Need a good case for a Canon Rebel XT

December 23, 2005 10:21 AM

Help me protect my new digital camera (Rebel XT) with a case or skin or something.

On the advice of many AxMe answerers, I got myself a Canon Digital Rebel XT. It's awesome, and now I am completely terrified that I am going to break it / scratch it / drop it / etc. I have no case or anything else to put it in. I'd like to buy a case or cover or something to protect the thing. Ideally, I'd have something that actually stays on the camera, like a soft case or almost a skin that would protect the camera but also let you use it. I'm thinking of the big leather bottom things that I used to have attached to my Nikon SLR. Canon does sell a "semi-hard" shell to go around the camera, but it looks as dorky as it sounds.

Barring that (and I don't see anything good on google or amazon), I'd want to get some sort of smaller camera case that I would pop the camera in and out of while using it. I need room for the body with a smallish zoom attached (the EF-S 17-85) and one other, smaller lense. I want some decent protection, but I don't want something that screams "camera bag" and will get snatched. What do you use?

Also, is there anything else I can do to protect the camera? Like maybe a "skin" for the LCD screen? I already have UV filters on my lenses to protect them somewhat. I'm wondering why nobody makes a neoprene suit that would wrap around the camera (with cut-outs for the controls and lense, obviously) like for ipods.

posted by Mid to shopping (29 comments total)

I just bought a Crumpler "5 million dollar home" for my brand-new XT, with pretty much the same requirements. I don't think a case that stays on the camera is a good solution because you wind up blocking access to the controls you'd want, or not covering anything but the non-fragile parts. I figured a bag was a better option.

Crumpler's site is either neat and cool or the most completely hostile Flash interface ever, depending on your point of view. I found that calling the warehouse and placing a phone order was much easier, and that they sold for the same or better price I could get anywhere else, with better stock.

Crumpler bags come very highly recommended online, and don't immediately identify as camera bags, which is nice.
posted by precipice at 10:41 AM on December 23, 2005

From popular photography somewhere: You can slice up a Palm or Pocket PC screen protector to keep your lcd brand new. Using an Xacto or scaplel, trim to size and apply like tape. They're very cheap, won't get 'stuck' and will keep your lcd from scratching. There are also plastic 'hoods' you can purchase that have the added benefit of blocking light during a shot, making the LCD quite visible on sunny days. These only cover your LCD and are essentially a flap.
posted by IronLizard at 10:41 AM on December 23, 2005

Oops, forgot to include this link, which has the best in-the-wild Crumpler pictures I've seen.
posted by precipice at 10:43 AM on December 23, 2005

I have a timbuk2 messenger bag I use for my camera stuff, and it's great. Though instead of screaming "Camera bag" it screams "Laptop bag" which is probably worse.
posted by aubilenon at 10:44 AM on December 23, 2005

Direct link to the Crumpler camera bags, so you can avoid that Hideous interface and the monkey sounds.
posted by smackfu at 10:59 AM on December 23, 2005

Don't bother with the screen protectors. The current screens are very scratch resistant and cheap to replace, so you're only making it dimmer and less contrastful. Same goes for UV filters, in my opinion, because if you've got $700+ glass you ruin the whole point with a $50 filter in front of it all.

Get the battery grip and hand strap if you don't want a neckstrap (I hate them). Not only is the camera itself more ergonomic and easy to shoot vertically with, the hand strap is nearly impossible to drop the camera while using yet easy to get out of.
posted by kcm at 11:10 AM on December 23, 2005

I'm a big fan of my Lowe Pro Photo Runner... I keep a 50 prime, fisheye and a cheapo 28-200 in it just.. In the front pocket i keep the card creader, batteries etc... It has a removable shoulder strap and waist belt that can fit pretty snug.. Very versitle..

http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Beltpacks/classic/Photo_Runner.aspx
posted by joshgray at 11:18 AM on December 23, 2005

I have one of these Zing neoprene covers and it's good quality as looks great.

But I hardly ever use it. I put my camera in it while I am in transit (flying abroad for example), but never while I'm on the ground and taking pictures.

A camera has to be readily available. So my EOS 300d has scratches. It's proof the camera gets used.
posted by prolific at 11:20 AM on December 23, 2005

prolific: "A camera has to be readily available. So my EOS 300d has scratches. It's proof the camera gets used."

I concur.
posted by kcm at 11:22 AM on December 23, 2005

Same goes for UV filters, in my opinion, because if you've got $700+ glass you ruin the whole point with a $50 filter in front of it all.

Something tells me you're confused. If the front glass of my 50mm lens gets scratched, I'd need to repair or replace a ~$310 lens. If the UV filter gets scratched, I'm buying a new $12 filter.

While I'd argue that there's absolutely no difference in shooting with or without a clear filter on the lens, even if there were, are you saying that the difference is enough that you'd be willing to risk scratching your factory glass?

Now, maybe your usage pattern is different from mine, perhaps you use your camera solely on a tripod in a studio, and don't worry about scratches even occurring, but for everybody else, a simple clear filter is protection we can't afford not to use.
posted by odinsdream at 11:28 AM on December 23, 2005

On what planet is a replacement LCD screen cheap?
posted by IronLizard at 11:31 AM on December 23, 2005

Actually, no, you're confused as to my point. If I'm buying a $300 lens, or $3000 lens, it's presumably for the quality of the glass. Then I plop a craptastic (in comparison) Hoya Super MC blah blah filter in front of it all.

How often have you ever scratched a front element? I shot with a UV filter for a long time, and realized that any damage I was going to do was probably going to fuck the lens up in other ways, so I may as well not hamper the quality of the uber-expensive lenses with the equivalent of a cellophane football helmet.
posted by kcm at 11:32 AM on December 23, 2005

I didn't say the LCD is cheap, I said the screen is cheap - rather the protector that sits on top of the LCD in many current generation DSLRs. The Rebel is part CB3-1211-000, $10.
posted by kcm at 11:36 AM on December 23, 2005

But kcm, are you claiming that you've actually seen a different between filter versus no filter? Or just that, in theory, the filter could be bad? Also, what about the anti-haze effects that the UV filter is supposed to have?
posted by Mid at 11:41 AM on December 23, 2005

I'm telling you that if a UV filter was a good idea for protection's sake, manufacturers would include it. I can't say that I can or can't verify the impact of a filter on quality, but unless I'm taking a thousand dollar lens into the bush where a scratch is guaranteed, I'm not putting lesser glass in front of it. Note I leave the option of using or not using it depending on conditions, rather than proselytizing that UV filters are a critical dogma for all users.
posted by kcm at 11:44 AM on December 23, 2005

kcm - it's definitely not the case that anything that fucks up the filter will also do additional damage.

Case in point - I have a friend who dropped their camera on a hard floor. The edge of the filter got seriously bent, and it was difficult to remove, but the only damage was that the filter had to be replaced instead of the front of the lens. If there had been no filter, it's probable that the front glass would have cracked (many lenses have plastic threads instead of metal, as the filters are), and the lens would probably have been out of commission. Those filters do a LOT of protection.

Also, on many pro lenses that focus and zoom in place, the lens is not sealed against the environment unless you have a filter in place.

Also, if you've ever walked through a drunk crowd with an SLR, you want a filter in front of your lens (and also preferably a hood).
posted by Caviar at 11:46 AM on December 23, 2005

I didn't mention hoods, and I do rely on them for protection in place of filters. I did just say that in some conditions anything from a UV filter to a fucking garbage bag can be warranted.

But, for the average user in average conditions, UV filters are padding for profit margins and the industry has done a great job of pushing this idea.

Now who's going to protect my $150 filter protecting my $700 lens?
posted by kcm at 11:50 AM on December 23, 2005

I have the Xing neoprene cover that prolific linked to and I like it a lot - I find it much more convenient than lugging around a dedicated camera bag.

It also looks like a codpiece, which is always a plus.
posted by introcosm at 12:02 PM on December 23, 2005

This reminds me of the new car owners who insist on triple-waxing their "investments" while the rest of us just drive the damn things. Understandable, but misguided.

kcm is right: if you're worried about damaging your camera due to the "klutz" factor, a handstrap is the way to go. (There are many that do not require large battery grip attachments, BTW.) Another way of looking at it is this: with the speed that digital cameras are evolving, your XT will lose far more value through technological obsolescence than by any normal cosmetic wear and tear. Sad, but true. I've been through several upgrade cycles now, and that's the ugly price of digital.

Body covers for SLRs are almost never used because they hurt the camera's ergonomics and accessibility, plain and simple.

Parts are cheap, relatively speaking. kcm mentioned a replacement LCD cover as $10, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. As for UV filters, they're mostly redundant because the frontmost element in most lenses is a simple piece of flat optical glass that can be easily replaced. Replacing a broken front element on a $1500 Canon L-series lens with a large 77mm front diameter costs about $100-150, and I imagine the repair cost of smaller lenses would be roughly proportional. A good UV filter (such as a B&W or Heliopan) costs easily half that. Do you really see yourself breaking half of the front elements in your lenses? If not, it's simply not cost effective to go hog-wild with filters.

Don't buy into the UV haze-cutting argument: it's not necessary at all unless you're shooting at substantially high altitudes. How much UV filters cut down on lens resolution (i.e. the ability to resolve fine detail) is really dependent on the quality of the filter, but what all UV filters do is to induce more flare in adverse lightning conditions. It's the same with lenses -- complicated zoom lenses with many optical elements are more flare-prone -- and adding yet another element in front of the lens will only exacerbate the problem. Most pros only use UV filters in severe enviroments (beach, desert, rain, etc), if at all.

The best thing you can do to protect your lens is to use your lens hood religiously. Yes, it looks dorky, but it's much better protection than what any filter can offer, and doing so also actually improves the quality of your pictures by cutting out oblique non-image forming light that wreaks havoc by causing flare and contrast loss. And it gives you peace of mind, of course.

If you've ever bought a new car, how much did you baby it when you drove it off the lot? What about now? It's the same with your camera -- use it, enjoy it, and make the most of it. As with cars, you'll be replacing the one you're using sooner or later anyway.
posted by DaShiv at 12:23 PM on December 23, 2005

Oh, I forgot to mention:

I'd want to get some sort of smaller camera case that I would pop the camera in and out of while using it. [...] I want some decent protection, but I don't want something that screams "camera bag" and will get snatched. What do you use?

A $5 military surplus bread bag in olive drab from the local surplus store if I just have one body/lens, or a black Domke bag if I need more space. And don't pop your camera in and out of your bag in between shots: shoot, or don't shoot. If you want your camera snatched, playing peekaboo with your camera and camera bag is the best way to solicit unwanted attention.
posted by DaShiv at 12:33 PM on December 23, 2005

Yeah, I think it's important to stress that the camera is a tool, not a delicate work of art. Take reasonable care with it, but it's not necessary to obsess. I keep the lens cover on mine while it's bumping around on my shoulder strap, and that's about all I do for protection.
posted by knave at 12:42 PM on December 23, 2005

congrats on your new purchase!

I have an XT as well. I use a LowePro bag that is just big enough for my XT with a bigass lens on (the 16-35 with hood on)

The LowePro is the Nova Micro AW, would you believe.

It features a big-enough pocket for my camera and lens (I insert the camera lens-first, so that I can see the LCD/controls when I open up the bag) and it also has an outside pocket for my extra CF cards, silk rag, felt/cleaner/brush pen and spare battery.

I don't believe in taking my entire photo/lens inventory with me when going on a photoshoot, I only take what I need. And I don't believe in doing heavy lifting when I am outdoors hiking or snowshoeing with my camera gear.

This is workout quite well for me, in the outdoors. In the city, I use a big-enough handbag so I can carry keys, wallet, treo and camera/lens

Minimalist works, for me

if you want to see my pix, look up seawallrunner on flickr
posted by seawallrunner at 1:36 PM on December 23, 2005

Oh, if we're giving random advice, mine is to learn your camera and lenses by going on random walk-about shoots in a city or such with only one lens. Take a 50mm (the 50mm f1.8 is a MUST HAVE at $80, the f1.4 is nicer construction and might be internal focus, but.. it's $300). Take a 70-200mm. Just take ONE and limit yourself to see what you can do with it.

I know it's tempting to start buying accessories and equipment, but wait until you see what you want to shoot and then buy what you needed last weekend. You might end up a nature person (100-400mm? tripod?), you might enjoy macro shooting (Kenko tubes, macro lenses), you might just want a nice off-camera flash setup for studio work (Alien Bees or Home Depot halogens!). Enjoy!
posted by kcm at 3:13 PM on December 23, 2005

Good advice, all. Thanks. I have a bit of I-just-bought-it-and-don't-want-to-hurt-it going on. I think I am going to get one of those Zing pouches for travel, and then a sort of regular bag. Handgrip sounds very interesting, but I don't think I want one of those battery bracket things.

Now what to do about these filters . . .
posted by Mid at 5:11 PM on December 23, 2005

I use and love my LowePro Top Loader Zoom AW - it holds my Sigma 70-200 and my 5D along with a 50 and the rest of my kit (CF cards, CF card reader, extra batteries) just fine.

BTW, a 16-35 2.8 L on a Rebel XT? What a waste...
posted by jedrek at 10:58 PM on December 23, 2005

As far as a bag, get a Lowepro. I've done some incredibly stupid things with my 300D and four or five lenses in a Lowepro bag including: throwing it onto the passenger rack of countless numbers of buses in rural China, falling into a fast moving river and being carried down for 5-10 seconds, and even getting into a semi-serious scooter accident and having the bag thrown off at 30 km/h. And all I've got to show for it is some minor cosmetic scratches on the 300D, which if anything say badass to me. Go ahead and browse the Lowepro site, find the particular model that's your size, and buy it from a reputable online store.

As to the UV filters, they're the wax waterproofing of the photography world i.e. it's what photoshops try to push on new customers to make that extra buck. UV filters protect your lens but make your pictures worse through increased flare (especially at the wide end. I had a Tokina 17mm prime that I made the mistake of buying the UV filter for. With the filter there were flare spots all over the place, but without the filter, it was remarkably flare-free for a wide angle.)

Instead, you should get a hood for all of your lenses. They not only protect your lenses, but they improve the quality of your pics by reducing flare. The only cases where a UV filter would be really necessary is extremely inclement weather: taking pictures in a typhoon (which I've done) or in a sandstorm (of which I haven't had the pleasure yet.)
posted by alidarbac at 4:37 AM on December 24, 2005

Another SLR bag reco: After looking at many (many!) disappointing choices at a local camera store, I ended up ordering an Adorama Slinger and couldn't be happier. It has just the right amount of room for my 20D -- okay, maybe it's a wee bit tight at the viewfinder apex -- with its 17-85mm zoom lens attached, plus it has just the right amount of room on the sides for my flash and another lens, plus a large front pocket for the charger and various accessories when I need to take them. (I prefer to travel as light as possible.)

Aside from the usual protection/storage features, I like that the Slinger is relatively narrow -- unlike more-capacious bags, it doesn't hang far away from my body. (I also considered the sling-style Tamrac Velocity 7, but the fit seemed too tight -- and its teardrop shape kept it from standing upright on a table or floor.)
posted by skyboy at 12:07 PM on December 24, 2005

DaShiv and kcm - I've taken tens of thousands of frames across two digital SLRs and about 7 different lenses, and I've always used a UV filter. So tell me - in your opinion, of the photos in my flickr photostream, which ones were ruined by excess flare? I'm not being facetious, I just don't see the problem and I'd like to know if you're seeing something I'm missing.
posted by Caviar at 1:35 PM on December 26, 2005

I have a Nikon D70, and a couple of lenses, and I have a Lowepro Photo Runner bag. This can be used as a fanny pack, or with a shoulder strap. I take my camera hiking/snowshoeing/skiing alot, and I strap it around my waist in front, and it makes a great platform for dealing with the camera. My only complaint is that it can sometimes be difficult to zip up. The opposite is not true, however, as you can grab one end of the lid and rip it open quickly if you need the camera in a hurry.
posted by jimfl at 8:19 PM on December 26, 2005