Wednesday
Mar142007
Camera bags, and more camera bags
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 02:33PM I think I have done it. I mean actually done it. I think I have actually managed to collect as many camera bags as my wife has pairs of shoes. I am dead serious. Even though I have sold off a few bags over the past year, I have still managed to fill an entire closet worth of nothing but camera bags. Shoulder bags. Bacpacks. Fanny packs. You name it. This is insane. I am at step number 1, and I only have 11 more to go. My name is Andy Biggs, and I am a recovering.....
Oops. Wrong speech.
The problem with the camera bag industry is that nobody makes a bag that will suit my needs. I like to think that I have needs that are common to all photographers who travel with our camera equipment.
I want a camera backpack that is sensitive to weight, built extremely well, and is FAA airline legal. That's it. Pretty simple. We are currently bombarded with changing airline regulations that tell us we cannot lock our checked luggage. Ok. So that means we carry on our camera gear personally onto the plane. But many international airlines are limiting our carryon allowances to 1, maybe 2 bags, and are often limited to 15 to 22 pounds for our main carryon bag.
Let me set a scenario here. I am an African wildlife photographer. This means I use a large lens, like a 500mm f/4 lens, and it weighs 8.5 pounds. The typical camera backpack that can hold this lens, in addition to a few cameras and some more lenses, weighs around 9 to 10 pounds. Simple math tells me that I am already over the British Airways allowance of 6 kilos (14 pounds), and am almost to the limit for KLM's restriction of 10 kilos (22 pounds). The only bag that is airline legal in size, and can accommodate my equipment is a total and utter piece of junk. This product will be unnamed in this blog, as I don't want this blog to be personal in nature.
I want a camera backpack that is sensitive to weight, built extremely well, and is FAA airline legal. That's it. Pretty simple. We are currently bombarded with changing airline regulations that tell us we cannot lock our checked luggage. Ok. So that means we carry on our camera gear personally onto the plane. But many international airlines are limiting our carryon allowances to 1, maybe 2 bags, and are often limited to 15 to 22 pounds for our main carryon bag.
Let me set a scenario here. I am an African wildlife photographer. This means I use a large lens, like a 500mm f/4 lens, and it weighs 8.5 pounds. The typical camera backpack that can hold this lens, in addition to a few cameras and some more lenses, weighs around 9 to 10 pounds. Simple math tells me that I am already over the British Airways allowance of 6 kilos (14 pounds), and am almost to the limit for KLM's restriction of 10 kilos (22 pounds). The only bag that is airline legal in size, and can accommodate my equipment is a total and utter piece of junk. This product will be unnamed in this blog, as I don't want this blog to be personal in nature.
I take many people to Africa each year on safari, so I see plenty of camera bags come into my Land Rovers. To give up some weight, one assumes that one has to give up on features and padding. I don't think this is the case at all. There are two ways of reducing weight on a bag: reduce features or spend your way out of it with lightweight, expensive materials. Why won't somebody make a high end, lightweight camera backpack? Why do I have to give up on either padding or features to have a lightweight bag? I don't, do I?
Reader Comments (6)
True, but the Airport Acceleration bag could be bigger to take advantage of what the airlines allow for maximum size. 18.5†H x 13“ W x 7†D means that I am giving up valuable space.