vkalia

Hi folks - I am looking for a shoulder bag which can carry the following, be on the lighter side of things and look good while doing so: - XT body With 23/1.4 attached - 16/1.4 - 12/2.0 - 35/1.4 - 16-80/4 Bonus points if it has room for a 75-300 (although if so, i will probably not carry the 35/1.4). I am ok stacking lenses in a vertical divider, if that makes the bag easier to carry. At present, i am carrying everything except the 16-80/4 in an Artisan-n-Artist RR04 sling/shoulder bag: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1098908-REG/artisan_artist_aarr4_05cblk_rr4_05c_camera_messenger_bag.html I love this bag - it is small, it is light and i can carry it all day without getting tired, and is going to remain my preferred camera bag for what I call my essential kit. But i have realized that there are times when i want the convenience of a zoom, and possibly a long tele for some landscape shots. Hence the need for something that can carry a full load. I have identified 2 options: The Peak Design Sling 10L v2 (0.9kg) and the TT Urban Access 10 (0.7kg). Anything else i should consider that is the same weight or lighter? On a separate note, do you guys have any suggestions for smallish bags (6L size or thereabouts) which have an external pocket to carry a water bottle? TIA!

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right? So you have a problem with the camera. What do you want from us - sympathy? A hug? A boycott of Fuji?

And yet, in nearly 20 years of photography, I have never managed to accumulate a swimming pool in my bag. I do an immensely crazy thing called "close the zipper and put on the rain cover" when it rains, relying on the regular flap then. Johan Cruyff also seems to be a master of stating the obvious.

Is that Eco-Drive the ultra-thin one that was announced recently? That's a very smart looking watch, btw.

I would disagree. The difference between an 18mm and 24mm FOV is enormous, IMO. I generally find having zoom versatility to be far more useful than a couple of extra stops. You are unlikely to be really blurring the background with a WA, whereas that trite cliche about "zooming with the feet" conveniently forgets that this changes the perspective. I'll say get the zoom - and then get a manual focus UWA lens for cheap if you want one later. I say this as someone who got a Fuji with a 16/1.4 instead of the 10-24, but that's because I have a full set of Canon L lenses from 17-200mm in f4. Never regretted giving up stops for weight savings or the greater ability to get the crop and perspective I wanted.

The problem with most shoulder bags is the flap, quite honestly. If i am carrying a shoulder bag for shooting, having to turn the flap up and inwards gets a bit clunky. One of the most practical camera bags i used to own was a Tamrac shoulder bag from the late 90s, which had a zipper on top and let you access the innards without needing to open up the flap. Another issue is that most bags these days are overpadded. A good camera bag meant for day use should have the most padding on the underside, moderate padding on the other surfaces and relatively minimal padding between compartments. That would make the bag smaller, lighter and also a little more unstructured, and so more likely to hold shape against the photographer's body. Instead, we get these over-padded monstrosities that are absolutely overkill for day to day shooting. I am yet to find a bag which combines the best of the above 2 features (and i am a bag ho - i think i have 20 camera bags of various sizes, mostly Lowepro and TT though. Perhaps i need to branch out to some other brands).

Ironically, that is why I have NOT gotten a 35mm-equivalent yet - to force myself out of my comfort zone. I did get a 16/1.4 and the 35/1.4, and i found myself using the 16 more (for whatever reason, i "see" better with a wider angle lens): the 35 hardly got any use. I am going to spend all of next week in Kuala Lumpur, and am gonna shoot only with the 35/1.5 to see if I can indeed teach my eye to adjust to this focal length. And a part of me is debating on whether to get the 23/1.4 or the 27/2 - lighter and smaller is nice (it is depressing how heavy my Fuji bag has gotten already!).

With Canon, my general-photography travel kit used to have 3 lenses, all paired on a FF camera: - 17-40/4 - 24-105/4 IS - 70-200/4 IS I have still retained my Canon gear and use Fuji as my travel kit. Were i replacing my gear, I would have probably settled for comparable fast zooms from Fuji instead. As it turns out, I have settled on the following 3 lenses: 16/1.4, 35/1.4 & 23/1.4 Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography. It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens: it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly. Now a 35mm equiv, OTOH... that, to me, is the first prime people should buy (I have deliberately gone with lenses outside my comfort zone for other reasons). The 27mm pancake (40mm equiv) would be a good alternative for someone looking for something lighter/smaller instead. With the "main lens" sorted, a wide angle is next - super-versatile and useful in oh-so-many-places. The 24mm equiv (16/1.4) is a natural option for someone going the prime route: the perfect wide-angle prime, IMO. For someone who does a lot of landscape, interiors, street/crowded markets, etc., the 10-24/4 could be an alternative here as well. For the third lens, there are a bunch of options. A short tele would probably be the most useful, or a portrait lens - depending on what one shoots. I went with a 50mm equiv as a way to force myself to play with a lens i am not comfortable with, but i'd much rather have preferred the 55-140 zoom. For my shooting, an 85mm equiv is useless (I used to own one for Canon and sold it after a few years, having taken <10 shots with it), but apparently a lot of people swear by that as their 3rd lens in a prime-only kit.

I've been using UV filters on all my lenses for nearly 15+ years. The amount of gunk and junk that accumulates on them is amazing (despite regular cleaning) and every year or so, i toss the filters and put on new ones. The marginal reduction in image quality (if any) is not something that makes any difference in the real world - but then, i have never ever blown up an image to 100% either. And yes, i also use a hood - but that is to prevent light and physical impact. The lens filter is to prevent dirt, dust, etc. When i am out in the field, the lens cap is never on. Incidentally, the Canon super-teles all come with what is pretty much a build-in clear filter: their outermost element is nothing but clear, transparent glass.

Personally, I see the Fuji as a photographer's tool - not a videographer's. There are plenty of "do everything" cameras out there - and Fuji, right from the start with the X100, has gone a different route. I just finally jumped into the Fuji world with a XT1, 16/1.4 and 35/1.4, and a large part of the attraction for me was the form factor of the camera: everything manual and via dials; i finally have a smaller camera (with emphasis on *camera*, not electronic-box-that-can-take-photos). That is not to say the requirements of those who want video arent valid - it is just that *this* is not the appropriate tool for those needs. Complaining about lack of 4k video on a Fuji strikes me as akin to complaining that a 2-door sports car cannot carry a lot of luggage: that's not its forte. Of course, if Fuji can fit it in, why not? No harm done. (My first post here, too. Hi everyone)