dSLR thread

[Gilbo]

Henry's held a Digital Photography Expo in Ottawa last weekend, which I went to.

Gitzo's Sweet New Tripods (actually 1-2 years old):
I saw Gitzo's GT1540T & GT1550T ultra-compact, carbon fibre tripods. I had to resist the urge to buy them very vigorously... The former folds down to 39.0cm & the latter to a ridiculously compact 35.5 cm. The latter is a 5-section tripod though, has an integrated ball-head and only holds 2.0kg. Enough for me, most of the time, but I'm not sure I could put a leveling base & ball head with a panning base on it, which would make it unsuitable for my use.

The D3:
I also got to play with a D3. That was marvelous. The grip, ergonomics and control layout were all superb. The viewfinder... well the viewfinder was just gorgeous. It was like looking through a window. The Canon guys wouldn't let me touch the 1Ds MkIII... bastards, so I can't compare them. It kills the 5D obviously.

The E3:
The Olympus guys were drowning their E-3's ("Do you want to play with the dry one or the wet one...?" was their line when I asked to hold it.). The viewfinder was also shockingly large & bright. Better than my K10D, better than the D40, & D300 as well. Quite impressive for a 4/3 mirror box.

The autofocus speed was also remarkable. I'm not sure the AF is as advanced as Canon or Nikon; the light was good and everyone is solid in good light these days, not to mention that I was unable to create any stressful situations (i.e. tracking a moving subject with the sun behind them, etc.). Instead I think the lighter weight of their zooms and a very good SWD (USM, HSM, blah, blah....) implementation is what is giving them the edge here. One thing I could test, and certainly noticed was how quickly the lense responded once the camera locked. It was like lightning. I don't think it's physically possible to do that with the bigger, heavier full frame glass, and I think that's where their advantage lies.

Nikon's new 400mm f/2.8 was nearby and the Olympus guys were eating it up, getting people to try the E-3 with a 90-250mm f/2.8 (180-500mm 35mm equivalent to people) and then telling them to go over and look at Nikon's new glass with a big grin on their faces... I have to admit, it really shows the advantage of the 4/3 system in that respect.

The E-410:
Some of the zooms for the Olympus system are so compact it's incredible; they're smaller than many primes! I'm not sure what was mounted on the E-410 I used, but the whole system was really remarkable. The viewfinder was adequate too --something I was not expecting.

If Olympus produced some compact primes, they could create the range finder of the digital era --I swear to God. That is how much potential I think the 4/3 system has now. I am now 100% convinced I would buy into the Olympus system in a second if they would only give me a couple, small primes. Come on Olympus! The E-410 would be pocketable with Pentax's pancake lenses on it, and I would carry it with me everywhere I went.

Anyway, those were my highlights. I'm still seriously thinking of picking up one of Gitzo's new tripods. I have a 3-section Series 2, the G1257, which is outstanding, but doesn't fold down very small. I very consciously chose a 3-section model though because I wanted a minimum setup time, but the ridiculously small size of some of these new models is making me want to relegate the G1257 to car use, and pick up a GT1540T for hiking...

Lastly:

That raises a question in my mind which I will put to the group: do you guys think that I should refrain from posting inline images in these threads and just provide a link instead?

I like the inline photos personally. I'm lazy and don't want to have to click on links...

 

[Gilbo]

Why so much discrepancy between different models, Tannin? Is it because of different usage patterns - changing the lens on the 20D more frequently, for example?

The 20D didn't have any dust-reduction treatment at all. No mirror shaking, no coatings, nothing.

 

[Gilbo]

I'm pretty sure the lens (I'm actually trying to spell it the way the masses do) on the E-410 was a 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6. I know the speed isn't anything special, but that is definitely a special lense IMO.

 

[mubs]

The D3:
I also got to play with a D3. The viewfinder... well the viewfinder was just gorgeous. It was like looking through a window.

The E3:
The Olympus guys were drowning their E-3's. The viewfinder was also shockingly large & bright. Better than my K10D, better than the D40, & D300 as well.

Gilbo, the D3 and D300 have the same LCD. So are you saying the E3's display was better than Nikon's fabulous new LCD?

 

[Gilbo]

No, just the viewfinder. Definitely not the LCD.

The Nikon LCDs are certainly bigger, brighter, and more detailed than the E-3's --although the articulating LCD on the E-3 looks very useful. I'm not sure what I'd prefer in practice: the flexibility but poorer quality of the E-3, or the big, gorgeous screens of the new Nikons. Superficially, I'd prefer the better quality, but I could see the articulating screen becoming very handy once you learn to take advantage of it. Especially since it shows and allows the selection of focus points & everything.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Gilbo.

 

[Tannin]

That's exactly the point, Mubs, the old 20D doesn't have a cleaning system; the 400D, 1D III and 40D do. I've never had to clean any of the newer ones.

 

[Tannin]

Oh, and I make a point, these days, of using the 20D with the same lens all the time, so I'm not having to clean it much anymore either. But that sort of eliminates the point of having an interchangable lens SLR, doesn't it.

Nevertheless, given the luxury of four cameras, I mostly use:

1D III 500/4, or 500/4 and teleconverter, either 1.4 or 2.0. I swap them on and off a fair bit.
40D: 100-400.
20D: 24-105
400D: 10-22.

For the 60 macro I use either the 20D or the 40D (because the 1D III can't use EF-S lenses and the 400D has a crappy viewfinder, which matters a lot for macro.

For the 24 tilt-shift, I mostly use the 40D (because it has the best viewfinder apart from the Mark III) and being able to see what you are doing is critical with a tilt-shift, manual focus lens), or the 1D III if I want a wider angle, or sometimes the 20D, never the 400D.

For the 50/1.4 I mostly use the 24-105 instead and bump the ISO up a bit on the 20D and/or rely on the 24-105 IS if I'm short of light. If I need the shallow DOF, then any of the four bodies will do; but I rarely use the 50mm now, mostly the 60mm macro is close enough in length, fast enough at f/2.8, and (as always) a joy to use.

That leaves me with only one camera that gets lots of lens changes, the 1D III (converters on and off). Yes, it's overkill, but since when did that ever stop me.

 

[Tannin]

By the way, I now have a fresh dilemma: I've sort of promised Kristi the 400D, but I'll miss having a small, light camera with the 10-22 always on it ready for instant use anytime I want it. (Now that I have a 24-105 instead of the 18-55, I need the 10-22 much more often - 24mm on a 20D is pretty long.)

I could just get another 400D - they are cheap enough - but I will not miss the dinky controls and general awkwardness on the thumbwheel-challenged 400D.

I could get another 40D, but that seems a bit expensive for a body that will be only used realatively infrequently, and its bigger, meaning that my bag that takes the two short-lens cameras will struggle to hold them both.

I could wait for a 5D II and put the 20D on the 10-22, using the 5D II with the 24-105 .... and that opens up another whole can of speculation, leading right up to the thought of a 1Ds III and ...... No. Let's not go there.

Maybe I should just order a new 400D and give that to Kristi.

 

[e_dawg]

I'm pretty sure the lens (I'm actually trying to spell it the way the masses do) on the E-410 was a 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6. I know the speed isn't anything special, but that is definitely a special lense IMO.

Yes, it is a nice compact lens with decent quality. I just wish it was wider. If they could build a successor that goes to 12 mm, I would be all over that. As it stands, the 12-60/2.8-4 is great, but it's big and heavy compared to the tiny 14-42. Totally changes the feel and user experience IMO.

The 40-150/4-5.6 is actually my favourite compact Zuiko lens. Even better optically than the 14-42, it's only a quarter-inch longer and a couple dozen grams heavier.

 

[Tea]

I'm pretty sure the lens (I'm actually trying to spell it the way the masses do)

A big, sloppy monkey-kiss for you from me, Gilbo. Me, I'm pretty a forgiving and easygoing sort of ape (ask anyone - I live in Tannin's head, right? I have to be easy-going or else I'd go nuts. Errr ... I mean nutser) but I have to say you have ... well ...

.... not exactly made Tannn un-grumpy, it would take an anti-Howard landslide election result here in Australia today, an unexpected but very passionate love affair, being on the outside of approximately two bottles of finest-quality red medicine, and two breeding Paradise Parrots sitting on an ant-hill in perfect light to make one such as Tannin un-grumpy, but you have at least managed to prevent yet another upwards spike on the legendary ever-ascending Tanningrumpograph machine, and for that I salute you.

PS: the kiss is optional. Some humans seem to prefer accepting the thought in place of the deed. Dunno why, but that's just one of the little things you learn when you are five years old for the seventh year running. Or possibly seven years old for the fifth year running (I get confused about that sometimes).

 

[Gilbo]

Yes, it is a nice compact lens with decent quality. I just wish it was wider. If they could build a successor that goes to 12 mm, I would be all over that. As it stands, the 12-60/2.8-4 is great, but it's big and heavy compared to the tiny 14-42. Totally changes the feel and user experience IMO.

The 40-150/4-5.6 is actually my favourite compact Zuiko lens. Even better optically than the 14-42, it's only a quarter-inch longer and a couple dozen grams heavier.

The difference between 24mm equivalent and 28mm is definitely a big one. I'd be willing to compromise given the size advantages in this one case, but I'd definitely prefer not to. (As I've alluded to before with my praise for Pentax for bringing the wide ends of their standard zooms all the way to 16mm.).

 

[Tannin]

Skip the love affair, Small Hairy One, I'll take the Paradise Parrots, the not-in-the-slightest-bit-in-any-way-unfair and also long overdue dismissal of the man who has had 11 years in power and still can't say "sorry" or admit that there weren't any babies overboard to rescue, or weapons of mass destruction to find, and or even bring himself to ratify the Kyoto protocol which every other advanced nation in the world except one signed a decade or so ago (you guess which is the one), or do anything else to improve the nation and/or regain the respect of other countries around the world, and the red medicine, in that order. I'm tempted to reverse #1 and #2, on the grounds that, long-term, #2 is more likely to avoid the fate of the Paradise Parrot overtaking numerous other species, but then one imagines that #2 is going to happen later on today anyway, and one can be quite certain that #1 will never happen ever again because men like the aforementioned sanctimonious gnome were in power back in the previous century too.

 

[e_dawg]

One thing I could test, and certainly noticed was how quickly the lense responded once the camera locked. It was like lightning. I don't think it's physically possible to do that with the bigger, heavier full frame glass, and I think that's where their advantage lies.

Indeed. You can feel the torque of the SWD motors twist the camera body when spinning the lens elements into place, a bit like a V8 engine twisting the chassis when you rev it.

If Olympus produced some compact primes, they could create the range finder of the digital era --I swear to God. That is how much potential I think the 4/3 system has now. I am now 100% convinced I would buy into the Olympus system in a second if they would only give me a couple, small primes. Come on Olympus! The E-410 would be pocketable with Pentax's pancake lenses on it, and I would carry it with me everywhere I went.

Hmm... if the E3 sensor trickles down to the compact E-series models, that would do the trick, as the current gen 10 MP sensors in the E-410/510 give up a bit too much in the noise and DR department.


Those Gitzo tripods sound very nice. Unfortunately, they also sound expensive too. I just got myself a couple tripods -- the Manfrotto 190 XPROB + 804RC2 3-way head, a medium weight and price tripod for home, and a lighter, cheaper tripod (Manfrotto 785B + pistol-grip action ball head) for travel / vacation.

 

[mubs]

Congrats, Tannin and Tea, you got your wish! Let's hope the world is just that much teensier a better place in the future. Now to see how things pan out in that other place...

 

[mubs]

Awright guys, the Nikon D3 and D300 apparently are shipping in decent volumes, contrary to expectations of a prolonged drought in supply. Anybody other than Gilbo touch/feel one, and/or have one on order?

 

[ddrueding]

Just received a 12" tall print of this. I really like some of the details around the picture. I'm still trying to figure out how to frame it.

 

[mubs]

Cool! BTW, looks like Tannin's info is still entered in the camera settings (Artist, etc.)

 

[ddrueding]

Cool! BTW, looks like Tannin's info is still entered in the camera settings (Artist, etc.)

I know...I've looked around a couple of times in the menu and can't find where the settings are! I should dig out the manual and take a look.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm still trying to figure out how to frame it.

Got back from a local framing shop. Print? $25 Frame? $400

Ugh.

 

[ddrueding]

I found the local photography store, called Keeble & Shuchat Photography. Before I went in I was distracted by a sports car I couldn't identify. It was a Tesla Roadster. This store has everything, including the aforementioned Gitzo 6X carbon fiber line (all of them), and all the Cannon lenses (including new-in-box out of production lenses).

Their rental and used store is across the street, and includes all the floor-standing massive photo printers I've been drooling over.

The downside, and it is a killer, is that they are the most snobbish and rude sales people of all time. It was really amazingly bad. I suspect I might buy there (only the lenses, everything they can is marked way up), but there is no way I will "shop" there.

 

[ddrueding]

Current lens ponderings:

Even with cost out of the way, the 100-400 IS is really heavy. I got to hold it in the store today, and it was just too much to go hiking with. (Tannin, how do you do it?).

So I'm back to the 70-300 IS, which weighs less than half as much.

 

[LunarMist]

Current lens ponderings:

Even with cost out of the way, the 100-400 IS is really heavy. I got to hold it in the store today, and it was just too much to go hiking with. (Tannin, how do you do it?).

So I'm back to the 70-300 IS, which weighs less than half as much.

Bah, I'm old enough to be your father (as is Tony) and not in good shape. I can carry the 100-400, 500/4 IS, 24-105 IS, TCs, flash, a pair of 1Ds MK IIs, and a cheapie Canon body (30D or similar) in the field if necessary, though it is unpleasant. I can't handle steep hiking very well, but for general going it is all a matter of pacing yourself.

I shoot landscapes with a moderately sized setup: 16-35 II, 24-70, 35/2.8 PC, 70-200/4 IS, 300/4, 1.4x and the pair of 1Ds MK IIs. Sometimes I'll substitute the 70-200/2.8 IS for the f/4 IS or the 300/2.8 IS or 400/4 DO for the 300/4 if there is a possibility of encountering wildlife on a primarily landscape outing. I have over a dozen bags and backpacks of various sizes.

 

[LunarMist]

I know...I've looked around a couple of times in the menu and can't find where the settings are! I should dig out the manual and take a look.

David, you need the USB cable and Canon software to change the user name.

 

[ddrueding]

David, you need the USB cable and Canon software to change the user name.

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. I have that around here somewhere...

 

[mubs]

Let's say I'm theoretically interested in these two lenses:

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED ...... 754gms ... $1,200

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED ... 1,452gms ... $1,625

These are supposed to be top notch "pro" lenses. The downsides are cost and weight.

Lets add a D300 (925gms) and SB-800 AF flash (350gms) to the mix. With the smaller lens, camera, and flash, that's 2029 gms, or 4.5 lbs. With the big lens and no flash, it'll be 2377gms or 5.2 lbs.

Are these weights pretty common? I doubt I'll be able to hold these kinds of weights up for 3-4 hours. I should probably start pumping weights to get my arms in shape.

 

[LunarMist]

I doubt I'll be able to hold these kinds of weights up for 3-4 hours. I should probably start pumping weights to get my arms in shape.

Why do you need to hold a camera for 3-4 hours at a time? Get an Optech wide neoprene strap if you must hand hold or use a monopod or tripod. Get a good bag/backpack/beltpack that distribes the weight properly and allows access for the type of work you do. If you are doing any serious photography there should be a backup body even it is something cheap like a D40 series.

 

[ddrueding]

The last time I went for a hike (~9 miles), I carried the following:

20D: 510g
15-55 kit lens: 190g

Total is 700g (1.5lbs) around my neck. If I switch to the 100-400 (1380g), that is increasing the weight nearly threefold. Of course, I can keep the lenses I'm not using in the bag, and I could be talked into putting it all away for a particularly strenuous bit of climbing, but I like having the camera in front of me all the time. And if I can't carry the camera while it has the expensive lens, it isn't nearly as valuable.

Assuming I'll have a tripod over my shoulder (that Gitzo's GT1540T looked sexy: 1100g), and the following in the bag: 10-22 (385g), 60 Macro (335g), 18-55 (190g), 70-300 IS (630g). That is 3.5kg (7.7lbs)!

 

[e_dawg]

The downside, and it is a killer, is that they are the most snobbish and rude sales people of all time. It was really amazingly bad. I suspect I might buy there (only the lenses, everything they can is marked way up), but there is no way I will "shop" there.

I'm not surprised... high end expert shops like that are often like that in any hobby, whether it be art, photo, audio, video, cars, restaurants, clothing, condos, you name it.

But why would you buy your lenses there? Why not online at Amazon, B&H, 17th Street Photo, Sigma4Less, DigitalFotoClub, or others?

 

[LunarMist]

The last time I went for a hike (~9 miles), I carried the following:

20D: 510g
15-55 kit lens: 190g

Total is 700g (1.5lbs) around my neck.

You were hiking all that time with a camera around your neck? Yikes. Get a Mini Trekker or something like it so you can bring more gear without the punishment. Did you reach the location in time?

 

[e_dawg]

Are these weights pretty common? I doubt I'll be able to hold these kinds of weights up for 3-4 hours. I should probably start pumping weights to get my arms in shape.

I'd say the 17-55 + D300 combo is fairly typical of what a serious photog might have on them at any given time, and about the upper limit of what they would have around their necks and shoot handheld for extended periods without a tripod.

The 70-200/2.8 VR changes things a bit. This is the weight class where you would start seeing a lot more people using a tripod/monopod with this and not as much handheld.

Good suggestion from LM: the Optech neoprene neck strap helps distribute the weight quite well. 4 lbs feels like it's "only" 3. I used that on my Nikon F70 + 24-120 back in the day. Maybe I should take it off the F70 and put it on my Fuji S5 Pro seeing as I don't use the F70 anymore.

I would suggest looking at other lenses, though, especially for the 17-55. Tamron makes the excellent 17-50/2.8, Sigma the excellent 18-50/2.8 Macro HSM, and Tokina the excellent 16-50/2.8. The Tokina has a bit of a problem with CA, but has the widest angle, and the D300 has auto CA reduction built-in. All of them are less than half-price of Nikon's 17-55, and pretty close in performance.

There isn't much substitute for a 70-200/2.8 VR in the Nikon world, though, as nothing else has VR and f/2.8 at the same time.

 

[Tannin]

(Admitting to some slightly puzzled feelings, which Tea would be better able to express than me)

Your problen, David, is twofold. First, you are apparently carrying the camera in what is probably the most uncomfortable way possible: around your neck. Why on earth would you volunarily do that to yourself? Do you hate your body? Enjoy pain? (Well, OK, with a little mental effort I can think of an even more uncomfortable way to carry a camera, but that would require very baggy trousers and a large elastic band around your technicals.)

If you are just going to use a strap, sling it over your shoulder for the love of mike! Shoulders are much stronger than necks, and much less prone to injury. Plus when one gets tired, you can use the other.

But better, much better, is to get the weight properly distributed. There are two methods.

(a) As Lunar suggests: use a backpack. I don't like this method as I like having instant access to my cameras - where a landscape guy might walk 5 kilomerers to a given place, shoot, and walk back, I frequently find good picture opportunities en route, quite often superior to the opportunities presented by my actual destination. Wildlife is like that: you take it where you find it.

(b) Get yourself a proper photographer's strap and belt system. Lowepro make a superb bag called the Specialist 85AW which fits an SLR with lens, three spare lenses, and assorted odds and ends, or alternatively a pair of SLRs with a lens each. Kinesis make an excellent modular belt system that can accomodate anything you like in any way you like, including (crucially) a diagonal shoulder strap so that the whole system, like the Lowepro bag I mentioned, is supported by a combination of hips and shoulder. This is much, much better than any system that puts the whole load on a single body part.

I'm pushing 50, not a big man, built like a garden rake, and not especially fit. But I routinely walk 10 kilometres in a day carrying three cameras, three or four normal-sized lenses, a full-size tripod, and a 500/4 over my shoulder. It's no hu-hu. It was a bugger for the first few weeks, but I soon got used to it, scarcely notice it anymore. It will be the same for you.

Sometimes I need to do a longer walk, or one where the conditions are difficult (sand dunes, rocks to scramble over, stuff like that), and don't feel like carrying the big lens all that way, so I just take a couple of bodies and lenses in the Lowepro bag, plus the 100-400 either on a shoulder sling or just in my hand. I might miss the power of the big f/4, of course - more the aperture than the focal length - but the small size and featherlike weight of the little 100-400 makes hiking a pleasure.

Second part of your problem: the 100-400 is probably the wrong lens for you anyway. I don't see you doing a lot of stuff that needs that sort of focal length (I could be wrong, of course) and suspect that you would do better with a 70-200/4. Much lighter, more appropriate range of focal lengths for the task at hand (probably anyway), takes a 1.4 teleconverter if you want it, and best of all, the constant f/4 is a whole lot more usable than the f/5.6 of the 100-400. Cheaper too, I think.

(Cavaet: I have never owned a 70-200, don't actually want one as it's too short for birds and too long for walkaround - and as I have those lengths sort of covered anyway with the 100-400 - but lots and lots of people use them. There must be a reason. Or a 70-300 is cheap and does nice things in the hands of people I know that own them.)

 

[Tannin]

Lunar, what do you think of your 400/4 DO? I've sort of maybe got one on my wishlist. Do you get much use out of it?

 

[ddrueding]

But why would you buy your lenses there? Why not online at Amazon, B&H, 17th Street Photo, Sigma4Less, DigitalFotoClub, or others?

My disposable income is largely cash and (more importantly) the "instant gratification" is what gets me over the indecision of an expensive toy.

 

[ddrueding]

You were hiking all that time with a camera around your neck? Yikes. Get a Mini Trekker or something like it so you can bring more gear without the punishment. Did you reach the location in time?

No location to speak of, and no timing in mind, either. I brought my Lowepro backback, but from the car decided that it would be too heavy for the hike. So I took just the 18-55 and headed out. I'd never carried the camera for that long, and had no idea. Lesson learned

 

[ddrueding]

Tannin,

Thanks for the tips. I, too, like having the camera in front of me when I'm hiking. The first 10k or so of this walk was through an estuary off San Francisco Bay, there wasn't a single minute where I wasn't trying to photograph something (mostly unsuccessful due to the 55mm lens). After that it did move to my shoulders and as I got really tired, across my back.

I like the idea of a beltpack, though the Specialist you linked to looks a bit...large? The Kinesis system looks awesome.

I've talked myself down from a 400mm length to a 300mm, but I am concerned about having the longest lens be only 200mm.

 

[ddrueding]

Lunar, what do you think of your 400/4 DO? I've sort of maybe got one on my wishlist. Do you get much use out of it?

I've been wondering about the DO lenses myself. Based on the reviews, they say that there is some optical weirdness, but it is made up for by smaller, lighter lenses. But none of the lenses I've seen are actually lighter than the non-DO alternative, are only marginally smaller, and are much more expensive.

 

[mubs]

Why do you need to hold a camera for 3-4 hours at a time? Get an Optech wide neoprene strap if you must hand hold or use a monopod or tripod. Get a good bag/backpack/beltpack that distribes the weight properly and allows access for the type of work you do. If you are doing any serious photography there should be a backup body even it is something cheap like a D40 series.

Lunar, think of it as unpaid wedding-like photography (for family and friends). These functions (weddings, engagements, and similar events) typically last 3-4 hours in my neck of the woods, and I usually wander around taking candids, and when people cooperate, group photos of anywhere from 2 to 30 people. The events are always indoors, with poor lighting, hence the crucial need for flash and good exposure with flash, something Gilbo mentioned earlier is a strength of Nikon's. Thanks for the tips, I really appreciate the practical advice you folks give here.

Gilbo, Thanks for the info on Nikon alternatives. The P&S I have now has a zoom range of 35-140mm (35 mm eq), and I find that inadequate at the long end. It appears that other Nikon lenses in the range I need are middling to poor in performance/quality, hence I picked these two (nothing but rave reviews). As you said earlier, I would have settled for a 70-200 /4 with VR if that was available and was a good lens.

Tannin, thanks for the info on the Lowepro and Kinesis products!

 

[ddrueding]

Practical question. What is the best method for doing a lens change in the field? It seems I'm constantly wishing for 4 hands, and Tea isn't often on my hikes.

 

[LunarMist]

I have some Kinesis gear, but I thing your needs are better suited with something other than a belt system. There are so many differnt solutions it is not funny. You probably want something of the convertible shoulder/backpack type that allows for quick access when needed yet works well enough on for long hikes. Check out the major suppliers like Lowepro and Tamrac, and also Crumpler, Thinktank, Kata etc. others for comparison. Visit a local store if you can to get a hands on feel. I have 8 backpacks in one closet here and none of them are quite right.