Neoprene cover instead of photo backpack: a good idea?
22.10.2019
Translation: machine translated
As I find camera bags cumbersome, I tested whether a neoprene protective cover is a good alternative. It does, but only in certain cases.
There is no such thing as the perfect photo bag. Depending on the lenses and other equipment, it may need to be bigger or smaller. What's more, I almost always take other things with me, so the amount of space I need varies greatly. I would therefore need at least three different photo bags or rucksacks.
So I came up with the idea of buying a protective cover for the camera. The camera is simply put into this piece of neoprene and ends up in my normal rucksack, bag or whatever I have with me at the time.
Somehow fits ...
These sleeves are available in different sizes. I ordered M, which is suitable for medium-sized SLR cameras. The dimensions of the case: 18×14×12 cm. Dimensions of my Nikon D7500 with the 16-85mm zoom: just under 16×14×11 cm. Neoprene is stretchable in an emergency. So it should fit.
In fact, I can just about get the camera in. On the one hand, this is good because it means that Walimex's size specifications are correct. For me, however, it means that I can't just push the camera into the case, but have to wriggle it in. I also have to tighten the Velcro fastener pretty hard to get it around the lens.
The much smaller Sony Alpha 6400 fits in comfortably, even with the large Tamron 28-70 F/2.8 lens. With a small lens, the bump at the front remains empty, but that doesn't matter. However, if the camera and lens are clearly too small, they will not hold in the correct position and the excess neoprene can cause a fumble when closing the bag.
The product description mentions that the case can also be reversed; it is then grey on the outside. I don't know why I would need that. But if you want your photo sleeve to look like a pair of ill-fitting pants from the 80s: It works.
Although the Neorpren material is moisture and dirt repellent, the cover is neither dust-proof nor waterproof. This is because there is a hole in the top corners. This makes it possible to use the carrying strap of the camera while it is in the case. A good idea, but not what I need the case for. I would have preferred it if it had simply been tight.
... but often not
In my everyday life, I rarely use the cover. There are too many cases where it doesn't fit.
- When I take two or more lenses with me
- When I take the long telephoto zoom lens with me
- If the camera is too big or way too small
Many camera housings are dust and splash-proof anyway. I often throw the camera(s) into my rucksack without a protective cover. "But then the display breaks," my colleague Livia objects. But the screen of my camera doesn't have the slightest scratch on it. Besides, there are also protective films and covers for the screens.
Conclusion: another imperfect solution
This cover does not solve the problem of variable space requirements. There are too many camera-lens constellations for which it does not fit. But if it fits, why not? The case is inexpensive. I don't regret buying it, even though I rarely use it.
David Lee
Senior Editor
David.Lee@digitecgalaxus.chMy interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.
Photo and video
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
11 comments
later