# Neither a "which backpack" nor "which lens" question but.....



## JPAZ (Jul 30, 2015)

All,

I have never enjoyed working out of a backpack (have an F-stop Loka and a Kata bag) but have used one when when trekking. For other travel, I love a shoulder bag (have a retrospective and an old Crumpler or two) and use a digital holster. My problem is that my equipment has gotten heavier as I transitioned from crop to FF and I really like using that camera and lenses (not a bad problem to have). So I am considering options. I am going to be selling some lenses but for an upcoming non-trekking trip to Tibet, I am considering some of the following kit cause I am not bringing it all:

5Diii
24-70 2.8 ii
17-40 versus Rokinon 14 2.8
70-200 2.8 I I vs 70-200 f/4 is
100-400 mii versus just the 70-200 with a 1.4 or 2x TC
430exii (rarely use flash but......)
And the usual filters, batteries, cards, etc.

My thoughts are the 3 zooms 17-40 + 24-70 + the f/4 70-200 (my "travel triumvirate"), but worry about interiors with existing light. The 2.8 is heavier but special. Then, I can go with my Retrospective and Holster but maybe a Flipside or Fastpack or a TT Turnstyle? But if the weather is clear I might want the big-gun reach of the 100-400? I'll be out and about rather than vehicle based and will likely carry everything a lot of the time.

I know, if I had the fortitude, I could just do the trip with a 40 pancake only, but that's not my reality.

So this is not a which lens or which bag question, but it is both!

Thaks


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 30, 2015)

As you are asking the questions, you must be concerned about the weight, so take the lightest lenses you can and as few as you think you'll really need.
However you may find the 100-400 will be great to capture those gorgeous little and colourful buildings on the sides of mountains.


----------



## Smashing pumpkin (Jul 30, 2015)

JPAZ said:


> All,
> 
> I have never enjoyed working out of a backpack (have an F-stop Loka and a Kata bag) but have used one when when trekking. For other travel, I love a shoulder bag (have a retrospective and an old Crumpler or two) and use a digital holster. My problem is that my equipment has gotten heavier as I transitioned from crop to FF and I really like using that camera and lenses (not a bad problem to have). So I am considering options. I am going to be selling some lenses but for an upcoming non-trekking trip to Tibet, I am considering some of the following kit cause I am not bringing it all:
> 
> ...




Hi,

I'm a newbie here, but thought I would share my experience with trekking and carrying a lot of equipment.

After having tried (and bought  millions of 'bags and packs' I can tell you that for comfort either a back pack (yes, I know, nice to carry around stuff but a major pain in 'actual combat') or the Newswear Foul Weather chestvest. I know, it looks a bit strange when used in an urban environment (suicide bomber alert  but when trekking in Tibet...

I have traveled all over the world carrying my eos 1Ds Mark II , 17-40/ 24-105/ 70-200 f4/ 100-400 / 100 macro/ and a speedlite with cables , batteries, etc. very comfortably no hassle nor neck pain what so ever for days on end.

When you are in transit (i.e. walking, climbing, jumping) you where it on your back (like a gigantic fanny pack, straps crossed over your back) and when you are in action, you wear it on your tummy with the straps crossed over your chest.

You can reach everything quit easily (but because the Foul Weather vest has special rain covers within each pouch, it can sometimes be a little bit of a struggle to get a big lens with lens hood attached out, but you get used to that).

On top it all this when wearing the vest as designed i.e. on your chest, you can carry a big fat backpack (with your clothes and travel stuff) on your back (try to do that with a camera bag or phot backpack 

So, just my experience shared here, hope you can find your solution and enjoy Tibet. Happy Shooting!

PS: this again is a matter a personal preference and shooting style, but I really would want my 100-400 on this kind of trip. (Probably cursing it 95% of the time, but being extremely happy I brought it for the other 5%........


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 30, 2015)

If I were you I would take the 5D III with the 70-200 f/2.8 ii and the 17-40 f/4 (though if you can get a good price for it, sell it and buy the 16-35 f/4 IS - you won't regret it). Add the 2X iii TC and that's it. Really, nothing else.

As for the bag, I would put the 70-200 on the body and put it in something like a Lowepro Toploader and then keep your TC in a Lowepro 8x6 lens case (fits perfectly) which you can attach to your belt. For the extra lens I would put that in a small lens bag which can also attach to your belt and your are all ready!

Have a great trip!


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jul 30, 2015)

The 70-200 2.8 L IS II is a fantastic lens but it is heavy. The f4 IS version is just very slightly more than half the weight of the 2.8 L IS II version. The f4 version would be a great travel lens not only because of the lighter weight, but much less bulk as well.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 30, 2015)

I would take the 70-300mm L as it sits nicely between everything you have mentioned its small, lightweight and has outstanding IQ.

I took one traveling have way round the world, survived deserts, rain forests, arctic conditions. Awesome just wish id had a bit more reach on my 5DMKIII but is the best compromise out of those lenses.

I also use my 70-200mm with a 2x and its iq is great just heavy. Positive is that the lens zooms internally so more weather sealing.

The new 100-400mm is great but its bigger heavier and twice the price but offers the same IQ.


----------



## gregorywood (Jul 30, 2015)

If you're after the most quality and flexibility at the lightest weight, I'd propose the following:

70-200mm f/4L (IS or non-IS) if mostly outdoor and plenty of light, the IS is unneeded
17-40mm f/4L (or 16-35mm f/4L IS)
50mm f/1.4 or 1.8
1.4x and/or 2x extender

I'd leave the heavy 24-70mm as it is heavy, a narrow(ish) focal length. I've all but eliminated carrying all three zooms. I either carry the 24-105 or the other two together when I "know" I will need the reach of the 70-200. 

It ends up being a really light and manageable kit for travel and you still have all the options - weight, reach, quality, low light.

Hope that helps.
Greg


----------



## jabbott (Jul 30, 2015)

Agreed with gregorywood. My lightweight go-to option in India and Nepal in 2012 was a 5D3 + 17-40 f/4L + 50mm f/1.4 + 70-200 f/4L IS. That way I could capture wide, normal (handheld in very low light), and telephoto all with one kit. Worked great, and I didn't miss the 24-70 f/2.8L at all.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 30, 2015)

17-40 (or the 14), 24-70 and 100-400 and the new 50 f/1.8.

For me, the harder choice is between the 17-40 and the 14. If you were planning on some star shots, then the 14, but if not then the 17-40.

The choice between the 70-200 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400II is easier. For a trip like that where the scale of the place is large, I'd value the extended range of the 100-400. Most of the shots will be during the day, so the smaller max aperture won't matter much. The 70-200 f/4 is lighter, but if you're not trying to maximize weight to the ounce, then I'd opt for the 100-400.

Which you choose of three zooms as a walk-around will depend what you're trying to shoot, and the 50 f/1.8 will be for low light, indoor shots. Depending on how large your bag is (or stack with 50 f/1.8), you might be able to squeeze in a 1.4x... because sometimes you just want a little more focal length. Or if want to streamline it a bit more, drop the 24-70 in favor of just the 50 for a 17-40/50/100-400.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 30, 2015)

My choice would be:
Walk-around lens - 24-70mmm f/2.8-II (best in class!)
Ultra-wide lens - 14mm f/2.8 (Not weather-sealed, but good for Milky Way shots)
Tele-zoom lens - 100-400mm-II (Wildlife and Extractive landscape shots)

What are your goals for the trip? What stories do you want to tell? Are you more interested in imaging landscape and architecture or people and artifacts? What is your shooting style? Are you the type who likes to be in the thick of things or do you like to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 30, 2015)

JPAZ said:


> All,
> 
> I have never enjoyed working out of a backpack (have an F-stop Loka and a Kata bag) but have used one when when trekking. For other travel, I love a shoulder bag (have a retrospective and an old Crumpler or two) and use a digital holster. My problem is that my equipment has gotten heavier as I transitioned from crop to FF and I really like using that camera and lenses (not a bad problem to have). So I am considering options. I am going to be selling some lenses but for an upcoming non-trekking trip to Tibet, I am considering some of the following kit cause I am not bringing it all:
> 
> ...


Assuming that you will spend a few days in the cities and the country side, This will be my suggestion:
5DIII + 24-70 2.8II. If you do not mind the weight, bring along the 70-200 and the 1.4 TC. On my trip to Tibet, I was using the 17-40 mainly with the 40D. I have hardly use the 28-135 lens( I am not a fan of long lens)Get the new 50/1.8 (cheap) for low light.
Since you have the EOS-M, bring it along as the back up, get the 11-22 EF-M also. It is a great lens. With is set up you are covered from 17mm to 300 mm without too much weight. On a trip like that, always have a back up camera.
If you are travelling from Xining to Lhasa by train, beware of thieves on train. use the camera bag as your pillow. Also do not forget the high altitude medicine.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 30, 2015)

Would you consider a roller bag from Think Tank? I love mine. Has wheels to pull when on solid ground and also straps to convert into a back pack. Look at the Airport Security V.2 or some smaller ones.

Sek



Rocky said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > All,
> ...


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> My choice would be:
> Walk-around lens - 24-70mmm f/2.8-II (best in class!)
> Ultra-wide lens - 14mm f/2.8 (Not weather-sealed, but good for Milky Way shots)
> Tele-zoom lens - 100-400mm-II (Wildlife and Extractive landscape shots)
> ...


+1 This seems the most versatile set.

But worry not. No matter what choices you make there is always a missing lens... ;D


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 31, 2015)

tron said:


> But worry not. No matter what choices you make there is always a missing lens... ;D



My major interest when I travel is the people and culture. I do get some nice scenery shots once in a while but I focus on the local folks in their element. While I could use a prime, I don't always have the luxury of getting close enough so the 24-70 2.8 gets a lot of use (was the 24-105 in the past but this one is so much better). For wide, I'll use the lens indoors. The 14 Rokinon is a good choice with decent optics and the f/2.8 for low light, but the 17-40 is actually a little physically smaller. Something I am weighing. But, there are the occasional opportunities where the bigger guns come in handy (Argali Sheep, Tibetan Crane, Marmots, etc or hilltop temples) and that's why a 70-200 vs. 100-400 is a thought. I totally agree that less is more but as *tron* says, I'll always have a missing lens.

Now I am also thinking about going back to my camera and lens in the holster with a couple of lenses in a shoulder or waist bag, but that's how this got started, after a while that just gets too heavy. 

Lots of good thoughts and suggestions in this thread. Keep thinking of options for me.........

Thanks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2015)

For wide, a vintage Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is a good compromise. They are only available used, but good for the price. I quickly sold my 17-40L after comparing. Its not light, but lighter than the zooms.

I'm keeping a eye out for the 16-35mm f/4, but so far the 17mm is fine when my 24-70mm II is not wide enough.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 31, 2015)

So I am going to see the Grandkids this weekend and I've got a ton of gear and bags sitting on the floor thinking about what to bring. I just put my camera with 24-70 attached, the detached 70-200 2.8 (hood reversed) and the detached 17-40 hood off and tuck alongside all into the main compartment of my Retrospective 7 (still my favorite every day bag). In the front section are 3 filters, 2 extra batteries, charger, CF cards and the rain cover. It all fits but is heavier than I'd like and I'd like to bring my 430exii and some batteries for it, as well as some other odds and ends. 

What this does is gets my mind away from backpack options, again. Obviously this bag is not the answer, for my Tibet trip, especially when I think about tripod, remote release, and iPad or tablet, but what about other waist bag / shoulder bag options? A bigger retrospective? A Speed Racer / Demon? Urban disguise? 

I also tried and can fit it into an old Crumpler 6 million. Maybe a combo of 2 bags?

I really appreciate everyone's comments and ideas. That Newswear Foul Weather option is pretty wild but I don't think that's for me. I am a little disappointed that a certain architect from North Carolina has not developed some DYI carrying option for me (and I won't even think about taking a Rocket Blower through TSA  ). But I'll keep looking and thinking about what to do.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 31, 2015)

Reading about you guys carrying all that heavy equipment makes me feel tired! What ever happened to just enjoying your vacation? LOL

Personally, after taking my full frame gear on a couple of trips, I switched back to APS-C for travel. Love those little plastic Rebel bodies and stabilized plastic lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 31, 2015)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Reading about you guys carrying all that heavy equipment makes me feel tired! What ever happened to just enjoying your vacation? LOL
> 
> Personally, after taking my full frame gear on a couple of trips, I switched back to APS-C for travel. Love those little plastic Rebel bodies and stabilized plastic lenses.


Good point. That is the same reason that I have left the 20D and 40D ( I used to travel with both of them) at home and take the M for travel.


----------



## wopbv4 (Jul 31, 2015)

Please consider:
Tibet is at high altitude that brings all kinds of problems with it such as altitude sickness, please read about this and do NOT ignore it!
Power in Tibet is problematic, so you might not be able to recharge batteries.
People in Tibet are very friendly, but please do treat them with respect!

Light outdoors is in general bright, contrast is very high. 
Indoors it is very dark as there is hardly any artificial light. The locals like to have their picture taken, so flash is no problem except in temples.

In short, travel as light as possible, do not carry to much gear as it will be a burden.


With respect to your gear:
5Diii *YES*
24-70 2.8 ii *YES*
17-40 versus Rokinon 14 2.8. _ take a wide angle prime_
70-200 2.8 I I vs 70-200 f/4 is
100-400 mii versus just the 70-200 with a 1.4 or 2x TC _At times you wish for a long tele as there is always something beautiful on the other side of the valley, again consider weight.
430exii (rarely use flash but......)_ YES, as said indoors in the guest houses in the evening it will be very dark, the folks do not mind.

English is not my first language, hope the message is clear


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 31, 2015)

Thanks for your comments, *wopbv4* and I echo them. I've done extensive trekking in Bhutan, Mustang and the Khumbu so I have some familiarity with the altitude, the culture, and the people. It is a special part of the world. My experiences with the local folks have been nothing but exemplary with a mutual curiosity and respect between us. 

This is actually the first Himalayan trip I will take without living in a tent (although the lodges are not exactly 5-star properties) so I am looking forward to the "luxury" in which I'll be immersed. And, I have already looked into recharging abilities and should be OK. I've gone 5 days on the 5Diii with 4 batteries as long as I minimize chimping and reviewing (take more images than I need and reject those I don't want later after returning home).

I think I am settled on:
-5Diii
-24-70
-flash

Still debating 17-40 vs 14 2.8 and 
70-200 with TC vs 100-400

Still trying to figure out how I will carry this.


----------



## wopbv4 (Aug 1, 2015)

Hi JPAZ

As you have already been to the Himalayas, you do have the necessary experience. Altitude sickness is not a joke, hence I always warn people.
Khumbu vally is not the same anymore after the quakes, Langtang has been decimated, I deeply feel for the Nepali.
Enjoy your trip to Tibet

Ben


----------



## tron (Aug 2, 2015)

JPAZ said:


> Thanks for your comments, *wopbv4* and I echo them. I've done extensive trekking in Bhutan, Mustang and the Khumbu so I have some familiarity with the altitude, the culture, and the people. It is a special part of the world. My experiences with the local folks have been nothing but exemplary with a mutual curiosity and respect between us.
> 
> This is actually the first Himalayan trip I will take without living in a tent (although the lodges are not exactly 5-star properties) so I am looking forward to the "luxury" in which I'll be immersed. And, I have already looked into recharging abilities and should be OK. I've gone 5 days on the 5Diii with 4 batteries as long as I minimize chimping and reviewing (take more images than I need and reject those I don't want later after returning home).
> 
> ...


Ok, it's not the same but it's something. Which lenses proved most useful in your previous travels?


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 3, 2015)

First, we have been in contact with a family we know in Phortse, *wopbv4* . Their home was badly damaged in the first round of tremors then completely crumbled in the next. They are all safe but are living under tarpaulins through the monsoon. The folks in this region are incredibly resourceful and have a very strong faith system but the devastation is truly remarkable and the survivors will need years to rebuild. My wife and I truly love the Himalaya and the peoples therein.

Next, I have witnessed emergency evacuations of folks with altitude sickness. It is no joke. I also know that prior experience does not guarantee one won't be affected on the next trip. "Walk high, sleep low" and listen to your body. Take your time. Our friends in the Khumbu taught us the "Sherpa shuffle" and it really is a good idea! (Before anyone jumps on me for a derogatory remark, the gentleman who gave us the advice and the term is of the Sherpa people and he lives and works at altitude.).

*Tron* , my last trip was to the Mustang Region (semiautonomous area north of Anapurna along the border with Tibet) and on that trip I still was shooting my 50d. Since I've gone FF. lenses on crop were the EFS 10-22, EFS 15-85 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I was somewhat limited in cave temples with existing light and that WA, but the 50d is not a stellar performer at high ISO. The 70-200 was, at times, not long enough (saw a Himalayan Griffen Vulture and really wished I had more reach). This is all part of my thought process.

FWIW, just heading home from a trip to the Grandkids. Had my camera, 24-70 attached, 17-40 and 70-200 2.8 all in a Retrospective 7 and it is still the most comfortable shoulder bag I've experienced. My flash, batteries, charger all were in my regular luggage, however. Maybe something a little bigger with or without a waist belt is all I'll need?


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2015)

JPAZ said:


> ...
> *Tron* , my last trip was to the Mustang Region (semiautonomous area north of Anapurna along the border with Tibet) and on that trip I still was shooting my 50d. Since I've gone FF. lenses on crop were the EFS 10-22, EFS 15-85 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I was somewhat limited in cave temples with existing light and that WA, but the 50d is not a stellar performer at high ISO. The 70-200 was, at times, not long enough (saw a Himalayan Griffen Vulture and really wished I had more reach). This is all part of my thought process.
> ...


OK then, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400. Now you need an UWA. Your 17-40 (you could upgrade it to 16-35 IS). Or the Samyang 14 2.8 that they suggested.

In 2 of my (small) trips I took 24-70 II, 100-400 II and the TS-E17. I did not regret it.
But in Tibet in moonless nights though you could put the 14 2.8 in good use for some landscape astrophotography.

As for low light there are 24 1.4 or 35 1.4 lenses but the weight increases...


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 6, 2015)

A little follow up on this thread for those of you still looking in:

The Tibet trip is still pending but I just spent a week in a beach area (I know, life can be tough) with a Thinktank City Walker 20. Here's what I carried when out and about....

5Diii with 24-70 2.8ii attached
100-400 ii
17-40
430ex
CPL's, UV's and ND 3 and ND 6
Batteries (extra LP-E6 and AA for flash)

In my other hand was I held my Redged TSC-424W (a very reasonable CF travel tripod) with a Markins Q-10i because there is no real tripod carry on the City Walker.

Bottom line is while walking along the beach cliffs, this worked pretty well. I could plop the tripod down nd either use it or not. The bag did get a bit heavy after a couple of miles but my Tibet trip will not be a trekking trip and I was not going to bring that tripod and head (maybe a little Jobey). Certainly if I carry the 70-200 f/4 IS and a TC instead of the 100-400, this should work. 

Still thinking and planning.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 6, 2015)

JPAZ said:


> FWIW, just heading home from a trip to the Grandkids. Had my camera, 24-70 attached, 17-40 and 70-200 2.8 all in a Retrospective 7 and it is still the most comfortable shoulder bag I've experienced. My flash, batteries, charger all were in my regular luggage, however. Maybe something a little bigger with or without a waist belt is all I'll need?


I would take the 24-70mm attached, 100-400mm and 14mm/2.8. I think there's so much overlapping between the 24-70 and 17-40 to make sence carrying both and 100-400mm goves you more reach and it's lighter.


----------



## JPAZ (May 8, 2016)

Don't know who's still following this old thread. Some more thoughts and a question.

The Tibet trip was fabulous. Brought the 5Diii, 24-70 f/2.8 ii, 14-70, and 100-400 mk ii, 430 EXii and the TT City Walker 20 with "odds and ends" in the bag. The bag worked well for capacity and convenience. But, it was pretty heavy to lug around.

Working on an Ethiopia trip and anticipate a similar kit (17-40 is retired and now have either a 14 f/2.8 or 16-35 f/4 but bulk about the same) and maybe a tripod. I don't know that I'll always have a luxury of a secure place to keep some gear while out and about with some of the kit and a backpack is probably a better way to go. I have a Kiboko 22L which is great but just a bit too bulky and I worry about internal flights versus size.

My thoughts:
Flipside 200 vs 300 vs 400 (which is big enough but not too big) or 
Kipling Backpack with photo insert or 
Something I've not thought about yet........

Ideas?

Thx.


----------



## Eldar (May 8, 2016)

I have purchased 3 different size f-stop backpacks, with 4 different internal modules. Works very well. They also have a strap system (gatekeepers) which maked it even more versatile. If I need to carry much else, I use a bigger pack, with a smaller internal module. They are very comfortable to carry.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 8, 2016)

That is a lot of gear for a weekend. I would consider bringing a charger, and minimize the lenses to the 24-70, and the 70-200.

Regarding your upcoming trip, you will not be using a camera without power. Consider a light weight solar charger such as Goal Zero, and perhaps a power inverter for a car with a cigarette lighter.

I can't speak about Tibet, but I agree that you must consider that higher altitude with thin air will leave you winded quickly until you adjust. Be careful of altitude sickness. You may want to consider a bag with wheels and shoulder straps to ease you load. I LOVE ThinkTank Photos bags.

Here are some links for you 
https://www.thinktankphoto.com/collections/airport-series/products/airport-security-v2
https://www.thinktankphoto.com/pages/rolling-cases

Pulling a heavy bag rather than carrying can be a lifesaver.

As they stress on the site, check overhead requirements for airplane storage to be sure the bag will fit. 
I have both bags and have used them on multiple domestic and international flights, and even on puddle jumper flights. They fit overhand, and believe me, you don't want to check the bags.

On another important issue- the bags are made with quality. The pockets are ample without causing you to lose and forget about hidden pockets with your gear in it. Finally, I had a problem with the extending handle after several year. I emailed them and within two days, they sent me a free replacement with clear instructions on replacing. I can't recommend them highly enough.

sek


----------



## JPAZ (May 10, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I have purchased 3 different size f-stop backpacks, with 4 different internal modules. Works very well.......



Thanks. I have a Loka (old model not the newer UL) with 2 different ICU's and it is my go-to bag for trekking but I think it is too much for this trip


----------



## JPAZ (May 10, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> Regarding your upcoming trip, you will not be using a camera without power..........
> 
> I can't speak about Tibet, .......... Be careful of altitude sickness. You may want to consider a bag with wheels and shoulder straps to ease you load. I LOVE ThinkTank Photos bags..........
> .............check overhead requirements for airplane storage to be sure the bag will fit.
> ...



All sound advice. I can get about 4 or 5 day out of my batteries if I don't chimp and have lined up nights for charging. It would be a huge issue to have a powerless camera during what could be a once-in-a-lifetime trip!

Tibet - we were as high as 15,600 feet. I do respect altitude. I've seen emergency evacuations for HAPE (high altitude pulmonary edema) and it is no laughing matter. This trip will not involve altitude but will involve hot weather. 

Internal flights - there are weight limits and size limits. I need to be very conservative in my kit.

Think Tank - I also love TT!!!! I have 2 holsters, a Retrospective 7, A City Walker 20 and always look to see what they have. I don't think a roller bag will work for me but wish it would.

Thanks.

JPAZ


----------



## axtstern (May 10, 2016)

This is a very interesting read for me.
Somehow I feel that I went through most of the opinions displayed here over the last 30 years and through some of the oposing ones probably even a few times in circle.

I bought an M when it came out to solve the DSLR weight issue, bought an M3 to solve the M issues and will probably dump this camera since I got an 80D and never felt that the M line can even replace a EOS 100D in a proper way.

I trekked with heavy EOS5 equipment in Backpacks, Slingbacks and Shoulderbags through Tibet and other non comfort countries.

Once in my live I sold a lot of my expensive Canon glass and continued only with an EOS IX and a Tamron 28-300 (Gear Downfall)

Than in the age of Digital I rebuild my collection jumped on the Crop train. Being interested in when the EOS 30D would come out I stumled about Canon Rumors. Should have taken just the bit of information I wanted and never come back but instead I clicked on the forum link and got eyewittnes between a stange guy nicknamed Neuro and a meanwhile banned forum member exchanging opinions like ships of the line exchanging broadsides. Sticking with CR somehow GAS developed. 

The classic CR majority opinion of "real guys carry FF gear" did not work out for me.
In the end a FF camera should be in the collection of everyone who bought a 85mm 1.2 but carying a tank of a camera with a melon sized lens was not convinient for me when I was 25 and is not a lesser burden when your twice that age. The 5DIII was my star in regards to being an Michelangelo product with a high MP count but the crops have conquered the terrain back at least for the moment. 

Now in hindsight the most hypa from a logistic perspective I was with my EOS 30D, a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and a Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. These 3 components used to fit into a bag in which you now can't stuff a 5DIII with a 24-105mm. Of course I have to admit: The Sigma 17-50 optics are lame, it failed me with mechanical defects twice in the nowhere and the 50-150 well is a kind of definition of soft.

So what is it now?
Three bags is waht I need know. 
For sport:
A small shoulderbag with The 80D, and depending of inside or outside usage either the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Caanon 70-200 2.8 L combo or the Canon 17-55 2.8 with the Canon 70-300L 
For anything that does not run away:
Tamrac 4, 5 or 8 size backpack with the 5DIII and way to much glass or a shoulderbag of the size of small coffin with tubular separations for the lenses. Proeblem with this bag is that the Photogs younger than 25 years always ask me where they can buy such a monster and why are there those strange elastic bands on the inside of the lid. (Actually I enjoy explaining them about the sweetness to open you camerabag and looking at 20 rolls of echtachrome belted to your camera bag, back in the days when pressing the shutter cost money)
Oh and the final bag... one which I realy want to break a lance for:
I use a big backpack with wheels and expandable handle form NEST Hongkong as my 'Basecamp'. It can load a fair share of the follies I aquired over the year and moves with me on long trips to the hotel. A Canon 400 2.8 or a Sigma 120-300 2.8 will fit in together with a lot of more glasses. As long as I can presume a days need this huge backpack provides the selection for the day which goes into the smaller day bag.


----------



## Valvebounce (May 11, 2016)

Hi axtstern. 
Thanks, a well written piece, humorous yet informative to a certain degree, gave me a laugh as I read it. 

Cheers, Graham. 



axtstern said:


> This is a very interesting read for me.
> Somehow I feel that I went through most of the opinions displayed here over the last 30 years and through some of the oposing ones probably even a few times in circle.
> 
> I bought an M when it came out to solve the DSLR weight issue, bought an M3 to solve the M issues and will probably dump this camera since I got an 80D and never felt that the M line can even replace a EOS 100D in a proper way.
> ...


----------

