Stylish way to carry an SLR? - Page 4

The original factory-supplied leather cases:

That's certainly a stylish alternative, but you have to be careful not to store camera equipment in leather cases long term because they help promote the growth of fungus inside lenses, prisms, etc.

Given the ugliness of DSLRs these days, I've resigned myself to looking like a well dressed tourist. I carry it bare, over the shoulder across the chest and will eventually switch the strap for something nicer. Maybe in leather instead of "CANON EOS DIGITAL SLR OF THE FUTURE" in nylon.

Um, well, yes, he was asking for a recommendation, idea, or if people's opinions IF it was possible -- my reply was that it wasn't possible, and you jump all over me. Pardon me for expressing my opinion that's contrary to yours. Asking for a way to carry around an SLR without looking like a tourist or photogeek is like the OP asking if there's a stylish way to wear an Bluetooth headset -- the instant you put the headset on, you're not stylish. And quite frankly, reading some of the posts, it seems like other SLR users have also accepted the fact that once you have an SLR out, there's no way to avoid the "tourist" look. Really, the only way to avoid that look would be to go the exact opposite way and look like a pro-photog.

Actually, LabelKing did make a far more stylish suggestion which was overlooked, and that was using a vintage leather case, or even having one made. That would certainly trump a canvas bag that makes you look like you're about to go fly fishing. But again, once that large SLR comes out...

Heh, Its not that I have a problem with your opinion, its that I have a problem with your attitude. If you had said "I don't believe that there are any camera bags in the world that look stylish" or "SLR's are inherently unstylish and ugly" that would have been your opinion. Of course, it would have been an opinion that was very well covered in this thread already. That isn't what you said. Of course. You didn't even address the OP's question originally. You went on about how much gear you carry, and how unrealistic (for most people) a scenario you claim to be in where its impossible for YOU to be stylish. That wasn't an opinion, that was a diversion. Hell, even the weight issue is kind of ridiculous. It sort of makes me wonder what you all are carrying in your bags if a camera, a couple of lenses, a flash, and some peripherals are weighing 20lbs. Even the beefiest Canon DSLR like the 1DS Mk III, and a pro series telephoto lens in a "normal use" range like the Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM (combo pictured below) weigh around seven pounds together. With a flash, and even two more non-telephoto IS lenses, an extra battery, some filters, and the bag, you'd still be short of 20lbs. And yes, this thing is a monstrosity. If you are trying to carry that setup around, it will be nearly impossible to do so stylishly. On the other hand, a Leica R3 or one of the new Olympus E-420's which are incredibly small and light for a full featured SLR camera, a couple decent lenses, filters, battery, and flash will come in under 10lbs. Easily. Hell, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a 10+ lb bag for a Nikon D90 or a Canon 5D Unless you are carrying thirty or fourty rolls of film with you, or hundreds of media cards, or a hard drive... I'm not sure what you guys are complaining about. I think these are relatively beautiful machines. I wouldn't hesitate to call the Leica Stylish. I think the Oly is pretty unobtrusive and classic at the least.

Can't leave anything be, can you Slim? I think you're getting a little carried away.

omg, film is, like, soooo 2007. all the cool people already switched from film to digital, back to film, and now back to digital again. get with the times bro.

If one just plans to use a walk around kit i.e. a prime or small to medium telephoto lens, the Crumpler Prettyboy is a nice alternative.

Old guy photographing tourists outside St. Peter's in Rome:

This could be made stylish if I could get LK to make me a leopard-skin cover for it.

I'm just curious. Seriously, what are you guys carrying that weighs so much that you'd need a full on backpack? I can't think of anything realistic other than carrying like five different telephoto lenses that would weigh so much you couldn't just use a shoulder bag. Two lenses is what... three and a half to four pounds? Camera body on even an all-metal 1970's SLR is two and a half pounds or less.

The Rolleiflex that labelking keeps posting is less than three pounds.

Just wondering. Where is all your weight coming from?

Thats not bad... but its really more of a SW&D look.

My girlfriend has a film SLR and just got a DSLR. She just carries them in a tote wrapped in some felt shoe dustbags I gave her.

Right now i'm still ok with my lowepro slingshot 100 to carry the E-3, 12-60mm 2.8-3.5, 40-150 kit lens, fl-50r and batteries for camera and flash. I find that the bag is heavy since I upgraded to the e-3 and 12-60. However, in the near future (already have some of this stuff ordered), the bag will additionally contain: the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, 50mm f2, 7-14mm f/4, and EC-14. That's about 10-11 lbs. Walking around with 10 lbs unevenly distributed all day would be uncomfortable for me. And before I go on my safari trip, I'll be adding either the 90-250 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/2.8, which each weigh just over 7 lbs. So potentially, in a couple years, my kit could easily weigh 15lbs on a given day. In the near term it will be 10 or 11lbs.

I won't speak for roikins, but pros often carry two bodies so they don't have to worry about lens changes if they need something longer or shorter in a hurry, so I can easily see where he'd get his weight from.