I may have come across a bit strong there, but it seems to me, and this is an opinion borne of over thirty years of playing this game, that picking a good camera bag can be hard, often frustrating work. It is not that the designers and sellers of bags are trying to be deliberatley misleading, but real, defined, qualifiable information can be tough to get.

It starts as fun, probably more so in the internet world, less fun but easier with natural limits the pre-internet age sufferred. Browsing the heavily “channelled” internet*, you can be taken along many pathways, down many alleys and into the odd dead end.

The big issue, the one that vexes me the most, is getting the actual capacity of a bag determined.

There are a few reasons.

1. Most bags quote unrealistic “broken down” and stacked (read; crammed) kit capacities.

2. Measurements do not seem to adhere to any fixed rule. Some bags have been quoted in all literature as internal measurement “X”, but prove to be well short of that.

3. Many bags do not quote external or internal measurements, just “measurements”.

4. Few designers/reviewers/retailers actually show you what fits in configurations that matter.

5. Inserts can make or break a bag. Too rigid and they limit options, too soft/short/few and they are nearly useless.

6. There are just too many bags and they are constantly changing.

7. There are nearly infinite combinations of gear available to put in them and never it seems, the gear you own!

8. No one configuration is perfect, which means often buying several bags, which may lead to several misses, wasting time and money. Ths can be unconducive to continuing the search for perfection over settling for “near enough”.

Here are a few examples.

Billingham and Domke bags often hold more than they look like they will, because they are not overly padded. Their inserts are soft, but those are flexible, removable or replaceable. My F802 is a real gear swallower and that goes for most Domke bags (watch the F-8 though, it is really a tiny clone of their bigger bags). I had a Billingham Hadley large, which was useful, a Hadley small that was handy, but only as a light street bag, but never really meshed with either of them.

Bags with heavy padding like ONA, some Lowe Pro, Crumpler and many, many more are often smaller than they look because they are so heavily padded. Padding can be a gear saving, but more often does not make a difference and the rigid, over sized, over stuffed end product can sometimes do more harm than good. I always liked the look of the ONA Brixton, until I finally found out it is much smaller in reality than several smaller bags I own.

Bags with dark interiors can look deceptively large and added to that, they can swallow dark gear, especially like things like M43 45mm f1.8’s.

Gear is seldom in a “ready to go” configuration. This is the big one. A pro level camera with a grip added or built in, attached to a decent sized work horse lens like a 70-200 f2.8 equivalent with hood on the right way around and maybe another with a standard zoom, are big in a variety of ways. Not having them at the ready is unrealistic. Pro photographers need things at hand, not “broken down”. Digital also has cleanliness issues, so unlike old press photogs who would leave lenses and cameras open to the elements, we do tend to cap everything, which just slows down the swapping process.

For myself, as eluded to in my bigger “Two bags” post (coming), an EM1x or Mk2 with grip and 40-150 f2.8 mounted with rigid metal hood and filter (no lens cap), second camera with wide angle mounted the same is SOP for me. I only have two bags that can take that combination in a practical fashion (not a back pack, not broken down, not caps on and hood reversed, actually ready to go).

The F802 Domke and the similar in use Tokyo Porter sling bag, which is not even a camera bag, can each manage it with a Tenba insert added, but are cramped and not ideal in other ways. Add anything else into the main compartment and all bets are off.

Smaller gear is not an issue, but smaller gear is not usually at the pro end of things. With lenses mounted on dedicated cameras, I can change from one to the other with a simple switch. Stuffing around with un-assembled gear in crowded bags is simply not on.

Video rigs can also be problematic. Screwing a handle or mount on, or even mounting the camera in the rig, while on-the-go is not practical, but giving this type of thing extra room, can mean leaving most everything else behind. Fragile mics and monitors just make things ridiculaous.

So, what makes a good bag?

Realistically, a bag should be chosen for the exact kit you intend to use and how you want to use it*. If you are a studio or portrait photographer, you can likely pack things down until you get where you need, but for most of us, who may need to arrive and concentrate on planning and shooting within seconds of arriving, should buy the bag for their gear as it is going to be used.

*Always have a “lung”, which is one more space than the minimum. This allows you to change things out as needed without having to put something down or double hand things. A large, empty outside pocket is ideal.

Bags that I like.

The Domke F802 satchel is ideal for long gear, large quantities of medium sized items like flash units, panels, a big laptop etc, but it is poor at holding large camera bodies when mounted on a lens.

The F3x Domke is the original one camera, three lens bag, especially for bigger SLR’s (D800, 70-200 F4, 16-35 and 105 micro for example). It is near useless however with smaller mirrorless systems without an insert used. It has a couple of sizeable outer pockets and a body hugging shape.

Crumpler Light Delight 4000, bought for a really light job and it does just that. I wish it had a rear zip pocket, which I think is an oversight, but otherwise, this is a little cracker for a camera on the shoulder and one in the bag with accessories.

The Billingham Hadley series**. I have had the large and small, but should have bought the Pro and I would likely still have it. The large could take the problem child combo (above), but I found the big front pockets less usefull for gear than the ones on the F802 and it’s insert was over padded.

LowePro Pro Messenger (200?). Sold this a while ago, but I have fond memories of it being a sllightly more practical copy of the Think Tank Retrospectives. It was ironically too big at the time.

The Filson Camera Field bag** has gone from a disappointment to more of a winner with the inclusion of my Domke F2s’ rigid base panel and thin walled inserts. If the F802 Domke is used for my news paper kit, the Filson will likely become my main bag for the school kit. The big issue previously was a debilitating sag in the middle and a fixed four compartment configuration, partly alleviated by using a Billingham two section insert as well.

Think Tank Turnstyle 10L. This is my street bag. It holds a lot more than it looks like it could and surprises me still. One of the recent contenders was the Turnstyle 20L, but after a lot of research it looks to be just under sized for my needs. I did not even notice the large ipad pocket inside for the first few months. I use this as my “running” bag when shooting sports. It holds a flash, wide lens on a small camera, phone, notes, water and rolled up spray jacket. all things I might need, but not immediately, then I use one or two cameras and lenses on straps.

Bags that are not camera bags, but will take a Tenba insert or similar. These are many and varied (Timbuk 2 medium satchel, several Crumplers, Filson Field, some bespoke bits). These prove the point that too much padding and made to purpose is not necessary, all you need is some gear separation and a little rigidity or shape. My favourite is a green Tokyo Porter satchel, which has elements of the Domke F3/802 and TT Turnstyle.

Crumpler Muli 8000. This was hoped to be the slightly bigger bag I need for my news kit. On paper it was a tad longer and deeper than the F802, has a padded laptop compartment and the usual Crumpler comfort and durability. It turns out, like so many other bags, it shrank in transit and is effectively identical to the F802 except shorter. It comes with some interesting dividers, but it clearly not aimed at bigger gear. I may use this for travel next time we go.

Neewer Large backpack (also available under other names). This is the big event hauler. It takes video rigged cameras, big lenses on cameras, lots of cameras, you name it.

(Possible) Manfrotto Bumblebee M-30 PL. This is definitely a bigger bag than the Crumpler above, but also more expensive. If the Crumpler does not prove to be as big as I need, the M-30 may be grabbed.

(Possible). Mindshift Photo Cross 13. This one is bigger than the Turnstyle 20. Unlike the 20, it does not just look like a small bag bigger, but looks like a good, sleek backpack. I am concerned (as always), that my largest kit will not fit, so likely not worth the risk. A cross body bag appeals for comfort and safety.

(Possible) Domke F808. Not on my radar before, this is a slimmer, taller take on the F802. Not practical really, but a Domke I like the look of, so always a chance! It’s biggest issues are insert choices (not many) and no pockets on the front, although I could add two on the sides.

(Wishlist) Domke F804. This is one that has effectively slipped away. A giant F802, deeper and a little taller and longer, it would have been ideal, but I just cannot find one (edit; found one and bought it!).

*

Bags that I do not like (but still use for one reason or another).

The LowePro Pro Tactic 350aw mk1 is a constant pain. the idea is sound, but the execution poor. The bag is shallow, unable to take a big camera annywhere in its lower half and the two side access pockets, theoreticallty able to tae a lens and camera each are limied to smaller bodies and smaller lenses to work. Overall I only keep this for its “good foot rest on a plane” rigidity, otherwise I would have sold it. It is also very uncomfortable for an average male to wear.

The Domke F3x. Yep it makes an appearance on both lists, because without a lot of help, it is not at all usefull for a mirrorless user with the above criteria. It was designed for a different era and even with new inserts etc, it is a rough fit for me. Ironically, it is probably ideal with an EM1x, 8-18, 12-40 and 40-150, but not with two lenses mounted and another camera. I have a soft spot for it, proven by my decision to buy a special edition green rugged wear one in Japan while I was selling two others at home (I still miss the ballistic nylon one, it was well plush), but realistically, I have many better bags for my needs.

*

The search continues (got an F804!!!), or maybe I need to look outside the box. If I by a Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 as my on-body-always lens, then the longer, heavier 40-150 could be held back for jobs in both my kits as needed. The reality is, I only need a decent portrait/event lens at hand, so the 70-200 equiv would be fine and the slightly shorter range reduces the need for a 25mm in the bag. It would even mean I could take the 300 instead for genuinely long lens jobs.

*Is it just me or are Google searched becoming more and more “owned”.

**Realistically, Billingham and Filson bags have become so expensive, that real photographers are using them less, collectors or well heeled hobbyists more. I bought my Hadley large for $280 and sold it mint for $150. I shudder to think……. . Like the Billinghams, my two Filson bags cost under $300au a few years ago, about half current price.