The Online Photographer

Following up on all our bag discussions from last week, I was hyper-conscious of my old Billingham bag on my trip just past, and I have to say that it really doesn't measure up very well against the hypothetical ideal of a perfect bag. It's clunky, clumsy to get into and batten down again (the single central zipper, even after you unsnap and un-flap and delve down to its layer, does not afford ideal entry and egress), and it is, I have to say, ill-fitting for the equipment I want to carry. For instance, it has slit compartments on both sides that can be used for flat electronic devices (iPad and Kindle, in my case), but in both cases there's no padding between the device and the outside layer of canvas. These days a bag with a slot that's actually designed to carry and protect electronic devices would be better.

I hate to give up 25 years' worth of patina, but a new bag might really do a lot better for my travels. I don't think there's anywhere I can go locally to see Think Tank Photo bags, but I think I'm in the market. Especially if I get a laptop (a.k.a. lapdog).

Bear in mind that mine isn't the perfect Billingham for modern times; I think mine is a 225, although it doesn't say anywhere on it what it is. One of the Hadleys could well be much better configured for my current use.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stephen McCullough: "If we can convince people to stop innovating then our bags will last longer. Imagine if there were no Kindles or iPads? How cool would that be? But they do exist, and are essential to modern survival(!).

"I have a black Hadley Pro. It has a nice safe place for my iPad, and very easy, silent access. It melds to my body, which is one of the reasons I chose it over a Think Tank, which are also great bags. The Hadley carries all that I need: typically an X-Pro1, three or four lenses, and sometimes a second smaller body.

"Oh, and like all desirable gear it has made me a better photographer...."

Gordon Lewis: "This post confirms what I thought when I read your first Billingham bag post: 'If you hardly ever use it, then any bag is durable and any one is just as good as the next.' Unfortunately, it takes some trial and error to discover exactly what you want and need in a bag. For me it's small size, light weight, and ease of access. For someone else it might be the ability to drop the bag out of a two-story window without damaging the contents. The bag you might choose for a two week trip to France would be very different from one you'd use for a two-hour walk around town. That's why there are so many of the damned things."

Ben Rosengart: "It's your blog, Mike, but I gotta say I liked it a lot better when it wasn't all bags all the time."

Mike replies: It's just bags from here on out. What can I say? Bags are my passion, and I don't care about anything else but bags. Gotta follow your heart.

A few more thoughts on bags, before we leave that topic (not a usual one for us—normally I don't cover bags):

Most-used bags
Consider that my most important "camera bags" have been these:

• A clear plastic bag I keep folded up and tucked in my back pocket. The current type I use are sold in boxes at the grocery story labeled "Food & Bread Bags," and don't have any sort of closure. A box of them costs a dollar or two. Why these? Just in case I'm caught out in the rain carrying a valuable camera. Stick the bag over the camera, and it stays dry.

• A soiled and well-worn brown craft-paper grocery sack of the type you can still get at most any non-specialty grocery store. When I was photographing in D.C., half for freelance and half for art, I'd keep my camera in this old grocery bag sitting in plain view on the front seat of my ratty '87(?) Mazda 323. Thieves will seldom break into a car to see what's in a soiled old grocery sack with the top rolled closed. Some trash strewn about the interior of the car helped fortify the ambiance of total worthlessness*.

Padding
An important point, brought up by a commenter: cheaper cameras need better bags. Cheap cameras are frail and delicate. Top pro Nikons, by contrast, are made to stand up to wars, literally. You just don't need a lot of padding for a Leica—they are built to be very tough, and will be just fine in a lightly padded bag. That's part of why they make you pay the big bucks. People only baby Leicas because they paid a lot of money for them and they're being solicitous of their investment, not because the cameras demand or require babying. It's actually not even appropriate. Sling the thing over your shoulder and go.

(Note: The above opinion might be out of date, a holdover from the era of the F4 and M6. Caveat emptor.)

Deconstructing the Hadleys
As I get into the minutiae of Billinghams, it becomes evident that there is not one model called a Hadley, there are three: the Hadley Small, the Hadley Pro, and the Hadley Large. And also a much smaller bag called the Hadley Digital, which I'll leave aside.

Hadley Small

• The Hadley Small (i.e., the plain old Hadley—but not "the Original," which is no longer made) is 10 1/4 x 2 3/4 x 7 1/4 on the inside (all these measurements are WxDxH, in inches) and weighs 1.5 lbs. $232 at B&H.

Hadley Pro

• The Hadley Pro has interior dimensions of 13 x 3 x 9—that is, quite a bit wider, slightly deeper, and almost two inches taller than the Small. It has several added features including a zippered waterproof slot for papers on the body side, the ability to add pouches on the ends, and most especially a reinforced top handle. The weight is increased to two and a quarter pounds. All that will cost you $50 more.

Hadley Large

• The Hadley Large has interior dimensions of 14 x 2 3/4 x 10—that is, even a little bigger than the Hadley Pro, one inch wider and one inch taller, albeit just a smidge less deep. It omits the special features of the Pro but weighs the same. Costs just a touch less than the Pro.

Pace Jason in the comments yesterday, be careful which color you buy, because these things last and last.

Oh, and for that last reason, these are probably not good bags to buy if you like buying lots of bags on an ongoing basis. One of their main advantages is longevity, and long use is the only thing that will make the high initial outlay sensible. So if you like to buy bags like clothing, constantly switching and swapping and changing styles, a Billingham probably isn't the thing. It's really only for you if you're the type to keep something a long time.

I recommend the Hadley Pro, as I find myself using the top handle a lot with my old bag.

When the rain comes
I'll tell you why I'm not interested in the Think Tank Retrospective: it has a rain cover. That is, it has a bag that you're supposed to put the bag into when it rains. To me, this violates Occam's Razor. The bag should be the bag. It shouldn't need to go into yet another bag.

But then, Santa's flying reindeer always bugged me. Why not just have the sleigh fly? Then you don't need flying reindeer. When you're inventing imaginary motive power, why imagine more than is necessary? I dislike redundancy.

All I can envision as I watch this is myself becoming very frustrated and annoyed as I struggle with the rain cover following a sudden cloudburst, as I and my expensive bag get wetter and wetter. As Oren might say, "bah."

Contents
An important item to put into a camera bag: A checklist of everything that goes into the camera bag.

Principle
Oh, and by the way: unless you're a pro—if you're a hobbyist photographer photographing for fun or art or interest: I'd recommend as a guiding principle that you should never carry, and probably not even own, more gear than you can fit into a Billingham Hadley Pro or a Think Tank Retrospective 7.

If you have more gear than that, change your gear, not your bag.

Oh, well, okay, that advice won't suit everybody. And shouldn't. We are a larger community than can be fitted by one such general rule; we are all up to very different things. Not everyone is like me. And you are perfectly able to make your own decisions in this regard.

But anyway, think about it.

Mike
(Thanks to CarstenW, who found the video for me)

*For the same reason, photographer-themed vanity plates are a very bad idea. When there is expensive equipment in the car, never advertise that there might be expensive equipment in the car.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David: "Plastic bag. I do the same thing. Though, last week I was caught on a beach (Lake Michigan) in a sudden and lasting downpour during a long photo walk...didn't have my plastic bag, just my camera. I put it under my shirt and under my arm...soon getting soaked, so I walked up to the 'garbage line' on the beach...where stuff gets washed up by the wave line. Started scouring for plastic pags or old mylar balloons, of which there are plenty...found some plastic, shook it off, wrapped my camera in my shirt to keep sand from the bag off of it, and wrapped the shirt and camera in the plastic. Worked fine. Soon realized that the bag smelled like a fish had died and rotted in it. Who cares? My camera was dry and I enjoyed a long walk in the rain after I adjusted my brain set to 'you're walking in a downpour that won't stop, deal with it and enjoy yourself.' Name of bag...dunno...the Alewife?? WAHOOOOOOOOOO! I always try to pick one lens for what I'm working on and try to never carry a bag.

Øyvind Hansen (partial comment): "The main problem with Billingham products is that they really need to be broken in. When new they look a bit stiff. With age they only become nicer and more alive, much like many other quality items that lasts a lifetime, like fine leather shoes, mechanical cameras and wooden musical instruments."

psu: "Re your principle that you should never carry more gear than you can fit into a Hadley or a Retrospective 7: Indeed. Back in the day I had this rule for the Domke F6 (or 803).

"I considered buying a Hadley this year for my Oympus kit. But I decided that the bag just looked too fussy. Too many buckles and doodads and flaps and things. I bought the American hipster version of the bag instead. A tiny bit cheaper. A bit more straightforward. I still find it too heavy compared to the Domkes."

Mike replies: Your comment makes me wonder if everyone understands the reason for the "buckles and doodads." I might be wrongly assuming it's obvious just because it's obvious to me after using it for a quarter of a century.

They're purely functional and quite brilliant (I do think they come from much older tech, saddlery probably; and there must be a proper name for it, although I don't know what it is).

You set the desired degree of "tightness" or "looseness" of the top flap using the buckle. But you don't undo the buckle to get the top flap open or to securely close it. At the top end of the strap, there's a hole with a wide and a narrow end. That fits over a metal stud with a sort of knob or head on it. The stud goes through the wide end of the hole easily, but when tightened down to the narrow end—as shown above—the strap won't come off the stud. And of course any upward pressure on the top flap pulls the metal stud and the narrow end of the hole in the strap together.

It works very well—a sort of very early quick-release system. You don't use the buckles on an ongoing basis. On mine, it's been years since I've touched the buckles.

Mike Stone: "I assisted the rather eccentric Jane Bown on a shoot for the Observer in London back in the late '80s. She arrived at the studio with her entire kit in a supermarket plastic carrier bag, two OM-1 bodies, a 50mm and an 85mm all wrapped in old tea towels."

Mike replies: I love Jane Bown. One of my favorite photographers....

Slummingangel (partial comment): "Women and shoes, men and camera bags. This is a sweet and funny series on male Imeldas! Sadly, though, nobody's mentioned beauty as a criterion for bags, just as almost nobody mentions beauty in policy-making or beauty in health care. But it's an important standard, maybe as important as functionality. Jonny Ives, Apple's great designer, said at Steve Jobs's memorial service that Steve's life represented 'a victory for beauty.' Even the fine Billinghams are stolid looking and leagues away from beauty."

Robbie: "The Retrospective series fabrics are stil very water resistant. I've walked for hours in rain and sleet without rain over and the contents have stayed perfectly dry. It is laminated with an impermeable later and DWR coated I think, at least the green and blue colors are. The black is a natural canvas and may be less resistant. I leave my rain cover at home without worry."

A Billingham Hadley. Chances are it won't look much different 25 years from now. Besides, "Hadley" is such a great name!

-

Clearly, we like Think Tank Photo. That much is clear from John's posts and the responses.

I've been paying very close attention as all this goes by, for one very good reason: my tripod.

What? Let me 'splain. I bought a solid, sturdy, high-quality tripod, a big Gitzo Studex, when I was in my early 20s, and then very rarely thought about tripods again. I used it with 35mm Contaxes and monorail 4x5s and everything in between. Then, just a few years ago, here on TOP, I took another look at tripods, did some comparison testing, and ended up with what might possibly be the most pleasing photographic purchase I've ever made: a Gitzo Mountaineer GT 2531. [*See Update below.]

I used to say "there is no such thing as a good tripod," because of the hard split between what you want when you're carrying it (lightness, smallness) and what you want when you're using it (heaviness, sturdiness). Wrong. Turns out, tripod technology had improved by leaps and bounds since I bought my big old Studex from old Mr. Baker at Baker's Camera on Tenley Hill back when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. There is indeed such a thing as a good tripod, and the one I have now is definitely it. It's wonderful. (I also have a Gitzo Rationelle Pan Head like this one, on which I use a Kirk Quick Release Clamp like this one. All together it makes for an expensive tripod setup, but I used my last tripod for thirty years, and I expect this one to see me out.)

My current cameras (and kits) are considerably smaller than the ones I used to lug around, and I could use a smaller bag. So anyway, having learned my lesson with tripods—updating can be a good thing—I figured I'd pay attention when it came to bags. For you see, I am probably the least "bagaholic" photographer on the planet. I'm quite amused and entertained by all you fellows who buy up camera bags like they were consumables. If I think hard, it seems I have indeed owned several camera bags and cases over the years, usually to go with specific cameras, although the only one I used regularly was for my early Wista 4x5 field view camera (Wistas have gone down in quality over the years considerably; mine was gorgeous. Current iterations, not so much). That bag was a Tenba, if memory serves.

Otherwise, I did the same thing with bags that I did with tripods: bought a good 'un early on and forgot about it.

I'm fairly well convinced that my bag, which I'm sure I bought during the Reagan years, is a Billingham 225. In khaki, to be precise. The style might not be your thing, and I understand that. In another lifetime, however, I lived with a statuesque blonde on a farm in Vermont, an expert rider who looked positively stunning, I have to say, in jodhpurs and tall polished riding boots, and the Olde Englishness of the Billingham and its vague overtones of saddlery always somehow puts me in mind of her. Not a bad thing.

At first thought the old bag seems like it might be highly susceptible to improvement in the same way that my antediluvian Gitzo proved to be. It has a strange but by now very familiar series of flaps and closures, and I don't even have any dividers or compartments for it—I just junk stuff in and let it clunk about. It weighs a lot when empty. It's not terribly roomy—sometimes I stuff it to the gills and other times one little camera rattles about in it alone. It has always seemed fine to me: I need a bag, and it's a bag. But maybe modern materials science and refined research and design can do leagues better. Think Tank?

Wears well
On the other hand, a few considerations came up in the comments to John's post. Nicolaas brings up an Achilles' heel of, for instance, Domkes:

You may also dial in the climate factor. Once in Hong Kong I got my Domke (partially) rain-soaked. And when, after days and days it finally stopped raining, it remained heavily overcast, windless, steamy, sauna-like. With the relative humidity turned to eleven the bag's thick canvas simply would not get dry, for days on end. My guess is when you're living/working in a place that's perpetually hot and murky you're better off with nylon than with canvas.

The Billingham by contrast sheds water serenely; I've learned not to fret about it in the rain, as its contents always turn up bone dry once home. As Hugh writes:

Billinghams show their quality when you have to work for hours in heavy rain—that's why you see so many of them used by UK sports shooters. They also stand up to 20–30 years of heavy use.

Then there's its rather remarkable durability (as Hugh mentions). Mine has held up remarkably well. Rob writes:

I've used a Billingham Hadley Pro for years now. I can't say enough good things about it. It wears incredibly well, is totally waterproof [rainproof, is the word I'd use, but we know what he means], and is easy to access very quickly, while being baffling to get into by those who don't know the elegant quick release fastening system.

 [...] 

I've tried many other bags over the years, including some nice Think Tanks, but still the Billingham is the most practical, the nicest hanging from the shoulder, and soft enough to mould to the body discreetly. Because of its ingenious closure system, it doesn't have any Velcro to silence. This bag is very well thought-through, and oozes quality.

My "other" camera bag is a Domke F-803 that came over the transom as a freebie when I was Editor of Photo Techniques in the 1990s. Although a decade or so newer than the Billingham, it looks like it's been through a hard tour in Afghanistan, all tattered and worn. And I don't even use it that much. I gather this is one thing people like about Domkes—who likes new jeans? (Well, besides me?)—but, honestly, my Billingham could pass for two or three years old without stretching credulity, and it's at least a quarter of a century old now. And that's without ever conditioning the leather, which I clearly should do (except I don't know how). Its durability is quite remarkable. It's pretty much the same bag now that it's always been, and it doesn't even look bad.

Of course, it was quite pricey—there's that to consider. Then again, all you "bagaholics" buy bag after bag after bag, and I haven't. I couldn't say for sure, but I think the price of the 225 has only gone up about a hundred dollars since I bought mine. Which means my Billingham has cost me about $11.50 a year—a number which is still going down because the 225 hasn't finished its tour with me yet. Wonder if John (or David Alan Harvey!) has gotten away with an annual budget of $11.50 for camera bags?

Sorted kit
These ruminations were triggered by Peter Rees, who wrote:

The discussion of Billingham bags was disappointingly prejudiced and offhand. I have two Billingham bags, both very well-sorted pieces of kit; the larger one especially (the 307) is packed with clever ideas and more than a touch of modern tech hiding within the beautifully crafted, traditional exterior. Best of all, there's no Velcro in sight.

...And you know, I rather think he's right, by Jove. Here I was thinking that camera bags have probably improved like tripods did, and that I should take a fresh look and buy something moderne, in hopes that something new would run rings around my quaint old clunky Billy. But I think I've reached the opposite conclusion instead. I've given the Billingham my very own firsthand 1:1 longevity test and it has done nothing but serve its purpose unperturbably for a quarter of a century.

So I think what I might get for my smaller current camera kits is just...another Billingham.

If I decide the horsey, country-house style isn't proletarian enough, then I'll just do what New Yorkers do and go with basic black.

A Hadley in basic black

Sometimes, the old solution really might be best.

Mike

P.S. This really does suggest a showdown, though: The $175 Think Tank Urban Disguise 40 versus the $282 Billingham Hadley. With the much cheaper ($65) but similar Lowepro Event Messenger 150 thrown in as a measure of value (the even more similar and even cheaper $30 Lowepro Exchange Messenger bag is evidently on the verge of being discontinued, although Amazon has some left).

P.P.S.

Hadley Johnston about seven years ago (and my brother Scott)

[*UPDATE: I swear up and down I had no idea this was coming when I wrote this post yesterday, but, just hours after I finished writing this, B&H Photo announced a big money-saving sale on Gitzo Mountaineer carbon-fiber tripods. You can save between $125 and $200.]

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Steve Pritchard: "You see? You see how insidiously bagaholism creeps up on you, unawares? You start the piece claiming to be the least baggist photographer there is, and by the end you're itching for a showdown! Myself, I have a Hadley Small for my GXR-M kit, but I'm about to take the plunge on a D600. I see a Hadley Pro in my future. I'm thinking, black with black trim and chromed brass fittings. When did I start turning into my Mrs?"

Pieter Krigee: "What about this:

"The Billingham Hadley Pro in blue with orange interior. A very limited edition. Available at Nivo-Schweitzer, Haarlemmerdijk 114 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands."

Mike replies: If you're a color photographer, maybe!

Paulo Bizarro: "I have bought a Billingham bag about 20 years ago. I remember it was expensive, but the old adage 'you get what you pay for' sure holds true with Billingham bags. I still have it, of course. As far as shoulder bags go, they are the best."

Jason: "I purchased a Billingham bag about 20 years ago; the shop accidentally ordered the wrong colour. I didn't fuss too much about it and remember saying, 'Oh, that's fine. I'll just get the other colour when this one wears out.' Of course, twenty years later after multiple trips round the planet and back...it still basically looks new."

Tim Bradshaw: "I liked your article on Billingham bags, and particulatly the statement that they are somehow English.

"Billingham bags are beautifully-made leather-and-canvas things, which when new probably smell of nothing and when later cleaned might smell faintly of leather and old sails. Both the canvas and the leather will wear prettily over the decades. You could imagine leaving such a bag to your younger son in your will (your oldest son would, of course, get the house on Long Island, along, perhaps, with your mistress).

"Billingham bags, in fact are what cultured Americans think English gentlemen might use: they are, in fact, New English. Of course, no Englishman would be seen dead with a Billingham bag, let alone in polite company, any more than they would be seen about with a Leica ('the Rolls-Royce of cameras': ostentatious, vulgar, probably available in pink).

"An Englishman's camera bag is nothing like a Billingham. Indeed, it is not very much like a camera bag. It is made of a material which might once have been waxed cotton but is now mostly grease and patches. It smells of mould, ferrets, fixer and old blood—it is usually better not to ask where the blood came from. It is not, of course, padded: the owner will improvise padding from folded up broadsheet newspapers, none later than the '60s. It may have a strap, and this may not be made entirely of string. In one of the outer pockets there will be a quarter-plate darkslide for a model of camera not made since before the Great War. In others there will be OS maps of Afghanistan, passports (all expired) several glass syringes, and Kendal mint cake. In the bottom of the bag will be a dense layer of detritus including feathers, the mummified remains of a mouse, some filters in imperial sizes, a Watkins Bee meter possibly in working order, much string, a remote release, apparently partly eaten bits of film, and what might be the remains of the original strap.  It is better not to investigate this layer too closely.

"The Englishman's camera bag is not left to his children. Rather, they discover it years later in a cupboard, slightly mouldier than it once was and apparently having served as a home to several generations of small birds. No one particularly wants it, but since it is, somehow, useful (certainly more useful than something made of leather, canvas and salt air), it is adopted and so persists."

The Think Tank Retrospective 5 gets high marks from our bagaholic. It comes in three colors. Photo courtesy Think Tank Photo.

[Note: If you want to support TOP, you could buy your bags from Amazon or B&H Photo. The author has no interest in you buying a bag, and TOP had zero input on what he writes here. —Mike the Ed.]

Written by John Camp

My experience with some of the bags themselves:

Billingham
I only had one. It was a really, really expensive shoulder bag ($230 at Amazon, for the "small" version), nicely made, that always felt a bit awkward and 1950ish-Kodak to me, and looked sort of overcooked. Heavy, for what it was. (I think you can get a better street bag from Think Tank for about $140 from Amazon.) People talk about Billinghams on Leica forums. If Gwyneth Paltrow shoots a DSLR, I'm sure her assistant carries it in a Billingham. All right, I'm being snotty.

Blackhawk Tactical Packs
Blackhawks are basically military packs, and I don't even know if they make one specifically for camera equipment. They are very sturdy, water resistant, and are not especially comfortable to wear, possibly because you’ve got too much weight inside. They will carry everything you've got, if not on the inside, then tied on the outside. When you see one at the airport, there's a 90% chance it will include a carabiner or two on the grab straps, so they can be attached to the bulkheads of C-130s. I bought the medical pack version, which had lots of pockets for small stuff. Then I ripped out most of the guts, and replaced it with the guts I'd ripped out of a Kata pack. It worked, but it was heavy.

Case Logic
Inexpensive, crappy. I only buy the very small bags, and use these to segregate miscellaneous equipment in bigger bags—those pouches that should come with the bigger bags. I once bought a very small Case Logic bag that would carry a Panasonic GX1 and two lenses, and also fit inside my carry-on, after I pulled a couple of dividers out of the carry-on.

Crumpler
I think of my Crumpler (I don't know where it is—possibly a Goodwill store in Hudson, Wisconsin) as a high-fashion bag with some utility in carrying cameras. Mine had a top half and a bottom half, that operated like a clamshell, and neither half really quite accommodated the equipment I wanted to put the bag. Mine was sturdy, well-sewn, with a colorful silken-like interior fabric, and, when I did get the right set of gear inside, it was comfortable to wear. If you like the looks of a Crumpler, and are willing to pay the price, try it out first—make sure it'll take the gear you want to put in it. My default position on Crumplers is that they are as much about looks and fashion as practicality. I could be wrong.

Domke
Domkes were originally made by a former photojournalist named Jim Domke, but the company was bought by Tiffen, the photo supply company. Since then, the line has expanded, and I'm not familiar with most of the "Tiffen" bags. I'll speak here only of the canvas Domke shoulder bags.

Domke F2 shoulder bag

The Domkes, of course, are the classic photojournalist bag, and are pretty good if you're a photojournalist. They provide some protection, especially if you drop the bag (there was a rubber-like pad in the bottom of mine, but reviews on Amazon now refer to a "cardboard"-like bottom pad, which would not be so good.) The classic bags provide little protection against sideways blows—you wouldn't want to run through the woods with one; other, larger bags are more padded. They are somewhat water resistant, but not in any way waterproof or dust-proof. You can see all the equipment, and get it out fast, which is good. They are light—about all the weight is in equipment. You can squash these things almost flat in your luggage, so you can take a big carry-on full of gear when you travel, but then when you're walking around, use the Domke. They come in several sizes and two or three colors.

There are some downsides: They do shout "camera bag," and because they are primarily about fast access, they're not secure against theft—probably the least secure of the major brand camera bags. Another problem, if you carry quite a bit of gear (and some Domkes are large) is that they put all the weight on one shoulder. Since most people like to carry the bag either right or left, and rarely switch, I think this is probably bad for your health, in that it puts a fairly severe torque on your torso. Domke classic canvas bags usually don't have shoulder-strap pads—they have "slip-proof" straps which aren't all that slip-proof, which is why you often see photojournalists walking around with one shoulder up in the air. Some Domke advertising compares them to jeans—I think that's apt. They are like a good old pair of jeans, with all the benefits and problems that implies. Domke also makes (or made—I'm not sure if they still do) probably the best photo vest/jacket, but I hate those things. Some people treasure them, and they do carry a ton of gear and distribute the weight across both shoulders.

Kata
Good bags, well-made, but way over-padded in my experience. One of the better backpack strap systems. If you go for one, make sure it'll carry the equipment you need, because they generally carry much less than they look like they'll carry. I've had three of them, and I've pulled the guts out of two of them to use in padding in other bags. The guts are great. The padding is bright yellow, which tends to attract the eye.

Kinesis
I had their belt system, and I can't imagine that there's a better one. Everything was top quality, the attachment system is extremely secure, and they've got belt bags for very wide range of photo equipment. I felt like an idiot when I was wearing it. I felt like I should at least be in the Rangers, or have a Beretta stuffed away somewhere. If I were a sports photographer, I might have one; otherwise, no. I also suspect (and I'm semi-serious here) that if you were to wear one on the street, in the present climate of fear, that you might be stopped by the cops, checking to see if it were some kind of combat gear.

LowePro
Not much to say here. Good bags. I've had both rolling cases and packs. They work fine, in my experience, but the packs are over-padded and heavy. But then, I've mostly used their packs on car or truck-based trips. I've never had one break down on me. My basic problem with LowePro (and Tamrac and Tenba) packs is that for me, they are often (usually) impractically big. You look at all that space inside the packs, and so you put stuff in it. For the first ten minutes, it doesn't seem all that heavy—but after that, it's like you’re carrying a mule on your back. If you're going to carry that much stuff, I think it might be better to buy a bunch of inserts and put them in a real high-quality backpacker's pack; or buy a rolling case. But it'd be much better just not to carry that much stuff.

Nikon
This was a small nylon bag, that I got a long time ago. It was excavated from my attic and went to that Goodwill store. I think I got for free, as a premium. I carried a camera (an F4, I think) and two or three primes in it. Nothing special.

An Osprey Talon 22-liter backpack.

Osprey
The Osprey pack I had was for backpacking, and it was very good and comfortable, and put the weight on my hips; I just couldn't get the photo equipment out in a reasonable amount of time. I no longer have the use for one, but for anyone who backpacks, these are pretty good.

Pelican
Good, reliable hard cases. May not fit in airplane overheads or under the seat, because they don't squash. I no longer use them for cameras, because I don't have the need.

REI Dry Bags
I used a couple of different ones when I was doing a lot of canoeing. They are absolutely waterproof, and will float, and give the gear some impact protection. Access is very slow. On the other hand, if you roll the canoe, you'll get the camera back, and it'll be dry.

Tamrac
Eh. Can't think of much to say here. Mine were like the LowePros, but didn't seem as well-made. Had both packs and roller cases. Can't really think of one that broke down, though.

-

"In my opinion—just an opinion—
Think Tank is at or near the top of the heap in design and quality."

-

Tenba
Only had one, in design much like a LowePro roller case. Ten years ago or so, I took a brand new one to Israel, where I was working as the photographer on an archaeological dig. I had to roll it about thirty feet across a gravel driveway to get on a bus, and then, getting off the bus in the afternoon, roll it back across the same patch of gravel. On the third or fourth morning, a wheel broke in half, so I then had a one-wheeler. A couple of days later, the other wheel broke. Then I had a no-wheeler, and I had to carry the case by the grab strap. Then the strap ripped loose. I wound up spending almost a month carrying the case around like a huge, over-weight baby, wrapped in my arms. I may have had a bad sample, or I may have been expecting too much of it; but I won't buy another one.

Think Tank
I've had four. The first was a small black shoulder bag in which I carried an abbreviated subset of the Panasonic system, and it worked fine for that and I've still got it. That case, I think, would be terrific for people who street-shoot with Leicas or with Fujifilm rangefinder-form cameras, and only carry a few lenses. I'm not exactly sure which model it is, and it's in a different city than I'm in now, as I'm writing this, so I can't look—but I think it was an Urban Disguise 40. I recently bought the Retrospective 5, which is smaller than that first bag, also for selected walk-around use. The bag is very, very good—not too padded, but with more side padding than a Domke. There is a flap top, which pulls down over the bag, secured with Velcro. Think Tank has a clever system of Velcro silencers, which you can use when you want quick access to the contents of the bag, or if you don't want that loud "rip" sound when you open the bag. That rip sound, of course, is a decent burglar alarm, against pickpockets, when you carry it over your shoulder.

I also have the Streetwalker HardDrive pack, which is also fine for transport, if not so much for actual street-walking (too big—and it's too thick, sticking far out behind. Bags like that kill your back and shoulders.) And I had one more, a small one from the Airport series, but I think my son has that now. In my opinion—just an opinion—Think Tank is at or near the top of the heap in design and quality.

Victorinox
Not exactly a camera bag. It's a big rolling soft briefcase of heavy black nylon that will fit in the overheads of all standard jets (but not the smaller regional jets.) The thing is, I can get a GH3 and several Panasonic lenses in the main compartment (in Domke wraps) plus a Mac Air, a Verizon Jetpak, a cell phone, spare glasses and sunglasses, keys, necessary papers—passport, tickets, schedules—a couple of legal pads, all the cords, power supplies and rechargers, and a paperback or two, in the other compartments. This is really my go-to general travel pack, when I'm not taking a separate carry-on camera bag—and sometimes when I am. The Victorinox has a fairly sturdy handle, and you can pile another bag on top of it, and roll the whole thing through the airport. Tumi has an excellent bag of similar design.

And finally, I have to put in a word for Eagle Creek's Pack-It System bags and pouches. I use these all the time, and my partner has stolen several of them for her own use. They are zippered mesh-and-plastic envelopes that are almost waterproof and come in several different sizes. I use them in camera bags, briefcases and packs, and regular luggage, to organize all the small crap I carry around with me. They are most useful for segregating out things like electric cords, batteries, chargers, spare lens caps and body caps.

Michael Reichmann, he of the Luminous Landscape, has had many good things to say about Gura Gear bags, designed by a serious wildlife guy. I've never had one, but I'll probably get one sooner or later. Looking at the specs, they may be close to my perfect bag. Wonder if they have that waterproofed bottom and ring?

I could go on for a while, but I won't. I would like to hear arguments for and against what I've said so far, because I do have this conceptual interest in bags, and like to hear what other people use and what they do with them.

Now if I could only find a place to write about jackets. Or no, wait: the search for the perfect hat....

John

Part I can be found here
Part II can be found here

John Camp is a former reporter who is now a novelist. He writes thrillers under his pen name, John Sandford. And he is a bagaholic.

©2013 by John Camp, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

xfmj: "I hate to parrot but...I was lucky enough to look for a camera bag at a local pro photo shop that, at the moment I did look, had a Retrospective 5 in stock.  It is a beautiful bag. It has all the features, is very well-thought out, but does not have that gear-heady feel or look. It's like the camera bag version of the perfect denim jacket.

"The overdesigned pockets and straps and yellow cords and everything with a zipper and all the vecro and the rubber slide pulls that other manufacturers employ—even on the smallest bags—are a really weird form of display. Darwinian archipelagian market forces gone wild. We've all seen compact cases that triple your camera's size but hold barely anything more. What the hell? Some Crumpler brand bags I've seen, for example, house more bag material than they provide storage void, and their velcro clings stronger than superglue—eventually ripping the canvas that holds the velcro.  Bad breeding like a pug's respiratory wheeze. That kind of product design drives me crazy.

"Instead, my Think Tank bag is just right. All the details are attractive and functional-looking, tastefully just right, carefully trimmed, and work great. It is a beautiful and useful bag. Appears minimal but is instead chock-full of perfect surprises and options. I couldn't believe the velcro silencer feature; hadn't noticed it at first, but it is such a cool, simple idea that I deploy in varying situations: in a quiet cathedral or in a crowded subway.

"It even comes with its own raincoat, one that is easily stored and hidden (it can serve as an extra tethered lens pad should you want that) when you don't need it. It too is small, trimmed, and tasteful, but I do use it now and then in the rainy northwest.

"Oh, I could go on...."

Paul Richardson: "I have to say I always thought people were overly fussy about bags, but then I got a Domke and I love it. I have a Crumpler also, but it has fallen out of favor with me."

Jeff: "People talk about Billinghams on Leica forums? Yes, if they're talking about the mid-priced bags; the Fogg bags also discussed there are twice the price.

"Bags are one the most frequently discussed topics on the forum, generally with strong recommendations, typically followed by praise, disdain and laughter. Besides the bags mentioned in this article, the usual suspects also include Artisan & Artist (A&A). And many folks use only the inserts from various bags, e.g. from Billingham's Hadley series, to place inside other nondescript bags, not necessarily made for camera gear, including various messenger-type bags. Some, especially those across the pond [you don't say which side of the pond you're on, so that's not very specific... —Ed.], prefer various expensive hand crafted bags from companies such as ONA and Wotancraft."

David Bennett (partial comment): "I was tempted by the ThinkTank Retrospective 5, but how exactly do the Velcro silencers work? And with the 'silencers' working—is the bag secured in any way? I am not so much concerned about someone dipping their hand in the bag (although it is a factor) as with the contents tipping out while I am running (for a bus etc.)."

John Camp replies: The Think Tank silencers are simplicity itself—just additional pieces of material that fold back up across the Velcro patches, thus covering the hooks so they can't hook on to the closure patch. At that point, the cover is not secured—but the Retrospective 5 has a flap cover that closes down almost to the bottom of the bag, so nothing is likely to fall out unless the bag is upended. I'd give you more specific details but I'm in NYC today and the bag is back in Santa Fe, and I can't look at it.

Rob L: "I'm 38, and have been using my beloved Domke F-2 for...lordy, 23 years. Still the best working bag I've every had, and still my only must-have bag. Simple is good, although for transport the Think Tanks are amazing."

Manuel: "I'd rather spend a three-digit sum on a secondhand lens (I bought an Olympus OM 135mm ƒ/2.8 yesterday) than on a bag. I'd love to have a Think Tank Retrospective 5 as much as anyone else, but I find it too expensive for an accessory that is no more than a means to carry your gear. Especially when that money can buy you a good piece of equipment. Billinghams and Gura Gears? Don't get me started...."

Stan B. replies: "Manuel—Lowepro Exchange Messenger Camera Bag at Amazon—$30!!!" [$30.23 to be precise. It does seem quite similar to the Retrospective 5. —Ed.]

Steve P.: "I guess it all comes down to the type of travel you are doing when it comes to bag selection. For my needs: the Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home Bag is absolute perfection. I want to be able to go anywhere and not be encumbered by my bag. And I really do not want my bag to scream 'photographer here with lots of gear!' So for me, the fact that the bag actually looks a bit like a woman's purse is great!

"I can carry a Canon 5D in the middle along with an EF 16–35mm L mounted, EF 70–300mm L in the left side, and the 50mm ƒ/1.4 on the right side on top a couple of spare batteries—I have more than enough room for filters and memory cards in the flap zipper pouch. I also have room for two ColorSpace O PhotoBanks in the front pouch!

"It's an extremely versatile and accessable setup for my needs. I have traveled for a combined total of about two years with this type of setup. I can't imagine a new bag coming out that will trump this setup."

The Lowepro Versapack 200 All-Weather backpack is available right now for the pain-free price of less than $50 from B&H, marked down from $120—that's more or less $70 off, as I guess you know if you are capable of doing simple arithmetic in your head.

It has a lightly padded upper compartment for personal items and a more heavily padded lower compartment for camera gear, and can be configured in several different ways so you can access it in different ways and to accommodate different camera outfits.

Yr. Hmbl. Ed. doesn't use backpacks, and TOP has never once published a post about camera bags (that I can recall, anyway), but my friends at B&H tell me this is a popular backpack among photographers and is selling briskly at the sale price. More pics at the link.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kalli: "I don't particularly care for backpacks for camera gear, but sometimes I seem to need one (less so after I went Micro 4/3). I've had a the Versapack for probably over three years and I like it very much. First off, it's light. The bag itself is no more than a kilo, I think. Second, it's made for a photographer who's actually also a human being. By that I mean that it's not made for just carrying camera gear, but also the stuff a human might want to carry around for a long day's outing. As a bonus you can collapse it so that it becomes quite compact. Handy if you need to pack it into your suitcase, for example. So, yeah, this bag nut, who hates camera bags and dislikes backpacks, likes this one."

James Ullrich: "It would be nice if the backpack had the camera space on top and other on the bottom. Water bottles sometimes leak and it is better to have that on the bottom. Additionally, if a pack is set down hard, it is better that the camera stuff is on top."

Those of you who own just one camera, or just one good camera, obviously don't have the following problem.

That's the way I used to be, and the way I like to think of myself still—even though it no longer applies. A one-camera kind of guy. Have axe, will chop wood.

An old fave. This one belonged to Kent Phelan when I made its portrait. One just like it was my only axe for a 14-month period in the '90s.

But now I have a number of cameras (collateral damage from running a photo website...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it). Lots of people have more than one camera—and a lot of enthusiasts have a lot more than that!

So here's the test. If you're just going out the door and you want to take a camera with you, what do you grab most often?

We all spend an awful lot of time and energy evaluating cameras, choosing what to buy, defending our choices, and worrying about the crushing opportunity cost ("I'm thinking about switching to..."). But if you have alternatives readily available, maybe the one you find yourself going for most often (assuming there is one) is a good indicator of what your needs/wants really are.

Mike
(Thanks to John Mitchell and Kent Phelan)

P.S. Funny story about the Leica in the picture, one I've told before. I eBay'd a few things for my friend Kent in my uh-oh years. Kent had gone to considerable lengths to duplicate the M4 outfit of his youth with a truly mint set—the camera and lens in the picture. I sold it to an Italian Leica dealer for what was then a good price.

But when it arrived, it appeared the buyer had found a problem. He said there was a blemish in the chrome finish on the back side of the top plate. He considered it for a while, as we exchanged emails, and finally decided he couldn't keep it. So he sent the camera and lens back to me for a refund.

But when the camera arrived back, I couldn't find the blemish he was talking about, a fact which of course I relayed back to him. "Use a magnifying glass," came the answer.

Sure enough, with a magnifying glass, I was able to locate a tiny pinpoint flaw in the chrome plating.

The buyer ruefully acknowledged that the camera had very likely come from the factory with that pinpoint flaw. But, he said, his buyers "could be picky."

Now how's that for an understatement!

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

~Alan Sailer: "Without a doubt, a Canon 5D Mark II that I bought used a year ago. And it nearly always has a 17–40mm ƒ/4 lens in front. What is disconcerting to me is that I own mostly Nikon bodies and lenses (by a factor of five to one), but there is something about that Canon that works for me. Go figure."

Ed: "Sony RX1 over the Fuji X-Pro 1 and the Oly OM-D EM-5. Love the size and portability. Love the full frame files and their flexibility."

Tommy F: "I would take the NEX-7 and the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 or the 19mm Sigma."

Rolf Schmolling: "Well, nowadays I grab my Zenza Bronica ETRSi (645) with 75mm ƒ/2.8 PE usually. I can just take the magazine with the right film for the light and I'm off. Gossen Profisix too, of course.

"Then I am still tempted to take my Nikon F2 Photomic with Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2 (AIS) or Nikkor-S.C Auto 50mm ƒ/1.4 (Non AI) most of the time loaded with Tri-X 400. And today when I went for a short (we still have winter here in Hamburg, Germany) Foto Safari with my son (age seven), I put Tri-X 400 into my Nikkormat FT-2 (with 50mm ƒ/2) to a) have a similar outfit to his Yashica FX-3 super 2000 with 50mm ƒ/2 and b) because my F2 was still full of Portra 400. Didn't finish the rolls; it was just too cold."

Dan Gorman: "Easy: Canon G10. Reasons: Good enough image quality; small/light/inconspicuous enough for pretty much any situation; a gas to use—the physical controls and instant feedback say 'Play with me!'"

Scott Price: "For me, it's my K-5 IIs with my FA* 24mm ƒ/2 attached (36mm equivalent). I haven't encountered many situations where I couldn't make this combo work well. Of course, my primary subjects are my children, and I'm generally trying to capture them and what they're doing. I've found this focal length range just about perfect for this purpose, because I don't have to take a step forward or back from a natural conversation distance to get the framing I want. That said, there are times when I need to mix things up and pick-off candid head shots with a longer lens, or really mess around by dangling an ultra-wide in front of them while they play/run/slide. Variety is the spice of life, but, for me, the meat and potatoes looks like a compact DSLR with a fast 35mm equivalent lens on it."

Howard: "Sitting on the table next to the door is a Nikon FG with a MD-14 motor drive and (believe it or not) a Tamron CF 35–70mm zoom on an Adaptall 2 lensmount. I bought it years ago from a coworker. I was embarrassed that she accepted the $25 offered and I upped it to $35 (body only. The rest was added over time). It goes with me everywhere and shoots everything; we have bonded."

Bill Langford: "There was a time when it was a Graflex XL with Polaroid back and a bucket of clearing solution for the negatives. (Did I hear someone say 'Old Timer'?) Now it's a Sigma DP2 Merrill. The fun is the same, the back is not."

David Paterson: I was once invited to a camera collector's home in Tokyo, where he opened several large walk-in cupboards to show me his collection. It consisted of boxed, unopened examples of every Leica, Hasselblad and Nikon camera, and most of the lenses, from the previous 20 years. None of the boxes had ever been opened. He never took any photographs. He didn't collect Canon or Olympus. I currently have two digital camera-bodies—a working camera and a back-up. Seems like enough."

Sherwood McLernon: "The camera's always the same, a Canon 7D. The lens is either a Canon 400mm ƒ/5.6 L if I'm shooting birds or other wildlife, or a Canon 18–200mm ƒ3.5–5.6 IS as a walk around lens. I have many other lenses, but the above combinations take care of 95% of my shooting. If I'm driving, I will take two 7D's with the above-mentioned lenses already mounted. If it's a quick walk from home it's the walkaround combination."

Gary Filkins: "Sony RX100 almost without exception. The exception would be if portraits are expected—then it's the Olympus EP-2 with the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens."

Ed Grossman: "Toward the end of last year, I realized two things: 1) I was spending too much time choosing a camera before heading out the door. 2) The results I brought back in the door weren't really any different regardless of what I chose in '1' above. Since then, there's been a culling of the herd. I'm down to two. Most days, it's me and the Panasonic GH2. If the weather's inclement, I take my Olympus E-5. I'm spending less time deciding and more time shooting. The money I made from the gear sale will go toward photo experiences, not photo gear. That may not be the right choice for everyone, but it was for me!"

Chris Nicholls: "Beautiful M4! For me at the moment it's the M9 with 35mm ASPH Summicron. It's hard for me to imagine another camera that might suit me better, but I wouldn't mind a good pocket-size camera. Any recommendations?"

Mike replies: Always. The two truly pocketable cameras I seem to hear the most good things about are the Sony RX100 and the Ricoh GRD IV, with the Panasonic LX7—which has a Leica lens—bringing home the bronze. Here's my brief experience with the Sony.

Note that in Amazon's unintentionally funny product description of the GRD IV, "1X Optical Zoom" means it's a fixed, single-focal-length lens.

Armand: "Mike, that's a beautiful camera. Most of the time, I grab either the M3 or one of my Leicaflexes :-) when I venture out in the urban wilderness. Main reason why my D800E stays in my Pelican case."

mcomfort: "I thought I'd try the smaller, carry-everywhere second camera approach for a while...but I keep coming back to the big D800. Too much IQ left on the table otherwise. My standards have crept upward to the point of no return now, which is in conflict with my usual gear lust (read: I want to find a reason to get the OM-D or something similar.)"

The two comments just above came in right next to each other. —Ed.

Claire: "My 5D Mark II replaced my worn-out Rebel XT. I used to go out everyday with that Rebel. It is not the case with the 5D. Great camera, but too heavy for my everyday walk. Two weeks ago, I bought the Fuji X-Pro. And...I think I'm in love again! :-) Right, it is not on par with the 5D. But at least, bringing it with me, I might have a chance to get one or two photos that I will be happy with one of these days...."

...And by the way, did I make a big mistake with the Big Dragoon? Here Canon has very considerately made a lens of ideal specification for me—35mm ƒ/2, with in-lens IS...and it apparently made it just for me, too, as nobody else seems to be buying them. And there are not one but two wider primes with IS, too. You know me, always gassing on about my finicky lens preferences. I probably should have gotten a 6D with an IS prime or two. I even have a Canon EOS-1v in the house, too. That lens could do double duty.

I need to stop thinking now. It just gets me in trouble. Too few cameras is definitely not my problem at the moment.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Hugh: "5D3 with the shutter set on quiet mode, 3200 ISO, 35mm ƒ/2 IS lens, and you've a street shooter to beat any Leica M. Sorry!  :-) "

Rob: "I recently shocked myself by shelling out $2600 for a new Sony RX1 with its superb Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2 lens. The camera is a blast to use, and the images it produces are jaw dropping. I can live with the RX1's obvious limitations as a fixed-lens, single-focal-length camera, but my biggest complaint is that it lacks image stabilization. I understand that Sony probably chose to omit IS because of size and/or cost considerations, but still it is something that I miss. The chief mitigating factor is that the sensor performs very well at ISOs up to 6400 (and above), so one can simply select a fast shutter speed to minimize camera shake. Still, as one who is accustomed to in-body stabilization with my Pentax DSLRs, I know how valuable IS can be. Having it in the Canon 35mm is a big plus for that lens."

Jay: "Now I have to send you some of my photos with this lens  :-)"

Mike replies: Yes you do!

Starting now and for the rest of March, Pentax USA is offering a series of rebates in conjunction with the Wedding and Portrait Photographers International Expo (WPPI) taking place at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas beginning today. You don't have to be at the Expo to take advantage of the rebates.

The deal is: buy a 645D body and one or both of two lenses, and you'll receive a $500 prepaid VISA card for each lens you buy. The lenses are the D-FA 25mm superwide (19.5mm-e) and HD 90mm (71mm-e) short telephoto.

(In case you're not up to date on it, the Pentax 645D, with its 44x33mm, 40-MP sensor, now goes for $8,800 and includes the 55mm ƒ/2.8 normal (43mm-e) normal lens for free. If that sounds expensive, compare it to the $22,000 Leica S and its $5,000 normal lens that you do have to pay for.)

Or, buy a Pentax K-5 IIs body and one or more of three lenses, and receive a $250 VISA card for each lens. The lenses, among Pentax's best, are the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm Limited primes (~47mm-e, 65mm-e, and 116mm-e on the K-5 IIs).

To qualify, the lenses and body must be purchased at the same time and appear together on the same receipt.

Here's the information page. The offer is good through the end of the month.

Cards
Also current right now: B&H is offering another super deal on Sony 16GB SDHC cards: $23.95 for two. These are the cards I use now, thanks to a similar deal a while back.

There's also a deal on 32GB cards. [UPDATE: Link removed; deal has ended.]

An idle question: do you suppose the day will ever come when we'll use flash cards just once and just keep the full ones as a way to archive the files? Like we used to keep negatives. Download the card, and then, instead of erasing it and reusing it, label the card and store it. Use a new card each time we use the camera, just like we used to put a new roll of film in the camera before shooting. It's no longer an absurd idea, at least. Well, maybe it is, but not so absurd as it used to be.

Mike

Disclosure: Pentax is an advertiser on TOP.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

bill: "SDHC cards for permanent storage a la negatives is already being done. A wedding photog friend has been doing it for years. When he started I thought the cost a bit high but at current prices? Also, if you consider what film used to cost and the cost to soup it (home or sent out), an SDHC card is a bargain!

"My baseline is medium format. So number of pics on a card vs. rolls of film and it may be a no brainer. Of course we shot a bit tighter back then. But edited and put on small cards or batched.

"I think permanence of the cards deserves investigation. My HDDs have failed a few times and while I have redundant backups and all that, I think it is not a bad ideas at all. I seem to think somewhere in the back of my addled mind there are some permanence issues?? Likely no worse than film though, especially color neg and cromes. Don't shoot so much as I did, but may start this now. Great idea."

Mike replies: I was actually envisioning a purpose-made new product, non-rewritable and optimized (assuming we have the technology?) for long-term life, complete with a waterproof and label-able case. But with current cards...well, okay.

David: "Although it seemed idle conjecture, flash memory isn't a suitable archiving medium because it's not meant to be as robust as (some) optical media, older magneto-optical media (which in their own way due to obsolescence have become poor archives) hard disks, or say, Kodachrome. Digital atrophy remains real, largely because robustness isn't inherent and must be engineered and secondly it's not being funded. Cheaper to retain multiples and hope one of 'em's good later."

John Willard: "I toss my cards in a shoe box and don't label them as to who would be in the pictures or where the pictures were taken. Just carrying on the tradition."

The new Leica M is now available for preorder from B&H Photo, in black or silver.

The Panasonic GH3 (the company's top Micro 4/3 SLR-style body for video shooters) is now shipping.

Canon has introduced "center pinch" lenscaps in several sizes including the most common ones. A 43mm is $7.99; 52mm is $9.95; and caps for lenses with either 58mm and 67mm filter threads are $10.00 each. Seventy-seven millimeter and 82mm lenscaps are expected in March.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

MarkB: "So on the list of 'new product ideas,' the good folks at Canon have finally gotten waaaay down the list to: ...36. Put IS in 24mm. 37. Mirrorless camera system. 38. Center-pinch lens caps. (And number 39 is 'buy Foveon Inc.'—it's an old list anyhow!)"

Mark: "At one time I thought center pinch superior. No longer. I find them just as hard to grasp. As for the new Leica M, excuse my stupidity, but I remember they were coming out with a B&W only camera. Is this it?"

Mike replies: No, the B&W-only camera is the M Monochrom.

To the hoary, oft-repeated photo community cliché that "you don't see painters debating which brushes are best" (repeated by many people in many places, so I'm not picking on any one person here), reader D. Hufford submits this as evidence. (Winsor & Newton edges out Robert Simmons and Escoda in the poll, if you're interested.)

Pretty funny. And don't try to tell me guitar players don't care about their guitars....

Joe Bonamassa with his guitar and amp collection

Mike
(Thanks to D. Hufford)

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

rnewman (partial comment): "Probably the only technical subject which gets more painterly discussion is the selection of pigments for a specific use."

S. Chris (partial comment): "I can't help mentioning that as a contractor who used to build houses for a living, I've been privy to hundreds of heated discussions about which tools are best. Try asking a carpenter swinging a Vaughn hammer why he isn't using a Plumb. Just be sure you have room to dodge first."

cfw: "It's all merely a matter of preference. Why is that so hard for some people to wrap their brains around? If I had the money I'd probably have 10 or more current cameras in use, all of similar size and ilk."

Hugh Crawford: "Arguing about brands of brushes? I never hear about that, but get some painters going about Weasel vs. 'Sable' vs. Ferret vs. Ox vs. Goat vs. Boar vs. Polecat vs. Mongoose vs. Badger (neck vs. body) Just don't say 'Camel Hair.' Of course that's nothing compared to witnessing an argument about guitar strings."

Robert Howell: "That's a lot of guitars, but at least he plays them. My sister-in-law took me along to her kids' dentist years ago both to give her sprogs a chance to hobnob with their Uncle Bob and to show me their dentist's collection of rare guitars. Beautiful. All behind glass.

"I have three guitars. A 1930 Regal No. 78 with a small voice that balances well with vocals. Lends itself to old jazz, rag-time, novelty songs. A Gold Tone TG18 for playing ballads—'old chestnuts' my mother called them—has a lovely silvery, bell-like tone. Much more able, much more demanding. The latest is the Republic Highway 49 resonator I mentioned the other day. Pretty much a harp crossed with a horn, perfect for playing with a tuba and bass. Actually I'm just getting to know it. That's it. Anything more than three is a collection to my mind. Don't care to be collector. Don't like what it does to me.

"In contrast with the dentist above witness Thad Daber, 'the Tiger Woods of one-club golf, a peculiar niche of impassioned players who think 14 clubs is 13 too many.' Maybe a little oversteer there but heroic in a paladin sort of way.

"Happy New Year."

...And speaking of Pentax, B&H is having a sale today of two of the more expensive Pentax lenses, the 16–50mm and 50–135mm, for ~60% off. Have a look....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ted: "Oh boy, I'm in trouble. I just ordered both lenses: the 16–55, and the 50–135. I just blew my entire 2013 budget for photography gear, and the year hasn't even started yet. But you'll get a small cut, so I feel better about it. Can you offer any tips on how to justify this to my better half?"

Mike replies: I don't know your better half, but I'd act properly concerned about the amount you did spend while emphasizing (several times if you can) the amount you saved by buying them today and both at once. Good luck man, hope you make it through in one piece. [g]

Oh boy. We're shopping today.

Thanksgiving—yesterday—is my favorite holiday of the year, not only because of my personal connection to it (as Steve R. mentioned in the comments yesterday) but because it seems like such a simple and useful holiday. You gather with friends or loved ones and have a feast, and hopefully spend at least a few minutes meditating on what you have to be thankful for. Clean. Modest. Continent. You're not required to haul a tree indoors or infect your mind with ditties that will get stuck in your head and drive you crazy. You don't have to suspend disbelief over a confusing welter of nonsensical beliefs and belief-constructs, like what in the world a giant bunny has to do with eggs. Thanksgiving is sensible. It doesn't make demands.

Well, except on the person who's doing the cooking.

The one problem with Thanksgiving is that the concept of a "feast" no longer has much meaning—we feast all the time now, eating whatever we want whenever we want. It's not like we subsist on a paltry gruel for most of the year and cut loose on Thanksgiving. Or maybe I'm just speaking for myself.

Similarly with Black Friday. A special shopping day. Yeah, like we need a special day for that: we shop constantly anyway. It's like serving a feast to people who overeat regularly.

Shut up already and post the links, Johnston
Too much preamble? Sorry. I do go on. (And don't always get with the program.)

Anyway, here are a few great Black Friday deals for photographers:

Canon's superlative S100 shirt-pocket camera for a paltry $229

Best current deal anywhere on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III (with 24–105mm lens)

Nikon D7000 Basic Kit and Deluxe Kit ($500 off or more)

B&H Photo's Six Best Black Friday Photography Bargains

One-Day Only Deals on Memory Cards (this one makes me cranky—I just bought memory cards for Y^e Dragoon, for like twice what these cost. Those high-speed Lexar Professional 800X cards are supposed to be particularly good)

Apple 15" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer (and other computers and accessories)

Hope this helps, and happy shopping! But remember what Tom Jefferson said.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Suggested links from Kevin Purcell:

Sigma 19mm ƒ/2.8 at B&H Photo / at Amazon, only $149

Sigma 30mm ƒ/2.8 at B&H Photo, only $149

Olympus VF-2 electronic viewfinder, $169 at Amazon

Olympus VF-3 electronic viewfinder, only $99 at Amazon

(Note that TOP doesn't get credited for things you put in your cart and buy later. B&H reopens at sundown Saturday.)

James Sinks: "Personally, the only B&H Black Friday deal that had me reaching for my credit card were the 7200 RPM 4TB drives for $80 off (meaning only about $60–80 more than a top of the line consumer HD should be at this point in its life cycle). I've been holding off on HD purchases since the Thailand floods, and things have been getting tight, so it was a wise purchase."

Jack: "Timely article as I had just received an email from Amazon's Deal of the Day offering a Canon S100 for peanuts. I almost ordered it, but recalled that I should respond through your Amazon link so you could collect $9. Alas, your site told me I shouldn't buy something just because it is cheap. So I didn't. I saved $245, but your advice cost you. Sorry Mike, I will buy you a drink when we meet."

Mike replies: And I don't drink! A fine mess we've gotten ourselves into this time, Stanl...er, Jack. [g]

MJFerron: "I work retail (company is Fortune 500) and I am a lowly Dept. manager for said company. Today was our biggest day of the year. Not arguing about traditional statistics of who makes what and when by the way, just sayin' I was in at 4:00 a.m. and we killed it today. $70,000+ for my dept alone. Only wish I sold cameras instead of refrigerators. :-) I'd have an even better time!"