slingshot 200 vs. 300 - pics (if you are interested)

[marysia]

300 with 1dmkiii with 70-200 2.8 attached plus 30d + few lenses:

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657058-M.jpg

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657149-M.jpg

same 300 (right)+ 200 with 30d with 100-400 attached:

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657269-M.jpg



200 with 1dmkiii with 70-200 2.8 attached:

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657338-M.jpg

and here is 200 with 1dmkiii but with lens not attached. I guess you could fit it but it is tight (hight wise):

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657402-M.jpg

last two: outside view side by side:

http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657443-M.jpg


http://marysia.smugmug.com/photos/208657004-M.jpg

m

[GilesGuthrie]

Thanks. What lenses have you got in the 300 in the top pic? Is the semicircular section at the top (penultimate pic) a kind of 'daypack' storage area? Is it comfy when loaded?

I'm looking for something that can take a gripped 5d with 70-200 2.8, 16-35L, 24-70L or 24-105L, 85L, 15FE and 580EX with the usual odds-and-sods in the form of filters, cards etc.

[muscleflex]

this is excellent! thanks for the pics and side by side comparison!
seems that it's the 300 to go for if one has the mkIII. but i just really hate the bulkiness and squareness of the bag :-(

[FUBAR247]

I have the 300 and managed to get everything in my sig fitted inside minus the macro flash (although it would comfortably fit in the smaller storage at the top but where would my sandwiches go then?), with filters and the odds and sods one carries with them.

with the grip on the 40D and the 70-200mm lens attached it leaves a very convenient storage section underneath the lens for the flash while also adding extra support for the lens.

[avwh]

I have the MRock equivalent of the 200, which may be too small, but I'm still trying to figure out my lens lineup to know for sure.

IMO, the 300, OTOH, is just too bulky/heavy if it's full to carry as a backpack with just one strap, and would be a challenge to rotate and open, I think - but they must make it for a reason.

[marysia]

What lenses have you got in the 300 in the top pic? Is the semicircular section at the top (penultimate pic) a kind of 'daypack' storage area? Is it comfy when loaded?

I'm looking for something that can take a gripped 5d with 70-200 2.8, 16-35L, 24-70L or 24-105L, 85L, 15FE and 580EX with the usual odds-and-sods in the form of filters, cards etc.

What lenses? 24-105, 17-40, 50.

Top? yes- very small "daypack" area.

Comfy? No, not really, pretty heavy with 2 cameras and four lenses. For longer hikes probably would prefer regular backpack.

I typically use this setup for carry-on on the flights when not much walking is required but I want to be sure that they will not take it away when flying in smaller planes.

If gripped 5d has similar dimensions as d1mkiii you should be ok to fit it with 70-200 attached. You could use small packet outside for cards and some filters. Probably could not fit all the lenses you mentioned and 580EX. Look closely to see that while each compartment is deep you really cannot put three lenses on each side of 70-200. Also, there is no much room for hoods(I typically carry it in the top section.

Overall, it is not perfect, but, it is one of your options. So far I have not found anything which really fits all my needs.

m

[Glenn NK]

Comfy? No, not really, pretty heavy with 2 cameras and four lenses. For longer hikes probably would prefer regular backpack.


See posts #13 and #14:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=350371&highlight=slingshot

I can manage 1/2 hour or so with only the main shoulder strap (right shoulder), but with both done up, I'm good for a few hours.

If I'm changing lenses frequently, I leave the waist strap and the second (left shoulder) strap undone, and often set the bag down. If I'm hiking somewhere both shoulder straps are done up in addition to the waist strap.

[_aravena]

I think there's been enough pics to know you can't attach a big lens to a camera and make it fit in the 200AW. Although you didn't have your camera attached at all in the one pic. The 200 is nice, but for smaller lenses. I did get a 70-300 APO attached but when sold and got the 70-200 I had to change it up a bit. 200 was enough on one shoulder, I couldn't imagine the 300 so I switched to shoulder bags with the ability to switch shoulders.

Bu my 200 pic contribution. Wish I did some 100 pics when I had it, but forgot. I did it it loaded though.

http://a460.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/66/l_4f70eddda683d328f07df4b57e70a98b.jpg

[marysia]

I think there's been enough pics to know you can't attach a big lens to a camera and make it fit in the 200AW.

Yes, I know that there were lots of photos already posted and this subject has been discussed many many times but new people still ask this question and I just tried to be helpfull,

m

[ColinUK]

Here is my 100 with 30D fitted with EFS 17-85 IS, EF 70-300 IS, ET65B Hood in main compartment. Small pocket on flap contains 2 Circular polarizing filters for the lenses. Top compartment has hood for 17-85, Kenko 1.4 tele-converter, CF card holder for 4 cards, remote release. Compact and bijou!

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m164/vwbus1972/20071017037copy.jpg

[Rudy M.]

Thanks for the photos of the two bags. I have the 300 and configured it a bit differently. Let me see if I can explain it clearly. With gripped body and what ever lens I had attached laying in the middle like you did, I have 3 compartments on top (as bag is worn on back), and two horizontal compartments on the bottom (as bag is worn on back). So looking down on the bag with the whole thing open, I could have my gripped body with any lens in the middle, and on the upper part, two teleconverters stacked in a compartment, a lens area for 18-200 or 30mm, or 17-85, in the middle, and a compartment for my flash battery pack nearest the opening. On the bootom part of the bag, I configured this area to carry my 70-200 f/2.8 horizontally and sealed with a velcro flap. This lens carries nearest my body. On top of that lens--or away from my body, I created a "shelf" from the bag velcro padding to fit my 580EX. The neat thing about this configuration is that I could swap a lens--say 30mm to the 70-200 f/2.8 without taking the bag off, still access the flash, and battery pack, and return them to the bag, and holster the body with any lens I had mounted on it--all without taking off the bag. I admit is necessary to take the bag off to get at the teleconverters, but I don't use them all that often. I think the 200 is more for the XTi size bodies with a 430EX flash and couple of smaller consumer lenses, such as a 70-300 IS and 18-55 kit lens. Both are really nice bags though, and don't be afraid to tear out all the dividers and experiment--it took me a while to come up with what I liked for maximum accessibilty.

[jtown]

Will the 100 fit a 40D w/ 17-55mm f/2.8 attached?

[Glenn NK]

Will the 100 fit a 40D w/ 17-55mm f/2.8 attached?

It should, but a small warning: When I started 12 months ago, I was just going to have the 30D and the 24/105 lens.

OK, I was a bit short sighted; as I added lenses one at a time, I kept buying small lens bags to attach to my first bag (65 AW Toploader) which had plenty of room for the camera and one lens and some filters.

Finally (after adding two Lowepro 1W's and two 1's to my 65AW Toploader), I acquired a Lowepro 300AW Slingshot that will carry all my gear (see below).

Then I modified it so my right shoulder wouldn't go lame.:)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=350371&highlight=slingshot

I can now carry everything in the bag but the tripod.

[tdodd]

Having recently acquired a 40D body to supplement my 30D, and a ThinkTank Airport Acceleration for vacation travel, I've been rearranging the gear in my Slingshot 200 and am really impressed with just how much I can squeeze in. If I didn't need to include a laptop for travelling the Slingshot would actually take all I need for a long trip. My new configuration as depicted below includes....

Main Section
40D with mounted 1.4X teleconverter and EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and reversed lens hood;
30D with mounted 17-55 f/2.8 IS and reversed lens hood
EF 10-22

Top Section
580EX with eBay omnibounce fitted
eBay wireless flash trigger/receiver
Hood for 10-22
Lens Pen
Room for spare batteries for camera or flash, or other small items.

Outside Pocket
Kenko macro tube set
Kenko 1.4X teleconverter (when not mounted to the body/lens)
EF 50 f/1.8 with compressed rubber hood
Memory cards
Microfibre cloth
Room for spare batteries for camera or flash, or other small items.

Outside Loops
3 * 20cm ball bungees

I can swap the 70-200 for my 100-400 if length is more important then speed. With the teleconverter in place the fit is very snug but without it there is room to spare.

[tdodd]

Here's the outside pocket and the ball bungees....

[_aravena]

Now that's backed! I stand by my statement on the bags, but the 100AW is small and even fully backed ain't so bad.

Still, nice job! They are bigger than it seems.

[Rudy M.]

To me--stuffing a Slingshot to excess like the 200 is above, defeats the purpose of this line of bags--which is to "gun and run" so to speak. I have a 300 and when I put a flash, body and 3 lenses in it, I feel I am carrying too much and it is heavy. Also, with the way the 200 above is packed, only one camera is accessable and it is the smaller kit of the two. Having two bodies with lenses attached, but what good does it do if you can only access one on the fly? I can swap lenses on one body likely faster than removing the pack, finding a suitable place to set it down, open it up and then swapping bodies, stowing the one I am putting away, then closing up the pack and putting it back on. Nice job on cramming all that stuff into such a small and portable package however! It seems that photographers are being inundated with new bags almost daily--but there is no perfect one for all occasions--that's why we need more than one bag!

[tdodd]

To me--stuffing a Slingshot to excess like the 200 is above, defeats the purpose of this line of bags--which is to "gun and run" so to speak.
What you call "excess" I call maximising use of the space - what's the point of a bigger bag that's needlessly empty?

I'm not sure what you mean by "gun and run" but with my bag packed as it is I know I can just grab the bag and walk out the door and I'm good to go. The only decision is whether to pack the 100-400 or the 70-200. Most times for me it will be the 100-400 and that's my default for storing the bag.


I have a 300 and when I put a flash, body and 3 lenses in it, I feel I am carrying too much and it is heavy.
Of course the bag is heavy, when fully packed, but not as heavy as a Slingshot 300 would be. But I don't use my bag to carry all the kit around all day long. I stick it in the car, drive to where I'm going, take out the camera/lens I want to use and leave the rest in the bag to carry with me. The bag is plenty light enough that way. When I want to switch camera/lens it is pretty straightforward to swing the bag round and get what I need. Even if what I want is at the back of the bag it is not much trouble to open the flap all the way and dig inside. It can be done and it is certainly no more awkward than a regular, larger, rucksack.


Also, with the way the 200 above is packed, only one camera is accessable and it is the smaller kit of the two. Having two bodies with lenses attached, but what good does it do if you can only access one on the fly? I can swap lenses on one body likely faster than removing the pack, finding a suitable place to set it down, open it up and then swapping bodies, stowing the one I am putting away, then closing up the pack and putting it back on.
Like I said, one camera will already be out so there is only one in the bag. I bet I can swap between the two cameras quicker than most people can swap lenses, and I won't need to worry about dust etc..

You make a good point about the bigger lens being buried but all I need to do is stick the wide lens and body at the back, with the 10-22 and then the full sized compartment is at the front/top of the bag. Problem solved. The thing is, if I need to grab a camera quickly, I'm more likely to want to grab the general purpose 17-55 rather than the 100-400.

If I'm going to need to swap between both two lenses repeatedly then I may as well just have both camera out and slung round my neck. That will also be quicker than swapping lenses all the time.

Nice job on cramming all that stuff into such a small and portable package however! It seems that photographers are being inundated with new bags almost daily--but there is no perfect one for all occasions--that's why we need more than one bag!
I'm not suggesting anyone need do as I have done, but it just seems to me that the SS 200 has a remarkable lot to offer - I'm covered from 10mm to 560mm and can do macro, low light and flash photography with the contents of that bag and that, to me, is pretty impressive, given its size. Like I said, I do have a much larger bag but as that is a full 2-strap rucksack it is far less easy to use "on the run" and altogether far larger than necessary for most day trips. I was just trying to show just how versatile the SS 200 can be. If you don't want to use one that way then don't. I'm sure others will be pleased to see just how much can be carried in the 200. Whether or not they chose to is another matter.

[Pete Gl]

Here's the outside pocket and the ball bungees....

Tim,

Forgive my ignorance, but, what are ball bungees, what are they used for?

Pete

[tdodd]

Here's an illustration....

http://www.tarpaulinsdirect.co.uk/TarpaulinsSite/pages/product/product.asp?prod=BBB06&cookie%5Ftest=1

They're elasticated loops with a ball fixed into the loop. Basically they are a quick and easy way to lash something to something else - like fastening an off-camera flashgun to a curtain rail tree branch to create an impromptu light stand. You can easily loop them together to make it stretch as long as you need. They're far quicker/easier than chopping up bits of string or gaffer tape and can be used over and over again. You just stretch the loop around the object to be lashed and hook the elastic loop over the ball and it locks nicely into place.

I first saw the idea/recommendation to have them in the kit bag on the Strobist website....

http://strobist.blogspot.com/search?q=ball+bungee

I bought mine on eBay for something like £5 for a pack of 10 X 9" loops. Here's an example of today's prices....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/10-BALL-BUNGEES-TARPAULIN-BUNGEE-STRETCH-CORD-Tarp_W0QQitemZ120294883178QQihZ002QQcategoryZ19296 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's an example of impromptu off-camera lighting support, if I wanted to photograph the kitchen, for example. No trip hazard from a splayed out light stand, and far cheaper/smaller/lighter to carry around....

[Pete Gl]

OK, thanks Tim

Pete

[Nick5]

To me--stuffing a Slingshot to excess like the 200 is above, defeats the purpose of this line of bags--which is to "gun and run" so to speak. I have a 300 and when I put a flash, body and 3 lenses in it, I feel I am carrying too much and it is heavy. Also, with the way the 200 above is packed, only one camera is accessable and it is the smaller kit of the two. Having two bodies with lenses attached, but what good does it do if you can only access one on the fly? I can swap lenses on one body likely faster than removing the pack, finding a suitable place to set it down, open it up and then swapping bodies, stowing the one I am putting away, then closing up the pack and putting it back on. Nice job on cramming all that stuff into such a small and portable package however! It seems that photographers are being inundated with new bags almost daily--but there is no perfect one for all occasions--that's why we need more than one bag!"That's why we need more than one bag."
Well said Rudy.

[SMP_Homer]

if you use a carabiner clip on the top loop of those AW bags, and loop through the camera strap, your camera/lens combined weight will pull on that loop (as opposed to your neck) and somewhat offset the amount of weight being pulled down on your shoulder
it makes a nice difference when walking around with the camera out and the bag on your back...
I easily carry a 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f4, 85 1.8, 50 1.8, 580EX, 420EX just in the main compartment, and can put the camera away and zip up the bag regardless of which lens is mounted.
It does get heavy by the time you throw in the chargers, batteries, cords, etc... (around 10 lbs)
By the time I get around to going on a hike, I usually remove one of the flashes, chargers, some batteries, etc... to take what's needed for the particular hike... and who hikes with the camera IN the bag?