|
Bottom Liner posted:If you want to maximize a personal item or carry on backpack for camera + other gear, a cube system in a regular backpack is your best bet. I have an old Incase camera cube that is no longer made, but it takes up the bottom half of my normal 26L backpack and I put clothes in the top. The cube holds 2 bodies with a 70-200, 24-70, and a prime lens, which is close to what my 30L peak design backpack can hold (I fully agree with you about it's flaws as a camera bag). As I'm not a pro photographer doing photoshoots (where you could easily park and unpack it), I mostly just explore and shoot opportunisticly. Let's say I'm walking around the city and see a rat eating a pizza, I want to pull the camera out quickly and take a few shots. Then come across a sketchy area and want to hide it. Or when hiking on a trail might need to protect it in a narrow passage so I can't have it hanging outsied on a strap. Then take it back out. Then 5 minutes later change the lens. I guess I won't know until I try it, but feels like it would be quite a pain in the rear end to fully unzip a bag to access the cube every time. Changing lenses on the go is annoying already as it is  E: just saw your edit, it does seem like this bag has a separate top compartment that might be (hard to say for sure) large enough for a mirrorless camera and an extra lens.  All I want is a perfect (camera) backpack 
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 4, 2023 |
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
I have a Gregory Targhee 26 I use for hiking and cross-country skiing that has a big back section with u-zip that conveniently fits my camera gear, a smaller front compartment (the avalanche kit one) for a spare jacket or something, and a top section where I put gloves/hats/headtorches. If I don't have too many/too big lenses and want to carry more non-photo stuff the front compartment will also fit a camera body with a 70-200 and a bag with a couple wider lenses. It also comes in 32L and 45L sizes. My partner has the 45 and has flown with it as hand luggage. I keep thinking about getting a camera cube for mine but haven't really felt the need yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 12:42
|
|
|
The perfect backpack doesn’t exist Personally, I separate the two when not backpacking. Camera with strap, maybe one other lens in an accessible pocket/small bag. I use one of these https://www.baggu.com/collections/medium-nylon-bucket-bag. Then a backpack with whatever else I might need. When actually backpacking I just use domke lens wraps and throw the body with a lens and the additional lens in their little wraps wherever I can on top. Yeah, I gotta take the bag off and on, but I haven’t found a better solution size/space/weight wise in 15 years. ‘Photography’ backpacks are usually not great backpacks, and often heavy. Granted, I hike for 5-6 days at a time. Day hikes would look more like what I first described.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
I use an f-stop guru 25L for travel and hiking with their cubes. The main part of the backpack is a single compartment, but with a separate back access to get to the camera cube without needing to dig through the stuff on top. When I'm wearing the hip belt I can swing the bag around to the front to get to my camera stuff without taking the bag off completely, but it's not as convenient as a side access. The 25L is also small enough that I can take the cube out and use it as a regular backpack/daypack in a city and it doesn't feel like it's too big/inconvenient on crowded public transpo. I have one of their medium and small size cubes, my default travel kit is one body with a 24-70, 70-200, plus an additional 50, speedlite, and teleconverters, along with a tripod that I put on the outside of the bag. The medium size cube fits all of that plus battery chargers and whatever else (a 2nd body or more lenses would be fine). If I I can get away with a lighter kit I generally prefer using the small size cube, but that pretty much means leaving the 70-200 out. I should say that the sloped medium size cube (the sloped version fits a battery gripped body w/70-200 f2.8 attached) feels like it takes up at least a good 2/3 of the main backpack compartment and I don't usually put much else in the remaining top part of the main compartment other than stuffing something like a jacket in. For airline travel I have managed to do the whole cube + a 13" laptop + whatever else I needed in a carryon, but it's a tight fit (and fwiw the guru doesn't have a dedicated/padded laptop sleeve). If you aren't over stuffing it, the 25L will fit underneath airline seats, but I still usually put it in an overhead whenever possible. F-stop also carries a lot of larger actual backpacking packs that work the same way with the rear access to the camera cube, but I haven't tried any of them. I think with anything larger than the 25L I'd definitely want to take the bag off to get to the camera compartment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
I use an Osprey apogee for lightweight walks. It looks like a normal backpack which is nice. You will have to find your own ICU though, I picked one off B&H based on the internal measurements of the bag. Depending on the amount of camera crap you lug it should be able to carry a change of clothes and a jacket. The laptop sleeve always works too. For heavier hauls I currently use a Mammut Trion 50. You'll look like a huge nerd carrying it in a city but it has a rear entry which is great for getting to camera gear. Tons of room for clothes and poo poo too. Downsides are it won't fit in carryon and you gotta put it on the ground to get the camera out. Really I'm not sure a bag that meets all your criteria exists. The "fits my travel stuff and fits in carryon and is easy to get the camera out" niche kind of puts you into bag of holding territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 14:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions everyone! Yeah it seems that something exactly like what I want might not exist. I don't think it's, like, impossible, I don't need infinite capacity or anything. I can fit enough stuff for a week in my 20l bag really. The PD 45L seems to come pretty close, it just has the side access instead of a top opening, but maybe sticking a camera cube there that is open to the side would make it reasonably quick and easy to take stuff out, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:but maybe sticking a camera cube there that is open to the side would make it reasonably quick and easy to take stuff out, at least. Shimoda makes cubes that do this and I advise against getting their stuff for that purpose. Granted, I bought their "small mirrorless" option and I'm hauling an R5 in it so it's perfectly reasonable to put the blame on me. Except for the side opening the cube is perfect for my setup.. unless you got a really small body there's just no way to slide the camera out without snagging on the edges. The curved edges mean the camera MUST be in the center of the cube too, which may or may not work depending on your lens collection.   That said the build quality on these cubes is absurd and I like the little cube condom it comes with, it means I can pull the whole unit out of my backpack and check the backpack as luggage and I got a handy carryon for my camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
What about a small camera sling like the Hex Ranger you could wear in front when you want easy camera access but use as a cube in the bag when you don’t need camera access?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What about a small camera sling like the Hex Ranger you could wear in front when you want easy camera access but use as a cube in the bag when you don’t need camera access? The Peak Design cubes work like this. They have attachment points where you can put PD anchors. I use one for this purpose and it is way better than using the PD slings. They have access at the top of course but also from two sides, so its really easy to hang it so your camera is at the top of the bag and you can unzip and pull it out, and then if you need to get more gear you just set it down and open the main flap
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
I have the Peak Design 45L Travel Backpack if you have any questions about it. I am very happy with it as a travel backpack and have taken it on lots of trips, it's the only bag/luggage I use for trips on the order of a week. It also has lots of anchor points to mount one of their camera cubes into it, including in a position where you could access right into it from a side zip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
astr0man posted:F-stop also carries a lot of larger actual backpacking packs that work the same way with the rear access to the camera cube, but I haven't tried any of them. I think with anything larger than the 25L I'd definitely want to take the bag off to get to the camera compartment. I have the Tilopa and the Satori (along with small/medium/large ICUs) and I think they are about as good as it gets when it comes to photography backpacks. Even the Satori which is pretty big works well when you swing it around on the hip belt and fold it down to access the gear. Plus they are comfortable backpacks you can carry all day, and with the small/medium ICU they will fit a fair amount of other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Muir posted:I have the Peak Design 45L Travel Backpack if you have any questions about it. I am very happy with it as a travel backpack and have taken it on lots of trips, it's the only bag/luggage I use for trips on the order of a week. It also has lots of anchor points to mount one of their camera cubes into it, including in a position where you could access right into it from a side zip. Do you fit it as a carryon? I spent $1,000 on 8 bags from AER (I'm going to return all but one or two haha) but if none of them work maybe I will try PD. I had the Everyday Backpack and I liked it, but ended up returning it. It's really expensive and I didn't feel like the shelves worked for my gear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Do you fit it as a carryon? I spent $1,000 on 8 bags from AER (I'm going to return all but one or two haha) but if none of them work maybe I will try PD. I had the Everyday Backpack and I liked it, but ended up returning it. It's really expensive and I didn't feel like the shelves worked for my gear. Yes, with no problems. In its Expanded mode it's technically a touch too thick but it meets the requirements in Standard or Compressed mode. And in real life, even in Expanded mode it's fine, nobody has ever hassled me about it being an inch too thick. Roller bags seem to get all the scrutiny, I think you'd have to have a truly gargantuan backpack to have the airline staff ask you to check its dimensions. The Travel Backpack doesn't have any shelves, the main compartment is just one giant space. You'd make your own organization with packing cubes and the like. I've also used it just fine without much cube organization. Muir fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Muir posted:Yes, with no problems. In its Expanded mode it's technically a touch too thick but it meets the requirements in Standard or Compressed mode. And in real life, even in Expanded mode it's fine, nobody has ever hassled me about it being an inch too thick. Roller bags seem to get all the scrutiny, I think you'd have to have a truly gargantuan backpack to have the airline staff ask you to check its dimensions.  35L mode is fine (well 1cm too thick), 45 is way over in thickness but as you say would probably be ok. How do you store and access the camera stuff? Looking at their product page, it seems that my idea with side-accessible cube is one of the intended uses:  Probably going to be more annoying than just undoing the top latch but this might be really the only option for a larger backpack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Budget airlines like RyanAir sometimes make everyone stick their bags in the thing and bitch at you if like a strap snags on it (which is why the 20L works perfectly) but normal airlines seem a bit more chill, especially on widebody planes with way more space in the overhead compartment. The exact official dimensions vary a bit but this is what I had on my United flight Yeah, I've never flown RyanAir and try to avoid budget airlines like them and Spirit. One nice feature of the Travel 45L is how all the straps tuck away. You can fold the shoulder straps under the flaps and carry it like a duffel with the mid-back handle to avoid straps snagging. I wouldn't call 0.5 inches "way over". The 45L is 22" x 13" x 9.5". If the bag isn't stuffed to the gills, you could probably shove it into a 22" x 14" x 9" space on demand. Edit: if you don't need 45L (you said 20L is enough space for you), look at the Peak Design Travel Backpack 30L. I don't have one, but their website says that the camera cubes will fit in expanded mode, and then the bag would be 53cm x 34cm x 20cm (20.9" x 13.4" x 7.9") on the outside. Muir fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Dec 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Fuuuk so I convinced myself to get a PD 45l from local Craigslist equivalent but the guy used a fake phone number  Muir posted:Yeah, I've never flown RyanAir and try to avoid budget airlines like them and Spirit. One nice feature of the Travel 45L is how all the straps tuck away. You can fold the shoulder straps under the flaps and carry it like a duffel with the mid-back handle to avoid straps snagging. 20l is ok for a shorter trip (and I guess I'll have to make it work this time too) and 30l would be better of course, but I just don't want to have both. One option I just came across that I don't think has been mentioned is Summit Tenzin. It has 30,40 and 50l versions and side, front and top openings:  https://www.summit-creative.com/tenzin-30-40-50l_p78237.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik7FR_tA7hE *The roll-top has some great extra capcity *But then is more of a PITA to access. I want my magnetic latch *You can adjust the split between the top and main compartment. There's only one of these on craigslist and not officialy in the country at all it seems so no idea where he got it. Found them for about $200 in China: https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=738148969682
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Could I receive recommendations for a cheapish camera that I can keep plugged into AC power as I use it as a webcam for a long time without worrying about draining the battery? My basic use cases for this camera are as a webcam that I could also use for content creation, and taking better photos than what my cellphone can. After the nth time of trying to take a nice moon pic and getting a tiny little blurry dot, I think I could really use a dedicated camera. I'm an utter noob when it comes to cameras, so anything cheap in the $500 range or less would be nice. So long as it's better than at night shots than my phone and can run indefinitely on external power while used as a webcam, I'll be happy. If it will really be worth spending extra money to get a pricier camera, please let me know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
The key to good moon pics is less about the camera, and more about the lens. Unless you’re rocking like 400mm+ in lens, the moon will always be a tiny little dot
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
Or to demonstrate it in a graphic:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
god please help me posted:Could I receive recommendations for a cheapish camera that I can keep plugged into AC power as I use it as a webcam for a long time without worrying about draining the battery? My basic use cases for this camera are as a webcam that I could also use for content creation, and taking better photos than what my cellphone can. After the nth time of trying to take a nice moon pic and getting a tiny little blurry dot, I think I could really use a dedicated camera. The thing here is that these are two very different tasks. An old Canon Rebel with a cheap rear end 50mm prime lens and an AC adapter will absolutely blow any phone out of the water for a webcam, but will not be able to take a decent photo of the moon. Anything taking a good picture of the moon for cheap won't work as a webcam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
Alright, I will NOT take pictures of the moon unless it's with one of those cameras with absurd zoom range that used to be all the range because flat earthers were trying to disprove the curvature of the earth with them (nikon coolpix p900?). I'm still hoping that if I want to record something on my desk on AC power, or take decent photos of a leaf I find outside, or get decent landscape shots if I see something cool off the side of the road, that there's a cheap camera that can handle that better than a phone. What models are good, and where are people buying second-hand cameras safely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
DO NOT take a picture of the moon DO NOT gently caress with the moon
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
god please help me posted:where are people buying second-hand cameras safely? MPB and KEH are both reputable sites with big inventories, warranties, and good prices. The used market is pretty efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
god please help me posted:Alright, I will NOT take pictures of the moon unless it's with one of those cameras with absurd zoom range that used to be all the range because flat earthers were trying to disprove the curvature of the earth with them (nikon coolpix p900?). It just means that when you buy one with a basic prime lens to function as a webcam (this also works as a basic walk around that looks cool *snap* setup), keep an eye out for a lens that does 400mm or better that fits the camera and buy it then or later when you have replenished your budget, and then you'll be able to do both by swapping the lens on your interchangeable lens camera 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The thing here is that these are two very different tasks. An old Canon Rebel with a cheap rear end 50mm prime lens and an AC adapter will absolutely blow any phone out of the water for a webcam, but will not be able to take a decent photo of the moon. Anything taking a good picture of the moon for cheap won't work as a webcam. Any recent Samsung phone will produce really good moon pictures, whether they are strictly photos is somewhat debatable: https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
that's pretty funny
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
lol Samsung is just straight up pasting a proper moon image over yours
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Is there a best middle-of-the-road watermark setting for subtle opacity but still good visibility? I'm thinking about going through and batch processing loads of images in my Google Drive to add a watermark since they're getting a lot of play lately. I know there's no best solution for every single photo, but I'm wondering if choosing a particular overlay type (darken, multiply, etc.) is 'good enough' for this kind of task. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:DO NOT take a picture of the moon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M75VLQuFPrY
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 08:07
|
|
|
Thank you for the advice, everyone! I'll try to look for a Canon Rebel t5 or newer with a prime 50 mm lens. My last question for now is how much is usually a decent price for a prime lens, and does it specifically have to be a Canon branded one? I'm still a bit lost when it comes to combing through search results, but I just wanna make sure that I'm not getting ripped off, and that I get a lens that's appropriate for a Canon Rebel. also lmao at the moon being a dangerous entity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 11:31
|
|
|
Don’t make the same mistake I did by getting a full frame 50mm! It will be zoomed in by 1.6 times. So either get an EF-S lens or get a 28mm or 35mm lens
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
You don’t specifically have to get a canon one. There are others made by companies like Sigma and Tamron. That being said though the canon 50mm lenses are really nice and usually cheap to boot As was said, if you get an EF 50mm 1.8 (the “Nifty Fifty”), it will be more like an 80mm on the T5, so if that’s not what you want you need the EF-S version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Don’t make the same mistake I did by getting a full frame 50mm! It will be zoomed in by 1.6 times. So either get an EF-S lens or get a 28mm or 35mm lens Not quite how it works. Any 50mm lens will give the field of view of an 80mm on full frame on a canon EF-S, even an EF-S 50mm (is there one?). For the equivalent field of view, yeah, a 35mm is closer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
god please help me posted:Thank you for the advice, everyone! I'll try to look for a Canon Rebel t5 or newer with a prime 50 mm lens. My last question for now is how much is usually a decent price for a prime lens, and does it specifically have to be a Canon branded one? The magic words are "EF mount" or "EF-S mount". EF-S will usually be cheaper and lighter since they need less glass and are not usable on cameras with larger sensors (i.e., the more expensive ones that the pricey lenses are targeted at). It doesn't have to be specifically Canon as long as it is compatible with those mounts. That said, IMO there's no reason not to get the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. It's hugely popular for a good reason. USD125 brand new from Canon, you can probably find it cheaper if you look around a bit. Personally I think it's a useful length even on a crop sensor but if you want to go wider the now discontinued Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is mean to be decent and you can probably find it used for ~$200. Wider still is the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM for $130 new, I haven't used it either though. And for completeness the other cheap, first party prime you could consider is the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, also discontinued but I imagine you can find one for ~$150. Lens focal lengths are always given for a full frame (35mm) sensor. For your camera, which has an APS-C sensor, you can multiply by 1.6 to get the full frame equivalent length. So the 50mm lens is 80mm equivalent, and the 35mm lens at 56mm equivalent is similar to a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
My suggestion is never buy an EF-S lens unless it's for budget reasons. They give you no room to grow as they can't be used on any EF or RF mount cameras.. so if you ever upgrade to a higher end body it's going to mandate new lenses at the same time. But if budget is a control there's never been a better time to buy EF-S because it's a dead format so prices are as low as they'll ever be. EF is only mostly dead as it can be easily adapted for use on RF bodies. (I guess technically one could adapt them to work on EF/RF bodies as the circuitry is compatible but this is getting into turbo nerd territory because there's no official adapter so you'd have to make your own. the imagine circle wouldn't cover the larger sensor either)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
That's a reasonable take, although it sounds like budget is important here. Personally when I shot with a crop sensor by far my most used lens was the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, if the OP is not dead set on a prime I would consider that one. Costs a little more than the other lenses I mentioned, but it covers the range of all of them and is widely agreed to have pretty great image quality and be an all around good deal. There are two versions, one with VC (image stabilisation) and one without, both are fine. Allegedly the VC version is a little less sharp but I can't say I ever noticed mine being significantly soft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
I go back and forth with primes. They're fast, sure, but with modern mirrorless cameras and noise reduction software, taking low light photos at higher apertures is very doable. I find the fixed focal length too restricting when I am out just shooting whatever I happen to run into
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
the sharpness, contrast, and overall image quality is nearly always better on a prime lens. and if you're into strong depth of field, of course, the speed is important. doesn't always matter to everyone, or in every situation, but there are important differences beyond "more light"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
That's a good point. I do think one RF L prime would be a good addition to my kit, but I also can't decide whether I'd rather have a 35, an 85, or the 100. Or maybe the Sigma 40 1.4 EF lens, which feels less stupidly expensive.
blue squares fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
Get the RF 16mm 2.8. It's such a tiny little dude, stashed away in the bag for the once a year situation where you really need to go insanely wide!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 18:16
|
|