Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

What bags does everyone use?
#51

Uli,
The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS comes with a useful zip-up nylon case, but my other L lenses (including the 70-200 f/4L) all came with the soft suede pouch that you got with your 24-70. I think it's a bit like tripod lens collars - only some of the white lenses get them included.
Here's a pic of the lens + case I found on google - it has a nice strong loop at the back to attach it to a belt or strap.
[Image: 9424.jpg]

matthew Wrote:The 6M is bulky to carry around. There's no real way around that -- it's a big bag that fits a massive amount of stuff, so it needs to be boxy and big.
I didn't think this Mathew - I think I'm with Luke here. I was surprised just how non-bulky my 7m bag was, and the 6m bag is even less so. I'd definately say it's roomy, but not bulky.

Another bag I have is a Micro Trekker AW backpack - quite similar to the Micro Trekker 200 Irma posted a photo of above but a bit bigger. It carries a little bit more gear than the Crumpler 7m home, but it is quite a lot bulkier. It's great if you particularly want a backpack, and it does offer a bit more padding and better security. Although the crumpler (being a sling-type bag) is much more convenient when you are walking around and need to constantly change lenses, etc. Also the nylon and velcro surfaces on the Micro Trekker tend to put scuff marks on lens hoods a bit while the crumpler has a lovely soft finish inside.

Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Reply
#52

Here's a couple of photos that may give a better idea of the size and capacity of the Crumpler 6M, especially when combined with Irma's photo. The backpack that I have is the same model, so here's the full camera/lens capacity of the 6M in both bags:

[Image: matthewpiers2007-230854-websm.jpg]

[Image: matthewpiers2007-230856-websm.jpg]

The long lens is the Olympus 35-100 f/2, which is a bit bigger than the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS in Kombi's photo. The camera on the back of it is the E-510, which is probably about the same size as a Rebel, and the camera with the grip is the E-1 which is about the same size as the 5D.

When everything's in the crumpler, you can see that only the 35-100 is close to the top of the bag. There's a lot of space on the top that gives some flexibility for the mesh pocket; I usually carry my folding reflector/grey card here. I could probably stack lenses, and I'm not using all of the dividers, so there is plenty of different configurations available.

The backpack takes everything assembled, with room for a small lens left over. My standard zoom will fit if I reverse the hood, but my flash is too big.

Both bags hold a massive amount of stuff. Me saying that the 6M is bulky isn't a criticism -- a bag that holds large things needs to be large, and a padded bag will be larger still. That's what almost everyone wants in a camera bag. But compared to my essentially unpadded Domke, it doesn't hold as much as the exterior dimensions make me wish it would -- again, most people like their camera bags padded -- and it doesn't feel as natural to carry because it doesn't conform to the contents or the carrier. They both have their roles; the Domke's a great carry-all, and the Crumpler's a safe place for me to put a pair of $2K lenses. But if I could only use one bag, I'd give up the padding in favour of wearability and take a Domke that would fit the big glass.

...or a Think Tank "Glass Taxi". I have to keep reminding myself that I already have too many really nice camera bags... Big Grin

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#53

I think I don't want a backpack, too "stop and go" as someone said before. However, with more gear, and thus more weight, the sling bags get less comfortable to carry, not even to mention a regular shoulder strap.... Sometimes I think I am just to small for my gear, something people said about Diane Arbus, too.

Smile

Uli
Reply
#54

I just picked up a Lowepro Microtrekker, which i'm extremely happy with. Fits all my gear with room left over, and carries a tripod, which was the most important thing.

Sony A700/ 16-80mm / 70-300mm / 11-18 mm / 100mm macro

My Flickr page
Reply
#55

That might be like mine then or like G's... I like mine a lot. It looks a little bit small on me I must say... but still I like it... Smile

[Image: 602854721_804993bfb7.jpg]

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#56

what can you fit into a loweprow micortrekker?
Reply
#57

Hi Uli,

I posted for you a picture of my bag with all things I can fit on it... Probably you didn't see it, as it is the post #50 in this thread (page 2)...

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#58

I just realised from that photo that that's the same bag you have, Irma.

Sony A700/ 16-80mm / 70-300mm / 11-18 mm / 100mm macro

My Flickr page
Reply
#59

I took that with me when I went to Mexico and I was very happy with it.

Time ago I used to go out shooting with almost all my gear. It was so difficult because I had to carry a lot.
Now I think what will I take and what will I need for that photography and I take one or two lenses and not more. I think working with ony one lens helps a lot to conentrate on what you are doing specially your compositions.

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#60

wulinka Wrote:what can you fit into a loweprow microtrekker?
It's funny that Irma, Rabid Penguin, and myself are all using the same bags. Mine has an unusual setup as I use it to carry two large camera/lens combinations; Irma's photo shows a much more flexible arrangement. The bag is self is quite small -- Uli-sized? Big Grin -- being only 35cm tall and 30cm across. I agree with the start/stop problems of using a backpack instead of a shoulder bag, and I like to be able to walk with my camera in hand. But as a way of carrying a lot of heavy gear it can't be matched by a shoulder bag. I used my microtrekker on my Across-America tour, and it was small enough to stay with me in buses, planes, and cars, but padded and strong enough that I could stow it when I needed to.

I just discovered that I can fit nearly every lens that I own into my Crumpler bag without changing a single divider. I have to stack things, and it weighs nearly seven kilos, but I'll never need to decide what to bring again. Too bad -- I was looking at buying a Domke satchel, and now I can't justify it. Sad

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#61

For the past year, I've used the 7-M-D-home. It can hold so much, but can start to hurt your shoulder and back when you carry it all day. It's much more convenient to use than the backpack I have (R-103). So at the beginning of this year, when I went for a trip, I used the backpack to carry all my gear to the place, then swapped to the 7-M-D-Home to bring around the city Big Grin
Reply
#62

I'd take a photo of my microtrekker fully loaded, except then the camera wouldn't be in it, cause i'd be taking the photo. (i don't have anotherc camera)

Sony A700/ 16-80mm / 70-300mm / 11-18 mm / 100mm macro

My Flickr page
Reply
#63

Smalll leather-looking Case Logic bag holds my Kodak, HP cameras and the WiCon for the Kodak plus batteries.

Nikon D3100 with Tokina 28-70mm f3.5, (I like to use a Vivitar .43x aux on the 28-70mm Tokina), Nikkor 10.5 mm fisheye, Quanteray 70-300mm f4.5, ProOptic 500 mm f6.3 mirror lens. http://donschaefferphoto.blogspot.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by a2zidxdotcom
Mar 30, 2014, 03:50
Last Post by spareno
Sep 4, 2013, 08:14

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)