Selecting a camera bag by specs
I just came into the need to upgrade my trusty old LowePro Slingshot 102 AW. I had carried it to full capacity until now, and with the need to carry more stuff.. volume is now my problem and thus the need for a larger bag.. This case had been a GREAT bag for my equipment until now (almost 8 years), and I plan to keep it for smaller walkabouts when I might not need all my gear with me.
This is a tale of my research of the current bags in the market and decision making process for my new bag based exclusively on their technical specs. I apologize if it is rather long. Buying through specs alone is hard and requires a lot of analysis and thought, as you don't have the products to see, touch and smell. On the other hand, it takes away the subjective perception in place for a more objective evaluation. A complete selection process should start with a through spec based selection of a short list and then a physical inspection of the finalists. Hopefully this will help complement the selection process for some of our more technically inclined readers.
So first, let's start with my objectives and requirements. If your requirements and objectives are analogous to mine then you can skip all the way to the end and see the results of the final selection and conclusion. If your requirements are somewhat different from mine, then it might be worth it your while to go through the analysis and elimination process, hopefully there will be some valuable insight gained on the way or perhaps even find a bag that suits you perfectly.
REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA
The following are the criteria my new bag should fulfill:
CURRENT EQUIPMENT
This is the equipment I had comfortably been carrying in my LowePro Slingshot 102 AW. I got the measures from the specs and verified some with a tape measure, in order to know how much space I really needed as a starting point.
In the case of the lens hoods their dimensions were measured physically as those specs are not included in the lens specs and the lens width adjusted accordingly. Since the lens hoods are much wider than the lenses themselves, it's indispensable to use the lens hood width (and not the lens width) so that they can be stored reversed along with the lens (it is very cumbersome to store the hoods elsewhere and still use them consistently... what you'll end up doing is shooting without them).
The highlighted figures show the maximum dimensions for certain gear that are critical for its influence on a bag's requirements. I want to be able to fit my DSLR vertically or horizontally so its width of 5.9 in tells us how big the opening and insides of the bag must be.
My biggest zoom lens has a total height of 6.5" standing up. This is a rather small telephoto zoom, and has similar dimensions to other popular macro lenses. I want to be able to store it standing up (if possible) as with such layout I would be able to fit more equipment into the bag. Also my flash always carries a diffuser snapped onto it and similarly measures little more than 7". In order to save time and space I want to store the flash vertically with the diffuser attached.
On my old LowePro Slingshot I was able to comfortably fit all my current equipment inside the camera compartment except the Canon "Nifty Fifty" which rode on the upper compartment along with my accesories (charger, battery, and filters).
So essentially, at minimum, I need a bag that has usable storage volume of more than 0.198 cu. ft. to hold my existing DSLR body, 3 lenses and flash; more than 0.242 cu. ft. to also handle my new wide angle lens and more than 0.27 cu. ft. to also hold all my accessories and still leave the other compartments free for other things.
Optimally I would like a bag that can also still have space for my next gear purchases (I don't want to have to go through this again soon, even though I don't know when I will be able to afford them) such as:
A bigger zoom telephoto lens and another 1 or 2 speedlight flashes, and perhaps an even bigger telephoto (500 mm) some day. For now I will include only the most feasible ones:
MARKET EVALUATION
Below you can see a table with all the camera bags I was able to find that basically fit my internet search. If I missed any bag that fits my criteria, please let me know and I'll be happy to include it. I also included my old bag for reference:
At first I was including backpacks as well (literally there are dozens of offerings in this category). There are many beautiful and excellent backpacks out there that fulfill most of my requirements (such as the Manfrotto Advanced camera and laptop backpack Travel for DSLR). However, when I realized that a backpack (even if it has a side access door) doesn't fulfill my requirement # 4 above I stopped including them in the list. It's extremely difficult for a backpack, held on your left or right shoulder (most of its weight in lenses is at the bottom pulling it down) and swings forward to give you access to the side door, to stay solidly in place to provide enough stable support to rest your elbows when taking a photograph with telephoto. This is what I constantly do with my small Lowepro sling and it works wonderfully. It has saved me from having to deploy a tripod in many occasions and gives me the freedom to move effortlessly without having to deal with one. That alone is a reason to discard backpacks that do not have the option to convert to a sling (I am calling these hybrid). A sling (or sling configured backpack) holds the bag solidly in your stomach providing such support. The backpacks that do have the option of crossing the shoulder strap to the other side and turning it into a sling are still excellent options that I will continue considering.
These are the bags I found through internet research grouped by bag type and sorted by price within each bag type (I highlighted the bags I currently own for reference):
Bulkiness
I computed the volumes of each bag from their external dimensions and here they are sorted from compact to bulky and included their price and weight for comparison:
Given the extra capacity I need it's expected that the bags I am considering are more bulky than my trusty old Lowepro Slingshot 102. However, I am not interested in carrying around an astronaut EVA backpack, so my preferred volumes are highlighted in green and yellow. My old LowePro Compurover is excessively bulky for my daily purposes, so I will stay away from those orange and red mamoths in this list.
Weight
I obviously want the lightest possible bag. All my glass, equipment and accessories already weigh a lot (if not ask my wife and my daughter when they sometimes help out with my camera bag) so I want to add to it as least as possible (in order to conserve my back during a trek). The difference from the lightest to the heaviest bag is almost 4 pounds. This is like adding another heavy 70/200 f/2.8 lens on my back and then some. I would rather have the new lens rather than the dead weight of a bag hanging on my back when I take long walks with my photo equipment. However, I cannot ignore protection. Clearly a bag that has extra padding and structure to it will definitely weigh more than a light bag that can be easily crushed. So this is a variable where we will have to find some compromise of added weigh compared to bag structure and protection. In this area, good design, technology and new materials should be able to achieve better structure with less added weight. However, since I am evaluating this bags without having them physically with me, I will have to rely on structure and material appreciation (which sometimes is subjective) given by reviews of other purchasers.
External Width
To avoid confusion here I am considering Width as the distance from Left to Right that the bag measures when hanging in your back by the straps. Depending on each person's body build the width of the bag might feel small or big. My point of comparison is my old Slingshot 102 AW (I am a slim/medium build body type and I felt this bag, at 8.3 in., was small and extremely manageable in my back). Obviously, since I am looking for a bag that can handle more equipment, it's reasonable to accept that, without a doubt, the new bag has to be wider (especially if I want it to be able to hold the bigger 70/200 f/2.8 glass attached to the camera body and held sideways in the bag for optimal protection. Putting a camera and lens pointing down or up in a camera bag is just a bad idea (the day you drop that camera bag a little harder than usual the lens or the camera body will receive the drop hit directly. Lenses are safer when stored sideways in the camera bag. My other old bag (the LowePro Compurover), at 13.4 in., is a bag that covers my full back, which I consider too big. I want to stay way below this measure for my daily bag. With this in mind, I will choose a bag that is as thin as possible to keep it easy to handle during physical activities.
External Depth
Depth was measured from the back (the part next to your back when the bag hangs in your shoulders) to the front of the bag. The difference from the most compact to the most bulky bag is 5 inches, and it's functionally correlated to the bulkiness (external volume). Because of this, I won't give any consideration to it and will concentrate on selecting bags based on external volume exclusively.
External Volume
This is a clear measure of bulkiness. First a simple disclaimer....obviously the bags are not the shape of a rectangular prism and so the volumes I calculated simply by HxWxD are slight over estimations of the real volume of each bag. Even though it might be technically inaccurate, it will give us a very clear idea of how bulky a bag is and how they compare amongst themselves.
Here is the first interesting analysis we encounter in this process. The bulkiest bag (the Vanguard Uprise II 48) is 412% bigger in volume than the most compact (the Ruggard Triumph 35). So the difference in bulkiness in the market is huge. Again, this obviously is an area of compromise (similar to weight) as a bag that has more protection for the equipment will probably be bulkier than one that has only thin walls and protects the equipment less.
I was amazed to see how the Ruggard Triumph 35 (with much more capacity) is actually more compact than my old LowePro Slingshot 102 AW which couldn't hold all of my equipment any more. Obviously design and materials are definitely what makes a difference for the efficiency of a bag as we will see below.
From carrying something that is 0.66 cu. ft. I certainly don't want to use something that is more than twice as bulky (takes up more than 1.3 cu. ft.) because it will feel awfully cumbersome.
Internal (Usable)Volume
Now that we have seen bulkiness, let's take a look at what I really need. What usable volume the bag provides. This is determined by the internal dimensions provided by the manufacturer sorted by Usable Volume in ascending order.
As expected, my old Slingshot heads the list with the smallest usable volume (0.16 cu. ft.). However my ultra bulky Lowepro Compurover only yields a small usable capacity. Notable example is how the Ruggard Triumph 35 is able to provide twice as much usable cargo space (0.35 cu.ft.) and be much less bulky (0.41 cu.f.t) compared to the Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW. This is the first evidence that design and materials yields different storage efficiency and opportunity to apply some analysis to discard some bags. As stated before, I need bags that have more than 0.27 cu. ft. (to hold my current equipment & accessories) but I want one that can hold 0.39 cu. ft. or more. So I highlighted with pink the ones that definitely don't make the cut, with yellow the ones that cover my needs but not my wants, and with green the ones that give me all the desirable usable space I want for the future, so that I don't have to swap bags when I get something else. This clears the tables a little bit.
Internal Depth and Width
Next, to optimize the space in my bag, as explained before, I need my bag to have depth greater than 6.5" and hopefully greater than 7" (to hold my biggest lens and flash standing up or my widest lens and flash stacked together for easy retrieval from the side door) and the width to be greater than 8.8" and hopefully 10" or greater (to hold my camera body with a 70/200 f/2.8 attached sideways). This also rules out a few more bags.
My default choice was simply a larger LowePro Slingshot (either the 202 or 302). I have had such a good experience with this bag that I was disappointed to find out that none, not even the largest Slingshot, were able to hold my telephoto and flash standing up despite their extreme bulkiness. Many more compact bags were able to take them standing up. They can, however, hold them laying down without a problem.
Internal Height
I don't have anything against a particularly tall bag (as long as it is comfortable to wear). However, I do have a problem with bags that are too short in height because this will cause the side doors to be too narrow making it more difficult to take the camera in and out of the bag in the sling forward position, as well as manipulating the inside of the bag to swap lenses. Therefore (because the manufacturers fail to provide a spec on the size of the side door) I have a preference towards the height of the bag as a proxy to the real size of the side door, which I prefer as big as possible.
Now let's take a look at how efficient these bags perform through the following 3 metrics:
Volume Efficiency (Usable:Carried)
This metric simply tells us how efficient is the bag providing cargo volume. It is a percentage calculated as a ratio of the Internal Volume / External Volume. This tells us how much volume is usable as cargo and how much (the inverse) is basically bag volume. In other words what percentage of the bulkiness of the bag is effectively usable volume for gear.
The bags go from only allowing you to fill 24% of the volume of bag you are carrying all the way up to 85% of the volume you are carrying. Obviously the larger the percentage the more desirable a bag is because the more the bulkiness is used by gear and the less is used by the bag padding and structure. However, here too, a compromise needs to be considered because the most efficient bag would simply be a very thin plastic bag that would give an efficiency of almost 99.9999% but would offer 0 protection for the gear. We don't want to be carrying bags with too low a Volume Efficiency as we then will be dealing with uncomfortable bulkiness and too little gear (my best example is my old Lowepro Compurover, incredibly bulky with not that big usable space). Too high a Volume Efficiency would suggest too little material protecting our gear, but it also might suggest advanced materials, structure and design went into the building of the bag.
It is interesting to see that the Lowepro Slingshot series are generally grouped as having very low efficiencies (orange and red). It is sad to see that my two old camera bags ranked the lowest in volume efficiency (another sign of my poor subjective selection in teh pa. On the other hand, the Ruggard Triumphs are generally grouped as high efficiencies (especially the Triumph 35 shows up as carrying a lot of gear for the compact size of the bag). None of the reviews pointed to low quality protective material, so this suggests very good design and materials on this bags.
The Neweer/Altura Sling Backpack is also a very efficient carrier, however the reviews I found mention that the material is flimsy and provides little protection, so that explains the high level of efficiency.
The Lowepro Pro Tactic, Manfrotto Sling 50, Vanguard Adaptor 48 and the Quovo 44 also rank very well in this aspect.
Weight:Usable Volume Ratio
This ratio tells us how much weight of bag material are we carrying for every unit of usable volume for gear. In essence how much overhead material the bag has. This measure allows us to compare different bags irrespective of their carrying capacity. Obviously a larger bag that allows us to carry more gear would weigh more because it requires more material but that doesn't mean it is less desirable. This measure allows us to compare the weight of the bags on equal grounds. The heaviest bags are 3 times as heavy as the lightest ones. This constitutes a very wide range of play for how heavy do we want our bag to be.
The Vanguard Adaptor 48 forces you to carry only 3.9 Lbs per each cu.ft. of usable space. That's VERY light. The smaller Lowepro Slingshots, the Case Logic Kilowatts, the Manfrotto 3n1-26 and my old LowePro Compurover are, in comparison, the heaviest bags of the bunch. If you are going for long treks of several hours, they shouldn't be considered for this purpose. For long treks one of the lighter bags with green ratios should be considered. Interestingly the Vanguard Adaptor and Quovo series, the Manfrotto Sling 50 and the Kata DL-3n1-33 rank very well in terms of weight, as well as the Lowepro Slingshot 202. The Neewer Sling Backpack is very light but it seems this is because of too little material to provide enough protection. The Ruggard Triumphs are right in the middle of the weight range.. striking a good balance..not too heavy not too light and are reportedly well built with good materials, although not the best options for long difficult treks.
Price: Usable Volume Ratio
This performance metric allows us to see how much money we need to pay for each unit of usable volume we want. This allows us to effectively compare how expensive a bag truly is regardless of it's size or capacity.
Not a surprise that the Neweer / Altura sling is the least expensive amongst all (one more proof that its material is not the one thing the company invests in). The LowePro Slingshot 302 AW is being offered at $49.95 making it an excellent deal given the volume it can carry (you are only paying 7 cents per cu. in. of usable space). The next good deals are the Ruggard Triumphs and the Vanguard Adaptors. On the other side of the continuum the Lowepro slingshot Edge (probably due to the fact that it's a brand new product launch) and the Manfrotto 3n1-26 are ridiculously expensive (i'ts 3 and 4 times as expensive as the Ruggard Triumph 45 and the Adaptor 48 respectively). My previous bag the Slingshot 102 AW although decently priced at $49.95 turns out to be very expensive given the little volume it can carry. The Vanguard Uprise series turn out to also be on the very pricey side.
So if you are on a budget or don't want to overpay for extra usable space to carry your gear, you should stick to the upper half (green price ratios) in the table above. If the slingshot edge is your kind of bag.. wait until the price comes down.
Tripod Holder: You can attach the tripod to the camera bag either in the front of the bag (centered) or in the other side of the side access door. Carrying it centered in the front has the added benefit of keeping your bag well balanced when carrying heavier tripods.
From the reviews we found, we can safely assume that all in the short list (except perhaps for the Neewer / Altura Slingpack) are similar in good quality in construction and materials. This is unfortunate, as the Neewer/Altura Sling Backpack would have been one of the top performers according to our selection criteria. Multiple reviews have opinions of people mentioning:
The Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 is an excellent bag and very beautiful as well. If money were no object this would be one of the best in features and aesthetics. It is as compact as the others, but, at $200, it's 3 times as expensive as the others and very inefficient in cargo (it can carry only 30% of the volume it occupies). Consequently it is the heaviest/volume of all the list and the most expensive cargo cu.ft. of the list. At that price I can buy 3 bags (one every year) and have the latest and greatest. It doesn't have a main access door in the back, so the gear is less secure while walking in crowds. Finally, with that capacity (0.33 cu. ft.) it only covers my present needs and doesn't have enough cargo volume for my future needs. So for these reasons the Pro-Light is out.
I wish there was a bag with both features (a hybrid that can be fully accessed from the back), but since I couldn't find one I am forced to choose between having a back door for full secure access to all my gear or having the versatility of the X Cross Type Straps that make a hybrid. According to my needs, I go on very active treks much less frequently than I would like, so my main use for my new bag is to permanently store my gear and grab it when I go out on any shooting opportunity. Therefore I will use the back door entry much more frequently than the X Cross Type straps. This leaves us with only the slings to consider as my finalists.
CONCLUSION
This is a tale of my research of the current bags in the market and decision making process for my new bag based exclusively on their technical specs. I apologize if it is rather long. Buying through specs alone is hard and requires a lot of analysis and thought, as you don't have the products to see, touch and smell. On the other hand, it takes away the subjective perception in place for a more objective evaluation. A complete selection process should start with a through spec based selection of a short list and then a physical inspection of the finalists. Hopefully this will help complement the selection process for some of our more technically inclined readers.
So first, let's start with my objectives and requirements. If your requirements and objectives are analogous to mine then you can skip all the way to the end and see the results of the final selection and conclusion. If your requirements are somewhat different from mine, then it might be worth it your while to go through the analysis and elimination process, hopefully there will be some valuable insight gained on the way or perhaps even find a bag that suits you perfectly.
REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA
The following are the criteria my new bag should fulfill:
- Be able to carry all my everyday gear inside, safely.
With the addition of my new lens, I was able to tightly fit it in my old bag, but not without sacrificing all the lens hoods, which no longer fit inside my bag. I carry them hanging out in one of the straps, but they will get scratched or broken at some point. Also the lenses are too crammed inside, so I question their safety in case the bag falls hard on the floor. - Be able to pull out my camera from the bag without having to put the bag on the ground.
The best feature of my old Lowepro Slingshot was the sling format and the side door that allows me to rotate the bag to the front and pull my camera out. I want this on my new bag. - Be able to swap lenses standing up without having to put the bag or my camera down.
This requires the side access door to be as ample (tall and wide) as possible to be able to reach inside and manipulate the lenses inside comfortably. - Be able to support my elbows, providing added stability to the hand held camera, when taking pictures standing up.
By swinging the bag forward and holding in front of my stomach, it should lie at the perfect height so that my elbows can rest on top of the bag and thus hold the camera steadily. - Be less than $100.
I have other priorities other than spending too much money on a camera bag. I want an affordable, safe and versatile camera bag. - Fit future equipment I am planning to purchase.
Have enough free space to add bigger lenses and flashes. - Be as compact as possible.
I will be carrying this bag with all my equipment around with me at most times, so I don't want it to be bulky (neither in my back, nor in my car).
CURRENT EQUIPMENT
This is the equipment I had comfortably been carrying in my LowePro Slingshot 102 AW. I got the measures from the specs and verified some with a tape measure, in order to know how much space I really needed as a starting point.
The highlighted figures show the maximum dimensions for certain gear that are critical for its influence on a bag's requirements. I want to be able to fit my DSLR vertically or horizontally so its width of 5.9 in tells us how big the opening and insides of the bag must be.
My biggest zoom lens has a total height of 6.5" standing up. This is a rather small telephoto zoom, and has similar dimensions to other popular macro lenses. I want to be able to store it standing up (if possible) as with such layout I would be able to fit more equipment into the bag. Also my flash always carries a diffuser snapped onto it and similarly measures little more than 7". In order to save time and space I want to store the flash vertically with the diffuser attached.
On my old LowePro Slingshot I was able to comfortably fit all my current equipment inside the camera compartment except the Canon "Nifty Fifty" which rode on the upper compartment along with my accesories (charger, battery, and filters).
So essentially, at minimum, I need a bag that has usable storage volume of more than 0.198 cu. ft. to hold my existing DSLR body, 3 lenses and flash; more than 0.242 cu. ft. to also handle my new wide angle lens and more than 0.27 cu. ft. to also hold all my accessories and still leave the other compartments free for other things.
Optimally I would like a bag that can also still have space for my next gear purchases (I don't want to have to go through this again soon, even though I don't know when I will be able to afford them) such as:
A bigger zoom telephoto lens and another 1 or 2 speedlight flashes, and perhaps an even bigger telephoto (500 mm) some day. For now I will include only the most feasible ones:
So in conclusion: I want a bag that can hold 0.39 cu. ft. of gear in its main camera compartment and has a depth of more than 7" (to hold my flash and telephoto zoom lens standing up and the camera body sideways), and a width of at least 8.8" to fit my camera with my current telephoto attached and 10" (to fit my camera with the massive 70-200 f/2.8 (I hope to get one day) attached and inserted sideways for easy removal through the side door) and a height as big as possible to allow a wide side door.
Below you can see a table with all the camera bags I was able to find that basically fit my internet search. If I missed any bag that fits my criteria, please let me know and I'll be happy to include it. I also included my old bag for reference:
- Sling or Hybrid (backpack and sling) format
- Less than $100
- Can hold 1 DSLR, 4 lenses and a flash unit.
There are 3 basic bag types I have used for carrying cameras before:
- Shoulder bags: These are the classic camera bag that hangs from one shoulder, open through the top, and have wide access to all your gear so that you can retrieve it fast and easy. However., they are not comfortable or safe for long treks or hikes and even dangerous for climbs our bike rides. My very first bag was of this type.
- Backpacks: Everybody knows these. They ride in your back held by 2 straps. Except from anti gravity in the future, this is the most comfortable and easy way of lugging around heavy lenses in long treks, hikes or bike rides and probably the only safe one for climbs. I have one of these for those long hazardous treks.
- Slings: This type is a fairly new entry in the market. They are the children of a backpack and a shoulder bag. They have only one strap running from the left hand upper corner to the bottom right hand corner of the bag. This allows you to wear the backpack with the strap crossing form your right shoulder to your left waist. It is not as solid a hold as a backpack but much more than a shoulder bag.
- Hybrids: This is a enhancement in which a back pack can hide one of the straps, and unlink the other one from one side and hook it to the other side to essentially convert it into a sling.
At first I was including backpacks as well (literally there are dozens of offerings in this category). There are many beautiful and excellent backpacks out there that fulfill most of my requirements (such as the Manfrotto Advanced camera and laptop backpack Travel for DSLR). However, when I realized that a backpack (even if it has a side access door) doesn't fulfill my requirement # 4 above I stopped including them in the list. It's extremely difficult for a backpack, held on your left or right shoulder (most of its weight in lenses is at the bottom pulling it down) and swings forward to give you access to the side door, to stay solidly in place to provide enough stable support to rest your elbows when taking a photograph with telephoto. This is what I constantly do with my small Lowepro sling and it works wonderfully. It has saved me from having to deploy a tripod in many occasions and gives me the freedom to move effortlessly without having to deal with one. That alone is a reason to discard backpacks that do not have the option to convert to a sling (I am calling these hybrid). A sling (or sling configured backpack) holds the bag solidly in your stomach providing such support. The backpacks that do have the option of crossing the shoulder strap to the other side and turning it into a sling are still excellent options that I will continue considering.
These are the bags I found through internet research grouped by bag type and sorted by price within each bag type (I highlighted the bags I currently own for reference):
| Price | Type | |
| Neewer /Altura Sling Backpack | 32.99 | Sling |
| Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW | 49.95 | Sling |
| Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW | 49.95 | Sling |
| Ruggard Triumph 35 | 59.95 | Sling |
| Ruggard Triumph 45 | 64.95 | Sling |
| Lowepro Slingshot 202 AW | 69.95 | Sling |
| Ruggard Triump h 55 |
69.95 | Sling |
| Lowepro Slingshot Edge 250 AW | 89.99 | Sling |
| Vanguard Uprise II 43 | 99.99 | Sling |
| Manfrotto Sling 50 | 148.66 | Sling |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-101 | 39.99 | Hybrid |
| Vanguard Adaptor 45 | 69.99 | Hybrid |
| Vanguard Adaptor 48 | 79.99 | Hybrid |
| Vanguard Adaptor 46 | 79.99 | Hybrid |
| Kata KT DL-3n1-33 3 in 1 Sling | 82.74 | Hybrid |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-102 | 94.25 | Hybrid |
| Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 | 199.88 | Hybrid |
| Vanguard Quovio 44 | 169.99 | Hybrid |
| Vanguard Uprise II 45 | 127.39 | Backpack |
| Vanguard Uprise II 46 | 149.99 | Backpack |
| Lowepro Compurover AW | 160 | Backpack |
| Vanguard Uprise II 48 | 169.99 | Backpack |
| Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW | 188.99 | Backpack |
Bulkiness
I computed the volumes of each bag from their external dimensions and here they are sorted from compact to bulky and included their price and weight for comparison:
| External Dimensions (in.) | ||||||
| Bag Model | Price | Weight (lbs) | Height | Width | Depth | Volume (cu. Ft.) |
| Ruggard Triumph 35 | 59.95 | 2.7 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 7.1 | 0.41 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW | 49.95 | 1.5 | 15.9 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 0.66 |
| Lowepro Slingshot Edge 250 AW | 89.99 | 1.8 | 18.9 | 10.5 | 6.1 | 0.70 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-101 | 39.99 | 2.53 | 16.50 | 9.60 | 8.10 | 0.74 |
| Neewer /Altura Sling Backpack | 32.99 | 2 | 16.93 | 9.84 | 7.87 | 0.76 |
| Ruggard Triumph 45 | 64.95 | 3 | 16.9 | 11.4 | 7.9 | 0.88 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 45 | 69.99 | 2 | 17.9 | 10.6 | 9 | 0.99 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 48 | 79.99 | 2.2 | 17.9 | 10.6 | 9 | 0.99 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 202 AW | 69.95 | 1.98 | 17.72 | 10.04 | 9.84 | 1.01 |
| Ruggard Triumph 55 | 69.95 | 3.2 | 18.1 | 11.4 | 8.5 | 1.01 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 43 | 99.99 | 2.7 | 18.10 | 10.38 | 9.63 | 1.05 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 46 | 79.99 | 2.2 | 17.9 | 10.6 | 9.9 | 1.09 |
| Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 | 199.88 | 3 | 18.1 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 1.09 |
| Manfrotto Sling 50 | 148.66 | 3.52 | 16.4 | 11.2 | 10.4 | 1.11 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-102 | 94.25 | 3.7 | 18.50 | 11.80 | 10.20 | 1.29 |
| Vanguard Quovio 44 | 169.99 | 3.95 | 18.25 | 11.75 | 10.6 | 1.32 |
| Kata KT DL-3n1-33 3 in 1 Sling | 82.74 | 2.8 | 18.3 | 13 | 10.2 | 1.40 |
| Vanguard uprise II 46 | 149.99 | 3.9 | 19.25 | 12.60 | 10.60 | 1.49 |
| Lowepro Compurover AW | 160 | 5.6 | 21.7 | 13.4 | 9.1 | 1.53 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW | 49.95 | 3 | 18.1 | 13.4 | 11 | 1.54 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 45 | 127.39 | 3.42 | 19.63 | 13.00 | 10.88 | 1.61 |
| Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW | 188.99 | 5.7 | 19.2 | 13.7 | 10.6 | 1.61 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 48 | 169.99 | 4.4 | 20.5 | 13.4 | 10.6 | 1.69 |
Weight
I obviously want the lightest possible bag. All my glass, equipment and accessories already weigh a lot (if not ask my wife and my daughter when they sometimes help out with my camera bag) so I want to add to it as least as possible (in order to conserve my back during a trek). The difference from the lightest to the heaviest bag is almost 4 pounds. This is like adding another heavy 70/200 f/2.8 lens on my back and then some. I would rather have the new lens rather than the dead weight of a bag hanging on my back when I take long walks with my photo equipment. However, I cannot ignore protection. Clearly a bag that has extra padding and structure to it will definitely weigh more than a light bag that can be easily crushed. So this is a variable where we will have to find some compromise of added weigh compared to bag structure and protection. In this area, good design, technology and new materials should be able to achieve better structure with less added weight. However, since I am evaluating this bags without having them physically with me, I will have to rely on structure and material appreciation (which sometimes is subjective) given by reviews of other purchasers.
External Width
To avoid confusion here I am considering Width as the distance from Left to Right that the bag measures when hanging in your back by the straps. Depending on each person's body build the width of the bag might feel small or big. My point of comparison is my old Slingshot 102 AW (I am a slim/medium build body type and I felt this bag, at 8.3 in., was small and extremely manageable in my back). Obviously, since I am looking for a bag that can handle more equipment, it's reasonable to accept that, without a doubt, the new bag has to be wider (especially if I want it to be able to hold the bigger 70/200 f/2.8 glass attached to the camera body and held sideways in the bag for optimal protection. Putting a camera and lens pointing down or up in a camera bag is just a bad idea (the day you drop that camera bag a little harder than usual the lens or the camera body will receive the drop hit directly. Lenses are safer when stored sideways in the camera bag. My other old bag (the LowePro Compurover), at 13.4 in., is a bag that covers my full back, which I consider too big. I want to stay way below this measure for my daily bag. With this in mind, I will choose a bag that is as thin as possible to keep it easy to handle during physical activities.
External Depth
Depth was measured from the back (the part next to your back when the bag hangs in your shoulders) to the front of the bag. The difference from the most compact to the most bulky bag is 5 inches, and it's functionally correlated to the bulkiness (external volume). Because of this, I won't give any consideration to it and will concentrate on selecting bags based on external volume exclusively.
External Volume
This is a clear measure of bulkiness. First a simple disclaimer....obviously the bags are not the shape of a rectangular prism and so the volumes I calculated simply by HxWxD are slight over estimations of the real volume of each bag. Even though it might be technically inaccurate, it will give us a very clear idea of how bulky a bag is and how they compare amongst themselves.
Here is the first interesting analysis we encounter in this process. The bulkiest bag (the Vanguard Uprise II 48) is 412% bigger in volume than the most compact (the Ruggard Triumph 35). So the difference in bulkiness in the market is huge. Again, this obviously is an area of compromise (similar to weight) as a bag that has more protection for the equipment will probably be bulkier than one that has only thin walls and protects the equipment less.
I was amazed to see how the Ruggard Triumph 35 (with much more capacity) is actually more compact than my old LowePro Slingshot 102 AW which couldn't hold all of my equipment any more. Obviously design and materials are definitely what makes a difference for the efficiency of a bag as we will see below.
From carrying something that is 0.66 cu. ft. I certainly don't want to use something that is more than twice as bulky (takes up more than 1.3 cu. ft.) because it will feel awfully cumbersome.
Internal (Usable)Volume
Now that we have seen bulkiness, let's take a look at what I really need. What usable volume the bag provides. This is determined by the internal dimensions provided by the manufacturer sorted by Usable Volume in ascending order.
| External Dimensions (in.) | Internal Dimensions (in.) of camera compartment | |||||
| Bag Model | Weight (lbs) | Volume (cu. Ft.) | Height | Width | Depth | Volume (cu. Ft) |
| Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW | 1.5 | 0.66 | 10.2 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 0.16 |
| Lowepro Slingshot Edge 250 AW | 1.8 | 0.70 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 4.7 | 0.21 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-101 | 2.53 | 0.74 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 6.1 | 0.27 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 202 AW | 1.98 | 1.01 | 11.02 | 8.86 | 5.51 | 0.31 |
| Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 | 3 | 1.09 | 10.04 | 9.06 | 6.3 | 0.33 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 45 | 2 | 0.99 | 10.25 | 9.5 | 6.1 | 0.34 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 46 | 2.2 | 1.09 | 10.25 | 9.5 | 6.1 | 0.34 |
| Ruggard Triumph 35 | 2.7 | 0.41 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 6 | 0.35 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-102 | 3.7 | 1.29 | 9.1 | 10.6 | 6.5 | 0.36 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 43 | 2.7 | 1.05 | 9.9 | 7.1 | 9 | 0.37 |
| Lowepro Compurover AW | 5.6 | 1.53 | 8.3 | 11.6 | 6.9 | 0.38 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW | 3 | 1.54 | 10.6 | 11.4 | 5.9 | 0.41 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 45 | 3.42 | 1.61 | 11 | 7.3 | 9 | 0.42 |
| Ruggard Triumph 45 | 3 | 0.88 | 11 | 10.5 | 7 | 0.47 |
| Neewer /Altura Sling Backpack | 2 | 0.76 | 16.6 | 8.5 | 6 | 0.49 |
| Ruggard Triumph 55 | 3.2 | 1.01 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 0.49 |
| Vanguard uprise II 46 | 3.9 | 1.49 | 12.65 | 7.5 | 9 | 0.49 |
| Kata KT DL-3n1-33 3 in 1 Sling | 2.8 | 1.40 | 11 | 11.4 | 6.9 | 0.50 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 48 | 2.2 | 0.99 | 16.9 | 9.5 | 6.1 | 0.57 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 48 | 4.4 | 1.69 | 14.15 | 7.5 | 9.9 | 0.61 |
| Manfrotto Sling 50 | 3.52 | 1.11 | 14.8 | 10.8 | 7.2 | 0.67 |
| Vanguard Quovio 44 | 3.95 | 1.32 | 16.4 | 9.5 | 7.9 | 0.71 |
| Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW | 5.7 | 1.61 | 17.3 | 12.5 | 7.8 | 0.98 |
As expected, my old Slingshot heads the list with the smallest usable volume (0.16 cu. ft.). However my ultra bulky Lowepro Compurover only yields a small usable capacity. Notable example is how the Ruggard Triumph 35 is able to provide twice as much usable cargo space (0.35 cu.ft.) and be much less bulky (0.41 cu.f.t) compared to the Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW. This is the first evidence that design and materials yields different storage efficiency and opportunity to apply some analysis to discard some bags. As stated before, I need bags that have more than 0.27 cu. ft. (to hold my current equipment & accessories) but I want one that can hold 0.39 cu. ft. or more. So I highlighted with pink the ones that definitely don't make the cut, with yellow the ones that cover my needs but not my wants, and with green the ones that give me all the desirable usable space I want for the future, so that I don't have to swap bags when I get something else. This clears the tables a little bit.
Internal Depth and Width
Next, to optimize the space in my bag, as explained before, I need my bag to have depth greater than 6.5" and hopefully greater than 7" (to hold my biggest lens and flash standing up or my widest lens and flash stacked together for easy retrieval from the side door) and the width to be greater than 8.8" and hopefully 10" or greater (to hold my camera body with a 70/200 f/2.8 attached sideways). This also rules out a few more bags.
My default choice was simply a larger LowePro Slingshot (either the 202 or 302). I have had such a good experience with this bag that I was disappointed to find out that none, not even the largest Slingshot, were able to hold my telephoto and flash standing up despite their extreme bulkiness. Many more compact bags were able to take them standing up. They can, however, hold them laying down without a problem.
I don't have anything against a particularly tall bag (as long as it is comfortable to wear). However, I do have a problem with bags that are too short in height because this will cause the side doors to be too narrow making it more difficult to take the camera in and out of the bag in the sling forward position, as well as manipulating the inside of the bag to swap lenses. Therefore (because the manufacturers fail to provide a spec on the size of the side door) I have a preference towards the height of the bag as a proxy to the real size of the side door, which I prefer as big as possible.
Now let's take a look at how efficient these bags perform through the following 3 metrics:
Volume Efficiency (Usable:Carried)
This metric simply tells us how efficient is the bag providing cargo volume. It is a percentage calculated as a ratio of the Internal Volume / External Volume. This tells us how much volume is usable as cargo and how much (the inverse) is basically bag volume. In other words what percentage of the bulkiness of the bag is effectively usable volume for gear.
| Bag Model | Weight (lbs) | External Volume (cu. Ft.) | Internal Volume (cu. Ft) | Vol Usable/Carried |
| Ruggard Triumph 35 | 2.7 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 85% |
| Neewer /Altura Sling Backpack | 2 | 0.76 | 0.49 | 65% |
| Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW | 5.7 | 1.61 | 0.98 | 60% |
| Manfrotto Sling 50 | 3.52 | 1.11 | 0.67 | 60% |
| Vanguard Adaptor 48 | 2.2 | 0.99 | 0.57 | 57% |
| Vanguard Quovio 44 | 3.95 | 1.32 | 0.71 | 54% |
| Ruggard Triumph 45 | 3 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 53% |
| Ruggard Triumph 55 | 3.2 | 1.01 | 0.49 | 48% |
| Vanguard Uprise II 48 | 4.4 | 1.69 | 0.61 | 36% |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-101 | 2.53 | 0.74 | 0.27 | 36% |
| Kata KT DL-3n1-33 3 in 1 Sling | 2.8 | 1.40 | 0.50 | 36% |
| Vanguard Uprise II 43 | 2.7 | 1.05 | 0.37 | 35% |
| Vanguard Adaptor 45 | 2 | 0.99 | 0.34 | 35% |
| Vanguard uprise II 46 | 3.9 | 1.49 | 0.49 | 33% |
| Vanguard Adaptor 46 | 2.2 | 1.09 | 0.34 | 32% |
| Lowepro Slingshot 202 AW | 1.98 | 1.01 | 0.31 | 31% |
| Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 | 3 | 1.09 | 0.33 | 30% |
| Lowepro Slingshot Edge 250 AW | 1.8 | 0.70 | 0.21 | 29% |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-102 | 3.7 | 1.29 | 0.36 | 28% |
| Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW | 3 | 1.54 | 0.41 | 27% |
| Vanguard Uprise II 45 | 3.42 | 1.61 | 0.42 | 26% |
| Lowepro Compurover AW | 5.6 | 1.53 | 0.38 | 25% |
| Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW | 1.5 | 0.66 | 0.16 | 24% |
The bags go from only allowing you to fill 24% of the volume of bag you are carrying all the way up to 85% of the volume you are carrying. Obviously the larger the percentage the more desirable a bag is because the more the bulkiness is used by gear and the less is used by the bag padding and structure. However, here too, a compromise needs to be considered because the most efficient bag would simply be a very thin plastic bag that would give an efficiency of almost 99.9999% but would offer 0 protection for the gear. We don't want to be carrying bags with too low a Volume Efficiency as we then will be dealing with uncomfortable bulkiness and too little gear (my best example is my old Lowepro Compurover, incredibly bulky with not that big usable space). Too high a Volume Efficiency would suggest too little material protecting our gear, but it also might suggest advanced materials, structure and design went into the building of the bag.
It is interesting to see that the Lowepro Slingshot series are generally grouped as having very low efficiencies (orange and red). It is sad to see that my two old camera bags ranked the lowest in volume efficiency (another sign of my poor subjective selection in teh pa. On the other hand, the Ruggard Triumphs are generally grouped as high efficiencies (especially the Triumph 35 shows up as carrying a lot of gear for the compact size of the bag). None of the reviews pointed to low quality protective material, so this suggests very good design and materials on this bags.
The Neweer/Altura Sling Backpack is also a very efficient carrier, however the reviews I found mention that the material is flimsy and provides little protection, so that explains the high level of efficiency.
The Lowepro Pro Tactic, Manfrotto Sling 50, Vanguard Adaptor 48 and the Quovo 44 also rank very well in this aspect.
Weight:Usable Volume Ratio
This ratio tells us how much weight of bag material are we carrying for every unit of usable volume for gear. In essence how much overhead material the bag has. This measure allows us to compare different bags irrespective of their carrying capacity. Obviously a larger bag that allows us to carry more gear would weigh more because it requires more material but that doesn't mean it is less desirable. This measure allows us to compare the weight of the bags on equal grounds. The heaviest bags are 3 times as heavy as the lightest ones. This constitutes a very wide range of play for how heavy do we want our bag to be.
| Bag Model | Weight (lbs) | External Volume (cu. Ft.) | Internal Volume (cu. Ft) | Weight/Usable Vol (lb/cu ft) |
| Vanguard Adaptor 48 | 2.2 | 0.99 | 0.57 | 3.88 |
| Neewer /Altura Sling Backpack | 2 | 0.76 | 0.49 | 4.08 |
| Manfrotto Sling 50 | 3.52 | 1.11 | 0.67 | 5.29 |
| Vanguard Quovio 44 | 3.95 | 1.32 | 0.71 | 5.55 |
| Kata KT DL-3n1-33 3 in 1 Sling | 2.8 | 1.40 | 0.50 | 5.59 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 45 | 2 | 0.99 | 0.34 | 5.82 |
| Lowepro ProTactic 450 AW | 5.7 | 1.61 | 0.98 | 5.84 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 202 AW | 1.98 | 1.01 | 0.31 | 6.36 |
| Vanguard Adaptor 46 | 2.2 | 1.09 | 0.34 | 6.40 |
| Ruggard Triumph 45 | 3 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 6.41 |
| Ruggard Triumph 55 | 3.2 | 1.01 | 0.49 | 6.53 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 48 | 4.4 | 1.69 | 0.61 | 7.24 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW | 3 | 1.54 | 0.41 | 7.27 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 43 | 2.7 | 1.05 | 0.37 | 7.38 |
| Ruggard Triumph 35 | 2.7 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 7.80 |
| Vanguard uprise II 46 | 3.9 | 1.49 | 0.49 | 7.89 |
| Vanguard Uprise II 45 | 3.42 | 1.61 | 0.42 | 8.18 |
| Lowepro Slingshot Edge 250 AW | 1.8 | 0.70 | 0.21 | 8.76 |
| Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 | 3 | 1.09 | 0.33 | 9.05 |
| Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW | 1.5 | 0.66 | 0.16 | 9.38 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-101 | 2.53 | 0.74 | 0.27 | 9.49 |
| Case Logic Kilowatt KSB-102 | 3.7 | 1.29 | 0.36 | 10.20 |
| Lowepro Compurover AW | 5.6 | 1.53 | 0.38 | 14.57 |
The Vanguard Adaptor 48 forces you to carry only 3.9 Lbs per each cu.ft. of usable space. That's VERY light. The smaller Lowepro Slingshots, the Case Logic Kilowatts, the Manfrotto 3n1-26 and my old LowePro Compurover are, in comparison, the heaviest bags of the bunch. If you are going for long treks of several hours, they shouldn't be considered for this purpose. For long treks one of the lighter bags with green ratios should be considered. Interestingly the Vanguard Adaptor and Quovo series, the Manfrotto Sling 50 and the Kata DL-3n1-33 rank very well in terms of weight, as well as the Lowepro Slingshot 202. The Neewer Sling Backpack is very light but it seems this is because of too little material to provide enough protection. The Ruggard Triumphs are right in the middle of the weight range.. striking a good balance..not too heavy not too light and are reportedly well built with good materials, although not the best options for long difficult treks.
Price: Usable Volume Ratio
This performance metric allows us to see how much money we need to pay for each unit of usable volume we want. This allows us to effectively compare how expensive a bag truly is regardless of it's size or capacity.
|
So if you are on a budget or don't want to overpay for extra usable space to carry your gear, you should stick to the upper half (green price ratios) in the table above. If the slingshot edge is your kind of bag.. wait until the price comes down.
FEATURES
Now let's take a look at the different features that are available in all the bags I found. First let's describe each feature and why it is important or useful:
All Weather Cover: Some time ago, this was a useful innovation. Nowadays, it is a basic requirement for a camera bag. You can unfold an impermeable cover that can be fitted tightly on top of the whole bag for those rainy, snowy or excessively sunny days. These covers are marketed to be effective against rain or snow, however I find them useful as well when you are in the middle of an island in the beach with very little shadow. Most camera cases tend to be black (which absorbs a lot of radiant energy from sunlight) and this contributes to subjecting the equipment inside to excessive heat accumulation. If the camera cover is more reflective than the camera bag canvas, then rolling it out in sunny conditions will help you avoid frying your equipment under the sun. A special plus for those camera covers that are either white, light gray or yellow. If a camera doesn't have it, I would suggest dumping it.
X Cross Type Straps: The shoulder straps are easily detachable from the bottom, meaning they can be easily reconfigured in different modes. When both straps are attached to the bottom on their own side (right strap to right bottom and left strap to left bottom) you effectively get a backpack. When one strap is attached to its opposite side (e.g. right strap to left bottom) it functions as a left or right shoulder sling. When both straps are attached to the opposite bottom (left strap to right bottom and right strap to left bottom) it functions as securely as a backpack but with some dynamic benefits. The benefit of this last configuration is that it can be easily converted from being a versatile sling to a fully secure backpack with one move. If while shooting, in sling mode, suddenly you need to start moving fast, you can easily bring the other strap out and hook it on its opposite side (effectively converting the sling to a secure backpack) without having to take the sling off from your shoulders. This is the preferable set of straps I want in my daily camera bag.
All Weather Cover: Some time ago, this was a useful innovation. Nowadays, it is a basic requirement for a camera bag. You can unfold an impermeable cover that can be fitted tightly on top of the whole bag for those rainy, snowy or excessively sunny days. These covers are marketed to be effective against rain or snow, however I find them useful as well when you are in the middle of an island in the beach with very little shadow. Most camera cases tend to be black (which absorbs a lot of radiant energy from sunlight) and this contributes to subjecting the equipment inside to excessive heat accumulation. If the camera cover is more reflective than the camera bag canvas, then rolling it out in sunny conditions will help you avoid frying your equipment under the sun. A special plus for those camera covers that are either white, light gray or yellow. If a camera doesn't have it, I would suggest dumping it.
Side Access Door: Having a door to access the camera compartment from the right or left side of the bag is essential to be able to retrieve your gear from inside the bag without having to take it off from your shoulders. Without it you are forced to put down the bag in the floor or a table and open the top/front/ or back doors to retrieve your gear.
There is only one specific model that allows you to retrieve your gear without having a side access door. The Vanguard Adaptor 48 allows you full access through the rear door while rotated to the front and supported by the waist strap. It's weird and seems cumbersome (the back door opens towards your body) and unstable. It does offer the chance to access comfortably every piece of equipment you carry in the bag, and not just the ones near the side access door. The disadvantage is it doesn't offer the benefit of a side sling where you can rest your elbows on the bag for added stability when taking pictures.
Main Access Door on the back: Instead of the classic door that opens from the front of a backpack, this means that the access to the main camera compartment is done through a door in the back of the bag. This door rests against your back when you are wearing the backpack/sling. This has the following benefits:
- It prevents the access to the camera compartment while the bag is being worn in your shoulders. This is an excellent security measure for those that are walking through crowded areas in cities, as it prevents someone from tailgating you and swiftly extracting your gear from the front bag door without you noticing.
- It provides complete access to all of your gear because usually this doors are big and cover the whole size of the camera compartment. This makes it easy to reach every single corner of the bag to organize your gear.
- When you do need to set your bag down in the floor to access your gear, you will set it down resting the front of the bag in the floor. This means that the front of the bag will get dirty and the back will remain clean, helping preserve your own shirt clean when you do put the backpack/sling back on.
- On the rare occasions where reaching an accessory is impossible from the side door and it is not feasible to put the bag down you are forced to open the main door while the bag is still in your shoulders. Opening a front main door to reach that accessory while wearing the bag can have disastrous consequences when inadvertently your gear falls to the ground. Having the main door access through the back of the bag (the part that is against your body) is a lot safer as it is less probable that some gear falls to the ground as your body might prevent that. It will require you to loosen the bag enough to be able to open the back door, and it is not terribly convenient, but a lot safer.
Expandable Camera Compartment: A few bags offer the option, in the form of a zipper or touch-fastener, to expand the size of the camera compartment when needed. This allows you to keep a snug fit on the camera equipment when not carrying too much gear, and on the odd cases when your bag is filled to capacity and you have the need to carry something extra or extra big lenses, you can conveniently unzip the expansion and add a little more usable volume to carry the extra gear. Please note that this is different from the next feature that persofinifies a different type of expansion.
Camera compartment can expand into top compartment: For those camera bags that have a camera compartment on the bottom part and a miscellaneous compartment on the top, the dividing wall among them can be removed or folded back to integrate both spaces. This allows the flexibility of carrying longer telephoto lenses that wouldn't fit in the main camera compartment otherwise. Also allows you use the whole bag as a day pack for those [rare] occasions when you are not carrying your camera gear (in my case... this will never happen.. ha).
Tripod Holder: You can attach the tripod to the camera bag either in the front of the bag (centered) or in the other side of the side access door. Carrying it centered in the front has the added benefit of keeping your bag well balanced when carrying heavier tripods.
Laptop Compartment: Some bags include a flat compartment to carry a notebook and/or tablet. When not carrying computers this is specially useful to carry papers or folders that need to keep their shape. This is one use case and it depends on what you want the bag for. Probably you won't want to spend the extra cost, weight and/or bulkiness if the purpose of your bag is only for walkabouts and not for trips.
Strap to secure on top of the carry on: A strap on the back of the bag that allows you to wrap around the handle on a carry on and secure the camera bag to the carry on so that it doesn't fall when you leave the carry on standing by itself. Extremely useful if you travel.
As you can see there isn't a single bag that offers all the features together, so some compromise will be required. The sling functionality is so crucial that I will ignore any strong feature contenders that are only simple backpacks.
The Ruggard Triumphs are very strong in features. They only lack X Cross Type straps to make it a hybrid, a laptop compartment and a strap to secure on a carry on to fit my feature needs perfectly. They also lack a bottom with hard protection and rubber feet. The side door doesn't open beyond the side (a la LowePro Slingshots) so reaching deep into the bottom of the bag for a lens might not be as easy without being able to open the door further. The rain cover is black so no better protection from the sun. They also don't have any hard bottom or rubber feet in the bottom to protect from putting the bag in dirty ground (but that's easily fixable with aftermarket little rubber feet).
The Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1 bags are probably the most beautiful bags and I love the features that they have (especially the X Cross Type straps). A more important question is if their high sticker price is really worth it given the fact that they lack the main door access from the back and an expandable camera compartment.
The Vanguard Quovio shares many good features with the Manfrotto above, including the amount of gear you can carry. However, I don't appreciate that it has just a zipper opening on the side and not a full side access door. This limits enormously how easily you can manipulate your gear from the side. Given that this is a rather bulky bag Vanguard could have put a better access side door. So for that this bag is out.
The Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1 bags are probably the most beautiful bags and I love the features that they have (especially the X Cross Type straps). A more important question is if their high sticker price is really worth it given the fact that they lack the main door access from the back and an expandable camera compartment.
The Vanguard Quovio shares many good features with the Manfrotto above, including the amount of gear you can carry. However, I don't appreciate that it has just a zipper opening on the side and not a full side access door. This limits enormously how easily you can manipulate your gear from the side. Given that this is a rather bulky bag Vanguard could have put a better access side door. So for that this bag is out.
The Vanguard Adaptors do have models with and without the laptop compartment but the better ones don't have expandable compartments. I love the orange interior and that it has rubber surrounding the edges of the camera compartment to maximize its water resistance. Some models are to be accessed through the back door and others through the side/front door but unfortunately none offer both options (which is what I am striving for). The side access models lack a a full access front or back door. Reviewers complain the straps are not padded enough and the bottom is not protected with extra padding or hard reinforcement. They also mention that the inner dividers lack strength to hold upright heavy lenses and that the size of the side doors are not big enough to handle a 7d with 700/200 f/2.8 attached easily.
Today it seems that (perhaps because of construction restrictions or simply bad design decisions like not being able to open the back door without having to take out the straps in the sling mode) it's impossible to join the main access door in the back and the X Cross Type straps on the same bag. No hybrids have access to the camera compartment through the back. Those are two important features that I am looking for, so in the end, the decision will require choosing between them.
Today it seems that (perhaps because of construction restrictions or simply bad design decisions like not being able to open the back door without having to take out the straps in the sling mode) it's impossible to join the main access door in the back and the X Cross Type straps on the same bag. No hybrids have access to the camera compartment through the back. Those are two important features that I am looking for, so in the end, the decision will require choosing between them.
In my case, I have decided to prioritize down the laptop compartment. My main purpose for this bag is for daily storage and a grab and go bag. Besides I already have another 2 bags that can perform that duty: a dedicated laptop backpack and the old Lowepro Compurover AW which is bulky and no longer available. When the time comes to replace my travel bag I will update this article (or make a new one for that category).
I need my new bag to carry my all my camera gear and some other stuff on a daily basis and to be the permanent storage of my gear. Essentially it will be my grab and go bag. If the bag I select turns out to be very good, I will end up having to carry two bags (one for the laptop and one for the camera) for those trips that require my laptop to come with me. Since I now do very few trips that require both... it's no longer such a huge problem.
I need my new bag to carry my all my camera gear and some other stuff on a daily basis and to be the permanent storage of my gear. Essentially it will be my grab and go bag. If the bag I select turns out to be very good, I will end up having to carry two bags (one for the laptop and one for the camera) for those trips that require my laptop to come with me. Since I now do very few trips that require both... it's no longer such a huge problem.
FINAL SELECTION
So after having reviewed every single variable involved in my choice, I simply remove the bad performers in each category from my list according to these criteria:
- Backpacks that are not hybrid
- I'll ignore price for now and see what comes up.
- Heavy bags of > 3.6 Lbs
- Internal volume < 0.28 cu. ft. or < 0.39 cu. ft.
- Internal width < 8.8 in. or < 10 in.
- Internal depth < 6.5 in. or < 7 in.
- External volume > 1.3 cu. ft.
The remaining is a short list of camera bags that best match my needs. As I mentioned before, because I didn't have physical access to assess these bags, quality is impossible to be evaluated. The only input in respect to quality are the opinions of the people that have reviewed these products and pointed out their perspective as to their weaknesses and strengths.
I am also including my two older bags (highlighted in red) just as a reference for comparison. They ended up ranking very low in every single aspect I evaluated here. This proves how poorly I did when I used to buy using the "it looks good" criteria. From now on it will be specs analysis first and then look.
If we were to go on long multiple hour treks, then we should prioritize the short list by the weight/volume ratio, to see how many Lbs of bag we are lugging for every cu. in. of usable gear volume.
The Vanguard Adaptor series, the Neewer/Altura Sling and the Manfrotto Sling 50 are far better suited for long journeys given their consistent superiority on Weight/Usable Volume ratio. The weight on your back for long treks would be more your gear and less your bag. With the Triumphs you are comparatively carrying more bag weight. It seems there is nothing "light" about the Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26. At 9 Lbs/cu.ft. of gear it is more than twice as heavy as the Vanguard Adaptor 48 for the nearly half as much gear it can carry.
I am also including my two older bags (highlighted in red) just as a reference for comparison. They ended up ranking very low in every single aspect I evaluated here. This proves how poorly I did when I used to buy using the "it looks good" criteria. From now on it will be specs analysis first and then look.
If we were to go on long multiple hour treks, then we should prioritize the short list by the weight/volume ratio, to see how many Lbs of bag we are lugging for every cu. in. of usable gear volume.
The Vanguard Adaptor series, the Neewer/Altura Sling and the Manfrotto Sling 50 are far better suited for long journeys given their consistent superiority on Weight/Usable Volume ratio. The weight on your back for long treks would be more your gear and less your bag. With the Triumphs you are comparatively carrying more bag weight. It seems there is nothing "light" about the Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26. At 9 Lbs/cu.ft. of gear it is more than twice as heavy as the Vanguard Adaptor 48 for the nearly half as much gear it can carry.
If, however, you don't do too many outdoor treks, you would be best served by optimizing your camera bag dollars. We do this by prioritizing based on cost/volume. This gives us a shortlist of bags sorted on price/volume ratio:
From the reviews we found, we can safely assume that all in the short list (except perhaps for the Neewer / Altura Slingpack) are similar in good quality in construction and materials. This is unfortunate, as the Neewer/Altura Sling Backpack would have been one of the top performers according to our selection criteria. Multiple reviews have opinions of people mentioning:
- Flimsy material
- Little protection
- Low quality zippers
- The stitching comes off after a few uses
The Manfrotto Pro-Light 3n1-26 is an excellent bag and very beautiful as well. If money were no object this would be one of the best in features and aesthetics. It is as compact as the others, but, at $200, it's 3 times as expensive as the others and very inefficient in cargo (it can carry only 30% of the volume it occupies). Consequently it is the heaviest/volume of all the list and the most expensive cargo cu.ft. of the list. At that price I can buy 3 bags (one every year) and have the latest and greatest. It doesn't have a main access door in the back, so the gear is less secure while walking in crowds. Finally, with that capacity (0.33 cu. ft.) it only covers my present needs and doesn't have enough cargo volume for my future needs. So for these reasons the Pro-Light is out.
The clear winners when it comes to cost/usable volume are the Ape Case ACPro 1700, the Ruggard Triumphs and the Vanguard Adaptor 48 (save for the quality concerns on the Neewer/Altura bag). As you can see the most significant differences between them are:
Of the remaining bags, the smaller Triumph 35, the Adaptor 45 and 46) only have capacity for my present needs and are too small to store my 70-300 or most macros upright (depthwise) or even my widest lens and flash stacked together. The remaining Adaptors (45 and 46) don't have a big door in the back (or front) that give full access to the camera compartment. The only access is through the side doors, which makes it very inconvenient when accommodating gear or configuring the insides. Given the fact that there are multiple other options that fulfill my future needs without adding bulk to the bag, there is no reason to continue considering them. The main advantage the Adaptors 45 and 46 have over the Triumphs 45 and 55 is the hybrid strap configuration (which I really like) and the weight (they are significantly lighter). Because of this the Adaptors have a clear advantage for long treks (weight and hybrid strap configuration). Because most of my use for this new camera bag is every day walkabouts and permanent storage of my gear....the full back door access to the whole compartment is essentially convenient, and I realize that I will very seldom need the hybrid strap configuration If there existed an Adaptor that combined the features of the 48 with the 46 (say an Adaptor 47) then that would be a clear choice. Short of that, currently the Ruggard Triumphs are the clear winner.
- Weight: The Adaptor 48 is 27% lighter than the Triumph 45(better for treks of many hours)
- Capacity (Int. Vol.): The Adaptor 48 provides 18% more space for carrying gear than the Triumph 45 (both have the capacity to carry all of my present and future gear, but the Adaptor can add more incidentals).The Adaptor 48 doesn't let me store my 70-300 standing up because of it's depth limitation, but given it's additional volume this is probably not an issue.
- Bulkiness (Ext. Vol.): The Adaptor 48 is 11% bulkier than the Triumph 45 but the same as the Triumph 55. This makes it clumsier to handle while slinging it front, and more cumbersome for everyday handling.
- Price: The Adaptor 48 is 18% more expensive than the Triumph 45.
- Type: The Adaptor 48 is a hybrid, while the Triumph only a sling (this provides more flexibility and comfort for long or active treks without sacrificing handling for day walks). However, because it has no side access doors, the sling functionality doesn't help much since access to the gear is only through the back door while rotating it on the waist. This is an interesting concept (perhaps to be further researched) but doesn't fulfill my need for elbow support while taking pictures standing up.
For these reasons, the Adaptor 48 is out.
The remaining bags have roughly the same bulkiness (save for the Triumph 35 which is extremely efficiently compact for it's capacity), less than 2 times as bulky as my old Slingshot, and they mare much less bulky than my old Compurover which what I want.
Of the remaining bags, the smaller Triumph 35, the Adaptor 45 and 46) only have capacity for my present needs and are too small to store my 70-300 or most macros upright (depthwise) or even my widest lens and flash stacked together. The remaining Adaptors (45 and 46) don't have a big door in the back (or front) that give full access to the camera compartment. The only access is through the side doors, which makes it very inconvenient when accommodating gear or configuring the insides. Given the fact that there are multiple other options that fulfill my future needs without adding bulk to the bag, there is no reason to continue considering them. The main advantage the Adaptors 45 and 46 have over the Triumphs 45 and 55 is the hybrid strap configuration (which I really like) and the weight (they are significantly lighter). Because of this the Adaptors have a clear advantage for long treks (weight and hybrid strap configuration). Because most of my use for this new camera bag is every day walkabouts and permanent storage of my gear....the full back door access to the whole compartment is essentially convenient, and I realize that I will very seldom need the hybrid strap configuration If there existed an Adaptor that combined the features of the 48 with the 46 (say an Adaptor 47) then that would be a clear choice. Short of that, currently the Ruggard Triumphs are the clear winner.
I wish there was a bag with both features (a hybrid that can be fully accessed from the back), but since I couldn't find one I am forced to choose between having a back door for full secure access to all my gear or having the versatility of the X Cross Type Straps that make a hybrid. According to my needs, I go on very active treks much less frequently than I would like, so my main use for my new bag is to permanently store my gear and grab it when I go out on any shooting opportunity. Therefore I will use the back door entry much more frequently than the X Cross Type straps. This leaves us with only the slings to consider as my finalists.
The Ape Case 1700 is the lightest of all the finalist bags (great for long treks) despite of reportedly having very good construction and materials. It has similar bulkiness as the other finalists while being able to carry a little more volume than the Ruggards. I love the yellow interior and how freely its internal compartment can be reconfigured in many different ways (as the upper miscellaneous compartment doesn't put any restrictions). Its all weather cover is both silver and black for rain and sun protection. However, its internal dimensions will not allow my 7d with my 70-300 lens attached (8.8 in. total) to be fixed horizontally across the bag (the safest way to store it) without making it bulge. Bulged bags will offer less protection to the lens, so this is not acceptable. The only way to make them fit is vertically, however this would make it difficult, if not impossible, to remove the camera from the side door. The side door is extremely small (only barely larger than the DSLR body at my best estimate of 7.7"). This makes lens swapping while wearing the bag extremely cumbersome. In order to quickly and comfortably swap lenses, without having to put the bag down, requires a wider side door. So as much as I truly like it a lot, this bag is out.
This leaves only two contenders.. the Manfrotto and the Ruggard Triumph (in its 2 presentations). The Manfrotto is a little heavier and bulkier than the Ruggards, but it does provide much more internal storage space than the Ruggards when comparing the camera compartments (the reported internal volume for the Ruggards only considers the main camera compartment). However, the Ruggards allow the upper compartment to be integrated with the main camera compartment by detaching and folding down the divider between both compartments. They also provide an additional zipper on the main camera compartment that expands the depth from 7 to 9.5 inches. This provides more than the whole volume of the bag to be available for carrying camera equipment, to accomodate larger lenses easily and makes the usable volume very similar between the Ruggards and the Manfrotto. The Manfrotto is a very efficient bag (in terms of volume and weight) when compared to the basic configuration of the Ruggards but equivalent to the expanded mode of the Ruggards. It lacks the back door opening to access all of the equipment, foregoing this capability for the ability to carry a laptop (useful but for my use case.. not critical). The camera compartment is only accessible from the side door access, which makes it more difficult to accommodate equipment.
Last, but not least, the Manfrotto is more than 2x the price of the Ruggards, and for that they offer only aesthetics and the X Type Cross straps. The price level alone should have disqualified this bag from the beginning, but I wanted to apply this criteria last to see if there were any strong options that merited paying the extra bucks. I could buy one Ruggard use it for a couple of years, throw it away and buy a new one (when they come up with a hybrid model) for less than what I would pay for the Manfrotto. The only defects I find on the Ruggard bags are:
This leaves only two contenders.. the Manfrotto and the Ruggard Triumph (in its 2 presentations). The Manfrotto is a little heavier and bulkier than the Ruggards, but it does provide much more internal storage space than the Ruggards when comparing the camera compartments (the reported internal volume for the Ruggards only considers the main camera compartment). However, the Ruggards allow the upper compartment to be integrated with the main camera compartment by detaching and folding down the divider between both compartments. They also provide an additional zipper on the main camera compartment that expands the depth from 7 to 9.5 inches. This provides more than the whole volume of the bag to be available for carrying camera equipment, to accomodate larger lenses easily and makes the usable volume very similar between the Ruggards and the Manfrotto. The Manfrotto is a very efficient bag (in terms of volume and weight) when compared to the basic configuration of the Ruggards but equivalent to the expanded mode of the Ruggards. It lacks the back door opening to access all of the equipment, foregoing this capability for the ability to carry a laptop (useful but for my use case.. not critical). The camera compartment is only accessible from the side door access, which makes it more difficult to accommodate equipment.
Last, but not least, the Manfrotto is more than 2x the price of the Ruggards, and for that they offer only aesthetics and the X Type Cross straps. The price level alone should have disqualified this bag from the beginning, but I wanted to apply this criteria last to see if there were any strong options that merited paying the extra bucks. I could buy one Ruggard use it for a couple of years, throw it away and buy a new one (when they come up with a hybrid model) for less than what I would pay for the Manfrotto. The only defects I find on the Ruggard bags are:
- The lack of a good bottom feet for protection when the bag is standing up
- The size of the back door (it only provides access to the main camera compartment and it should be the size of the whole bag to provide access to all of it from the back).
- The rain cover is only black (and doesn't offer a grey or high reflective option to help with sunlight protection).
- The back door doesn't open full, it has a couple straps that don't let the door open completely. I assume they are designed to provide some protection when the door is opened when the bag is vertical so if a lens would fall it could be caught by the door.
I can compensate for the 1st one, adapt for the 2nd one and try to find a substitute for the 3rd one if I ever go to the desert or an island with no shadow. We will have to see how the 4th one handles in real life.
CONCLUSION
If Ruggard came up with a Triumph bag with the hybrid strap configuration, Vanguard came up with a mix between the Adaptor 46 and 48, and Manfrotto would provide a full back door at much lower prices I would have been in a tough bind to select between them (I would have ended up buying them all and testing them out).
Until then, I just will need to decide between the clear winners for my needs: the Ruggard Triumph 45 and 55. Both are equally good options and the only difference is volume. Since I want the least bulky option that fulfills my requirements I am going to get the Ruggard Triumph 45. I will post a review when I get it.
Since Ruggard doesn't include enough protection in the bottom of the camera bag here is an article that had some tips a la DIY in how to add that needed extra protection. The only modification I am going to make is to substitute the normal rubber feet for this Sorbothane Vibration absortion feet which are made specifically to absorb vibration and shocks (from dropping the bag too hard on the floor).
Comments
Post a Comment