PM sent regarding the bean bag.

Grip and cord arrived today in fine fettle. Much nicer than the cheap old thing I have been using!

Thanks John.

I agree with Simon.

I tend to use a normal backpack with lens pouches and a holster type camera bag for mountain trips. I can chose to attach the holster and a couple of lenses to the hip belt and shoulder straps for instant access on the move. Plenty of space inside the bag for anything else. Complete waterproofing is easily achieved with a dry liner in the main bag. Plenty of room for other stuff in the bag.

Good walking rucksacks are designed for humans to carry stuff well whereas photo rucksacks are designed around the photo gear and therefore don't allow much else or fit the human too well!

Must be the 16-45 for Architecture, although I rather like something longer for landscapes and the FA50, DA70, 55-300 and even the DFA100 are often used. I have a 10-20 but this gets used a lot less.

If I'm off to the mountains I would pack DA18-55wr & DA50-200wr. Both compact, light weight and rain resistant. I'm not usually on a 'photographic expedition' so the photography is not the main purpose of the trip and I need to keep the weight down as well as being limited in time. I don't tend to use the wide end very much for mountain shots, makes the hills flat and less impressive.

Pm sent on the grip and 4P.

Thanks for the comments.

A few from the meet at West Woods, near Marlborough.
Lots of Bluebells!

1.




2.




3.




4.




5.



Bob

Steve, could you confirm the grid ref please.
I hope to make it but am a little confused. This is the West wood about 1-2k south of Fyfield?

Great Pictures!

I hadn't thought of my 10-17 for flower pictures before but the depth of field is a real boon.
The resulting pictures below were taken at 17mm.

The dandelion clock.



The buttercup.



Green Alkanet.



Fern.