Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Camera bag recommendations

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 15, 2005 4:04:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hello,

I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
on the list)

20D
70-200 IS
16-35 f2.8
100mm f2.8 macro
some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)

I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body and
the 70-200. I see the following options:

1) Backpack
This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses. Issue
with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.

2) Gadget bag + lens bag
This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this is
that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
used.

(Note: I have a tripod bag already)

What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 4:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
> having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
> would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
> on the list)
>
> 20D
> 70-200 IS
> 16-35 f2.8
> 100mm f2.8 macro
> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)

I use a Lowepro Nova 5 bag (shoulder strap) which holds two bodies, 5
lenses (incl. an 80-200 f/2.8 tank and an 28-70 f/2.8) and two large
flashes, a bunch of 72mm filters, angle finder, a bunch of film,
lumi-quest, stofen, various doo-dads, gadgets, thingamajigs,
whatchamacallits, quarters for phone calls and a band aid. I strap my
meter to the back with caribiners, and carry a couple garbage bags in
case of rain or to put the bag in before coming in from the bitter cold
(or for you hot weather types, before exiting an air conditioned vehicle
into humidity).

I've had this bag for over 5 years, treated it with little affection and
it is still very good looking and in perfect repair.

Domke is another popular brand with photographers. Domke users says
that "Lowepro screams amateur". Some people have complexes, I guess.

(bag fight ! bag fight !)

>
> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body and
> the 70-200. I see the following options:

The Nova 5 is 'lunchbag' style... big lunch.
>
> 1) Backpack

I don't like backpacks for photogear. It's great if you hike to your
shoot, but if you shoot various locations where you're in and out of the
bag a lot, a backpack is tedious at best. YMMV.


>
> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this is
> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
> used.

Reduce parts count as much as possible; eg: one reasonable sized bag
that carries all neccessary gear.

>
> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)

Screams amateur! I have one too, but I've never used it. I strap my
small tripod to my bag. I use an 18 wheeler for the other tripod.

>
> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

A big bag. Plan on room for doodads, etc. as described above.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 4:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:04:00 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Musty"
<musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
>having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
>would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
>on the list)
>
>20D
>70-200 IS
>16-35 f2.8
>100mm f2.8 macro
>some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
>I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body and
>the 70-200. I see the following options:
>
>1) Backpack
>This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses. Issue
>with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
>everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.

I bought a Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Camera Backpack to carry my:

D70
70-200mm f/2.8 IF AF-S VR
TC-20E-II
If I don't need the long lens mounted I can add my CP-5700 as well. Just
got an SB-800 speedlight and am trying to figure out how to add this.

>2) Gadget bag + lens bag

I have a Lowepro PhotoRunner which I used previously with my CP-990 and
5700. That, with the case for the 70-200mm lens works when something
smaller is needed. Not necessarily optimized, but I all ready had it.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Related resources
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 4:04:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 665t6$25k$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I
am
> > having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what
I
> > would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they
are
> > on the list)
> >
> > 20D
> > 70-200 IS
> > 16-35 f2.8
> > 100mm f2.8 macro
> > some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I use a Lowepro Nova 5 bag (shoulder strap) which holds two bodies, 5
> lenses (incl. an 80-200 f/2.8 tank and an 28-70 f/2.8) and two large
> flashes, a bunch of 72mm filters, angle finder, a bunch of film,
> lumi-quest, stofen, various doo-dads, gadgets, thingamajigs,
> whatchamacallits, quarters for phone calls and a band aid. I strap my
> meter to the back with caribiners, and carry a couple garbage bags in
> case of rain or to put the bag in before coming in from the bitter cold
> (or for you hot weather types, before exiting an air conditioned vehicle
> into humidity).
>

I like my Lowepro Off Road for one body. Holds body with lens plus up to 4
more lenses plus a bunch of small stuff.

Greg
May 15, 2005 4:05:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Hello,
>
> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
> having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
> would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
> on the list)
>
> 20D
> 70-200 IS
> 16-35 f2.8
> 100mm f2.8 macro
> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body
and
> the 70-200. I see the following options:
>
> 1) Backpack
> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses.
Issue
> with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
> everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>
> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this is
> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
> used.
>
> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>
> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>
> Thanks
> Musty.
>
>

Add a flash to that list.... (eg speedlite)
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 4:05:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the
>> issue I am having is what is the best way to carry my gear.
>> Typically, this is what I would want to carry (note that I dont
>> have
>> all this gear yet, but they are on the list)
>>
>> 20D
>> 70-200 IS
>> 16-35 f2.8
>> 100mm f2.8 macro
>> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>>
>> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the
>> body and the 70-200. I see the following options:
>>
>> 1) Backpack
>> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other
>> lenses. Issue with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a
>> backpack - well, not everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>>
>> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
>> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag
>> and all the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag.
>> Drawback of this is that I always need to keep the body without a
>> lens, when it is not being used.
>>
>> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>>
>> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Musty.
>>
>>
>
> Add a flash to that list.... (eg speedlite)

I'll be eager to see responses to this, also. My last outing was pre-
70-200, and I managed something very like your list by keeping the
20d/24-70 in one hand on the way in. Once the RebXT with 10-22 came
out of the hip- fanny- or bum-pack it was all quite comfortable. I
can't yet see how to add the B I G lens without increasing complexity
and size beyond tolerance, without shedding something else (like
simplicity and compactitude). Ah, the travails ...

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
—Calvin
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
snip
>
> 20D
> 70-200 IS
> 16-35 f2.8
> 100mm f2.8 macro
> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the
body and
> the 70-200. I see the following options:
>
> 1) Backpack
> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other
lenses. Issue
> with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well,
not
> everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>
> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and
all
> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of
this is
> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not
being
> used.
>
> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>
> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

I'm saving my pennies for a Billingham, probably one of the Classics,
upper mid-range size. It needs to hold two bodies, five lenses, flash,
some bits and pieces, batteries, charger, etc., but still has to fit in
an overhead rack or under a seat (preferred: I'm paranoid about theft).

Backpacks: I've hated them since I was in the USMC, but they also leave
you vulnerable to thieves with sharp knives and quick feet. Slit and
run.

My daily use is going to be a photo vest, and it's going to come soon.
I need a "local" transport deal, with a single camera, two lenses,
filters, extra batteries and CF cards. It seems to me that some version
of a vest does that best, while the big (and very costly) bag carts
everything you might need.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:44:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 665t6$25k$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

> The Nova 5 is 'lunchbag' style... big lunch.<<

Not for Americans, it isn't...
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:47:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

I find the LowePro Nova 4 is a nice snug fit for a camera body
with battery grip and an 80-200/2.8 mounted, with room for a few
extra accessories (or lenses) in the other niches.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:26:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

I have a Kata camera backpack that can hold most, but not all, of my
lenses. A backpack is handy if your shooting involves a lot of walking,
for example if you do nature stuff. If you're just going to a place,
taking out your stuff and using it, then putting it away and leaving,
a backpack probably isn't the way to go. I've been looking for a more
"traditional" bag to use for that.

I've started dealing with the "equipment overload" by just leaving
behind the stuff I know I won't be needing on that trip. If less
bulk is in order, I have a smaller backpack I use, too; if I'm going
to be doing "street shooting", for example, there isn't any need for
a long telephoto zoom, or just about any zoom for that matter, so
they stay behind, as do things like flashes and the macro lens.

A 70-200/2.8 with stabilization isn't exactly a "general purpose"
lens; you know when you're going to need it, and if you won't,
there's point in lugging the beast around.

Unless I really need to not be carrying anything, I'll generally
have my 50mm and 17-35/2.8 with me, and add onto that as needed.
But for street shooting, the 17-35 is likely to stay home, and
be replaced with a 35mm and 105mm, and maybe a fisheye. (The
35mm and 105mm are, together, about the same bulk as the 17-35,
which is another "beast" of a lens to deal with.)

I literally never use flashes unless I'm doing setup shots, so
those don't even have a place in my bag. They live with the
light stands and umbrellas.

I'm also trying to figure out a good way to carry a monopod when
walking in the city or someplace like that. I can hang it off my
small backpack, but then it swings around and threatens to clobber
people as I walk past. In the hand, it presents roughly the same
silhouette as a sawed-off shotgun, which hasn't caused me a problem
yet, but you never know these days. It won't fit inside my backpack
unless I remove the head, which makes it a bit less convenient.

If I just need to not be carrying much of anything, I'll usually
mount the 50mm and leave everything else in the car. Funny how
liberating it is, not having all those lenses to weigh down your
creativity.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:26:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Since switching to digital, I find my Domke F-1X bag is larger than what I
need. All my digital gear is smaller than the film gear it replaced. The
many exterior pockets were fine for carrying film canisters, but serve no
purpose now. Also, easy access bags, like Domkes, don't do anything to
protect from dust, and that has to be a concern. So, I too am on the lookout
for something else.

I like Lowepro's Reporter AW bags. The 400, and maybe the 500, seem well
sized for the type of gear I carry. I may get one of these, in combination
with something else.

I pretty much ruled out any backpack. It's too much of a pain to always have
to remove the pack everytime you need some little piece of kit. They also
seem universally designed to draw attention to their users - no problem on
some remote mountain top, but a big problem in urban areas.

If I were to get a backpack I'd probably settle for a Lowepro Rover Plus AW.
I like how it holds photo equipment in a seperate lower compartment, leaving
the upper portion for everything else. I wonder if that upper compartment
would fit a small laptop computer? In any event, it dosn't look as much like
a photo backpack. Have you seen the latest backpacks from Tamarac? What the
Hell were they thinking?! Ugly, and way too obvious!

Lowepro and Kenesis have a belt and pack system that I like from the aspect
of function - they work like military web gear, allowing you to add
different size and shape packs onto a carrying belt. It's an excellent idea,
but it calls too much attention to the user. Again, on a mountain top, no
problem, but I wouldn't wear a rig like that downtown.

What's the answer? Bag, backpack, belt pack? I don't know. Maybe a
combination of two or more, but that gets costly.

BTW, someone commented on Lowepro seeming amateurish. Not a chance. Where I
live, Lowepro has swept the market, including the local pros.

Rob
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:40:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Basic Wedge <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I pretty much ruled out any backpack. It's too much of a pain to always have
> to remove the pack everytime you need some little piece of kit. They also
> seem universally designed to draw attention to their users - no problem on
> some remote mountain top, but a big problem in urban areas.

Exactly -- that's why I switch to a regular little backpack from the
Gap when in the city. :) 

Just about everyone in the city is carrying something like it, and it
holds everything I need for that kind of walking around. It's just that
monopod that presents an issue...

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I use a Billingham 306 Presstop. It holds a ton of stuff!

D70
SB800 x2
70-200mmVR
105mm
12-24mm

I've got all this stuff crammed in there pretty good, but its safe. ONe
down side to a big bag is you fill it up! This damn thing gets heavy!!!
I would like something just for the camera, two lenses and a flash.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lowerpro makes a backpack that will hold 2 SLR's, a couple of lenses, a
flash, and a laptop computer, and all the stuff to go with the laptop
computer - and it will fit the airline carry on baggage size.

It is a bit on the pricey size, and sometimes you have to wait a couple
weeks for the stores to get it in. (It is a popular bag!)

If you are a medium format person ... you can put a medium format
system in it instead of the couple of digital SLR's.

It is a really nice bag. I just took it to Scotland with me... it just
looks like a backpack... but you can get all your camera and laptop
stuff in it. I still had enough room for a couple of personal items in
this bag.

Now all this stuff does make the backback a bit on the heavy side. It
does have a waist strap to help distribute wait, and there are some
ties to tie on tripods if you are going to be backpacking in the hills
shooting wildlife.

Someone really thought this one out.

roland
May 15, 2005 10:12:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.

I'd seriously consider a separate Pelican case just for the big lenses.
A couple of "L" lenses would amount to a significan fraction of my net
worth. $200 for a case wouldn't be out of line for these, and I'd
choose Pelican over anything else.
May 15, 2005 10:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3enkc4F43m2gU1@individual.net>,
Pentax Owner <zero@ziltch.com> wrote:

>> The Nova 5 is 'lunchbag' style... big lunch.<<
>
>Not for Americans, it isn't...

The most obese women I have ever seen in my life happened to be
Italians, living in Rome. (If you call that living...)

I want to accept the premise that "Americans are the fat ones", but
I know too many thin and healthy Americans, and I've seen too many
really fat Europeans.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 11:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vd6d81hgt5qqj1t03b4e8m5ssjqbmab8qu@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:04:00 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Musty"
> <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I bought a Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Camera Backpack to carry my:
>
> D70
> 70-200mm f/2.8 IF AF-S VR
> TC-20E-II
> If I don't need the long lens mounted I can add my CP-5700 as well. Just
> got an SB-800 speedlight and am trying to figure out how to add this.
>
> >2) Gadget bag + lens bag
>

I bought one too. My Lowepro Mini Trekker AW carries
D70
N90
N75
19-35 Zoom
28-70 Zoom
90 Macro
70-300 Zoom
500 Mirror Lens
SB-24 Strobe
Soligor Ringlight
Misc gadgets, film, batteries, and even the D70 instruction manual
!!!

Norm
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:00:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
> Musty wrote:
> snip
>>
>> 20D
>> 70-200 IS
>> 16-35 f2.8
>> 100mm f2.8 macro
>> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>>
>> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the
>> body and the 70-200. I see the following options:
>>
>> 1) Backpack
>> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other
>> lenses. Issue with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a
>> backpack - well, not everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>>
>> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
>> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag
>> and all the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag.
>> Drawback of this is that I always need to keep the body without a
>> lens, when it is not being used.
>>
>> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>>
>> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>
> I'm saving my pennies for a Billingham, probably one of the
> Classics,
> upper mid-range size. It needs to hold two bodies, five lenses,
> flash,
> some bits and pieces, batteries, charger, etc., but still has to fit
> in an overhead rack or under a seat (preferred: I'm paranoid about
> theft).
>

Billingham is a new one on me. Deserves a look.

> Backpacks: I've hated them since I was in the USMC, but they also
> leave you vulnerable to thieves with sharp knives and quick feet.
> Slit and run.
>

Last year I was convinced a backpack that allowed compartment access
without opening the whole and entire kit to the world for simple
extraction of one item, was the answer. I found and bought one-Domke
OutPackT-and it works fine. Gobbles up all the stuff I need on an
extended excursion, is a genuine backpack with frame and adjustable
harness, high quality, infinitely rearrangeable partitions, etc. It
will even accommodate the Tank Lens, if I leave out the clean shorts
and blow-dryer. BUT, and this is one of two BIG buts: it does scream
"expensive equipment". But #2: the temptation with such a capacious
carrier is to put stuff in it, just because I can. Then you got HEAVY.

Matter of personal ability to know the future: do I take "XXX" and
suffer the cargo penalty, or risk failure by leaving it at home.

Come to think of it, the backpack is kind of a home-away-from-home
arrangement: if there is a nearby safe storage place, you can range
about the landscape with a smaller shoulder bag or hip- fanny-
bum-pack.

The Domke OutPackT, discontinued (there must have been a reason) but
available in some outlets:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/65F3C0697AAB38D

> My daily use is going to be a photo vest, and it's going to come
> soon.
> I need a "local" transport deal, with a single camera, two lenses,
> filters, extra batteries and CF cards. It seems to me that some
> version of a vest does that best, while the big (and very costly)
> bag
> carts everything you might need.

I'm thinking about upgrading from my $14.95 Sports Authority
made-in-China fisherman's vest, which has served perfectly for a
couple years. The only improvement that seems worthwhile would be a
heavier-duty, better suspended from the shoulders, full-width pocket
in the lower back portion, accessible from one side or the other,
secure when closed, maybe padded, for the Tank Lens.

The vest with that feature and the others seen in most vests, and the
hip- fanny- bum-pack worn with the pouch in front, would just about
cover it, as far as I am concerned. I hope.

Anent the monopod problem: the Adorama Podmatic 90-dollar Linhof
knockoff with a mini-ball head, VelcroT-strapped to the lifting handle
of the Tamrac 707(?) hip-pack was unobtrusive and accessible
throughout a day's shooting. It's lightweight and works good:
http://www.adorama.com/TPP.html

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
-Calvin
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Avery wrote:
> I use a Billingham 306 Presstop. It holds a ton of stuff!
>
> D70
> SB800 x2
> 70-200mmVR
> 105mm
> 12-24mm
>
> I've got all this stuff crammed in there pretty good, but its safe.
ONe
> down side to a big bag is you fill it up! This damn thing gets
heavy!!!
> I would like something just for the camera, two lenses and a flash.

Yeah. I've been doing that recently, which is why I want the vest. One
camera, lens, lens in the vest along with flash and extra cars,
batteries, etc. Lock the rest in the car trunk or truck toolbox.

Right now, I'm using a Delsey Pro 66 (I think), advertised as a two
camera, three or four lens, flash bag. No bloody way. One camera, three
lenses, flash and damned little else. Well padded, to an extreme, so
it's bulky as a loaded diaper, and the idea of putting handles INSIDE
front and rear pouches is downright moronic. Well built, but I found
out quickly why it was on sale.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
>
> Anent the monopod problem: the Adorama Podmatic 90-dollar Linhof
> knockoff with a mini-ball head, VelcroT-strapped to the lifting
handle
> of the Tamrac 707(?) hip-pack was unobtrusive and accessible
> throughout a day's shooting. It's lightweight and works good:
> http://www.adorama.com/TPP.html
>

I'm going to cheat there, too. I've got a whole mass of cherry
purchased about six years ago, and I've already turned (lathe) two
walking sticks. They are two part, tripod screw top, brass 1" join
about the center. Fairly light (not as light as aluminum or carbon
fiber, of course), easy to stow, look a lot better than aluminum or CF.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:40:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Musty wrote:
>
> > Really??!!! I thought I looked quite pro-ish with my tri-pod bag!
Again,
> > shattered!
>
> A tripod only looks pro when there are only vestiges of its original
> finish...
>
> > The Nova 5 looks like a very good candidate right now....
> >
> > Thanks
> > Musty.
>
> You're very welcome.
>
Why on earth would you care whether or not you looked pro? Isn't it the
quality of work that matters, not the photographer's appearance?
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:04:00 GMT, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
>having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
>would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
>on the list)
>
>20D
>70-200 IS
>16-35 f2.8
>100mm f2.8 macro
>some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)

I have an very similar kit and use a Domke F2.

I have in it a 20D with one lens attached, 70-200L, 17-40L, 24-28L,
50mm F1.4, and 85mm F1.8 with three lens hoods, CF storage case,
cleaning gear. One trick is storing the body with lens on it down in
one of the padded holes. and letting the grip side fit over one of
the shorter primes.


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

">> I bought a Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Camera Backpack to carry my:
>>

I've got one, too. Nice thing about it is that everything is laid out flat,
so you're not digging for equipment at the bottom of a bag, and it holds a
camera with a long lens attached easily. Your arms are free, except when
you need to get something out of the pack, and my only complaint is that the
pack doesn't seem to conform to my back all that well.

Another good option is to wear the camera around your neck with the strap,
and use a large fanny pack to carry your other lenses and gear.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

james wrote:

> The most obese women I have ever seen in my life happened to be
> Italians, living in Rome. (If you call that living...)
>
> I want to accept the premise that "Americans are the fat ones", but
> I know too many thin and healthy Americans, and I've seen too many
> really fat Europeans.

I can assure you, given my extensive travel in Europe and the US and
elsewhere, that the US has significantly more obese people than anywhere
else. In particular, the northern midwest and southeast US are
particularly bad. Canada is pretty bad in places too, but not as bad as
the US.

Rent the docu-movie 'supersize me' to get a broad look at the US
problems which include school cafeterias that offer high carb lunches to
'complement' reduced phys-ed and recreational periods.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

james wrote:


> I'd seriously consider a separate Pelican case just for the big lenses.
> A couple of "L" lenses would amount to a significan fraction of my net
> worth. $200 for a case wouldn't be out of line for these, and I'd
> choose Pelican over anything else.

Not very volume efficient. Pelicans are really meant for shipping or
for carting equipment into rough areas by less than benign means. I
wouldn't use one for everyday outings. I've normally got about $10K of
bodies, glass and flashes in my bag. No prob, but I do like the padding
in my bag...

The only real problem with a "camera bag", as another poster alluded, is
that it can say to the world: come steal this expensive gear!.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 15, 2005 6:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 665t6$25k$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I use a Lowepro Nova 5 bag (shoulder strap) which holds two bodies, 5
> lenses (incl. an 80-200 f/2.8 tank and an 28-70 f/2.8) and two large
> flashes, a bunch of 72mm filters, angle finder, a bunch of film,
> lumi-quest, stofen, various doo-dads, gadgets, thingamajigs,
> whatchamacallits, quarters for phone calls and a band aid. I strap my
> meter to the back with caribiners, and carry a couple garbage bags in
> case of rain or to put the bag in before coming in from the bitter cold
> (or for you hot weather types, before exiting an air conditioned vehicle
> into humidity).

The Nova style bags look very promising and well priced too. Thanks for the
suggestion..

>
> I've had this bag for over 5 years, treated it with little affection and
> it is still very good looking and in perfect repair.
>
> Domke is another popular brand with photographers. Domke users says
> that "Lowepro screams amateur". Some people have complexes, I guess.
>
> (bag fight ! bag fight !)
>

I always thought that Lowepro was a pretty cool brand, and you have now
shattered that thought :-(

Well, I am an amatuer, so its probably fitting in this case ;-)

> >
<snip>
> >
> > (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>
> Screams amateur! I have one too, but I've never used it. I strap my
> small tripod to my bag. I use an 18 wheeler for the other tripod.
>

Really??!!! I thought I looked quite pro-ish with my tri-pod bag! Again,
shattered!

> >
> > What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>
> A big bag. Plan on room for doodads, etc. as described above.

The Nova 5 looks like a very good candidate right now....

Thanks
Musty.

>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> Really??!!! I thought I looked quite pro-ish with my tri-pod bag! Again,
> shattered!

A tripod only looks pro when there are only vestiges of its original
finish...

> The Nova 5 looks like a very good candidate right now....
>
> Thanks
> Musty.

You're very welcome.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 15, 2005 7:08:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Hello,
>
<snip>
> Thanks
> Musty.
>
>

Thanks everyone for all the inputs and suggestions. I think the backpack
idea is off the table. I am down to two choices now:

1) Go for a LowePro Nova or Domke F2 or similar:
Advantage: Will fit all my gear and future gear
Disadvantage: Not small or discreet, not suitable for casual street
shooting

2) Get a smaller bag that can house a a body with a mounted prime or 16-35
and only bring along the 70-200 IS tank lens when required (since it is not
general purpose)
Advantage: Compact (when not using the 70-200)
Disadvantage: Extra bags to carry when carrying 70-200 (or other
furture items)

I think I have the information now. I just need to think about my use model
and then make a decision.

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:44:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>
> Just about everyone in the city is carrying something like it, and it
> holds everything I need for that kind of walking around. It's just that
> monopod that presents an issue...
>

Try using it like a walking stick.

Sonrise
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:45:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
> Why on earth would you care whether or not you looked pro? Isn't it the
> quality of work that matters, not the photographer's appearance?

PST: Turn on your humor detector.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:48:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

> about the center. Fairly light (not as light as aluminum or carbon
> fiber, of course), easy to stow, look a lot better than aluminum or CF.

And the "look" results in better photographs?

(Payback or humor, you decide).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <118do045k2j0lab@corp.supernews.com>,
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:D 665t6$25k$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

[ ... ]

>> I use a Lowepro Nova 5 bag (shoulder strap) which holds two bodies, 5
>> lenses (incl. an 80-200 f/2.8 tank and an 28-70 f/2.8) and two large
>> flashes, a bunch of 72mm filters, angle finder, a bunch of film,
>> lumi-quest, stofen, various doo-dads, gadgets, thingamajigs,
>> whatchamacallits, quarters for phone calls and a band aid. I strap my
>> meter to the back with caribiners,

Hmm ... the carabiners are a good idea. I'll remember that one --
and probably use it as well.

[ ... ]

>I like my Lowepro Off Road for one body. Holds body with lens plus up to 4
>more lenses plus a bunch of small stuff.

While I set up a Lowepro (acquired with some other equipment
some years ago) with room for the body as well, I find that I keep the
camera (D70) and one lens out at all times (usually either the 28-105mm
f3.5-4.5D or the 50mm f1.4) and within reach. When I'm walking with the
camera and the bag, the bag goes on first, so the camera's strap is
unencumbered for a quick shot.

The bag turns out to be the "Elite III", FWIW -- with Velcro
relocatable partitions.

So -- the partitions have been set up in a triangular pattern,
making vertical cells for:

1) The 28-105mm mentioned above. (Or sometimes the 50mm f1.4,
depending on which is on the camera at the time.)

2) A 180mm f2.8 which has been CPU modified to allow the exposure
metering to work, even though it does not do the autofocus
(which I would like at times).

3) Two short lenses -- a 20mm f2.8 and a 16mm f.35 fisheye, both
without cpu chip. They are joined by a pair of back caps glued
together, so they are the same total height as the 180mm f2.8.
Both these lenses are AI lenses.

4) And -- a larger cell, which I had intended for the camera body,
but which now holds the SB-800 kit in its case, a couple of sets
of NiMH AA cells in their chargers, the charger for the D70s
battery, and its power cord. After, all -- the camera body
never lives in there.

5) A very skinny pouch at the back, in which the manuals for the
D70 and the SB-800 reside, in case I hit something that I
haven't yet read up on (or haven't recently enough read up on).

6) In the lid are loops intended for 35mm film cassettes. In them
I have:

a) Spare battery for the D70

b) Spare lexar 1GB 80X CF card in carrier.

c) carrier for the similar CF card which is currently in
the camera body.

7) And -- in the front pouch are:

a) The Gossen LunaPro exposure meter, for use with those
other lenses.

b) A bracket for mounting the flash in strange places at
need.

c) Polarizing filter for the 50mm f1.4. (Most of the
lenses have Tiffen "Hot Mirror" filters from the days
when I used these lenses on a Kodak/Nikon NC2000e/c
(N90s film camera converted to digital by Kodak for the
AP.)

Elsewhere, I have the 500mm f8 reflex Nikkor for when I need
really long shots -- and tripods for when that comes up.

And -- in its own case -- is the 200mm Medical Nikkor along with
the AS-15 PC flash adaptor to use with it.

I've got lots of other lenses around -- but they need AI
conversion before they will fit on the D70. I guess that it is time to
make up a list of them, to see how many still have the AI conversion
aperture ring available, and how many I am going to have to mark and
machine the existing aperture ring to convert them. (And how many of
those fall into a focal length range where I already have them covered.)

But that will call for a second bag (at least), if I do that. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.



--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:07:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Hello,
>
> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
> having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
> would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
> on the list)
>
> 20D
> 70-200 IS
> 16-35 f2.8
> 100mm f2.8 macro
> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body
> and
> the 70-200. I see the following options:
>
> 1) Backpack
> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses.
> Issue
> with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
> everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>
> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this is
> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
> used.
>
> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>
> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>
> Thanks
> Musty.
>
>
I carry a 20D, 28-135 IS, 100-400 IS (the same size as the 70-200), 100 f2,
17-35 f2.8-4 Sigma and a D30, plus 420EX, batteries, filters, etc. in a
Domke J2. Works admirably.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:08:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3nwhe.91423$h6.7469@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I
>> am
>> having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what
>> I
>> would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they
>> are
>> on the list)
>>
>> 20D
>> 70-200 IS
>> 16-35 f2.8
>> 100mm f2.8 macro
>> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>>
>> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body
> and
>> the 70-200. I see the following options:
>>
>> 1) Backpack
>> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses.
> Issue
>> with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
>> everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>>
>> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
>> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
>> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this
>> is
>> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
>> used.
>>
>> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>>
>> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Musty.
>>
>>
>
> Add a flash to that list.... (eg speedlite)
>
>
Didn't see the "mounted" part, but you can carry the camera with the lens
mounted in one of the dividers, a J1 may work better.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:06:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > about the center. Fairly light (not as light as aluminum or carbon
> > fiber, of course), easy to stow, look a lot better than aluminum or
CF.
>
> And the "look" results in better photographs?
>
> (Payback or humor, you decide).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I doubt it, but in today's world, who knows. I started using the staffs
because of bum knees, but didn't like those available, as I didn't care
for the dual use CF and aluminum models.

But at least it doesn't shriek "pro"! It just looks good, period,
unless you don't care for cherry wood.
May 16, 2005 8:23:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d684f6$fsh$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I can assure you, given my extensive travel in Europe and the US and
>elsewhere, that the US has significantly more obese people than anywhere
>else. In particular, the northern midwest and southeast US are
>particularly bad.

The two regions least traveled by me, and also, the least representative
of what I consider the US. Thanks for the insight.
May 16, 2005 8:24:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1116189625.263158.233610@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:

>Why on earth would you care whether or not you looked pro? Isn't it the
>quality of work that matters, not the photographer's appearance?

May make a difference when you're shopping for gigs, return business, etc.
People do base a lot of decisions on appearances.
May 16, 2005 8:28:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d68ci6$sbp$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>And the "look" results in better photographs?

It might, if the right look gets you through the right gate, onto the
right transportation, etc.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:22:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>> Why on earth would you care whether or not you looked pro? Isn't it
>>> the quality of work that matters, not the photographer's appearance?
>>
>>
>> PST: Turn on your humor detector.
>
>
> Of course appearance is not _entirely_ immaterial: don't you treat
> obviously 'professional' shooters differently from the way you treat
> interloping 'amateurs', in some circumstances? You may never have more
> opportunity than that cursory glance to generate an evaluation before
> making possibly important decisions.

All people in all circumstances are subject to first impressions, so if
one behaves in an unsure, nervous manner, they are likely to be branded
as an interloper. If one caries an F65 with a kit lens, they might fool
some, but they won't fool knowledgeable customers.

Most pro photogs I know or have met are very unobtrusive, mission
oriented, business oriented people. They are often very ordinary
looking in all respects.

IAC, it's not whether you look like a pro, but whether your images look
professional.

On that note, I did meet a fellow who shot weddings as a hobby and part
time businees. He began this with a 'zlr' camera. I was more than
taken aback, but looking through his wedding portfolio, the quality of
the prints, the exposure, composition, communication and capture of the
important elements of the wedding day were very convincing. He
eventually got a DSLR for these digital weddings, but he proved the
point that it's the quality of the work effort that is important. Last
time I chatted with this amateur is about 15 months ago, and he had a
dozen weekends of weddings lined up for the spring/summer.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 15 May 2005 17:42:53 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

> While I set up a Lowepro (acquired with some other equipment
<...>
> The bag turns out to be the "Elite III", FWIW -- with Velcro
>relocatable partitions.

<snip description of how used>

From the description of your use of it, this sounds like it might be an
ideal bag, but I can't seem to find any current mention of it on the web
(you did say you got it a while back).

If you (or anyone else) know, what would be the closest equivalent in their
current line-up please?

Thanks.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:22:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I'm not sure I'm understanding the security concerns about a backpack.
I have a little Tamrac Expedition 5 which looks pretty much like the
four or five non-photo backpacks I have. It holds my D70 w/kit lens,
70-300, 100 macro, 50 standard, large pack of close-up lenses for the
kit lens and a smaller pack of close-up lenses for the 100 macro that
never get used. Sigma 500 flash, AA charger & spare batteries for it,
two spare camera batteries and charger, flash cards, manuals, cleaning
gear, cables, remote, 2 lens hoods, and some other manuals. Pack and
all equipment weigh 13 pounds even, which is very comfortable to carry
with the carry handle for short distances and almost unnoticed carried
on the back. Since I usually set out to do one thing or another, the
camera is around my neck with the lens mounted that applies to the days
intended task. In other words, having to take off the backpack to fish
for equipment only happens now and then. It's all weather and about as
dust resistant as anything else I've seen. It has a modular system to
add more space, which might make it look more inviting to a thief once
you cover it in little things that look like ammo pouches. Also, if
you hang a tripod from the straps intended for that use, it would then
be obvious what it is, but the bag itself is pretty run of the mill
looking, well padded and holds everything I need.

Regarding the sharp knifed and fleet footed thief, I would think that
cutting through two heavy shoulder straps, a heavy waist belt and chest
strap of a guy with two free hands would be more challenging than one
over the shoulder strapped guy with a sore shoulder and a hand wrapped
around the bag to keep it from banging into everything? YMMV. Of
course, any efforts to look low key might be negated by the one to
eight thousand dollar camera hanging around your neck, even carrying a
brown paper sack.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:34:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kitt wrote:
Snip
>
> Regarding the sharp knifed and fleet footed thief, I would think that
> cutting through two heavy shoulder straps, a heavy waist belt and
chest
> strap of a guy with two free hands would be more challenging than one
> over the shoulder strapped guy with a sore shoulder and a hand
wrapped
> around the bag to keep it from banging into everything? YMMV. Of
> course, any efforts to look low key might be negated by the one to
> eight thousand dollar camera hanging around your neck, even carrying
a
> brown paper sack.

The concept you have is nice, but not what I was writing about. The guy
or gal walks up on one side, while his or her partner is nearby on the
other. First one there slits the bottom of the bag and the other grabs
what falls out. Both run and if you chase everything else falls on the
ground.

But for many people, ANY mostly black camera with a moderately large
lens equates to big bucks, even if it is worth only $150 or so, as was
the case with my old Minolta.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the
issue I am
> > having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is
what I
> > would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but
they are
> > on the list)
> >
> > 20D
> > 70-200 IS
> > 16-35 f2.8
> > 100mm f2.8 macro
> > some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
> >
> > I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the
body
> > and
> > the 70-200. I see the following options:
> >
> > 1) Backpack
> > This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other
lenses.
> > Issue
> > with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack -
well, not
> > everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
> >
> > 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> > This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag
and all
> > the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of
this is
> > that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not
being
> > used.
> >
> > (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
> >
> > What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Musty.
>
>
> Kata R-103.


I liked the look of those.. I think. Isn't that the one made by the
two retired Israeli Defense Force guys? IIRC, they have no external
markings and are built very well built for rugged use. I only got the
Tamrac because it offered the most for the least money. I think if
price were no object, I'd get a Kata.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:53:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Musty wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
> > having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
> > would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
> > on the list)
> >
> > 20D
> > 70-200 IS
> > 16-35 f2.8
> > 100mm f2.8 macro
> > some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I use a Lowepro Nova 5 bag (shoulder strap) which holds two bodies, 5
> lenses (incl. an 80-200 f/2.8 tank and an 28-70 f/2.8) and two large
> flashes, a bunch of 72mm filters, angle finder, a bunch of film,
> lumi-quest, stofen, various doo-dads, gadgets, thingamajigs,
> whatchamacallits, quarters for phone calls and a band aid. I strap my
> meter to the back with caribiners, and carry a couple garbage bags in
> case of rain or to put the bag in before coming in from the bitter cold
> (or for you hot weather types, before exiting an air conditioned vehicle
> into humidity).
>
> I've had this bag for over 5 years, treated it with little affection and
> it is still very good looking and in perfect repair.

I used to have one of these, along with a Nova 3. Good bags for the
price, if you like the type. My problem with the Nova 5 was that I
could fit more gear in it than I could reasonably hang from my shoulder
:) 

The Nova 3 might work well for Musty.

>
> Domke is another popular brand with photographers. Domke users says
> that "Lowepro screams amateur". Some people have complexes, I guess.
>
> (bag fight ! bag fight !)

Domke, as you know but Musty might not, is just a fundamentally
different approach to the problem of carrying photo gear. I don't think
you can truly understand what a Domke is about without trying one. The
way they softly fit themselves around your gear and to your body. The
simple strap that's supremely comfortable. The speed and convenience of
working out of one.

After I got a Domke, I got another one and basically stopped using
anything else for a camera kit bag.

Lisa
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:01:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
>
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> <snip>
> > Thanks
> > Musty.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks everyone for all the inputs and suggestions. I think the backpack
> idea is off the table. I am down to two choices now:
>
> 1) Go for a LowePro Nova or Domke F2 or similar:
> Advantage: Will fit all my gear and future gear
> Disadvantage: Not small or discreet, not suitable for casual street
> shooting

A Domke F3X will also hold the kit you describe, and is small enough to
be an everyday bag.

Or an F4 will hold everything and more, and then some more after that.

I like the F series Domke bags better than the J series because I like
one clip for the top flap rather than two, and I like the more square
shape better.

One nice characteristic of the canvas Domke bags is that because they
are soft, they take on the shape of the equipment inside. Less
equipment, less outer size.


Lisa
May 17, 2005 2:16:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1116275684.818434.60870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:

>The concept you have is nice, but not what I was writing about. The guy
>or gal walks up on one side, while his or her partner is nearby on the
>other. First one there slits the bottom of the bag and the other grabs
>what falls out.

You should try this; try to cut ballistic nylon with a razor knife.
A good bag will have a matrix of steel or something strong like that as
well. Everything in your photo bag is hopefully form-fitted in foam
and/or strapped down; stuff shouldn't be just piled in the bottom
anyway.

A pickpocket with the balls to do what you describe will probably just
pull the bag over the top of your head, along with your shirt/jacket,
which will blind you and incapacitate you for the few seconds they need
to run away. I've been jacked that way once. What they got was a ratty
duffel bag with dirty clothes that I'd been camping in. Everything I
had of value at that moment was securely in the waist band of my pants.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:16:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

james wrote:

> In article <1116275684.818434.60870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The concept you have is nice, but not what I was writing about. The guy
>>or gal walks up on one side, while his or her partner is nearby on the
>>other. First one there slits the bottom of the bag and the other grabs
>>what falls out.
>
>
> You should try this; try to cut ballistic nylon with a razor knife.
> A good bag will have a matrix of steel or something strong like that as
> well. Everything in your photo bag is hopefully form-fitted in foam
> and/or strapped down; stuff shouldn't be just piled in the bottom
> anyway.

Sheesh! My lenses are in the bottom and top compartment of my bag.
They are not 'form' fitted, just snug, sometime two lenses butted end to
end with padding at each end. The bottom of the bag is a dense rubber
matt, on top of which is a plastic plate, on top of which is the bak
shell, foam and inner shell. No 'slash' attack witll get through it in
a hurry.

"a matrix of steel"? What for? It's a bag. If you're afraid of theft
in a city or on a train you can get a stainless steel mesh bag to put
the camera bag in and lock the bag to your bike, pole, train seat,or ..
whatever. http://www.pac-safe.com/

>
> A pickpocket with the balls to do what you describe will probably just
> pull the bag over the top of your head, along with your shirt/jacket,

Unlikely.

> which will blind you and incapacitate you for the few seconds they need
> to run away. I've been jacked that way once. What they got was a ratty
> duffel bag with dirty clothes that I'd been camping in. Everything I
> had of value at that moment was securely in the waist band of my pants.

A common theft in Asia is the motorcycle slash and run. Two actors who
use a knife to cut away the bag (strap) and get away on a motorbike.
Use the mesh device from above, plus:
http://www.pac-safe.com/product.aspx?pId=653 and you're well covered.

While money belts are fine for passports, cash and other things, they
are not particularly good at 80-200 f/2.8 lenses, etc.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:16:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Qlwhe.91416$h6.71944@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Hello,
>
> I recently acquired a tank-like lens (the EF 70-200 IS) and the issue I am
> having is what is the best way to carry my gear. Typically, this is what I
> would want to carry (note that I dont have all this gear yet, but they are
> on the list)
>
> 20D
> 70-200 IS
> 16-35 f2.8
> 100mm f2.8 macro
> some prime (maybe 50mm f1.4 or something)
>
> I can see that the usual "lunch-box" style bags will not house the body
> and
> the 70-200. I see the following options:
>
> 1) Backpack
> This will see to fit a 20D with a mounted 70-200 and the other lenses.
> Issue
> with this is that I now have to go everywhere with a backpack - well, not
> everywhere, but anytime I want to shoot.
>
> 2) Gadget bag + lens bag
> This option involves keeping the 70-200 in its supplied canon bag and all
> the other goodies in the "lunch-box" style gadget bag. Drawback of this is
> that I always need to keep the body without a lens, when it is not being
> used.
>
> (Note: I have a tripod bag already)
>
> What are people using for this type of "problem" - ie a big lens.
>
> Thanks
> Musty.


Kata R-103.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:19:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Kitt" wrote ...

> I'm not sure I'm understanding the security concerns about a backpack.

Most backpack users I've seen use their backpack as a sort of base camp.
They set it down, and leave it whilst they go about their business. I've
never observed any problems with that sort of method, but its not difficult
to imagine where things could go badly wrong. I like having my gear close at
hand. Charlie's suggestion of a photo vest is winning renewed favour in my
mind. I can't, however, agree with his concerns about thieves slashing open
a backpack and waiting for the contents to spill out. I wonder if anyone
could cite a case where that has actually happened. Thieves tend to be dumb,
lazy, and largely opportunistic. The senario discribed by Charlie sounds
like it would involve too much thought to be a concern.

I'd also like to add my two cents worth to the discussion of whether it's of
value to look like a pro. In my experience the answer is always yes. I have
found people go out of their way to accommodate anyone they perceive as
being a professional photographer. Our's is one of the few vocations to
still enjoy the respect of the public at large.

Rob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <69ug811590s8vmdn7p20oapu3lnvh8os3m@4ax.com>,
Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
>On 15 May 2005 17:42:53 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
>
>> While I set up a Lowepro (acquired with some other equipment
><...>
>> The bag turns out to be the "Elite III", FWIW -- with Velcro
>>relocatable partitions.
>
><snip description of how used>
>
>From the description of your use of it, this sounds like it might be an
>ideal bag, but I can't seem to find any current mention of it on the web
>(you did say you got it a while back).

Not only quite a while back, but I am the third owner. I got it
from the estate of a friend, with a 5" Celestron telescope and
accessories packaged in it. The Celestron and bad had been bought by
him from someone bringing in used equipment for a trade-in. He passed
on sometime around 1985, I think, and it was old already. It has inked
in a couple of spots the SSN of the original owner, as does the
Celestron have the SSN scratched into its body.

The Celestron also has the hard plastic case, which is what it
lives in now.

>If you (or anyone else) know, what would be the closest equivalent in their
>current line-up please?

The best that I can do is to give you the dimensions (in inches)
of the bag. 11W x 8D x 8H outside, perhaps an inch total less on the
inside.

The front pouch ads perhaps another inch.

It has the usual strap and a handgrip in the center.

It has a pair of plastic snap buckles on short straps, to hold
the top mostly closed when the zippers are opened.

There is a long horizontal pocket on the back which a waist
strap could go through -- and which might have been a part of it
originally, but not when I got it.

no provisions for strapping a tripod to it, but it is a bit short
for that anyway.

The inside has Velcro (pile side) on the inside front and back,
and at certain areas on the partitions. All of the partitions have
flaps on the ends with the hook part of the Velcro on them, to allow you
to set them up in various formats.

I hope that the dimensions help you to select what you want.
Perhaps looking at what Lowe-Pro sells now -- or perhaps you should
check for the older ones on eBay, as someone probably has just outgrown
one, and unlike me, does not keep things until a use for them comes back
around. :-)

Good Luck,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
!