>>569553Road bikes like your picture are for racing and riding fast on good pavement in dry weather. Most of them only have room for skinny high pressure tires and no fenders. It's possible to ride them on dirt and carry camping gear but they aren't very good for either and you'll probably shake all the bolts loose and get a lot of pinch flats.
Mountain bikes are for riding offroad over rocks and logs. The more suspension they have the more annoying and tiring they are to ride on the road. Older hardtails or rigid bikes from the 90s can make decent all-rounder bikes but IMO most of the current ones are pretty specialized, and would be a pain in the ass to try to mount racks and bags.
Touring bikes are for touring and can fit wider tires, fenders and racks. They're versatile but mine wasn't much fun for day rides without a load (heavy and clunky and it with the long wheelbase and chainstays it doesn't do too well on dirt).
Cyclocross bikes are for cyclocross racing, so they're sportier than touring bikes but can still fit fatter tires than a road bike. They're also pretty good for bad pavement, gravel roads, and easy to moderate trail riding. They're not bad for touring/camping but not as good as a touring bike.
tl;dr: get a Surly Cross-Check. Since I got mine I hardly ever ride my road or mountain bikes.
>>569555And geometry, and parts, and gearing, and fit, and suspension. It's better than a road racing bike I wouldn't get one unless you're going to be downhilling or riding technical singletrack a lot.
