ray*j*gun
Veteran
I like my bag to look like its carrying an old tape vid camera....i am nerdy looking enough to get away with that and be ignored.
...and we catch hell over the cost of our Leica cameras
- Thread starter noisycheese
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 8K
hlockwood
Well-known
I was ready to buy, but then I saw that the strap costs an extra $225. Sorry, just over budget, so, no sale.
HFL
Last edited:
goamules
Well-known
The interesting thing to me is ALL camera bags in the 1890s - 1960s were as high a quality as that, or better, and cost very, very little.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Evert time we have these bag threads, well maybe not every time as I don't read them all, we have this theft paranoia. I'm sure it does happen but put it in perspective. In London 10,000 mobile phones are stolen every MONTH. I don't have the camera figures but a wild guess would place it lower than that.
And yes I know most of those will actually have a camera in them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24633152
And yes I know most of those will actually have a camera in them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24633152
seakayaker1
Well-known
I have a couple of Artisan and Artist bags (ACAM-7100) which I paid about $149/$179 when I bought them. Folks thought they were overpriced then and probably still do since they are priced at $319.00 at one of the sponsors web site currently.
When I look at this bag (Ghurka), I find it is not functional for the gear I would carry. If it was a functional bag the price tag would be prohibitive. I look at the price of this bag as some looked at the price for the AA bag that I love and thought the price was worth the value of the bag.
Different strokes for different folks.
As a side note, I have a leather soft briefcase that I bought in 1988 that I still carry today. Back then I paid a few hundred dollars for it but it still is fully functional today. Some times the extra dollars spent turn out to be a good investment.
When I look at this bag (Ghurka), I find it is not functional for the gear I would carry. If it was a functional bag the price tag would be prohibitive. I look at the price of this bag as some looked at the price for the AA bag that I love and thought the price was worth the value of the bag.
Different strokes for different folks.
As a side note, I have a leather soft briefcase that I bought in 1988 that I still carry today. Back then I paid a few hundred dollars for it but it still is fully functional today. Some times the extra dollars spent turn out to be a good investment.
froyd
Veteran
oh, the irony... behold the RANGEFINDER No. 57 ...holding a Canon SLR
PS- sorry for the huge image size!
PS- sorry for the huge image size!
lynnb
Veteran
where's Joe? 🙂🙂
literiter
Well-known
So, if you are willing to drop over 20 grand on a camera system that you won't use, why not put another 2 grand on a nice case you won't use it with....right?
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Sire, your logic is unimpeachable! 😀
I have a book titled Japan by photographer Hiroji Kubota. Messr. Kubota is a member of Magnum. On the inside back flap is a photo of him carrying his camera gear. His gear is in a Domke bag.
This is a gent who is at the pinnacle of his profession; Magnum doesn't accept just anybody with a camera and a portfolio. He can have any camera bag made, yet he chooses Domke. I find that interesting.
I watched a video of Bruce Gilden, also a member of Magnum - doing some street photography. His bag was a beat to hell and back Billingham. Again, interesting choice of bag. It seems that for these august gents, function trumps fashion.
I wonder how many people who carry $3500 Louis Vitton camera bags are Magnum members or shoot for National Geographic?
Similar threads
- Article
