I use CCS cases, which are a belt system similar to, but came long before, and are a higher quality product than, Lowepro Street and Field. This message is purely to highly recommend them to anyone else. I am not affiliated with them in any way, other than using their pouches. I use several Lowepro pouches as well as the CCS ones, and I used to use Lowepro Nova cases (which are a great budget case, but I don't like shoulder bags).

I was in southern oregon a few days ago, and it was RAINING. Absolutely throwing it down. I had on my belt the following: CCS Mammoth, Lowepro S&F Lens pouch 2, CCS Lens pouch, Lowepro DRes 2 AW (on which I'd used the AW cover). When I got back to the car, the only pouch that was in danger of getting it's contents wet as the S&F LP2 (unfortunately, because the most expensive bit of glass lives in there). The others were absolutely bone-dry, and I hadn't even used the inner weather protection in the Mammoth.

Other thing I love about CCS is the build. They are amazing. 1500 dernier Nylon outers. This stuff is almost indestructable...it doesn't rip, tear, mark....I have a 6 year old CCS pouch that looks new, and that's not through lack of use. 35 year warranty also suggests that the build quality is there.

Complaints? Yeah...they don't make (yet at least) a pouch that will hold my Canon 300mm F4L IS (hence my use of the lowepro), although I have seen one they made more recently that might have done, without the tripod mount (not a problem for me...I don't own a tripod). Also, the belt is not designed for someone of my size (26.5" waist, 30" hips). It can grate rather uncomfortably on my hips, as it is just nylon webbing (this grating is only a problem in summer, when there's just a tshirt between me and the belt). I have not used their shoulder bags, but I know they'll be built to the highest standard, and you won't get your gear wet in a thunderstorm in them.

The other downside to these bags is the reason most people who read this will never have heard of CCS. They are a small british company, and I do not believe that they are available outside of the UK. However, if you can get their stuff, I recommend it thouroughly.

I would like to investigate Kinesis. Can people please submit their experiences with any major bag manufacturer (Lowepro, Tamrac, Domke, Kinesis, Billingham, CCS, and anything else)?

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001

Answers

I use a cheap no-name waterproof rucksack with some home-made high density foam partitions stuffed into it. I'm not interested in how many 'dernier' the nylon has been at the back of. It carries my cameras and lenses and keeps them dry. I don't know what else you could ask from a bag. I would highly recommend it... if there was a brand name on it.
One thing it doesn't do is scream "Look! I'm packed with expensive camera gear - please steal me."

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), July 11, 2001.

Like Pete, I'm a connoisseur of homebrew bags based on rucksacks or small back packs/bookbags.Too many camera bag makers happily encourage a confusion between storage and portability, which usually results in purchases of bags that swallow too much--and weigh a ton.The loony "Darth Vader on Holiday" Lowepro Street and Field system is another bit of absurdity--who buys this stuff, anyway?

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), July 11, 2001.

Hi Isaac,

I've certainly heard of CCS bags -- I think they must have been around in the UK for more than 30 years -- but I chose an OutPack (formerly Domke OutPack) rucksack for myself.

I walk a certain amount (capturing memories of walking is an important part of my picture-taking) and long ago learned to love the comfort of modern hip-loading rucksacks -- I've mainly used Karrimor. So I tried to find a rucksack that both

• gave proper impact protection to photographic equipment (typically no more than a Nikon F3/T with 24mm at 105mm Micro lenses), and
• carried all the usual gear that one would take for a hike on the Dartmoor Fens or the Lakeland Fells.

The only rucksack I found that seemed fully to meet both my needs was the OutPack Backpack.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), July 11, 2001.

I bought a CCS photo back back for ~£100. After a year I bought a Lowepro Mini Trekker to replace it. The CCS was absolute rubbish:

The straps are so thin and poorly padded that they dig in to your shoulders. The padding is in the form of a sheath around a thin webbing strap. Because it is loose, it gradually slides round, exposing the shoulder to the thin webbing.

The back of the pack has a layer of thick hard foam. In use the bottom of this foam dug into my lower back (kidney area) making me feel physically sick. I cured the problem by loosening the straps to their extreme limit.

The pack has a side pocket with an open top. I got caught in a downpour. I put up my umbrella and waited an hour for it to stop. At the end I checked my equipment to find that my camera was sitting in 1" of water. The side pocket had trapped rain drops that had avoided my umbrella and funnelled them into the bag.

The pack has another side pocket that has a cover. Both side pockets are wedge shaped thereby ensuring that very little will fit in.

The inside of the pack has removeable dividers with velcro tabs. Unfortunately the designer economised with the velcro to such an extend that the tabs don't really work properly.

The pack has a front pocket for other items. However it is so thin that it cannot hold items such as sandwiches. What's the point?

All in all I wasted £100 buying a load of ****. Score: -1 points out of 5 because it can damage equipment.

As for the Lowepro Mini Trekker, what a joy to use. It is beautifully made, and well designed. It is easy to use and very comfortable. It has loads of pockets to carry huge amounts of kit. Score: 5 points out of 5.

-- Leif Goodwin (leif.goodwin@mail.com), July 11, 2001.

Post Scriptum:

In his original question, Isaac wrote, "I don't own a tripod".

[The Owl flutters nackwards in feigned horror.]

You don't own a tripod!? You have 300mm Canon "L" glass and you don't own a tripod!?

May I take this opportunity to lobby you on the value of a tripod? Camera body and lens together must weigh about 2kg (well over 4 pounds); even with IS you must be hard pressed to hand-hold that at 1/125 sec. But, if the subject permits it (obviously ice hockey doesn't), a tripod and long-lens technique will allow you to choose whatever speed film and whatever f/stop you wish. I also find that using a tripod slows me down ... and improves my percentage of decent pictures.

Oh, and to get back on subject, my 2190g (4.5lb) tripod can be strapped to the side of my OutPack rucksack.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), July 11, 2001.

No, I don't own a tripod. I have no intention of owning a tripod in the immediate future. I paid for IS, because I knew full well that my shooting style does not contain room for a tripod. I am shooting birds in flight, and butterflies and animals, all on the move. There is no chance to use a tripod in these situations, nor am I keen on climbing half way up Mt. Rainier with more weight than I already have. I am lucky to have steady hands. I can reliably hand-hold 1/180th with my 300mm without using IS. With IS, the limit is 1/60th or 1/90th, and I can take these pics, scan them on a CoolScan III, and print full A3 size, and they are sharp.

The only situation I can see a Tripod being useful for my line of photography is when I find something that sits still (like an Osprey in it's nest), but since last time there I did come across one (in Oregon, USA), there was enough light that I was shooting 1/750th @ F8, with IS at 420mm (1.4X TC), it isn't really necessary even then. And I was using ISO200 film, and I've heard that ISO100 print film is getting discontinued pretty much as 25 was. I'm not keen on spending over 150GBP to get a decent tripod and head, when I would rarely use it, because it's too heavy, frustrating, etc, and I'd never take it overseas, because I don't have a car when I travel. So, weight is important, and my camera gear itself already weighs a lot too much.

A higher proportion of good shots you say? Well, I look back over my best shots from a previous trip to the US, and many of the best ones there I would not have got if I had been using a tripod. A squirrel that posed for the camera for 2 secs, a marmot that peeked out over the edge of a cliff, butterflies that stayed still for a moment. As owl said, if the subject permits it. Mine rarely do.

It is not that I haven't considered buying a tripod...I have. I'd like to have one for those few landscape shots I do, but I personally find that it's more hassle than it's worth. When you don't have a car, and are carrying a day-pack with all camera gear inside it (which I use to anonymise my camera gear when in the city) that weighs 18-20lbs, a big pack with all the rest of your stuff in that weighs 40lbs, and maybe a few other items in a third bag, up to about 10lbs, adding a large object that weighs a further 5lbs is not helpful.

Maybe when I can get a car on holiday (no one rents them to under- 25s), things will be different. For now though, seeing that I have to carry everything myself, and already total 60-70lbs (and I only weigh 110), every little counts. It's another thing to have broken by baggage-handling gorillas on the plane or the greyhound.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.