lacunae

<p>dunno if Robert (the OP) has already figured out what he wants (or if his head is just spinnin)...<br>

I have 2 of the Nikon system bags - one from my 6006, which is almost 15 yrs old now... (one with D200?) they're both holding up, and they hold a useful amount of stuff, but I don't think they're comfortable or convenient to shoot out of (ie- with bag on shoulder), and of course they scream "camera bag". <br>

Also, yeah my bag collection has evolved and grown (way too much) over the years -- many are just used as storage for various equipment. There are a variety of styles and sizes (as you can see from all the responses) -- each with +/- depending on your taste/needs/mood. <br>

Anyway, in case you're still looking for ideas, here are my Fave 5 (not brought to you by T-mobile) bags to shoot out of (while carrying the bag): </p>

<ol>

<li>Domke/Tamron F-5XB : because its so light that I almost don't notice that it is there (especially when the camera is in my hand) -- obviously works only when traveling light. Doesn't look too much like a camera bag. Thin padding keeps it compact/flexible (not-so-good if you bang your bags into stuff) </li>

<li>Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home : comfortable, well padded, can hold a lot of gear. wide opening fits camera with grip and lens attached, allows easy access.</li>

<li>Tamrac Velocity 5 : reasonably small, thinner than the Crumpler, lots of zipper pockets for small or flat items (including exterior ones). Problem I had in the past was that sometimes I needed more space and attached exterior lens cases to the straps on each side, which made the bag too big/heavy and kinda uncomfortable. (the crumpler means I don't gotta do this anymore)</li>

<li>Tamrac Velocity 7 (and 9) : sling style, but flatter to back than the slingshots. very convenient/comfortable as long as you don't overload them (or add external lens cases). the Velocity 9 is just big enough to fit a camera with a vertical grip and an 80-200/2.8 (which means its usually too big for me). Disadvantages: these bags do not stand up on their own.</li>

<li>Lowepro Sideline Shooter : waist-pack style. sits on hips like a belt, so no bag to swing around, shoulder are completely free for slinging camera strap (or other bags). Convenient platform for lens changes, easy to find things -- its pretty small/shallow, nice if you're using shorter lenses (ie- a bunch of smallish primes) that fit in vertically, longer lenses aren't good for this one.</li>

</ol>

<p>The ThinkTank Urban Disguise 50 is great for carrying things around, but just too heavy to shoot out of when loaded. I only use when I need to carry the macbook. Backpacks are also great for hauling stuff around, but don't like having to take them off to change lenses.<br>

Oh, and I put up a page of photos of my <a href="http://foto.pharm.uic.edu/bag-f5xb/">F-5XB with various collections of gear</a> in case you're still considering this bag. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>I'd second the recommendation for the Domke F-5XB. I picked up the Tamron co-branded version (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=423215&is=REG&A=details&Q=">link</a> ) on a whim a few years ago when it was on sale for ~$30, and now it is probably the bag I use most often when I want to travel light (which is most of the time). I don't have a 35mm f/2, so I'm not positive, but the bag can fit a D700 w/28mm f/1.8 (old sigma) + 50/1.8 + SB-800 (just checked!). Usually I have the D700 with a slightly bigger lens (24-60/2.8 or 85/1.4) attached, and then either the 28/1.8 (w/ the 85), or a 105DC/135DC sometimes (no flash). Used to be the D300 + 18-200 and another lens. There's just enough space to throw an extra battery and a couple of filters (or a colorright) in with any of the above (and pens/paper/gum or other small or flat things in the front pocket)</p>

<p>I disagree with Gary in that there is a purpose to having a small bag. Certainly this bag can't be the only bag for most people, and if I need more than this will carry, I have a number of other bags (crumpler, tamrac, tenba, lowepro, thinktank, etc). Which I use depends on what I want to carry (tho i don't use any of the square-ish, box-like camera bag styles anymore - except as storage (ie, my tenba & nikon bags), cuz they're not as comfortable to carry around. Also, the F-5XB is small enough to stuff into your luggage (empty w/dividers detached so that it flattens out), which was really convenient last trip I took where I flew out with my camera gear (and macbook) in a bigger bag (ThinkTank Urban Disguise 50), but mostly just carried the F-5XB with various lenses for day trips.</p>

<p>And yeah, it's my "lens-purse" -- oh, and that huge label/tag on the front comes off pretty easily with a small scissors or exacto knife.</p>

<p>I like the 135DC better than the 105DC. I like the longer perspective, and there's just something about the way it renders backgrounds... for outdoor portraits especially, the backgrounds look almost like they're paintings instead of photos. The 135DC is kinda long indoors (and I actually got it when I was shooting only on DX, so quite long -- but a nice fast telephoto on DX). Originally I thought it'd be a nice pairing with the 85/1.4D that I was planning to get, but then a friend bought the 85 (which I've borrowed) and I came across a great deal on the 105DC, so I have both DC lenses (and I guess I've been lucky in that I haven't had any focus problems on any of my cameras). I've since added the 85/1.4D, which is also wonderful, and the 1.4 comes in handy sometimes. I do like the 105DC, but honestly, if I'd gotten the 85 first, I probably wouldn't have gotten the 105. Oh, someone mentioned the 105VR micro -- it is nice, but so thick and so heavy. One of my friends loves his tho, but he's all about the macro with that lens. Its not a match for the 85/105DC/135DC as a portrait lens tho (in my opinion). </p>

<p>Anyway, ultimately you'll have to decide what focal length(s) work for you. All of the 3 portrait lenses (85/105DC/135DC) are great (and now that I have all three, I'm not giving any of them up). If I was just getting one, i dunno, I'd prolly split the difference and get the 105DC, but if you do two lenses, go for the 85/1.4D *and* the 135DC -- probably the best of both worlds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are programs avaliable that will analyze the EXIF data on your current shots to tell you what focal length is your most used.<br>

What programs are those, Sasvata? That would be very interesting to find out! Lightroom etc tell me lenses, but not individual focal lengths used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a freeware program called <a href="http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html">ExposurePlot</a> that will scan through folders (and subfolders), reading the exif (from any jpg files it finds) and plot the # of shots found vs. focal length (actual or 35mm equiv), iso, aperture, and shutter speed. Definitely helpful for deciding what lenses to buy (or if you're trying to justify buying a particular lens)<br>

It can take awhile if you run it on a whole hard drive full of pictures -- and it'll look like its not doing anything at all (for awhile) if there are enough files. (but it only took ~15 seconds to scan 25 directories with 1544 files -- i usually shoot raw+jpg, so we're probably only talking about 770-800 jpgs)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I’m not convinced that the digital is cheaper than film. Your comparison is not accurate. I guess to run digital photography you need much more than just a memory card. First at all you need a $3000 body (I assume that DX’s already dead) and have to replace it every 4 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Roman, I think your assumptions are incorrect. A $3000 body is well beyond what the vast majority of digital camera users are looking at. (even the idea of a digital camera "body" is a relatively new one to most as before 2007, DSLRs were a fairly small percentage of the digital camera market) Looking at sales numbers from 2006, the worldwide market for digital still cameras was around US$18 billion, and around 76 million digital still cameras were sold, so the average purchase price was ~$236. (and in the point and shoot market, the number is likely far lower now: looking at the top 20 best selling point & shoot digital cameras at bestbuy.com -- which is (sadly) probably more typical of camera sales these days than actual camera stores -- 17 of the 20 have a current price below $200 and 3 of those are under $100 -- and almost all of these are significantly cheaper at amazon.com) -- $200 doesn't buy much film+processing. DSLR sales are growing faster than non-DSLR digitals (as ppl discover the limitations of their point and shoots -- mostly shutter-lag for all those parents with little kids?), but still a relatively small percentage of the total market.<br /> <br /> On the other end of the scale, a lot of pro photography has gone digital in a big way because of the workflow efficiencies: for breaking news and sports, the ability to transmit/upload photos minutes after the event is over (or even during the event) is certainly important (and for newspaper/online/tv/regular magazines - modern digital cameras provide more than the necessary quality). It seems like most wedding & event photographers have gone digital (can't remember the last time I saw a 35mm film SLR being used by the primary photographer at a wedding or other event), and common portraiture (ie- class photos, senior portraits, corporate photos, etc) seems mostly digital as well. <br /> <br /> What all this leads to is a much smaller market for film camera sales and film development. So, its not surprising that camera companies have pared their lines dramatically (the ones who haven't gotten out entirely). The last time I dropped off a roll of film at a local Ritz Camera store (cuz I wanted 1 hr processing), I asked the guy behind the counter how much film they were doing these days, and he said it was down to just 1-2 rolls a day now vs. 50-100/day 10 years ago (and back then ppl could get 1hr processing at most of drug stores and many other stores)<br /> <br /> Film's not going away anytime soon -- plenty of folks doing wonderful work with film -- especially b/w, and also with medium/large format films. But it has long since lost the mass-market (digital cameras first outsold film cameras in the US in 2003), and also that part of the pro photography that requires the speed that digital can bring to the table.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do you imagine that anybody gonna shoot D700 in 5-6 years?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>who knows... I know many people still using Nikon D70/D70s or Canon Digital Rebel XT bodies -- many of those are 4-5 years old now, and I would expect that a digital camera bought today would be considered usable for a longer time than one bought 4-5 years ago as the digital camera market is more mature now than it was then. If I'm not still using my D700 5 years from now, I'd expect that someone else prolly will be (unless it breaks or is lost stolen before then).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And the digital never can bring you that amount of excitement and joy that the film does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, you're only talking about the enthusiast market. Over the last few years (in non-formal photo situations) people seem most excited to see the photo just seconds after the shot on the LCD on the back of the camera -- and most are quite disappointed (and some confused) if you're shooting film and there is no monitor on the back to look at. what of anticipation you say? seemingly not a popular thing (beyond a few minutes or seconds) anymore. I'm not real big on the idea of spending time in the darkroom these days, so film doesn't bring that level of excitement/joy for me -- friends/people who love being in the darkroom do seem to find that excitement/joy.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry but those things money can’t buy (well, at least for me). And so far nobody recommended Patrick to switch to digital. May be it’s not cheaper?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its a film forum and he asked about film bodies (plus he specifically mentioned that he didn't want to go digital). Why would anyone be telling him to switch to digital?</p>

<p><em>back on topic:<br /> </em> Patrick: I still have/occasionally use my F90x and 6006, but if I were shopping for replacements, I'd be looking into a used F100 (or 2?) Seems like its pretty easy to find decent ones for $200 or less in the used market. (one of my friends got one a couple months ago, its quite nice). I've got Nikon lenses and accessories to go with tho, so its really a no-brainer for me. You didn't mention what your other (dead) SLRs were, but if you were staying with Canon FD gear and not wanting to move to an autofocus camera system, those cameras and lenses are amazingly cheap on the used market. Cheap "toy" cameras also seem a popular way to use/experiment with film, and Holgas are quite cheap ($25-35) -- yeah, no 120 kodachrome anymore, but a lot of people seem to be having a great time with them (and producing some interesting stuff too)</p>

Geoff: 0.0005% = 5ppm <p>

you forgot to divide by 100 (to clear the percent sign) before multiplying by 1000000 to get the parts per million. So that HPLC grade (CHROMASOLV from Sigma-Aldrich) would have the same solid residue as eclipse. If you're feeling ultra paranoid, the CHROMASOLV Plus grade claims less than 0.0001% (1ppm) evaporation residue. <p>I've been using the slightly lower ACS reagent grade (which only claims <= 0.001% evap residue, so max 10ppm solids), figuring that the odds are far greater of dust from the pad or on the sensor causing a problem than anything that might be in the methanol (and because I already had some).

<p>If you're ordering tho, check the prices on all of the methanol options, because depending on where you are, the price differences can be quite large or very small: comparing the CHROMASOLV & CHROMASOLV Plus grades mentioned above, the USA pricing is very nearly the same, but in the UK, the "Plus" is more than twice the price, and in Spain it is over 3x the price.

Have you had the chance to handle both cameras? Are you a "total novice" with the SLR thing as well as the "DSLR thing"? The D70 has enough beginner modes that it shouldn't be "too much" camera. (or else the D50 is likely to be as well) Do you have other digital cameras that use either Secure Digital(SD) or Compact Flash(CF) memory? (because that could be a reason to choose the D50(uses SD) or the D70(CF) if you have a lot of memory already. Also, you mention that you "want to get into it as a new hobby" -- how serious do you see yourself getting? and how soon. If the answer is "serious and soon", then the D70 is a bit more capable: the built-in flash can act as a wireless controller for a SB600 or SB800, the extra command wheel makes it easier to change settings in manual modes (imho of course, I know some people who just get confused by the 2nd wheel - can't remember which to turn for which function), the depth of field preview, easier access to some other functions without going into the menus, etc. OTOH, none of this might matter to you, I've a friend who just went with a D50 and added the 18-200VR to that. Price wasn't the deciding factor: after trying them out it just fit better.