How heavy is your camera bag/kit?

[Markster]

I lugged my camera around for a week to work (I don't normally do this) during the leaf-changing period. Sadly I didn't get any good photos but I was reminded how heavy my bag can be. It's probably near 10 lbs.

It's a small bag. It fits the following: AE-1 body, 2x converter, wide prime, medium zoom, tele zoom (and film, of course!)

If I need I can strip out all but the body, the 35-70mm zoom, and go light, but I like having my options. It got me thinking about how much weight we lug around sometimes, vs what we need.

How heavy is your kit? If you're the kind of person that carries suitcases that unzip or luggage on wheels let's just consider your average "keep it on my shoulder while shooting" bag/setup.

 

[benjiboy]

I have a lot of FD gear, and bags of many shapes and sizes but my favourite lightweight walk around outfit is 1 body with a Canon FD 28- 85 f4 zoom lens fitted in a small Lowepro Zoomster case. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/zoom/nfd_28~85_4.html

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning;

I have not used the scale to tell exactly what it is doing, but I can say that I "upgraded" the pack for the Canon DSLR stuff to a LowePro CompuTrekker to get all of the things in there that seem to be needed, including the computer. Normally I put the Bogen-Manfrotto 3021S travel tripod without the head on it inside the carry-on bag with the clothes, which goes as checked luggage. I have no idea what the TSA people think when it passes through their scanner system. It is a little more heavy than my SAR pack, but not as heavy as the expedition pack. The film stuff is easier on me, unless I am carrying the MF gear or the 4 by 5 view camera and tripod.

Enjoy; Ralph, Latte Land, Washington

 

[benjiboy]

I just weighed my big Billingham bag that contains my Mamiya TLR gear on the bathroom scales and it weighs 24 pounds !

 

[Markster]

oi!

That's a lot to hang on a shoulder for prolonged periods of time!

 

[DWThomas]

Wasn't there a thread several years back showing a guy with a garage full of bags he'd bought over the years?

I own one of the smaller Lowepro backpacks (Micro Trekker?) that I use as a repository for my FD gear, but I very seldom carry it while taking pictures ("but I could if I wanted to"). I'm sort of a minimalist about this stuff; usually a decent 2 or 3:1 zoom is cool. really getting carried away would add a fast prime for low light. With a bag full of lenses, I usually have the wrong one on, and whatever I suddenly want to shoot is gone before I can change. If hiking, I'm likely to put the 35-70 on the A-1 and just hang it around my neck - might tuck a plastic bag in my pocket if the weather looks iffy. Sometimes I carry it in a fanny pack. Traveling overseas I carried that combo plus the 50mm f1.4 and a pile of film in a modest shoulder bag that wasn't even a camera bag, more of a "man bag" item. I left the 35-105 zoom home. But that wasn't a "photo" trip, just a vacation traveling with other family members. I have a few other photo shoulder bags collected over the years, but they tend to sit right where they are.

I have one of those Computrekker packs full of Bronica SQ-A stuff, but ain't no way I will carry that further than from the house to the car! Even with the WLF, the SQ-A and the 110mm 1:1 macro is about a five pound handful. I usually pick two lenses and the WLF to cart the Bronnie in a shoulder bag -- again, a modified travel bag. I now own a Think Tank "Urban Disguise 30" which is a not especially "camera!" looking padded bag that can carry almost any thing in modest quantity. I took an EOS40D and a Perkeo II (and way more B&W film than I used) to England in it.

 

[benjiboy]

If I need to carry a lot of equipment any distance I use a Pelican 1510 hard case that has wheels on it http://www.pelican.com/cases_detail.php?Case=1510, but generally I try to carry as little gear as possible.

 

[blockend]

I have a cheap nylon photo bag about the size of a small loaf of bread. It fits two A-Series Canons back to back with prime lenses and the zip front pocket contains 5 x rolls of 35mm. I also have a large Billingham and various other camera cases but my £12 supermarket camera bag with a pair of A-1s is the most flexible, compact and easily accessible arrangement I've ever had. It came with compact camera and lens pouches for any overspill and a pullout waterproof cover. It's unattractive to thieves, too.

 

[waynecrider]

My usual carry nowadays is a small video bag my brother bought me that at first thought seemed worthless but actually turned out to be just perfect for a body with lens attached and filters, cloth, film and release. Maybe 4 lbs. My usual travel bag is a off brand shoulder that holds 2 bodies and I can get about 3 to 5 lenses in it plus alot of accessories. About 10 lbs total. The only time I carry more is on flights where the bag is simply to transport.

 

[flatulent1]

In the beginning I had a T90, a few lenses, pair of flashes, quantum batteries, and absolutely everything else I might think I needed packed into a Domke F3x. I took it everywhere. It was bloody heavy. And I rarely used half of what I had in the bag. It took me perhaps four years to realize what a fool I was being, and sold the whole kit in favor of an Olympus IS-1 and no extras. (The wisedom of that move can be found in another thread somewhere, I'm sure.)

When I started acquiring additional camera kits six or seven years ago I also picked up several camera bags. I had a Canon New F-1 in a Domke F3x with a few primes, a T90 in a Billingham 335 with a pair of zooms, a prime and a flash, a Domke F1x for my EOS kit, a Filson carryon for the Nikon F4 and two lenses... It all sounded so good and so organized, and I never used any of them like that. I grab a body or two and a couple of lenses, drop them in a Dockers airline carryon bag I got cheap, and away I go.

My Mamiya 645 Pro resides in a pair of Billinghams; the body/finder/grip/back/lens in the 225 with an additional lens or two plus a back and insert, and a Hadley Pro holds more backs and inserts and another lens. If I'm doing a simple walkaround I grab the 225; if I'm driving somewhere more than an hour away or otherwise expect to do some significant shooting I take both bags. Easy.

No idea what any of this weighs. And there's no heartburning at all over the bits of kit I left at home.

 

[benjiboy]

It's no good lugging so much equipment just because you have it that when you get to where you're taking it you're too exhausted to use it, I try to only carry the minimum I can, sometimes just an FD body with my FD 35mm f2 lens, and try to look for subjects that suite the lens, rather then the other way round.

 

[Markster]

Interesting distinction there. Sometimes I want the picture regardless of what lens I have, and sometimes I luck out and have the right ones on hand.

Off topic:

One time I was going up Mt. Bierstadt, and there's the point where you can turn and look back. From the parking spot along a road, we had to hike across a green flat area, follow a winding path through swamp/marsh (with boardwalks built where needed) and then up a rocky base to where I was taking the photo. I took it totally wide at 28mm, switched to my 50mm and took another, switched to my 70-210 (the only 3 lenses I had at the time) and zoomed in getting 2 maybe 3 more progressive shots. It made for very cool photos when narrating the trip to friends and using the photo to punctuate the different steps.

So, to me I would "like" (not need) at least some moderate zoom. I take the 2x converter nowadays because it's almost nothing and it can add much flexibility to a lighter loadout. Say I only want to take the 35-70mm, well if I take that 2x converter now I suddenly have a 140 zoom! (or stick it on my 200 and get a 400mm like my last trip up Grays and Torreys, snagged a cool shot of climbers going up the steep ridge to the peak).

My 70-210 often finds its way into my hikes even though it doesn't really belong. Heh, I guess I live in HOPE of a good shot more than I do in fear of getting tired. For now.

 

[benjiboy]

I have lots of camera bags, but in recent years have bough ta few small ones in an effort to try to carry a more sensible amount of equipment , because in my experience the bigger the bag the more you tend to carry in it, and over the years I must have carried tons of gear that I haven't used that day that's been a waste of effort, I try to give what I'm going to with me for a days shooting some thought about what sort of pictures I want to make before deciding what to take with me.

 

[dnjl]

I don't even have a dedicated camera bag. I use my regular backpack to carry my gear. The most I carry would include a Canon F-1n, 17mm, 35mm and 50mm lens, and one of my medium format cameras, but usually I carry only one lens instead of three. I barely feel the weight, although my new old 5kg tripod may change that.

 

[benjiboy]

If I want to travel light with a versatile outfit I just take one body and the FD 28-80 f4 zoom, and the FD 20mm f2.8 lens.

 

[photopriscilla]

I love my Contrajour 75 bag. It distributes the weight well. Sometimes a little awkward when retrieving the lens and cameras but they are safe and you are not perceived as a photographer (which I find important at times).

 

[benjiboy]

I'm currently carrying in my Domke F2 bag, 2 Canon New F1 bodys, a FD 28-85mm zoom, an FD 24mm f2, and a Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 lens, several rolls of film, a light meter and other odds and end, the total weight is 12lb.

Update- My Domke F2 bag for convenient everyday carry is just too heavy with 2 Canon F1 bodys they are very heavy cameras, I now normally only carry one and 4 lenses unless I think I have a real need for two bodys. I learned in the military when I was young that there was a limit to the amount you could carry for a days march, and still be in a fit physical state for combat, and I think the same principal applies to lugging photographic gear around.