hef19898
Active member
Both would fit, the f6.3 easier of course. A 300 f 2.8 would be a challenge, diameter-wise.
For those who fly w/ equipment
- Thread starter RichF
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I always fly with a backback that will fit under the seat in front of me. That way I’m guaranteed to have space (if the overhead bin is full).
If you allow me to dream. What's required is the airline industry bring the baggage handling system well into the late 20th C, let alone the first quarter of the 21st Century. An outdated, poorly managed (as in failed management) system equals a well founded absence of trust in turning checked luggage over to an airline. There is NO reason that 'lost' checked luggage should be anything but a true rarity, and damaged luggage the same. Well no reason except for the fact that airports and airlines care not a whit about luggage delivery other than as it being identified as a perfect target for cost cutting and cosidered so as if luggage is somehow not absolutely inherent to the process of quite literally every single passenger flight. That utter failure -- who willingly hands over even a cheap bag of sacrificial clothing, let alone anything of value in an armoured case (e.g. camera gear in a Nanuk case)? -- of the checked baggage system (designed at the latest the '60s) has then led to the carry on nightmare of fighting for space because no one wants to play the hope game of luggage in the belly of the aircraft.
Simply, there is no reason that camera gear, properly packed, should not easily travel unharmed by air. Good couriers do it everyday
Simply, there is no reason that camera gear, properly packed, should not easily travel unharmed by air. Good couriers do it everyday
RikWriter
Well-known member
I have trouble believing you could fit a 600 f4 under the seat in front of you.
once I had an evening flight from Vancouver to Seattle. It's obviously a very short flight, but it was at night. We landed at about 2200 and were at the carousel waiting, and waiting.... But no bags arrived. NO BAGS. Not just mine, nobody's ! They'd actually forgotten to load the plane ! OMG . How was that even possible? LOL
joe43
Well-known member
About five years ago, when leaving Botswana by air for J Burg on a large jet, one of the photo safari members in my group carried on to the plane his 500mm f4 on a shoulder strap. It was in a black leather tube shaped sleeve. For takeoff and landing he placed it under the seat in front of him in between his legs. I have never seen anything like this before.
He lived in Europe so I am assuming this was his practice of getting the lens to and from JBurg by air. His camera bag was likely in the compartment above his seat.
He lived in Europe so I am assuming this was his practice of getting the lens to and from JBurg by air. His camera bag was likely in the compartment above his seat.
RikWriter
Well-known member
One time on a connecting flight while on my way to Alaska from Florida, I had a LowePro backpack with my 500 f4 in it and other stuff and it wouldn't fit in the overhead. Luckily, the seat next to me was vacant, so I sat on the aisle, put my backpack on the floor in front of the window seat and threw my jacket over it.
hef19898
Active member
A f6.3 definetly fits in my bag, and that bag fits under the front seat. A 300 f2.8 tightly fits in that, diameter vise, but it is tight. Going by dimensions, a 600 f4 would be a tight fit, never tried that for a lack of funds and access to such a lense.
RikWriter
Well-known member
I've had Canon and Sony 600 f4s (still have the Sony) and the length would not allow it to fit under the seat, I don't believe, at least not in any bag that would fit it. I can definitely believe a 600 f6.3 would fit since it's not really any bigger than a Sony 200-600, which will fit.
hef19898
Active member
Ok, I checked dimensions: a 600 f6.3 Z fits perfectly in my bag (Lowepro Protactic 350), and that bag fits perfectly under the front seat. A 600 f 4 should fit, but lacking 15k USD to spend on a lense, it doesn't matter. A 300 f2.8 fits as well, but tight.
Going purely by Nikons dimensions, I thinl I could squeeze in a 600 F4 if I really tried...
Going purely by Nikons dimensions, I thinl I could squeeze in a 600 F4 if I really tried...
I agree, it seems that the antiquated system of baggage handling is only getting worse. Apparently there is no incentive for the airlines to push for a better system. The disconnect I suspect is because the baggage handlers do not work for the airline, but instead are a separate contracted service. Airlines offloading their responsibility is a huge part of the problem. They shrug and offer you $100, assuming that you can collect (I never did on my lost bag). UA for some reason has been horrendous, and lost my bags 5 or 6 times out of 8 flights. Unforgiveable. For this reason I understand why everyone is trying to cram their dirty laundry into the overhead bins. To not do so is inviting the airlines (and their sub-contractor baggage handlers) to ship your belongings to who knows where, with the occasional one ending up lost forever (at least to the original owner).If you allow me to dream. What's required is the airline industry bring the baggage handling system well into the late 20th C, let alone the first quarter of the 21st Century. An outdated, poorly managed (as in failed management) system equals a well founded absence of trust in turning checked luggage over to an airline. There is NO reason that 'lost' checked luggage should be anything but a true rarity, and damaged luggage the same. Well no reason except for the fact that airports and airlines care not a whit about luggage delivery other than as it being identified as a perfect target for cost cutting and cosidered so as if luggage is somehow not absolutely inherent to the process of quite literally every single passenger flight. That utter failure -- who willingly hands over even a cheap bag of sacrificial clothing, let alone anything of value in an armoured case (e.g. camera gear in a Nanuk case)? -- of the checked baggage system (designed at the latest the '60s) has then led to the carry on nightmare of fighting for space because no one wants to play the hope game of luggage in the belly of the aircraft.
Simply, there is no reason that camera gear, properly packed, should not easily travel unharmed by air. Good couriers do it everyday
I also have a beef with the Cancun airport authorities. My last trip there took 5.5 hours to clear customs and immigration, including an additional 1.5 hour wait for my baggage AFTER the abuse of the long lines through customs. I have no idea how they get away with this, but they have lost one more person (including my family) from ever visiting there again. /rant
My Sony 600 will but I’d prefer not to.
RikWriter
Well-known member
In what bag?
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
I would not pay extra, because it seems like a gimmick.
With my ticket, I should already be guaranteed space. The only reason they try to force people to check bags, is if they are too lax about measuring people's bags - and other people break the regulations.
The regulations are built in mind, with X amount of space, Y amount of people - and the math done so that each person is guaranteed their proper sized carryon to fit in the overhead bin.
I've never had trouble with my camera gear, because I just say "this bag has $50k worth of gear, and it is sized to your regulations. I can look down the row right now and see 20 other people with oversized bags (usually hardcase rollers, or big mountain backpacks). If it was me, I would kick one of the bags violating regulations off, rather than someone who did everything correct". Every single time, this has resulted in my bag flying with me overhead - and someone else getting booted.
The best option would be to add exorbitant surcharges for anyone whose carryon is oversized. And then actually ensure that measurements are taken of each bag. That would greatly reduce instances of people abusing the system.
YMMV as this is just the case with airlines I've flown. Southwest, Delta, Icelandair. I haven't been to Africa or Costa Rica yet so I'm not knowledgeable with the smaller puddle jumpers or international airlines.
With my ticket, I should already be guaranteed space. The only reason they try to force people to check bags, is if they are too lax about measuring people's bags - and other people break the regulations.
The regulations are built in mind, with X amount of space, Y amount of people - and the math done so that each person is guaranteed their proper sized carryon to fit in the overhead bin.
I've never had trouble with my camera gear, because I just say "this bag has $50k worth of gear, and it is sized to your regulations. I can look down the row right now and see 20 other people with oversized bags (usually hardcase rollers, or big mountain backpacks). If it was me, I would kick one of the bags violating regulations off, rather than someone who did everything correct". Every single time, this has resulted in my bag flying with me overhead - and someone else getting booted.
The best option would be to add exorbitant surcharges for anyone whose carryon is oversized. And then actually ensure that measurements are taken of each bag. That would greatly reduce instances of people abusing the system.
YMMV as this is just the case with airlines I've flown. Southwest, Delta, Icelandair. I haven't been to Africa or Costa Rica yet so I'm not knowledgeable with the smaller puddle jumpers or international airlines.
Last edited:
peachfront
Member
Kudos to you and I've seen some of my male travel partners be able to be assertive at the airport but 5'2" female me would not be able to carry this off. I can't even get other passengers to stop physically pushing me out of the way, I'm not going to be able to give credible pushback to actual gate agents. I've often WISHED I could offer suggestions about certain people whose bags don't belong on board though... I really do wonder how some bags ever get into the gate area to begin with! But, for me, since I can't lift more than around 20 pounds overhead, the discussion is somewhat moot. As long as I book the front cabin, there's going to be room somewhere for my stuff. Yes, it's paying more for something that-- in a better world-- we would all get included in the ticket, but I live in this world...
Oh, one thing I did think of that I can do to be helpful and sometimes even make a few bucks, is to volunteer for the bump if I'm not in big hurry to get where I'm going. If I walk up to the gate & they're making announcements about "we have a very full flight," then I let the gate agent know I can volunteer to be bumped if they need it. They'll give you first class on your next flight regardless of where you were originally seated to thank you for volunteering + you get a voucher (usually around $800) plus other stuff if you need it like an overnight hotel... But sometimes the announcement is just a fib to make people check their bags, you aren't really going to get the bump because nobody's getting bumped.
The real problem is airlines not policing and enforcing their carry on baggage size policy.
RikWriter
Well-known member
I have a tarmac lens bag that it fits the lens no body. The 400f2.8 Sony GM will fit with the body.
Another suggestion I have for everyone when flying is how you dress. If you look poor or in other words wear tattered clothing or say gym clothes on a plane you are much more likely to get bag rules pushed on you than if you are dressed nicer. Just something to think about.
When work traveling I’m often in suits or dress clothes and it amazes me how my larger carry on bag goes right by the attendant but someone dressed like they are going to bed with a bag much smaller gets checked. Bottom line is the airline staff can tell those who travel often and those who don’t. They tend to not mess with folks who spend a lot of money with them.
When work traveling I’m often in suits or dress clothes and it amazes me how my larger carry on bag goes right by the attendant but someone dressed like they are going to bed with a bag much smaller gets checked. Bottom line is the airline staff can tell those who travel often and those who don’t. They tend to not mess with folks who spend a lot of money with them.
Robert S
Well-known member
Only time I fly is Brisbane to Darwin. On JetStar there is no First Class or Business Class. I put most of my gear in a suitcase. I look on the bright side and hope that if I'm going to lose my gear it occurs after I have fallen down the stairs and broke my neck getting to the luggage carousel.
I guess being senile has its benefits
I guess being senile has its benefits
joe43
Well-known member
This is slightly off topic but it deals with air travel. With my wife and daughter, I just flew from Houston to Phoenix and back to Houston this past Thursday-Sunday for Memorial Day. I flew economy class on United. One flight , Hou to Phx, was on a (fairly new) Boeing 737-900 (twin-jet) (B739). The seat width and leg room was the worst I have ever experienced on a US flight. I should have paid the extra $$$ for economy Plus for more leg room and a wider seat. I am 5ft 10. Not all rolling bags were allowed into the plane and there was not enough room in the overheads. I believe everyone in group 5 and higher had to gate check their bags. The flight was full with a waiting list. United asked for folks to volunteer to gate check their bags.
The flight from Phx to Hou on Sunday morning was on a Bombardier Jet CRJ-900 (twin-jet) (CRJ9. The economy seats were wider and had more leg room. But as you all know overhead storage is too small for roll on bags. United did not allow any roll on bags of any type to be taken onto the Bombardier plane. All were gate checked with green tag baggage tags. Backpacks were allowed but they had to fit under the seat or in the overhead. Upon arrival in Houston all green tagged checked bags were available to deplaning passengers as they left the plane. That process was fast. My daughter had her roller bag green taged.. My bag was checked when I arrived at the airport.
Both flights were full with waiting lists. The good news was that I did not see many trying to bring on more than what the airline allowed.
This was my first flight in about two years as I am not frequent flyer. Do your homework on plane and seating dimensions before you buy your ticket to make sure you get the seat size you need or want. Newer planes may have smaller seats.
The flight from Phx to Hou on Sunday morning was on a Bombardier Jet CRJ-900 (twin-jet) (CRJ9. The economy seats were wider and had more leg room. But as you all know overhead storage is too small for roll on bags. United did not allow any roll on bags of any type to be taken onto the Bombardier plane. All were gate checked with green tag baggage tags. Backpacks were allowed but they had to fit under the seat or in the overhead. Upon arrival in Houston all green tagged checked bags were available to deplaning passengers as they left the plane. That process was fast. My daughter had her roller bag green taged.. My bag was checked when I arrived at the airport.
Both flights were full with waiting lists. The good news was that I did not see many trying to bring on more than what the airline allowed.
This was my first flight in about two years as I am not frequent flyer. Do your homework on plane and seating dimensions before you buy your ticket to make sure you get the seat size you need or want. Newer planes may have smaller seats.
peachfront
Member
Another thing about RJs is even if you're in first class, the overhead storage on the single seat (A) side is not enough space for even a small backpack. I don't think I realized that before because before photo gear, I had really tiny carry-on bags. Since my husband no longer travels, I always take the single seat side and leave the two-seat side to couples. Fortunately, the people in B-C really had no luggage to speak of and were kind enough to let me stick my backpack in their overhead bin, but in future if I see there is an RJ involved, I will make sure to pick my seat from the side with the larger overhead bin. I swear! The airlines with their puny planes have made travel into The Hunger Games!
In an ideal world, your smaller size and thus probably weight should mean that you are less likely to get pulled up with weight restrictions. Let's say you're 50kg (110lbs). Add the standard bag weight of check in luggage at 23kg (50lb) and the standard carry on of 7kg (15lb) - these weight limits do vary but that is about the standard I see most of the time when I fly - your total weight is 80kg (175lb). I have seen people who would easily weigh in at 110+kg (235lb) and get the same check in and carry on allowance and thus total weight could be in excess of 140kg (310lb)!! Their own weight without baggage is more than you and your baggage combined yet they also pay the same price for their ticket!! When I ship goods via air, every gram/ounce and cubic area is accounted for in the cost of the freight. I believe that your ticket should be on your total weight, and this would have the added benefit that many would try to lose weight in order to fly on a cheaper ticket - think of the health benefits. Think of it this way, smaller, lighter people are actually subsidizing the larger heavier people's travel as the ticket cost is worked out on an average. There are very few benefits in this world for smaller people, but this could be one of them! I would have no issue being charged for total weight for an air ticket. I weigh between 75-78kg (165-171lb) and thus would be around the middle area. However, I know his will never happen as somebody will plead discrimination! It's not, it's a fact of life that the more you weigh, the more it costs to fly you somewhere, just like my freight costs for goods. This should open a can of worms.
So, if I decide to take more camera gear than the standard 7kg carry on, then I really wouldn't mind paying a premium for that service. I get the fact that weight is an issue when flying.
peachfront
Member
I'd save a fortune if tickets were priced this way-- most teenagers are larger than me, & I'd say at least 95% all American adults-- but I don't think it would work because weight is such a source of deep emotional pain for so many people that they would lie about their weight at the time of purchasing the ticket even if there wasn't a monetary incentive to lie. So you'd have to weigh everybody at the gate area & then adjust their ticket prices or how would it work? I just don't think it would work without causing even more delays at the airport. While I agree with everyone that there must be a better way because the current way is pretty terrible, I'm not sure we've thought of that better way yet.
There would need to be a minor adjustment at the time of checking in.
Last edited: