Bag for RB67?

[film_man]

Hello,

I need to get a shoulder bag that will fit the following:

RB67 with 90 or 127mm lens (if it fits with a 180 even better), grip and prism, one extra back and a few rolls of film.

It does not need to fit another lens (though if it does fit one more even better).

Anyone have any suggestions? I have a Domke F6 which will fit the camera but not the extra back and even then the prism sticks out (its ok-ish without the prism). I really want a shoulder bag for easy access vs a backpack. I'm thinking maybe something like an Ona Astoria or Domke F-something in style. Or maybe a Crumpler. Not too keen on the Lowepro look.

Thanks

 

[Xmas]

Bellingham do a monster bag that will hold

camera (WLF), 90mm, power pack and power back
two other lenses 50 & 65 or 65 & 150
two other power backs one insert
grip
pola back
five filters
some film, notebook etc.

In theory cause that is too heavy for long term carriage

The camera sits pointing vertical up and needs the neck strap fitted for extraction.

 

[DannL.]

I use a bag like this Dead Link Removed for my RZ67. If the RB67 has the same dimensions as the RZ67, it might work for you. The camera I have has a 90mm with a wide-angle shade attached, and a PD Prism mounted. It's a good fit end-to-end for the camera. A longer lens "might fit" without a shade installed. There is still room inside the main compartment with the camera for some padding, and that's where I store the waist-level finder, cable release, etc. The pockets are ample for film and filters, etc. A side pocket "will" hold a film back from my camera. On mine I replaced the shoulder strap with one that was more comfortable. I won't go as far as to recommend a specific bag, but this is what I am using. I wish I new the model number for the bag, but there's no label to be found. Based on the internal dimensions in the advertisement, I'ld say it's the same bag. I'll post a picture of mine packed, later this evening.

 

[Alan Gales]

Hello,

I need to get a shoulder bag that will fit the following:

RB67 with 90 or 127mm lens (if it fits with a 180 even better), grip and prism, one extra back and a few rolls of film.

It does not need to fit another lens (though if it does fit one more even better).

Anyone have any suggestions? I have a Domke F6 which will fit the camera but not the extra back and even then the prism sticks out (its ok-ish without the prism). I really want a shoulder bag for easy access vs a backpack. I'm thinking maybe something like an Ona Astoria or Domke F-something in style. Or maybe a Crumpler. Not too keen on the Lowepro look.

Thanks

I used to own an RZ with 50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm. I kept it in the larger Domke bag since I already owned the bag. The camera fit in one end with 2 lenses in the insert, and film holders in the side pockets. The insert was made for 4 lenses but could just hold 2 lenses. The insert was pretty stretched out.

I recommend looking for something different than the large Domke.

 

[benjiboy]

Bellingham do a monster bag that will hold

camera (WLF), 90mm, power pack and power back
two other lenses 50 & 65 or 65 & 150
two other power backs one insert
grip
pola back
five filters
some film, notebook etc.

In theory cause that is too heavy for long term carriage

The camera sits pointing vertical up and needs the neck strap fitted for extraction.

The Billingham bag you refer to Noel is the model 550 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Billingham-...69&sr=8-1&keywords=billingham+550+camera+bags I have just sold mine after more than twenty years because when I filled it with gear I couldn't lift it these days, but I still got a good price for it because the current retail price is £550.

 

[pdeeh]

You can get bags for nothing in Tesco

 

[benjiboy]

You can get bags for nothing in Tesco

Your faith in the quality and load bearing capacity of Tesco's carrier bags whilst touching I feel is very misplaced, and anyone who is willing to carry an RB67 in one is heading for a very expensive accident.

 

[pdeeh]

That's why I used the plural. You double-bag ...

 

[benjiboy]

That's why I used the plural. You double-bag ...

I can't believe your suggestion is serious anyone who carries an expensive and heavy professional medium format S.L.R camera in two Tesco carrier bags has to some kind of ament, cretin or have some other severe mental impairment .

 

[Xmas]

Hi Ben

Don't worry he is teasing you.

It was the £550.00 that got him...

@ film man - the dividers are moveable so you could squeeze in a cam with a Penta prism but two additional lenses would be tight then. Might still do it.

It is a big bag.

Im probably as old as Ben but sillier as I do carry lots of kit around.

Noel

 

[benjiboy]

Hi Ben

Don't worry he is teasing you.

It was the £550.00 that got him...

@ film man - the dividers are moveable so you could squeeze in a cam with a Penta prism but two additional lenses would be tight then. Might still do it.

It is a big bag.

Im probably as old as Ben but sillier as I do carry lots of kit around.

Noel

I'm 75 Noel, I actually paid £50 new for my Billingham 550 bag from a local professional dealers who were closing down one Christmas about 25 years ago I hadn't used it all that much because when I filled it it was too heavy so it was still in very good condition, and when I sold it six months ago got more than four times what I paid for it.

 

[Nokton48]

I use the Domke F2 bag I bought for thirty bucks with my Plaubel Makiflexes (see my avatar) very similar to the Mamiya RB-67, which I have also owned.

You can fit alot of stuff in a Domke F2 if you take out the insert. Should hold everything you list, no problem.

 

[Xmas]

The Billingham bag you refer to Noel is the model 550 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Billingham-...69&sr=8-1&keywords=billingham+550+camera+bags I have just sold mine after more than twenty years because when I filled it with gear I couldn't lift it these days, but I still got a good price for it because the current retail price is £550.

HiBen

Looked mine up and it is only a 555 so missing the detachable end pouches, but otherwise similar.
Had it for a while and sure I did not pay a lot for it.
And you have seven more candles on your bcake then me.

It would take a 150mm on the camera donno about the 180.

Noel

 

[film_man]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I thought about the Tesco suggestion and decided to splash out on a 10p bag for life from Waitrose. It may be just as useless but it is more upmarket

I've been looking at my Domke F6...I think I'll try getting some foam dividers or something and pad the bottom with that first to see how it fares and then if it is ok I'll either get a slightly bigger one to fit more stuff or look at other bags like the Billingham (I can always sell the Hasselblad to get the £550 bag!).

Any more suggestions will be appreciated!

 

[Xmas]

Work out of the tailgate of an auto...

My 555 is way to heavy at the end of day.

 

[pdeeh]

to some kind of ament, cretin or have some other severe mental impairment .

Don't be so bloody rude, and try engaging your sense of humour from time to time.

At the age of 75 you ought to know better.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I'm still laughing of those Tesco bags! Mind you I have some of my cameras wrapped in them.
It is a solution!

Ben and Noel,
I did have a 555 and a 550. Paid a lot more than £50. You did very well there Ben!
Even though I'm some 20 odd years younger, I found out I couldn't carry all day that bag around.
My trusted bag was a 335, a lot more convenient.
These days I just go around wit one body or 2 on a Lowepro sling bag that doesn't look like a camera bag.

 

[benjiboy]

Don't be so bloody rude, and try engaging your sense of humour from time to time.

At the age of 75 you ought to know better.

I'm a serious man and take what people write seriously.

 

[film_man]

....and relax.

 

[DannL.]

Here are the pictures of the Canon bag that I had mentioned previously. From what I can tell the internal dimensions are close to the Domke F6 that you may be considering. Actual internal compartment without stretching is 11"L x 7"W x 8"H. This bag has three external pockets also, a netted pocket in the top cover, and a shoulder strap that can be removed and replaced. Note that there is still room on the sides of the camera, possibly enough to accommodate a grip? The camera fits length-wise without any resistance. The prism does not touch the top of the bag with the top down. The bottom of the bag is padded and ridged both. I rearranged and removed some of the dividers to secure the camera, to minimize shifting around in the bag. From what I gather, you probably need a bag that is larger still.

View attachment 92169 View attachment 92170 View attachment 92171 View attachment 92172

Today for example, as I go out rambling around, I will be taking RZ67 without the prism and using it handheld only. I then use a different camera bag that is almost 1/2 the size of the Canon bag shown above. Much more convenient to use.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm still laughing of those Tesco bags! Mind you I have some of my cameras wrapped in them.
It is a solution!

Ben and Noel,
I did have a 555 and a 550. Paid a lot more than £50. You did very well there Ben!
Even though I'm some 20 odd years younger, I found out I couldn't carry all day that bag around.
My trusted bag was a 335, a lot more convenient.
These days I just go around wit one body or 2 on a Lowepro sling bag that doesn't look like a camera bag.

I have a Billingham 335 too and although it's a superb quality bag my Domke F2 holds just as much and Is a lot lighter.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[film_man]

Here are the pictures of the Canon bag that I had mentioned previously. From what I can tell the internal dimensions are close to the Domke F6 that you may be considering. Actual internal compartment without stretching is 11"L x 7"W x 8"H. This bag has three external pockets also, a netted pocket in the top cover, and a shoulder strap that can be removed and replaced. Note that there is still room on the sides of the camera, possibly enough to accommodate a grip? The camera fits length-wise without any resistance. The prism does not touch the top of the bag with the top down. The bottom of the bag is padded and ridged both. I rearranged and removed some of the dividers to secure the camera, to minimize shifting around in the bag. From what I gather, you probably need a bag that is larger still.

View attachment 92169 View attachment 92170 View attachment 92171 View attachment 92172

Today for example, as I go out rambling around, I will be taking RZ67 without the prism and using it handheld only. I then use a different camera bag that is almost 1/2 the size of the Canon bag shown above. Much more convenient to use.

That's good, your bag looks a bit taller than my F6 so the prism fits without sticking out. Also what I like in your bag is that you have a bit of padding all round the camera, the Domke only has at the bottom, then again that's what makes it nicer for smaller outfits

I think I'll have the F6 for my other cameras and now look for something like what you have for the RB. Still won't fit with the grip but I'm beginning to think that with the prism and grip the RB is just so big it would have to be a very uncomfy bag to fit it...

 

[benjiboy]

It isn't rocket science if the O.P. wants a bag for his RB 67 he should take the gear he wants to carry to a bricks and mortar camera store and try it in some bags until he finds the right one.










RB 67

 

[edcculus]

I'm using a crumpler (7 million dollar home I thik) to carry around an RB and a few accessories. It won't fit your entire setup unless all you have is one lens and one back. I can jam in a 90 and 180mm lens, the prism, body, 2 back and extra film if i need. I usually try to keep it lighter and exclude what I dont think I'll need to carry around that day.

 

[benjiboy]

There Isn't any easy way round it if you need to carry a huge camera and accessories you need a big bag.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk