Camera bag versus a non Camera bag

Most of my "camera" bags are just shoulder bags of various descriptions, and I've been doing that since before camera bags were soft. The problem with real camera bags comes when you try to stuff something extra into them---a tablet, book, sweater--and I do that often enough that camera bags aren't functional for me. I just bought a small Domke, and it's great for around the neighborhood, but not very useful otherwise. It definitely won't be going on trips with me.

re the article: inserts don't help me--they just make a good bag worse, for my use.
 
I don't think that adding inserts to a tote bag "disguises" anything. Any thief who watches you for 5 minutes will know that something special is in that bag, or may even see you put the camera in or out of it.
Also, unless it has a comfortable shoulder strap, you have to put the tote bag down to take pictures.
I don't see any practical advantage to doing this.
 
... Any thief who watches you for 5 minutes will know that something special.....

If that long, after watching people a bit it is rather telegraphed by many.

In looking at the bag presented I'm thinking of having to put it down to shoot with two hands on the camera (10 and 2 comes to mind).

I'm a big proponent of using non-camera-specific bags but I look for features that IMHO add value (e.g. insulation of a diaper bag on a hot day) rather than just covertness. To add value from a covert perspective it has to fit in with the person carrying it. The non-camera bag in the article does not fit me as a person, nor does a diaper bag without a toddler/infant in tow.

B2 (;->
 
I use non camera bags for my gear less for hiding the fact I have a camera than the convenience and cost. 35mm either a $10 cotton duck messenger bag or soft insulated lunch bag. medium format gets a 6x6x12" soft sided tackle bag designed for crankbait /spinnerbaits. With Flambeau in large letters it doesn't scream camera bag unless you see gear coming in and out. Works for me and less money invested in my bags allowed more to be spent on film. YMMV 😎
 
It's really not always a matter of having something that "looks" like a camera bag.. Often times, it is whatever is most comfortable/familiar. One can buy an inexpensive insert for their favourite messenger/tote/etc bag and instantly transform it into a functional camera bag that works well in most situations.
 
The idea of showing yourself by "working" is a bit of a red herring for me: I carry a camera and a couple of lenses 100% of the time. There's a Canon QL17 living in my bike bag, for commuting. I am using a camera a very small percentage of that--I only pull it out when I want to shoot something, and then it quickly goes back in the bag. So basically, looking like a normal guy on the street carrying whatever cheap stuff in a crappy shoulder bag does offer something to me in the way of security.
 
Non-camera bags for me are a carry solution rather than trying to disguise the contents. For bags I shoot from, I generally want something minimalist with no padding so it can squish down in volume if not loaded with much. Inserts provide the level of padding I find suitable for my needs.

One problem I recently solved was how to transport a DSLR kit and Leica M kit together. I.e for point A-B air/car travel. Many larger camera bags (backpacks, etc.) tend to be DSLR centric. The M stuff is too small and will float around with lack of sufficient dividers. And again, the bags are somewhat over-padded for my likes.

I ended up with a Tom Bihn Western Flyer, which happens to work well with Domke inserts and Tenba packing cubes. The DSLR gear uses the Domke inserts, the M gear is put in the padded packing cubes. At the destination I shoot out of other bags that roll up and store in the Bihn bag during transport. If I don't need to bring all that gear, but am traveling, I can pack half the bag with gear and the other half with clothes, etc.

I suppose, as is common with many photographers, one can never have enough bags. 🙂 Thanks to RFF I've come across some good alternatives to the typical photo brands, including both Filson and Bihn.
 
I used regular backpack and two lunch bags in it to haul DSLRs gear for years.
Now I'm not hauling it outside in same quantities and it is down to one lens one DSLR, maybe flash most of the random times I'm taking DSLR out.
It is RF, TLR or folder now. One on camera lens, couple of films and exposure meter.
For this the modern Tamrac camera bags are perfect. No inflated price tag, good quality and amazing capacity. In fact it is my go to everywhere anywhere bag now.
Here is the picture of it I took on previous week while going on customer site for installation of equipment into the racks.

Tamrac.jpg


So, I'm using camera bag as non-camera bag 🙂
 
if i'm going somewhere to take photos, i take a camera bag because it is more user friendly. the design of the flaps, pockets, and interior are almost always better than a non-camera bag.

i only use non-camera bags for everyday stuff. if i take a camera with me, it's a compact camera in a soft case.
 
Non-camera bags for me are a carry solution rather than trying to disguise the contents. For bags I shoot from, I generally want something minimalist with no padding so it can squish down in volume if not loaded with much. Inserts provide the level of padding I find suitable for my needs. ...

You said it better than I did. 🙂

Thinking about it, for each kit I tend to have a largish, well-padded bag that I use to store it in. And then I have about three smallish, lightly padded bags of different sizes and shapes that I keep in the closet empty so that I have something to go out shooting with, without having to carry all the other stuff that's in the "storage" bag. When I travel, I have medium sized, reasonably padded bag to carry everything in that fits carry-on restrictions and inside that I have one of the lightweight, smaller bags to use when out for a day's walk and shoot.

G
 
Most camera bags are overpadded, and have too many pockets for accessories I seldom carry, wasting space. I will typically carry a messenger bag and put my camera in without padding. Extra lenses in pouches if necessary.
 
As a veteran traveler I too am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a stealth camera bag once you pull a camera out of it. In fact almost any bag is bound to raise the antennae of thieves. These days people carry various electronics of value (laptops, iPads, smartphones) to a thief. Perhaps even easier to fence than cameras. So a briefcase or messenger bag is of interest to a thief. As is a plumber's bag...tools are easily fenced also.

Perhaps a lunch box is stealth, if you're also wearing overalls and a hard-hat. Or a diaper bag, if you have a baby with you. But again, once you pull a camera out of it, the cover is blown.

So as others have said, I carry a bag based on its utility. I have several bags that are shaped like a Billinhgam Hadley and the Hadley insert fits them perfectly. But I also have a couple Hadleys and frankly there isn't any advantage. I'm just a bag junkie and like to change it up now and then.

But any bag that needs to be set down while shooting 2-handed is asking to be snatched.
 
I don't think that adding inserts to a tote bag "disguises" anything. Any thief who watches you for 5 minutes will know that something special is in that bag, or may even see you put the camera in or out of it.
Also, unless it has a comfortable shoulder strap, you have to put the tote bag down to take pictures.
I don't see any practical advantage to doing this.

It's not a perfect solution to prevent all theft. It simply decreases your exposure for better odds. And those odds are determined by context. I spent a lot of time in Rio over the past 15 years, and there, it is decidedly unwise to carry anything that looks like a camera or camera bag. On my first visit, I was walking around with my EOS 1n without much care, and immediately I had concerned locals approaching me and warning to put it away. I was aware of cautions, but having lived in NYC for so long, I thought I was 'sophisticated enough' to deal with it. But so many strangers warning me — that was a wake up call. After that, I still carried and used all sorts of expensive gear down there, but took precautions not to have anything out when I wasn't using it, and I always kept cameras in something that looked like I was just carrying a towel and a book to the beach.
Yeah, if you live in the U.S. and take pictures at car shows, don't worry about it. But, some people do need to be concerned.
 
I have a non-camera bag which has a waist belt tucked away that I'll use if I believe the situation warrants it. That way they'll be dragging 190lbs. of a really pissed off individual if they try and snatch it. 😀
 
It depends where you are shooting. I have travelled extensively all across Asia as far west as Pakistan to Indonesia and nearly every country in between with no fear of getting ripped off. I carry a beat up Billingham Alice with two M7 bodies and lenses often with a camera ready to go in my hand. Ditto for NYC and most of Europe. I am not that brave in Paris though. I would never bring anything to Paris that I would miss.
 
Back
Top Bottom