Bag for 30D + 70-200 attached, EF-S 17-55mm, and 430ex?

I want the smallest, thinest shoulder bag possible that can fit all of the above. From what I've read the National Geographic medium bag will do, but I've read conflicting reviews regarding the Crumpler 6 and 7 million dollar bags. Some people say the 70-200 fits mounted, others say no.. so I'm a little confused. Don't like the style of the Domke's and the Crumplers look smaller than the Nat Geo bag, not to mention they look like they'd get less attention.

So will either the 6 or 7 million dollar bag do the trick? Any other bags I should consider? Thanks

Ok I found some pictures

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/63897081@N00/

looks like the 6 million dollar home is the way to go, will fit the 17-55 mounted comfortably, and will fit the 70-200 mounted if needed although not ideal.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …f-803&image.x=5&image.y=​7

If you want the "smallest, thinnest" I dont think you want the crumplers. They are thick with a lot of padding - Like carrying around a little ice chest. I'm getting a domke f3xb tomorrow for about the same amount of gear you are talking about - I know you said you werent interested in domke, but they sure do look to be the smallest and thinnest bags you can get. I'll update with how it works out.

I have the national geographic med shoulder bag, and it does fit the 70-200 f/2.8l is usm mounted. It's not too thick either, but it DOES draw attention. I got maybe a half dozen questions about it when walking around the local zoo... Of course the big ole white lens might have been drawing some attention too

fredmitcham wrote in post #2948106
I want the smallest, thinest shoulder bag possible that can fit all of the above. From what I've read the National Geographic medium bag will do, but I've read conflicting reviews regarding the Crumpler 6 and 7 million dollar bags. Some people say the 70-200 fits mounted, others say no.. so I'm a little confused. Don't like the style of the Domke's and the Crumplers look smaller than the Nat Geo bag, not to mention they look like they'd get less attention.

So will either the 6 or 7 million dollar bag do the trick? Any other bags I should consider? Thanks

I use a crumpler 6 mil. IMPO you cannot have the 70-200 mounted to the body - but it will fit in the bag upright. There will be room for you camera and other lens facing pointed down and the flash.

I think you are going to have to go another route if you want the camera with 70-200 attached (assuming hood reversed).

If you do not want to attract "camera" attention while carrying the bag, I would use cloth type lens pouches--you could even make some from the bottom of the legs of worn out sweat pants. Then just get whatever messenger type shoulder bag that suits your fancy. The National Geographic bags look well made--but awful hokey looking at best. Tamrac, Lowepro, Nat'l Geo, Domke, Tenba and the others "scream camera inside me" and I don't like that some times. So----I use my CC Filson Medium Field Bag. Do a Google on that and you will find an EXTREMELY rugged heavy wax/oiled canvas duck and bridle leather shouder bag. My gripped 20D will fit in it with 70-200 attached and hood reversed. I can also put in a couple of other lenses in small cloth bags--17-85 and 30mm. There are two external snapped cargo pockets covered by the main flap. I can put a flash in one, snacks in the other, or my C5050 camera and the small FL20 flash, some spare batteries for Canon camera and flash (Oly C5050 takes AA's). There is a nice open pocket on the back for a newspaper, and two open pockets on each end. I have been out in an all day rain hunting with this bag and everything stays dry. There is not padding, but a light sweater would solve that, or a small dish towel (I always take a small pack towel with me to quickly wipe off splashes). The bag is NOT cheap. It IS very well made and will last you a life time.

If you don't mind "Camera inside" look--Lowepro Top Loader Zomm 75 AW with optional deluxe shoulder strap. Very well make and extremly versatile. Add a couple of lens pouches on each side if you need to.

shaneotool wrote in post #2948904
If you want the "smallest, thinnest" I dont think you want the crumplers. They are thick with a lot of padding - Like carrying around a little ice chest. I'm getting a domke f3xb tomorrow for about the same amount of gear you are talking about - I know you said you werent interested in domke, but they sure do look to be the smallest and thinnest bags you can get. I'll update with how it works out.

domke fx3: 12.5 x 7.25 x 9.6" (31.7 x 18.4 x 24.4 cm) (LxWxD)
crumpler 6 mil: 12.6 x 9.45 x 7.09" (32 x 24 x 18cm) (WxHxD)

i'm not sure what these mean, which one is thicker?

Palladium wrote in post #2949018
I use a crumpler 6 mil. IMPO you cannot have the 70-200 mounted to the body - but it will fit in the bag upright. There will be room for you camera and other lens facing pointed down and the flash.

did you click on the link? it shows pictures of a mounted 70-200 in the bag, its not ideal but it does fit. i think i would be walking/travelling around with my 17-55 mounted most of the time.. i just need something that can hold the 70-200 mounted for when i'm using it so i'm not constantly having to switch lens to get the camera back in the bag.

fredmitcham wrote in post #2949445
domke fx3: 12.5 x 7.25 x 9.6" (31.7 x 18.4 x 24.4 cm) (LxWxD)
crumpler 6 mil: 12.6 x 9.45 x 7.09" (32 x 24 x 18cm) (WxHxD)

i'm not sure what these mean, which one is thicker?

HaHa - I don't know bro -

but I think the crumpler stays boxy whether there is anything in there or not - I think the donke would lay more flat if it was empty.

For city use I use a Tamrac Pro 5 (5605)
Doesn't look too much like camera bag and it is not very thick, howver it is deep..

Hold my Rebel (350D) with 70-200 F4 attached
Also Canon 17-85 IS
Tokina 12-24
Also 580EX flash (not in it's case)
Along with the usual batteries/filter etc etc.

http://www.tamrac.com/​welcome.htm

Hope this helps.
Richard.

well gee that thing looks pretty much perfect! hah, thanks

dicktay wrote in post #2951923
For city use I use a Tamrac Pro 5 (5605)
Doesn't look too much like camera bag and it is not very thick, howver it is deep..

Hold my Rebel (350D) with 70-200 F4 attached
Also Canon 17-85 IS
Tokina 12-24
Also 580EX flash (not in it's case)
Along with the usual batteries/filter etc etc.

http://www.tamrac.com/​welcome.htm

Hope this helps.
Richard.

one thing though, how tight are the compartments, ie are they large enough to hold the reversed hood on 77mm lenses? my 17-55 is 77mm and although my 70-200 is the F4 version i'll be upgrading to the 2.8 at some point which is also 77mm. thanks

I fit the 30D, the Sd800, the sony P&S, the filter, ok let me make this shorter, I fit EVERYTHING in my sig in my crumpler 6 mdh. It's thick yes, but I feel incredibly safe with it. I can bash this thing around (not that I do) and not worry about my gear. It's padded with the walls of Troy.

The Tokina 12-24 is 77mm. I put the hood in seperately.
Don't have any problem with the reversed hood on the 70-200 F4 L.
Not sure about the 2.8 version.
I think it would be ok - Just put it in seperately as well. The 17-85 is 68mm and goes in ok with the hood attached as well as all the other lenses.
Richard