Louis Vuitton's Delusion of the Photographer Results in $3,500 Bag

Louis Vuitton's Delusion of the Photographer Results in $3,500 Bag

Photography equipment is not cheap. As photographers, we’re often investing thousands of dollars into metal tubes filled with planes of glass, and quickly justifying it to our friends and families. So what happens when a disconnected fashion brand such as Louis Vuitton markets to photographers, and announces a $3,500 basic camera bag?

Introducing the Louis Vuitton N58027


It’s got zippers, it’s got a checkerboard pattern, and it’s got handles. Oh, your bag only has a front and side panel to store your gear, well this one has a front, side AND back! And with a incredibly small form factor (15.4” x 8.7” x 9.4”), you'll have plenty of space to store a camera, lens, flash and still have about enough space for a single AA battery. So it should be no surprise that this little bag marketed for men would cost the nice affordable price of $3,500. If that is not enough, they're also offering a similarly patterned wallet and belt for $470 a piece. So you can be the true fashionista on your next fashion photo shoot.


In all seriousness, this is problematic for our industry. I know I have tens of thousands of dollars invested into camera bodies, lenses and lights. But outside of that, I live a life unlike that of most photographers - a life of modesty. I'm already frustrated that I'm paying $250+ for a decent camera bag that is nothing more than a backpack that has been gutted and filled with foam inserts. So where does Louis Vuitton get the idea that anyone would want to pay that ten fold? Louis Vuitton, if you’re listening...stay out of my industry. I'll photograph your bags, and I'll collect your checks for my invoices, but I have no desire to also become your customer.

If you're looking to spend $3,500 purely to drive me crazy, you can do so here.

Log in or register to post comments


Dani Riot's picture

Just bought two… I think they are cool…

...'s picture

How is this "problematic for our industry"?

I think this falls in the same category as those awful Hasselblad/Sony cameras.
If people are dumb enough to buy that camera, they're dumb enough to buy this bag.
They actually go pretty well together, so good for LV for coming up with a bag for those d-bags to put their HV in.

Zach Sutton's picture

Perhaps the justification of it?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, photographers in the United States make on average of about $28K a year. It's brands like this and others that are pushing the market into believing photography is luxurious. That in turn, can shift the market to have even less of a desire to pay us our dues.

...'s picture

Personally, I don't think THAT is the problem keeping clients from paying photographers.
Photography seeming luxurious has never, and will never, keep clients from paying photographers well. In fact, I believe it's the opposite.

"Wow, look at that bag, he must be a good photographer"

M L's picture

Its LV, and photography is luxurious if you can afford LV. A 28K a year as a photographer isn't a career time to get another one if that is all you pull in.
The person buying this will have a leica monochrome,wait is that camera problematic to our industry because of its price? and a M9 for color with 3 lenses and it will be a perfect fit.

Zach Sutton's picture

It's not getting deleted. It's an error with Disqus' cache. They've been updating their services...and have had issues on and off for the last few days

behindthecamera's picture

"28K a year as a photographer isn't a career time to get another one if that is all you pull in"

Perhaps I could get a job as your proofreader.

M L's picture

that would be another poor career choice...

Veldask Krofkomanov's picture

It's not a problem. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet. But just because you don't want it, doesn't mean other people don't want it either. Some people are willing to pay more for a better looking bag (and you have to realize that this is subjective). My gear is more centered on fashion than function. I want to look good (what I think is good, because again, this is subjective). I bought a Canon 35mm L over the new Sigma, primarily because red ring. It might be silly to you, but to me, I like brand names. If I made a bit more money, you can bet that I'd be looking at possibly buying this bag.

You have to realize that one bag is not going to shift the market. Think about how many people will buy this. I doubt you or I will ever see one of these being used ever. Even if someone was seen with it, the observer would then have to recognize that it is a LV rather than just some bag.

You're worried about our dues. Look where photography is heading. Practically everyone has one now. Photography is growing at a huge rate as a hobby. Our market value is diminishing as we go on. It's just a fact of life. There are more and more good photographs popping up as people become more skilled in photography. Our photographs will no longer be leagues better than most people. I see some damn fine work from many amateurs, who in reality could be professionals, except that they don't want to do that as a career (would rather keep a hobby as a hobby rather than turning it into a job) or don't know how to do it as a career. That's what's going to decrease our market value in the coming years, not one bag that will sell maybe a hundred units overall worldwide. Get real bro, think logically.

Peter House's picture

Thinking of selling my camera so I can get this. People don't need to know what's inside anyways. I'll look legit though.

fotique13's picture

If you think a Vuitton bag makes one look "legit" you have an issue..

fatso's picture

"If you think a Vuitton bag makes one look "legit" you have an issue.." Says Mc Doesntknowwhatironyis

fotique13's picture

The irony here is that you meant sarcasm... :)

David Vaughn's picture

Irony can be sarcastic.

fotique13's picture

Wow.. just.. wow.. O.o?

Peter House's picture

And it often is :)

casey colomb's picture

You sir are dumb..

Black Light Shoots's picture

you're telling this to Peter House? lolz. good joke.

fotique13's picture

Judging by your avatar all you care about is looking "legit".. pfft.

Peter House's picture

Too legit to quit.

fotique13's picture

Maybe you should start working just as hard on your photography.

Peter House's picture

I'd rather get the bag.

fotique13's picture

A fancy bag for a fancy d-bag.. makes sense.

Tyler Friesen's picture

Fotique13, you have clearly not looked at Peters work the way your talking to him. Settle down. No need for being rude on here.

Black Light Shoots's picture

lolz you're breaking the fun Tyler XD should have let him on his own. lolz

Marco Venturini Autieri's picture

There are many rich tourists wandering through the world with expensive cameras at the neck. If there is a market for Hasselblad Lunar and Stellar, well, there is a market for this bag.

Michael Comeau's picture

Here's how LV got the idea it could sell this for ten times more than a normal camera bag: because they sell handbags and wallets and luggage for ten times the average amount.

Louis Vuitton is not selling the bag's ability to transport equipment from point A to point B. Louis Vuitton is selling the feeling of buying something with its name on it, to a small number of people.

smithcreative's picture

Well said. Its nice to know there's someone here with understanding.

Randy's picture

"You are trying way too hard to be outraged…" LOVE THAT LINE, and it is such a common place effort.

More comments