if you have any more questions... I am still figuring out the bag myself.

VisiBlanco

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/21/2004 09:06:10 PM · #16

Oh yea, a good article/review to take a look at is //www.f-8andbethere.com/tips/dryzone.htm

The 100 has a much less technical waist belt. The 200 is big enough to hold a 300mm f/2.8 lens attached to a camera body. The 200 is a lot bigger and heavier. Be aware that they both are heavy bags even when empty! Their price is not all that different though.

Again, I oped for the 200 as I wanted a backpack that would hold some additional hiking gear. It's really not something I would normally walk around town with.

Message edited by Manic - url-ifying the link.