PMW-350 Carrying Case?

[Paul Cronin]

You are correct Ron they do not.

Tom how long is the bottom pad on the CO-AB-MB? Can you push the bulge from each end in and not touch the camera? Can it fit in a 24" carryon size?

I will help out here and let you know the bottom pad which keeps the bag protected and rigid is 24". The bulge on each end can easily be pushed in 2" making the bag 24". The other dim are fine. Just the facts on the size when using for carryon.

And the VF reinforced cover gives the camera full 11" width in my bag. You do have to slide the VF over to the right but that should be done while shipping in any bag.

As stated earlier perfect fit with excellent protection and fine for carryon.

[Ron Wilk]

I've just realized that the methodology employed for measurements depicted both on the Portabrace site and that of B&H are not consistent for the cases in discussion. For example, the CTC-4 is listed as 10.5" wide externally but by taking the measurements of my own bag, I've noticed that in this instance they have included the girth of the VF bubble.

I suspect that the dimensions given for the CO-AB-M do not account for the VF. Is that true? Furthermore, the B&H site claims a length of 29" externally for the CO-AB-M ... that would require considerable end-to-end squashing to get it close to airline requirements; is that not true, or are the dimensions incorrect?

[Paul Cronin]

Ron you are correct the inside width measurements do not account for the VF bubble not sure why they do this. To look for the measurement with the bubble you just need to look at the overall width measurement.

As for overall length my bag is 28" just measured it. If I want to make the bag 24" I remove my long shotgun (a short one could stay on) and one end of the bag will go down 4" or I can move the camera to the middle of the bag and compress each end 2" with ease. All of this is with my 130wh battery on the camera.

You could go with a smaller bag and remove the battery and shotgun (if long) to get in a 21" bag. But then you are limited on the batteries you can carry since you won't have one on the camera. One more regulation that we must meet for the airlines.

All of the above measurements are with my Fujinon ZA 17x lens which is longer then the 350 stock lens.

[Tom Roper]

Paul,
that's good that the ends can be squeezed in. The CO-OB for the the PMW350 is even slightly smaller than the bag you mention. I like the clamshell opening method, and the YKK zippers, 1000 denier material etc.

Ron,
Have you seen Alister's review of the Kata? I'm posting a Link Here to the article, that has some pictures. He explains that for air travel, you put the viewfiender in its own pouch in the space on top of the cam, I would guess putting the padded band above the camera handle. Once on the ground, (if I understand it correctly), there is zipper that releases an expansion compartment so that there would be room for the viewfinder installed, and another zipper at the end that opens long enough to accommodate a camera with mounted lens and battery, and that the padded band is moved into this compartment to make it rigid.

From the picture, (see the link) it appears quite roomy, and I'm wondering if you have the zipper opened that releases the side expansion?

[Paul Cronin]

Tom that is a good point and one that I did not bring up till my last post. I have been doing all the dimensions with my ZA lens not the stock 350 which I think is 2" shorter.

If the 350 fits the CO-OB and the bag is smaller that is great.

I am very very impressed with the Porta Brace quality. The zippers are tough and the material rugged. They do a nice job padding where it is needed and have a nice touch with details.

No need to take the VF off with the Porta Brace. Tom have you seen this as a regulation?

[Tom Roper]

You see, if you look at Alister's pictures, the one that has the viewfinder removed, the bag is barely wider than the camera body.

Then if you look at the picture at the bottom, the entire side opens for expansion, (not just over the viewfinder port). See the orange that you didn't see in the picture above?

So unless I'm wrong, it looks like the whole side expands firstly, and then secondly you also expand the port for the viewfinder, and then from the picture at least, it looks like there is plenty of room to easily get the camera in and out.

Is this wrong?

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

No need to take the VF off with the Porta Brace. Tom have you seen this as a regulation?

No, no requirement to remove the viewfinder. It just makes for a narrower bag if you do, (45 total inches L+W+H).

But moreover, the reason I would remove the viewfinder on the plane, is to prevent it from getting smashed by other luggage from having it sticking out on the side.

[Ron Wilk]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Paul,
that's good that the ends can be squeezed in. The CO-OB for the the PMW350 is even slightly smaller than the bag you mention. I like the clamshell opening method, and the YKK zippers, 1000 denier material etc.

Ron,
Have you seen Alister's review of the Kata? I'm posting a Link Here to the article, that has some pictures. He explains that for air travel, you put the viewfiender in its own pouch in the space on top of the cam, I would guess putting the padded band above the camera handle. Once on the ground, (if I understand it correctly), there is zipper that releases an expansion compartment so that there would be room for the viewfinder installed, and another zipper at the end that opens long enough to accommodate a camera with mounted lens and battery, and that the padded band is moved into this compartment to make it rigid.

From the picture, (see the link) it appears quite roomy, and I'm wondering if you have the zipper opened that releases the side expansion?

Yes, I've seen it and in fact I ordered the TCCT based upon his review of the bag. And, yes, all the expansions were expanded. The problem lies in the bag's access opening, not its internal dimensions. As I mentioned, if you remove the VF and lens the bag works fine, but it's after the camera is reassembled that the problem develops. I don't find it useful as an everyday carry bag for the reasons that I mentioned. Allister's article describes using the bag fully extended and carrying the 350 with lens and VF installed for on-the-job use and it is in that state that I encountered difficulty. There was another issue with the bag that I neglected to mention and that has to do with the large "stiffener". Once removed for airline portage, what do you do with it? There is no room in the bag for it and I guess it would have to go in your luggage. Allister seemed to be happy with the TCCT and it is a good overall concept, but it doesn't work for me.

[Ron Wilk]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

You see, if you look at Alister's pictures, the one that has the viewfinder removed, the bag is barely wider than the camera body.

Then if you look at the picture at the bottom, the entire side opens for expansion, (not just over the viewfinder port). See the orange that you didn't see in the picture above?

So unless I'm wrong, it looks like the whole side expands firstly, and then secondly you also expand the port for the viewfinder, and then from the picture at least, it looks like there is plenty of room to easily get the camera in and out.

Is this wrong?

Part of the problem with the image in Allister's review article is the angle from which it was photographed that makes the opening of the bag appear to be wider than it actually is. The only way that I could find to make the bag entry more reasonable is to remove the trolley. Once the trolley is removed, the zipper that is normally blocked by the trolley's base can be opened to the base of the bag, thereby providing greater access. But for me, the trolley was a selling point for everyday use and without it the TCCT is just another bag.

[Tom Roper]

This makes it tough. The trolley was just a gimmick to me. The travel size requirement is everything. The Porta Brace is close if you scrunch up the ends. I don't want the Kata if it's flimsy, and the Porta Brace is less expensive. I'm just worried that if they want to be picky, it's oversize. Because on all other counts it sounds like the better day to day bag.

[Ron Wilk]

By placing the two bags side-by-side it is clear that the Portabrace is the sturdier of the pair. But if the dimensions of the TCCT are what you are after then the structural differences may become moot. However, even with the TCCT's trolley removed and the zipper that its presence was restricting pulled open entirely, it is still not as easy to insert and remove the fully assembled 350 as it is with the Portabrace.

Perhaps the best approach is to order one from a vender who allows returns. That way, your only downside will be the return shipping if you decide that the TCCT is not right for you.

[Paul Cronin]

Would be interesting to see if you did a side by side Ron. I have always purchased my bags on protection first and having to remove the VF makes no sense to me but maybe that makes sense to you.

[Ron Wilk]

"Would be interesting to see if you did a side by side Ron. I have always purchased my bags on protection first and having to remove the VF makes no sense to me but maybe that makes sense to you."

Why would you think that removing the VF makes sense to me?????

I clearly stated that the TCCT did not work for me, that I was returning the bag and that the Portabrace offers more protection and represents the one that I have chosen to use.
Removing the VF does not make sense to me, unless it remains the only way to safely transport the camera over long distances which is something I rarely do.

As for doing a side-by-side, I did indeed perform a visual inspection of both bags side-by-side but I did not take the time to document the comparison with photographs as I was anxious to get the TCCT packed up for return.

[Paul Cronin]

Sorry Ron I was making that point to Tom.

[Ron Wilk]

Understood, no problem.