I'm wondering if my XF300 is too big!

Following on from the bag recommendation thread I just laid all my gear out on the floor and I don't really think it will fit in any backpack! It measures something like 58L X 42W X 17D

I have been looking at loads of bag manufacturers and none really have a backpack type bag big enough.

I'm beginning to worry that I have made a massive mistake in getting the XF300 given that it's essential for what I do that I can travel with all my gear in one backpack type bag.

My gear list includes:
Canon 1DmkIV (big pro stills body)
3 biggish lenses
XF300

Should I have gone with the XF100 camcorder as it's way more compact that the XF300?

Honestly, I don't understand why you need XF or any other camcorder if you have 1D, well, unless you do event videography,
if I wasn't shooting weddings, all I need would be my 1/5D ,
and closer to your question - as always, it depends on what do you need camcorder for, but even without knowing that, XF100/105, and XA10 looks like a great alternative in scenarios when the luggage size takes priority over the image quality.

I've heard that the National Geographic photo rucksacks work well with the XF - the Earth Explorer Backpack - LARGE size is the one.

Have a look at National Geographic / Shop / Photography / Photography Gear and Bags / Earth Explorer Backpack - LARGE size.

Honestly, I don't understand why you need XF or any other camcorder if you have 1D, well, unless you do event videography,
if I wasn't shooting weddings, all I need would be my 1/5D ,
and closer to your question - as always, it depends on what do you need camcorder for, but even without knowing that, XF100/105, and XA10 looks like a great alternative in scenarios when the luggage size takes priority over the image quality.
To answer your question I aim to shoot some city/travel type docs and I also shoot aviation. For aviation the power zoom and full-time AF are a must and something the 1D lacks.

I've heard that the National Geographic photo rucksacks work well with the XF - the Earth Explorer Backpack - LARGE size is the one.

Have a look at National Geographic / Shop / Photography / Photography Gear and Bags / Earth Explorer Backpack - LARGE size.
The NG one looks to be too small. Its says it is 40x31x15 and I need something at least 58x42x17!

The Genus Shooter Backpack is huge --21.25 x 15 x 16.15" (54 x 38 x 41cm) (HxWxD) extended and $100 off at B&H Photovideo til 1/31/11

If you're still unhappy, I'd be more than happy to take the 300 off your hands! Ha ha!
I travel with the 300, 7D and a boatload of lenses along with my audio gear. Originally I was using a huge pelican case I dubbed "the coffin" but it really is too big. I then got a Kata large OMB which is still pretty insane but includes a luggage dolly and straps to hold a tripod. It's perfect for most of what I do but it is heavy with both cameras and all my lenses. Kata OMB-77 One Man Band Bag, Large KT OMB-77 B&H Photo Video


And Buba...for the question about needing both cameras, it is a necessity for me as well as I cover any type of shooting that may come up. It's been covered to death on the forum but in a nutshell, dslrs are not a replacement for a camcorder, they are a supplement.

I also shoot aviation and you will not be happy with the lens on the 100 as it doesn't have the throw. The 300 is perfect. I recently shot from the catwalk of the control tower at our local airport and was easily framing the WWII bombers being chased by an AStar with a cineflex. This is a still from the XF 300 video!

Here's Porta Brace's suggestion.....

PortaBrace - Product Detail:BK-2N (http://portabrace.com/productA-BK-2N)


Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

The other issue is it needs to be airline carry-on compatible which over here in the UK means about 55x40x20cm. There is no way I would put such expensive gear in the hold!

@Robert Turchick - The XF100 has 10x zoom which I believe is about 300mm equivalent on a stills camera. I have a 300mm lens and have no issues getting aviation stills shots. Would I really miss the extra zoom of the XF300?


I'm seriously wondering if I should sell the XF300 which the prices over here in the UK are still high. New they are £5500 so I might be able to get £5000 used as it's not really been used.

A few things are tempting me to get an XF100 instead.
1 - It's about £2000 cheaper!
2 - It is a LOT more compact and portable
3 - It wouldn't need such a heavy/expensive tripod as the XF300
4 - It's much more discreet. Easier to film without hassle from people.

Hey Andy!
The xf300 goes out to a 527mm equivalent which is near double the xf100. If youre happy with the 300mm, sounds like you've talked yourself into the swap. I have a 100-400mm for my 7d which with the crop turns it into a 640mm. It's great for photography and I have shot aviation video with it but with no autofocus and inadequate image stabilization, the winner is my xf300 for getting long distance shots in video.
The other thing I saw you mention earlier was the ability to fly commercially and the bag I have is way too big. If that's a requirement, the 300 may really be too big.
I am really psyched about my 300 and can't imagine shooting without it but I don't do much traveling out of AZ so baggage size doesn't matter.
I can't speak to the quality of the xf100 but if the specs are right it'll be the best of that size camera by a large margin. Let us know what you choose!

The other issue is it needs to be airline carry-on compatible which over here in the UK means about 55x40x20cm. There is no way I would put such expensive gear in the hold!I just checked & our new XF305 just fits into my airline-approved carry on case. It's a pretty tight fit though.

On the bright side it looks like you should be able to carry an XF105 in your jacket pocket:-)

Would I really miss the extra zoom of the XF300?

I'm seriously thinking of going with the XF100. If I need to go any tighter, I'll use the Canon teleconverter that will at least make it 16x or 17x...

Andy,

Worry not! I've just seen the backpack that will allow you to carry all your gear....

;-)

Visualized: when backpacks attack! -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/08/visualized-when-backpacks-attack/)

On a more serious note, when I first got my EX3 I had great difficulty getting the right bag and getting one that fitted into airline overhead bins but eventually I got there and all is well. Don't let the size of camera worry you too much!

Andy,

Worry not! I've just seen the backpack that will allow you to carry all your gear....

;-)

Visualized: when backpacks attack! -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/08/visualized-when-backpacks-attack/)

On a more serious note, when I first got my EX3 I had great difficulty getting the right bag and getting one that fitted into airline overhead bins but eventually I got there and all is well. Don't let the size of camera worry you too much!
Haha that's the one. Imagine trying to get that on Ryanair!

I have found a few bags that would be fine for the XF300 alone but it's having to take my stillls camera and lenses that is the problem. The Xf100 + stills gear would fit in a bigish carry-on bag ok but the XF300 won't.

I suggest that you actually try using an XF100 before your replace your XF300. It really is very tiny. I used to have a Sony HVR-A1 which is a similar size & found that compared to my then main camera (Canon XH-A1) it was far too small & fiddly to operate. That's not just because I have fingers like sausages but also the lack of dedicated buttons meant fiddling with menus to change settings was very inconvenient & time consuming.

That makes a lot of sense. One of the many things I like about the XF300 is that all the most used buttons are on the body so you can change settings with just the flick of a switch or press of a button.

The XF300 fits comfortably in a Lowepro Phototrekker and plenty of of their other bags ( I have collected several over the years. carry on is not an issue, for even Ryanair. The only thing to be wary of is the mic mount.

I tink you would regret the XF100, lovely camera, but look at the zoom capabilities

Thanks for the comment Nick. It's go to know that that size definitely will go on Ryanair. It's still not big enough to get my stills camera/lenses in as well, but I'm beginning to thing that just won't happen.

I was in Decathlon (a cheapish sports store for those that don't know this company) last night and had a look at their bags. I noticed bags like this one for £19. Decathlon - luggage - transport - security bags backpack QUECHUA - Forclaz 40 QUECHUA - men or women on a HIKE or travelling over a 1 to 2-day period. (http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/forclaz-40-17408944/) The red zip goes round the edge of the back like a standard camera bag and there was quite a bit of room inside. Anyone had any experience of making a camera bag like this out of a normal bag and adding some protective foam?

And Buba...for the question about needing both cameras, it is a necessity for me as well as I cover any type of shooting that may come up. It's been covered to death on the forum but in a nutshell, dslrs are not a replacement for a camcorder, they are a supplement.

Robert...
I respect your personal opinion, but let's try not to put any global labels on anything; just the fact that you prefer to use a camcorder doesn’t make DSLR a supplement; because thousands of people, including top names in the industry, creating masterpieces with DSLRs without even knowing that it’s just a supplement to a ‘real’ camcorder.