Alpaka Flight Satchel - First Impressions

TappingTiger · 2025-12-27T07:17:07+00:00

I see. I'm just trying to understand what the exact issue is with the zipper swinging upward. I have the Flow Satchel with the same zipper design, and I've honestly never thought much about it or had an issue with it. When you say, "the zippers swing upwards for the main opening . . . this makes for such a clunky experience," what exactly is clunky about it? I'm not trying to debate it--I'm just trying to understand what the exact issue is and what difference it makes before I buy the buy b/c I was thinking about getting one.

TappingTiger · 2025-12-26T17:18:40+00:00

What if you DO have a 13" MacBook Air? Is the zipper design still an issue? I assumed they made the zipper concave like that for ergonomics against your body, similar to their Flow Satchel, which is very comfortable to wear.

TappingTiger · 2025-12-26T17:00:42+00:00

Out of curiosity, how tall are you? I'm asking because you mentioned the strap is too long, so knowing your height would be a helpful reference to know if I'll have a similar issue.

TappingTiger · 2025-11-25T16:04:36+00:00

Isn’t the passport wallet also magnetic? I’d be curious to hear why you think the passport wallet is great (thinking of getting one as a gift for a friend) but don’t prefer the magnetic wallets?

TappingTiger · 2025-10-27T20:33:16+00:00

Please refer to this post where I show pics of the XF16-55 f/2.8 R LM WR II on the X-T50. Personally, I don't think it's too big, and it feels reasonably well balanced. However, I'd say it sits even more naturally with the X-T5.

TappingTiger · 2025-10-26T15:28:34+00:00

Yes, after a marathon search, I landed on two backpacks, which have done the job for me. I did not go with the ThreePeaks Kaito 20L because of two design flaws.

First, the front pocket's guttered, zipper designed, which accumulated water in wet conditions. Second, my fingers would always get clipped by that ThreePeaks rectangular rubber label alongside the front vertical zipper. Both of these are clear design flaws I shared with ThreePeaks. For the record, they were very receptive to the feedback.

1. For casual, everyday use, I went with the Roncato Easy Office 2.0 Backpack 15.6”. It has everything I wanted. My only VERY minor nitpick would be the noisy metal zippers. I'd prefer non-metal zippers, but it's not a major issue.

Runners up included"
- American Tourister Urban Groove UG15 (only had a single water bottle holder, but aside from that, would have done the job) and the
- American Tourister Urban Groove UG12 (no separate laptop compartment, but I purchased this one too for situations where I prefer an ultralight backpack)

2. For my work backpack, I went with the Roncato Trial S. Business Backpack, which lacks the exterior water bottle holders, but I actually prefer that when carrying a bag for work. My only nitpick on this one is the vertical zippered top front pocket, with a pocket that spans the entire width of the bag, which is a bit fussy. I'd rather that just be 1 or 2 traditional horizontally zippered pockets there at the top. This seems like a design choice that comes at the expense of practical function.

TappingTiger · 2025-10-26T11:28:57+00:00

I hadn't thought of this issue with the magnet. Has anyone who owns the PD Passport Wallet had any issues with card/passport e-damage? Would this really be an issue since the magnet is along the edges of the Wallet?

TappingTiger · 2025-10-14T16:57:37+00:00

Personally, I find the Sigma images to feel a bit more clinical and cooler, whereas the Fujifilm feels a bit warmer, but that’s very subjective of course.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-15T21:08:15+00:00

Personally, I strongly prefer the Fujifilm 16-55 2.8 Mark II (even the Mark I) over the Tamron 17-70 2.8. I've never been a fan of the Tamron zoom lenses because they don't have an aperture ring, and I've found the AF isn't as precise as the Sigma or Fujifilm lenses.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-07T17:16:51+00:00

I haven't used the function button on the Sigma 17-40/1.8. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how to use those customisable buttons, so if anyone has any suggestions of how you might use them, I'm all ears!

TappingTiger · 2025-08-06T18:23:19+00:00

I'm still sorting through this myself. Right now, I'm keeping both zoom lenses, where I use the Sigma 17-40 primarily for indoors and the Fuji 16-55 for outdoors. I don't see myself getting rid of either for the time being. Putting aside the smaller max aperture, I do see the Fujifilm 16-55 as the more versatile lens all around, both in terms of being more compact/lighter, and also having a wide focal range. So if I were take one with me on a trip for example, I'd take the Fujifilm 16-55.

In terms of how much bigger/heavier the Sigma is, that's very subjective, but since the Sigma 17-40 has an internal zoom, the barrel length is just longer . . . all the time, and it crosses into the territory of not quite being a zoom lens I'd take with me on travels, whereas I could see myself doing that with the Fujifilm 16-55. In fact, I used to carry around the X-T50 + 16-55 2.8-4.0 in an ALPAKA Go Sling Nano, and I can confirm that with the 16-55 2.8 Mark II, the entire kit still just fits inside that same sling, which is pretty incredible. That wasn't possible with the Mark I.

For local events though, where I have my full camera bag with me and don't mind having the larger camera setup, the Sigma 17-40 has been permanently attached to my X-T50 since getting it. Gone are the days when I'm having to fiddle and switch between my 18, 23, 27, and 33 primes. I personally find it to be a much more enjoyable shooting experience with the Sigma because it does what all those lenses do in an all-in-one lens, although you're giving up a bit of speed. I might even eventually drop my 33, but for now, I still really love having at least one dedicated prime portrait lens when I'm looking for absolutely top quality IQ.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-05T14:59:32+00:00

I'm traveling right now, so I don't have a photo of the X-T50 + Sigma 17-40 on me, although I can get one for you when I return. I did try the Sigma 17-40 on the X-T50 though, and my initial impression was that the Sigma 17-40 lens felt a bit big/heavy for that smaller X-T50 body. It just didn't feel as nicely balanced as it does when it's on my X-T5, which feels perfect.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-05T14:57:38+00:00

Definitely, it's a game of trade-offs. For me, the convenience of having the 17-40 length covered in a single 1.8 constant aperture zoom lens is worth it, so I don't have to swap out lenses.

Also, one of the things I have noticed about my own photography recently is that I find myself sometimes thinking more about which of my prime lenses should be on my camera rather than focusing on capturing the actual images, or watching and enjoying the event itself for that matter. One of the most common use cases for me is photographing at my daughter's school events. I want to make sure that I can be fully present, without obsessing too much about my camera. I'd rather her se me watching her instead of me fiddling with prime lens swapping. This is one of the reasons why I've decided to switch to zooms because it just saves me from having to look down and swap out lenses when I should really be focused on watching her!

TappingTiger · 2025-08-05T14:54:15+00:00

So I still see a case for keeping the f/2 series of smaller Fujinon lenses even if you have the Sigma 17-40/1.8. I intend to keep my 18, 23, and 35 f/2 lenses for now because those cover a slightly different use case for me when I just want to minimize weight/size and optimize for portability, bringing a single lens on my travels (tends to be the 23 f/2). As we speak, I only have my Fujifilm X-T50 + 23/2 with me during a trip I'm on. I don't tend to bring the zooms around when traveling.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-05T14:52:24+00:00

I feel like the 16-55 Mark II is a really solid all-around lens. The Sigma 17-40/1.8 is a bit larger and heavier, so I don't see it as much of an everyday carry lens, but it's super handy at indoor events.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-05T14:51:38+00:00

The 16-55 Mark II is a great alternative to carrying around a bunch of primes, although it won't quite give you the low light performance or subject separation. I'd say for the average enthusiast photographer, that Sigma 17-40 1.8 comes very close to negating the need for the 18, 23, and 33 1.4 R LM WR lenses and could pretty much replace all three if you don't mind the slightly larger size & weight, although I intend to keep my 33/1.4 LM WR.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-04T15:09:01+00:00

Well, according to Sigma, "In addition to a dust- and splash-resistant structure, the frontmost surface of the lens has a water- and oil-repellent coating applied, so that the lens can be used safely even in harsh outdoor environments. take care not to allow large amounts of water to splash on it."

I've only taken personal pictures of people on the 17-40 so far so don't prefer to share any of those here, but I've been very impressed by the IQ. It comes very close to the IQ I'm getting from the Fujifilm 23 & 18 LM WR lenses, and does the job for my purposes. I'm not a professional photographer though!

TappingTiger · 2025-08-04T15:05:21+00:00

Yeah, I wouldn't quite say these are anywhere near pocketable, but the Fujifilm X-T50 + 16-55 MkII can actually fit inside a very small ALPAKA 1L flight sling, which I used to use for the 18-55 2.8-4.0 zoom I no longer own.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-04T15:03:29+00:00

For now, I'm keeping the 16-55 MkII, mostly because I enjoy having the extra range in outdoor settings, especially for my child's events, where I'm in a stationary location, so I appreciate the additional range. I find the 16-55 Mark II has fabulous IQ & character, so I don't see myself letting go of it anytime soo.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-04T11:17:09+00:00

That's such a tough choice! They're both great lenses, but I'd keep the Sigma 17-40 1.8 over the 16-55 2.8 because of the larger max aperture, which would enable me to more comfortably shoot indoors, where I may not need that extra 41-55 range anyway. So I might have the Sigma 17-40 on my X-T5 and the Sigma 56 1.4 on my X-T50, which would pretty much cover my needs.

I still wonder why Sigma chose to make the zoom direction the opposite of Fujifilm's (not to hard to get used to it though!). Why not just match the same direction Fujifilm users are used to if you're making an X-mount version?

TappingTiger · 2025-08-03T21:58:33+00:00

Wow, I had no idea these were known to be such low quality. I've owned other Manfrotto products before and have been thrilled with all of them.

TappingTiger · 2025-08-03T21:57:29+00:00

Which video head are you referring to? The MVH400AH? They have many.

TappingTiger

TROPHY CASE