Murchu
Well-known
I know a lot of you also have dslr's, and wondering for those of you perhaps with D200/ D300 size bodies, what you use to carry them.
Seems all my bags, while the perfect size for my M3, Rolleicord, or even smaller dslr (D80), that my D300 is just big or rather tall and chunky enough to be an awkward fit. Like many, I like as little bag as possible, which seems to go against the trend among dslr owners of tethering everything they possibly own to their back in some sort of bag that makes carry on luggage look small.
I like to travel light enough when I bring out my D300, and my bag needs would be for something that would take my D300 with either walkabout zoom/ normal prime, zoom and prime, or perhaps in the future 2- 3 primes sometimes.
Cheers in advance..
Seems all my bags, while the perfect size for my M3, Rolleicord, or even smaller dslr (D80), that my D300 is just big or rather tall and chunky enough to be an awkward fit. Like many, I like as little bag as possible, which seems to go against the trend among dslr owners of tethering everything they possibly own to their back in some sort of bag that makes carry on luggage look small.
I like to travel light enough when I bring out my D300, and my bag needs would be for something that would take my D300 with either walkabout zoom/ normal prime, zoom and prime, or perhaps in the future 2- 3 primes sometimes.
Cheers in advance..
kshapero
South Florida Man
It really depends on what size lens(es) you use and want in your bag. BTW if you want to take "walkabout zoom/ normal prime, zoom and prime", you better have some muscles.
Murchu
Well-known
Ah, its not too bad with a 16-85 or 35mm f2. Not as svelte as my M3 & Sonnar for sure, but the files I get out of it encourage me to bring it for a walk..
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have a D7000. Carry a CV 20 and a Nikkor 50/1.8. Small, light and tolerable.
Murchu
Well-known
Yeah, the body's usually the worst, in terms of weight alright. Unless you have a penchant to hang telescopes off them, lol. That said, looking back through some of my best shots, its unfortunately become clear it is actually worth it to lug some of my heavier kit, just judging on the basis of results :bang:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Enjoy. It is all good.
-doomed-
film is exciting
I carry mine in a Domke F3x. It holds a D200, 11-16 2.8, 80-200 2.8, and 35-70 2.8 along with an SB-24 flash. I had the D200 with the grip attached and now I have D7000, which isn't much smaller than the D200. It works well, but is fairly heavy. I don't carry all of it though. I find that for the work I do the 35-70 and the 80-200 with the D7000 fits perfectly in the bag.
kxl
Social Documentary
I have pretty much settled on 3 alternatives for a bag:
1) a small Thinktank bag - Perspective 10 or Urban Disquise 30 - for small, lightweight gear.
2) a medium sized Thnktank bag - Perspective 20 or equivalent Urban Disguise -- for shoulder-carry DSLR/SLR gear.
3) a backpack - for when I want to carry f2.8 zooms, macro gear, etc... in fact, for any gear that would be too heavy for a shoulder bag.
I do have other bags but never use them anymore, and will likely be selling them.
1) a small Thinktank bag - Perspective 10 or Urban Disquise 30 - for small, lightweight gear.
2) a medium sized Thnktank bag - Perspective 20 or equivalent Urban Disguise -- for shoulder-carry DSLR/SLR gear.
3) a backpack - for when I want to carry f2.8 zooms, macro gear, etc... in fact, for any gear that would be too heavy for a shoulder bag.
I do have other bags but never use them anymore, and will likely be selling them.
Murchu
Well-known
Some nice bags, pity about the prices, I think I would just have an aversion to spending something like $180 on a small shoulder bag.
I used something like a Lowepro Top Loader zoom, when I got my first dslr years ago, and may look into something like that again, a bag that would rest against the body/ back of the hip and be easily available.
The D300 due to its height, just seems to need extra clearance than my existing bags allow at the moment. Other bags at the moment being a Domke F-5XA and a Domke F-5XB.
Thanks again for any suggestions, and any more appreciated.
Range-rover
Mentor
I use a Nikon D200 and use the Lowepro reporter series bags,
I also have a Crumpler bag which is nice but I like the lowepro's
better. Enjoy your Nikon stuff I just got back into Nikon as well
and really like it. the picture's have more or a film like quality
to them that the Canon didn't have, also check out the 35mm
f1.8 lens it's really sharp.
Range
I also have a Crumpler bag which is nice but I like the lowepro's
better. Enjoy your Nikon stuff I just got back into Nikon as well
and really like it. the picture's have more or a film like quality
to them that the Canon didn't have, also check out the 35mm
f1.8 lens it's really sharp.
Range
Murchu
Well-known
Yes, have the older version of that lens, the 35mm f2, and it has always been my go to Nikon lens, when I need light, fast and flexible. Has the nice advantage of being able to be used on a film/ full frame body if I ever need, but would consider the 35mm f1.8 if I ever used one of the smaller Nikon bodies with no built in AF motor.
In any case, seems my own bag and daily kit preferences are a lot lighter than many here, as the D300 & 16-85 or D300 & 35 is about the limit of what I will lug around at any given time. To that end, I have been using my Domke F-5XA, which fits the D300 & 16-85 nicely enough if I remove the internal divider, and slip the camera in on its side. Much closer to what I am willing to lug around, and will go with this setup until I find something just as small that fits all my needs for the Nikon kit. The D300 & 16-85 fit nicely, but the D300 & 35 or D300 & 2 primes does not fit so well.
jonasv
has no mustache
Domke F-3x here, like another poster above.
Carries D7000 with prime lens mounted, 28-70/2.8, another prime, and my X100 (equivalent size of a small zoom lens).
Then there is some space left for wallet, memory cards, ...
Carries D7000 with prime lens mounted, 28-70/2.8, another prime, and my X100 (equivalent size of a small zoom lens).
Then there is some space left for wallet, memory cards, ...
peter_n
Mentor
I had a Fuji S5 which is built inside a D200 body, and a 17-55/2.8 Nikkor. I just bought a new insert for my Domke F-2 and it fit in there just fine.
Murchu
Well-known
That's good to know. I found the 17-55 a stunning lens, and unfortunately one worth suffering the weight for, lol. I sold mine a while back, and use a 16-85 right now, and must say replacing it with the 17-55 has been on my mind on and off for the last year. Seems I want the wide aperture & the VR and increased focal range!
Seriously though, the 17-55 is the only lens that colour images have popped out to me from the screen, and probably the only lens I would be prepared to put up with the weight for, lol.
peter_n
Mentor
Yes my 17-55 is better at both ends than the Tokina 17/3.5 and Nikkor 50 primes. A really quite incredible lens. I've very regretfully sold the S5 and replaced it with a mirrorless camera that I can use with my Leica lenses. Probably going to sell all my Nikon lenses too. That 17-55 weighs a ton!
Pablito
coco frío
domke f2........
nobbylon
Mentor
I use a Billingham hadley pro for a carry around every day bag. D700 with a 24-70 including the huge hood. Enough room for shades, money and an LX3 in pockets.
For jobs I use a 445. Takes the lot, 2 bodies, 85, 24-70, 70-200, 2x sb's and wizards. pockets galore for batteries, cards etc.
For jobs I use a 445. Takes the lot, 2 bodies, 85, 24-70, 70-200, 2x sb's and wizards. pockets galore for batteries, cards etc.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've been using a Domke F4AF for years to drag around a body (first an F3 with MD4, then a F4e, then a D1, then a D70, now a D300 + MB10) with an 18-70, a 80-200/2.8, a SB800 plus odds and ends. It's a comfortable fit.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
For casual shoting (Body + 1 lens) any bag, usually a South America Native American "Mochila" with the camera inside a plastic bag, for a trip Domke F2, two bodies, two zoom lenses, two flashes, two triggers plus a smallish tripod bag, two stands a light tripod three umbrellas (that's more than most bring but I feel perfectly ok with that unless I have to hike), if I have to hike the same stuff in a LowePro backpack, for work much more not really worth mentioning here in rigid bags.
In any case there is not just a single answer to this question. Try out few outfits and be sure the stuff is confortable for you. The only bags I would not recommend are the ones which go on one side of the body but are rigid (like ballistic nilon over a semirigid core), everything else could or could not work depending on your taste, how many lenses you bring and how heavy they are and for how long you plan to walk and on which type of terrain.
As I wrote, I have and use LowePro products and they are good quality but so far the best line for me is the Domke. It seems like those who designed all the other lines wanted to make stuff which looks cool but Domke Designers actually use their bags and take pictures (or maybe they just listen what photographers suggest to them).
GLF
In any case there is not just a single answer to this question. Try out few outfits and be sure the stuff is confortable for you. The only bags I would not recommend are the ones which go on one side of the body but are rigid (like ballistic nilon over a semirigid core), everything else could or could not work depending on your taste, how many lenses you bring and how heavy they are and for how long you plan to walk and on which type of terrain.
As I wrote, I have and use LowePro products and they are good quality but so far the best line for me is the Domke. It seems like those who designed all the other lines wanted to make stuff which looks cool but Domke Designers actually use their bags and take pictures (or maybe they just listen what photographers suggest to them).
GLF
Murchu
Well-known
A great lens alright, which easily held its own against my 20mm f2.8 AF-D, 35mm f2 AF-D, and 50mm f1.4 AF-D. Lot of flexibilty in one package, if not a little heavy. Fantastic lens for colour I found, with colour files jumping off the screen at me. I'm in 2 minds whether to pick one up again, as the 16-85 I have in its place offers a lot too, but lacks that faster aperture, and that x-factor the 17-55 seemed to have. Not having the budget to put my money where my mouth is, is probably easing my dilemma though, lol.