Which bag for the SL

[screwmount]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

WHAT A GUY woww

[CBM_Photo]

WHAT A GUY woww

 

not really.... emphasis on "young and dumb" 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kikouyou]

Might be perfect. The Ari Marcopoulos bag is similar and larger if you want to carry more. This is it in leather, but they have a cloth version too for $100 less. 

https://www.incase.com/shop/camera-bags/incaseari-marcopoulos-camera-bag-leather-blac/black/

 

I have the Hardgraft box bag. It hold a M with MF Grip and a Noct no problem

It is very soft leather and can be stored almost flat in a suitcase. 

I find the proper opening and closing of the bag to be a bit painful. Too much filling with the cords to close the box properly.

when the bag is not suspended by the strap, it tends to do not keep its box shape.

Besides that it is one of the smallest bag for M or SL with an M lens.

Edited July 18, 2016 by kikouyou

[lpeeples]

Let me add my $.02. I have a Hadley pro and not too long ago, picked up the S4 from Billingham.  Its very close to the HPro size, just wider at the bottom.  I only have M lenses but the SL with the Nocti fits very well, vertically or horizontally. I can fit 1-2 M bodies with the SL or multiple M lenses.  Its very easy to get gear in and out.  I prefer a shoulder bag to change lenses on the fly. Highly recommend.  I had to order direct from the UK as its not available in the USA.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 18, 2016 by lpeeples

[HeinzX]

I use this one:

 

http://www.thinktankphoto.de/unsere-produkte/schultertaschen/retrospective-schulter/retrospective-20

 

And my strap will be this one:

 

http://www.eddycam.com/en/shop/premium/Premium-dark-brown-natural.html

 

in black instead of brown - and with 60 mm.

Edited July 18, 2016 by HeinzX

[LocalHero1953]

Does anyone have the Hadley Pro for the SL plus both the SL zooms? Any photos?

The Hadley Large Pro looks big enough, but I'd prefer the smaller bag.

From the measurements the Hadley Pro is wide and high enough, but I'm not sure if it is deep enough front to back for the SL body and the thick 90-280 lens hood.

Edited July 23, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone have the Hadley Pro for the SL plus both the SL zooms? Any photos?

The Hadley Large Pro looks big enough, but I'd prefer the smaller bag.

From the measurements the Hadley Pro is wide and high enough, but I'm not sure if it is deep enough front to back for the SL body and the thick 90-280 lens hood.

 

Paul, 

I went and looked at the Hadley Pro at Park Cameras. I decided it was slightly the wrong shape for the SL plus bits and pieces so in the end went for the slightly bulkier F Stop 1.4. The F-Stop 2.8 would work also, if you don't want to carry a couple of extra lenses, usually the 50 .95 Nocti and 18 SEM in my case. If I want to go light, I have either a Billingham combi M, which fits the SL with reversed hood (just) or a waterproof/dust proof Overboard shoulder sack http://www.over-board.co.uk/waterproof-dry-flat-bag-15-litres.html which might be the cheapest bag I have ever bought. 

 

Wilson

[LocalHero1953]

Paul, 

I went and looked at the Hadley Pro at Park Cameras. I decided it was slightly the wrong shape for the SL plus bits and pieces so in the end went for the slightly bulkier F Stop 1.4. The F-Stop 2.8 would work also, if you don't want to carry a couple of extra lenses, usually the 50 .95 Nocti and 18 SEM in my case. If I want to go light, I have either a Billingham combi M, which fits the SL with reversed hood (just) or a waterproof/dust proof Overboard shoulder sack http://www.over-board.co.uk/waterproof-dry-flat-bag-15-litres.html which might be the cheapest bag I have ever bought. 

 

Wilson

Thanks, Wilson. I actually have the f1.4, but I can't easily fit both zooms in it. I guess I could do so at a squeeze, and assume that in practical use while shooting I would only have one lens in it at a time. The advantage of the Hadley Pro over the f1.4 appears to be the greater height top to bottom, allowing both the 90-280 and the SL+24-90 to fit pointing downwards, but it is certainly smaller than the f1.4 front to back. (OTOH, a bag containing only the 90-280 at one end might be an awkward balance while walking around.)

 

I'll try living with the f1.4 and both lenses for a while (it is just great for the SL + one zoom).

[wlaidlaw]

Paul, 

 

You can get 4 lenses (2 zooms, 2 primary) in the F1.4 plus all the bits and pieces in the outside pouches. You have to reverse the hood on the 90-280. It surprised me that it all fitted in. I have RRS plates on both the camera and the 90-280.

 

Wilson

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[LocalHero1953]

Paul, 

 

You can get 4 lenses (2 zooms, 2 primary) in the F1.4 plus all the bits and pieces in the outside pouches. You have to reverse the hood on the 90-280. It surprised me that it all fitted in. I have RRS plates on both the camera and the 90-280.

 

Wilson

Wilson

That doesn't look like the f1.4 - not mine anyway. Mine has no zips and an open front pocket. Is that the 225?

I don't really want zips, but otherwise that looks a good size, and it has grab handles.

Edited July 23, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[wlaidlaw]

Paul, 

 

You are totally correct. It is a 225 - doh! I was going to get an f1.4 but then found a nearly new 225 at less than half price. 

 

Wilson

[lpeeples]

Per the photo's above see the S4.  It is slightly wider than the 1.4 and just as tall. 

Edited July 23, 2016 by lpeeples

[Arai]

The Billingham S4 easily fit SL+24-90, M+lens attached plus 1 M lens. The SL+24-90 can be put vertically only in the middle of the S4 because the S4 shape gets shorter on both side, it can fit at side but the VF rubber makes a bump when fully close.

[Big John]

Ok, Think Tank holster 20 v2.0 arrived today. Have to say that it is a superbly well designed and produced bag with highest quality stitching, metal hooks and D rings and a very good quality, padded strap.  The bottom of the lens pouch area can be unzipped and ingeniously extended. 

 

However, as suspected from careful measuring, it is a bit tight lengthways for the SL with 24-90 attached (without extending the depth).  Fit around the body is good - it is just that the eye piece protrudes just a little above the top of the bag.  I use the Leica padded strap which also needs some room - and there is nowhere to carry the lens hood.  Will try it again tomorrow.  Perhaps could pack it carefully for travelling then on days out unzip the bottom bit to create more space for strap. 

 

My my back up for first vacation with the SL is a Billingham Hadley small. It fits nicely in there on its side and there is ample room to coil up the strap and also stow the hood.  On its side, the SL height (hot shoe to base) is just a tad more than the natural width of the bag so it ever so slightly pushes the bag apart. But nothing to worry about given the Billingham soft interior.

 

Hi all. Brief update. Have been using the Holster 20 for 10 days on vacation, with daily heavy use. Really well made case and works great with the SL and 24-90 fitted. I reverse the hood for when storing in the case and only small hassle is folding up the Leica padded strap before zipping the lid closed. Side pocket (where water proof cover is stored) also holds a blower brush and spare SL battery. So in summary, a slightly snug fit but works great!

 

Btw, the SL is holding up great to some very hot weather (95F+).

[Arai]

I admit I'm in never ending pursuit for perfect camera bag, 2 weeks ago I bought KATA 3N1 22 DL backpack because I need bigger bag, more comfortable than Billingham S4. Turned out when use as sling bag it wasn't comfortable at all, it hurt your shoulder (my gears weight about 5,5kg including the kata bag).

 

The reason I always chose shoulder bag or messenger bag it's because the fast access to your camera (who would hanging an SL+zoom in your neck all day?). But my last travel before this, lugging around my gears (6kg)in Billi S4 around HK (I walked about 6-8km a day) was sooo painful. This is the reason I was looking a backpack/sling whenever I want to travel with SL system again.

 

So when my backpack wasn't provided me with comfy fast access anymore, I bought this bag. Well I tested with same amount of gears I brought in the backpack minus charger, it surpass my expectation for being fast and comfortable bag for my SL.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[JeffWright]

Does anyone have the Hadley Pro for the SL plus both the SL zooms? Any photos?

The Hadley Large Pro looks big enough, but I'd prefer the smaller bag.

From the measurements the Hadley Pro is wide and high enough, but I'm not sure if it is deep enough front to back for the SL body and the thick 90-280 lens hood.

 

 

You can make the two zooms (inadequately) fit in the Hadley Pro, but it's not pretty or graceful by any stretch of the imagination. I tried the Hadley Pro with the 24-90 attached, and the 90-280 unattached. Bag falls over too easily with the 90-280 in it, and doesn't close well. I had based the choice on published measurements from Billingham's web site. Indeed the fit with the 90-280 is so bad it left me to seriously consider two possibilities: (1) I had a counterfeit Billingham bag, or (2) that the English had used creative geometry to describe the dimensions. A quick minute with a measuring tape (and a few months prior studying in England) led me to the latter conclusion. The internal dimension measurement doesn't take the insert into account.

[LocalHero1953]

I looked hard at the Hadley Pro and reckoned it wouldn't work. I'm not sure what dimensions you were looking at, but to me the stated internal width of 80mm looked too small for the SL body on a lens (104mm height) and the two lens hoods on their lenses, aside from any other consideration. I thought about the Hadley Large Pro, but it is deeper than I would like at my side to grab a lens from while walking around.

 

So I have chosen to go for looks as well as practicality: I have a fogg b-major on order, with a custom grab handle. 

Thanks to Jono Slack for confirming that the SL and both lenses fit in his b-major - a close fit, but OK for transportation to an event; thereafter I'd just have one lens in the bag at a time.

 

BTW, I have the Billingham f1.4, which is a little smaller than the b-major (just too small for both lenses - it will go back to 3bay). When looking at the Hadley Pro, I measured my f1.4, and checked the Billingham specs for both: the spec measurements matched the f1.4 pretty closely (including padding), giving me confidence that the Hadley Pro specs were correct. So I'm puzzled that you found the Hadley Pro smaller than spec.

Edited July 29, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[wlaidlaw]

My Billingham 225 (which I wrongly described as an F Stop 1.4) pictured a few posts above this one, does fit the SL with 24-90 attached with hood in using position, + 50 Nocti and 18SEM in main pocket and the 90-280 (hood reversed) in the front pocket. I would regard this more as a "putting everything in the car bag" rather than carrying it around, as certainly for me the total is too much to carry very far. Younger, fitter folks might differ. 

 

Wilson

[LocalHero1953]

My Billingham 225 (which I wrongly described as an F Stop 1.4) pictured a few posts above this one, does fit the SL with 24-90 attached with hood in using position, + 50 Nocti and 18SEM in main pocket and the 90-280 (hood reversed) in the front pocket. I would regard this more as a "putting everything in the car bag" rather than carrying it around, as certainly for me the total is too much to carry very far. Younger, fitter folks might differ. 

 

Wilson

I also thought hard about the 225, but decided against because of the zip: I like an open access, and on the small Domke FX5B I find the zip occasionally irritating while reaching for my M+75mm.

But I cannot tell a lie: I'm sure the 225 would have done the job, but lust comes into the frame when I look at fogg bags.

Edited July 29, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[JeffWright]

I looked hard at the Hadley Pro and reckoned it wouldn't work. I'm not sure what dimensions you were looking at, but to me the stated internal width of 80mm looked too small for the SL body on a lens (104mm height) and the two lens hoods on their lenses, aside from any other consideration. I thought about the Hadley Large Pro, but it is deeper than I would like at my side to grab a lens from while walking around.

 

So I have chosen to go for looks as well as practicality: I have a fogg b-major on order, with a custom grab handle. 

Thanks to Jono Slack for confirming that the SL and both lenses fit in his b-major - a close fit, but OK for transportation to an event; thereafter I'd just have one lens in the bag at a time.

 

BTW, I have the Billingham f1.4, which is a little smaller than the b-major (just too small for both lenses - it will go back to 3bay). When looking at the Hadley Pro, I measured my f1.4, and checked the Billingham specs for both: the spec measurements matched the f1.4 pretty closely (including padding), giving me confidence that the Hadley Pro specs were correct. So I'm puzzled that you found the Hadley Pro smaller than spec.

 

 

The width was ok, the body just causes the bag to "bow" a bit, with the camera placed "nose first", lens directed into the bag. The problematic measurement is the internal height of the bag, which Billingham reports as 270 mm, which should be adquate for the 90-280 which comes in at around 260mm with hood reversed and both front and read caps attached. As near as I can tell 270 mm is obtained by measuring from the bottom of the bag to the top without the insert. The inner 'flap' from the insert stays up. As I recall the insert internal height wound up being a bit more than inch too short. I do like the bag quite a bit, and finally get why everyone raves about the Billingham bags. I haven't spent much time looking at alternative arrangments for the gear in the bag. Will see.