ywenz
Veteran
Check out these bag.. very nice presentation, might appeal more to the females.. I would wear it if they were socially acceptable for non-metrosexual males to own.
http://shootsacblog.com/
http://shootsacblog.com/
thomasw_
Well-known
ywenz said:
Might? No doubt here that that bag is completely marketed toward females.
ywenz
Veteran
bag looks very good on this photog..
Peter_Jones
Well-known
I still don't know what a metrosexual is - someone who likes Paris underground a bit too much ?
MelanieC
Well-known
It looks nice, but I don't really get it.
I like that it lies closer to the body than most camera bags, but with no larger pockets to hold a camera (it looks like it's meant to hold only lenses -- if this is not the case the website should be more clear about this), and a lack of small doohickey pockets for things like film, filters, etc. I don't see an improvement over what I carry now, which is a small custom Timbuk2 messenger bag (mine has decorative fabric panels somewhat similar to the covers you can buy separately for this) with inserts. I am more interested in being able to conveniently carry more than one body (say, a TLR plus a rangefinder, or an SLR and a Holga, or whatever) than in carrying six lenses.
The price point is not attractive either, but it follows the general rules of marketing to women, which are (1) make it in pretty colors and (2) make it twice as expensive as it should be. (See women's razors for an example.) I mean, come on, this is a flat neoprene sack that doesn't even appear to close on top unless you have the fabric cover on it. At the same price I could get a Timbuk2 that holds twice as much, is made of much higher quality materials, and is waterproof, and looks just as nice.
No thanks.
I like that it lies closer to the body than most camera bags, but with no larger pockets to hold a camera (it looks like it's meant to hold only lenses -- if this is not the case the website should be more clear about this), and a lack of small doohickey pockets for things like film, filters, etc. I don't see an improvement over what I carry now, which is a small custom Timbuk2 messenger bag (mine has decorative fabric panels somewhat similar to the covers you can buy separately for this) with inserts. I am more interested in being able to conveniently carry more than one body (say, a TLR plus a rangefinder, or an SLR and a Holga, or whatever) than in carrying six lenses.
The price point is not attractive either, but it follows the general rules of marketing to women, which are (1) make it in pretty colors and (2) make it twice as expensive as it should be. (See women's razors for an example.) I mean, come on, this is a flat neoprene sack that doesn't even appear to close on top unless you have the fabric cover on it. At the same price I could get a Timbuk2 that holds twice as much, is made of much higher quality materials, and is waterproof, and looks just as nice.
No thanks.
Morca007
Matt
It looks like a fairly nice bag, though I'm not much for carrying one.
I am considering getting a surplus canvas satchel for school though.
I am considering getting a surplus canvas satchel for school though.
Pablito
coco frío
Looks like the strap would tear right off if you put any serious weight in it.
landsknechte
Well-known
Lifted from Wikipedia:Peter_Jones said:
Metrosexual is a word describing men who have a strong concern for their aesthetic appearance, and spend a substantial amount of time and money on their images and lifestyles. Though the term has undergone a transformation from its original meaning (a heterosexual man who appeared or acted as if he were homosexual or bisexual), current trends have seen the metrosexual label placed upon male embracing of practices usually perceived to be feminine, rather than those specifically associated with stereotypically effeminate homosexuals. Debate surrounds the term's use as a theoretical signifier of gender deconstruction and its associations with consumerism. Current gender scholars view metrosexuality as representative of the embracing of relational understanding in addition to its lifestyle and aesthetic implications.
Last edited:
foto_fool
Well-known
I with Melanie on this one. $180 for an OK-looking black neoprene pouch that doesn't even hold a camera? And if you like the covers, another $40?. I'll stick with my Timbuk2 or go for a Billingham L2, or maybe a Crumpler $5MM. With any of these you get a lot more bag for your buck.
- John
- John
MelanieC
Well-known
Pablito said:
Apparently that's exactly what happens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9233432@N08/932455555/in/pool-shootsac/
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
I don't get it, I don't get it at all.
"They" talk about how great this bag is, how it goes above and beyond a normal camera bag, how it "picks up where your camera bag leaves off." But what use is a camera bag if it won't hold a camera?
Seriously, this bag is one of the most ill-designed contraptions I've seen yet. It just looks like a piece of neoprene sewn here or there, and I'm not even sure if you can zip it up without one of those $40-odd gaudy covers they sell.
No, no, no, no, no! :bang:
"They" talk about how great this bag is, how it goes above and beyond a normal camera bag, how it "picks up where your camera bag leaves off." But what use is a camera bag if it won't hold a camera?
Seriously, this bag is one of the most ill-designed contraptions I've seen yet. It just looks like a piece of neoprene sewn here or there, and I'm not even sure if you can zip it up without one of those $40-odd gaudy covers they sell.
No, no, no, no, no! :bang:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
I take back some of what I said.
You can indeed load the ShootSac with a camera body. Just make sure a lens isn't attached.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lasadh/634931079/in/pool-shootsac/
You can indeed load the ShootSac with a camera body. Just make sure a lens isn't attached.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lasadh/634931079/in/pool-shootsac/
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Any camera bag worth buying has a strap sewn all the way around the bottom.
Chris
Chris
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
there's a reason camera bags look the way they do. this does not look like a camera bag.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
if I could get shoes to match the bag I'd have one for sure
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
You could always get one of these, they work and probably cost less-
http://www.diaperbags.com/daddy-diaper-bags/solids/eddiebauerdiaperbagblackwithgreysuedesmall.cfm
Target used to sell them for under 20 bucks US
And... it doesn't come with the marketing hype "baggage"
I've been using mine for 2 years handles lunch, camera, Ipod, novel ... etc.
http://www.diaperbags.com/daddy-diaper-bags/solids/eddiebauerdiaperbagblackwithgreysuedesmall.cfm
Target used to sell them for under 20 bucks US
And... it doesn't come with the marketing hype "baggage"
I've been using mine for 2 years handles lunch, camera, Ipod, novel ... etc.
Last edited:
ywenz
Veteran
This bag is marketed for event coverage photographers who has the camera dangling around their neck for the duration of the event. For such a photographer, a bag to store the lens + flash is the the #1 priority.
goo0h
Well-known
I think I'll stick with my Domke F-803 for less. I don't think I have to worry about that strap tearing off.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
I'd just rather have a bag that I know I can stuff a camera in, regardless of where I am.ywenz said:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
erikhaugsby said:
yeah, really. I like my Tamarac Velocity 2. It's fairly small, but it's deep. I can get four lenses in it (one on the camera) and my Calculight meter.