Keep lens attached to body in camera bag?

[Taz777]

After using my camera, should I detach the lens from the camera body before storing both in my camera bag, or should I leave the lens attached?

At the moment I’m detaching the lens and it’s a bit of a pain refitting lens and body caps each time.

 

[mshchem]

You only need to remove the lens to change to a different lens.

 

[AgX]

At the moment I’m detaching the lens and it’s a bit of a pain refitting lens and body caps each time.

What mount system are you using that gives you a pain in refitting? More so as in your case it would only be for storing.

 

[Taz777]

What mount system are you using that gives you a pain in refitting? More so as in your case it would only be for storing.

Fuji X and Minolta SR.

Not a pain as such, it's just the tediousness! I'm learning to use three different cameras at the moment and each one is stored in a different small camera bag with its main lens detached. It's just the process of removing caps many times a day at the moment - I must have gone through the process at least a dozen times yesterday. I was just wondering whether its fine to just leave the lens attached when the camera is put back in the bag.

 

[neilt3]

As already said , leave the lens on the body unless you want to change lenses .
All the cameras I use have a lens attached , most of the cameras I have , even when not in use tend to have a lens on . ( I probably have over 100 cameras , best not to count them !)

Isn't the Fiji X a digital camera ?
By keep taking the lens off unnecessarily you will be increasing the amount of dust on the sensor .
Even stored with a body cap on dust can still get in .

Leave the lens on and take care when changing .

Some people buy a camera where you can change the lens but never take the kit lens off , ever .
If your happy with what's on , be it a 50mm , a 28-80mm , 18-55mm etc , you may never need to take it off , ever .
Just because you have a camera where you can take the lens off , doesn't mean you have too , especially not a dozen times a day !

 

[Taz777]

As already said , leave the lens on the body unless you want to change lenses .
All the cameras I use have a lens attached , most of the cameras I have , even when not in use tend to have a lens on . ( I probably have over 100 cameras , best not to count them !)

Isn't the Fiji X a digital camera ?
By keep taking the lens off unnecessarily you will be increasing the amount of dust on the sensor .
Even stored with a body cap on dust can still get in .

Leave the lens on and take care when changing .

Some people buy a camera where you can change the lens but never take the kit lens off , ever .
If your happy with what's on , be it a 50mm , a 28-80mm , 18-55mm etc , you may never need to take it off , ever .
Just because you have a camera where you can take the lens off , doesn't mean you have too , especially not a dozen times a day !

Yeah the Fuji X is a digital. I now have three (almost) 35mm film cameras. I have many smallish camera bags so am looking to consolidate things a little. I want to be able to pack my two Minolta SRT cameras plus their lenses, manuals, flashes, etc., into one bag so am on the lookout for a very large cheap camera bag, My Dynax 7000i has it's old bag from decades ago so no issues there. My Fuji X-E3 came with a free small bag but I can't fit the X into that bag with the lens attached easily. I need to figure out how to pack a camera bag properly!

 

[cooltouch]

I think it depends on the case -- at least to some extent. I have a lot of cases, but two favorites, and one reason why is because of the way I can arrange cameras in them. In these two case's examples, I can insert the camera into the bag with both motor drive and short to medium length tele or zoom attached. But in the other end of the bag, I can insert a camera body with motor, but only if it doesn't have a lens attached. Or I can have both cameras with lenses attached as long as both lenses are short ones, say 100mm or shorter. Plus the bags are roomy enough where I can still store at least four more lenses in their own padded pockets. So how often I'll be swapping lenses will depend entirely upon the variety of shooting I'll be doing. I always assume that I'll be swapping lenses when I'm out in the field, so this is just something I think of as part of the routine. And talk about tedium -- at least half the time I'm out with film gear, I'm packing Canon FD cameras and lenses, and most of my FD lenses are the older breechlock lenses, which are infamous for their tedious, fiddly nature when it comes time to swap them out. But it's just something I've gotten used to. If I want to bring my Canon gear out to play, I know I'm gonna have to deal with it, that's all.

 

[AgX]

I do not consider the old FD-mount fiddly, at least as long one uses lenses with the self-locking breech-lock and knows how to handle these. There is no better bayonet mount concerning sturdiness than old-FD.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Open camera body gathers dust.

 

[Pentode]

I keep the lens on unless I’m changing lenses or storing the camera away for a while.

No reason to remove the lens if you’re only going to put it back on.

 

[bdial]

Think of your lens as a very large, elaborate body cap

 

[AgX]

It all depends on the bag one is using. If the bag enables one to put the camera back-in whatever lens is on, then of course one should leave it as is.
But typically with larger lenses it becomes difficult. Also with compartening of some bags there is no other chance than to take off any lens.
In such case one might push-in the body as is, if the smooth padding inside the bag will close the mount opening. One even may make a closing cover flap oneself. Otherwise a body cap should be used. Screw-on caps of course can be annoying and should be substituted by a DIY push-on cap. The cap can be connected to the bag by a lane. Changing lenses, thus having to hold three items the same time, can be facilitated by good design of the bag.
Of course at least the lens mounts schould get a cap, here the same applies as above. FD-lens mounts should get a cap in any case.
The more hastily one would have to change lenses the better designed the bag should be and yield the chance to take a lens vertically provisionally, giving basic cover and keeping it from falling out.

 

[cooltouch]

I do not consider the old FD-mount fiddly, at least as long one uses lenses with the self-locking breech-lock and knows how to handle these. There is no better bayonet mount concerning sturdiness than FD.

I knew some loyal FD user would object to my comments. I agree absolutely that the FD breechlock mount is just about as sturdy a mount as you're going to find. Most of my FD mount lenses' rings do lock into the "mount" position. But look, after you've locked the ring, you have to align the pin inside the ring with the slot in the body's mount and then you hope that the spring in your lens's mount has enough juice to spin the ring at least a few centimeters so that the lens won't fall off. And then, you have to tighten the ring, of course. Compare that with the one swift twist to mount or remove a Nikon AI or AIs lens or Pentax K. I'm not complaining about the FD mount. I've used it for too many years and have too many good lenses with the breechlock ring. But I've also gotten really good at rotating the ring to the lock position with my pinky finger while mounting the lens, too, and then using the same finger to snug it up after the lock is released..

 

[GRHazelton]

Think of your lens as a very large, elaborate body cap

Good thought! I recall buying an Olympus OM-4 with a mounted 28mm with a stuck filter. Nice body cap! and after removing the stuck filter a lovely lens. My personal practice is to leave a lens mounted to its body, whether film or digital. An unoccupied lens mount is an open invitation to dust and other nasties....

 

[grahamp]

A camera without a lens (or pinhole...) is just an elaborate box. Back when I was using 35mm I used to switch back to whatever was my general purpose lens at the time. I still keep a 150mm lens on my 5x4, as that will suit 50% of what I do.

 

[BradS]

....I was just wondering whether its fine to just leave the lens attached when the camera is put back in the bag.

Yes. It is definitely fine to leave the lens attached....in fact, it is preferable.

 

[MattKing]

You can sometimes carry more stuff (camera bodies and lenses) in a bag if the bodies and cameras are stored separately.
Whether or not that is a good thing is highly debatable!
If I'm carrying two bodies in order to be able to use two films (e.g. colour slide and B&W) and there is a particular lens (e.g. my 35mm f/2) that I'm likely to want to switch from body to body, it can be handy to have a body cap on the body in the bag.
And if you have multiple bodies, it can be a really good idea to store the bodies with body caps on them, so as to avoid the situation where the lens you want to use turns out to be on the body you left at home.
In general though, you want to minimize the time that bodies remain open to the environment, and you want to be careful about the conditions when you expose the inside of your camera to that environment.

 

[railwayman3]

I always leave a lens on my camera when I'm working from my smaller camera bag, it avoids dust from unnecessary changes of lens and saves time and fiddling around. The camera sits nicely, lens downwards, fitted with the lens last used (35mm, 50mm, 90mm), while the other two lenses are to hand in the two side compartments. (All nicely padded with a soft finish). Then I can either use the lens fitted, or just make a single lens change if I wish to use one of the others. The less-used gadgets, other lenses, close-up bits, are all stored in a bigger bag, usually carried in the car if needed on a trip, while the 120 stuff lives in another even bigger bag.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How about reading the manual. Where in the manual it is mentioned what camera has to be disconnected from the lens? It might be mentioned for long storage.

 

[Taz777]

You can sometimes carry more stuff (camera bodies and lenses) in a bag if the bodies and cameras are stored separately.

Indeed. I'm trying to find a very large cheap bag for a couple of bodies and several lenses. My current bags are all quite small and barely fit a single body with lens attached. I'd prefer to fit two bodies with lenses attached into one bag and still have room for flashguns and a couple more lenses, but finding a budget bag large enough is proving to be quite tough.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you have a body cap, I would have two cameras and a few lenses in a bag. The camera with film in it would have a lens on it, while the other would be the “spare” with a body cap.

Takes up less room as a set and you don’t have to change two lenses (if the lens you want is on the other body).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

After using my camera, should I detach the lens from the camera body before storing both in my camera bag, or should I leave the lens attached?

At the moment I’m detaching the lens and it’s a bit of a pain refitting lens and body caps each time.

I'm in the habit to leave the lens on the body until I want to use a different lens.It's easierand causes less wear on the camera lens mount.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is no good reason to store the camera without the lens and a number of reasons not to do it. In addition to the reasons listed above, why put the extra wear on the lens and camera mounts?

 

[Taz777]

Thanks all. I’ll invest in a larger bag so that I can leave the lens on the body.