I am in search mode for a carrying case for my new 350.
Although I have tried the previously recommended Kata TCCT, I have found that insertion of the fully rigged camera (battery removed) requires some finesse, while removal requires an even greater degree of effort with a tendency for the VF to catch on the upper lip of the case's VF protective outcropping. It is clearly a wonderful concept for travel but I question its practicality for everyday use for this specific camera ... and it is now awaiting return to the vender.

That said, I wonder if there are any other suggestions from current users in regards to an alternative case, either Kata,Portabrace or otherwise.

Portabrace highly recommended as they protect viewfinders well and last for ever. I have some that were used for BetaSP - BetaSX - Digibeta and now HDCam.

I agree.

I own no less than 3 Portabrace carrying cases for various cameras and have temporarily re-purposed a brand new and unused Portabrace CTC-4 for the 350. I have been considering their CO-OB model which their site lists as being compatible with the 350 but, aside from a 1" difference in internal length and a 1 1/2" difference in internal height (all in favor of the CO-OB), I don't see a big difference between it and the CTC-4.

Too bad that the Kata TCCT doesn't provide for easier entry and exit but, on the other hand, the Portabrace is built like a tank and seems to offer better protection, especially in the area of the VF.

Thanks for your input.

I have a CO-OB bag coming for my 350. Seems to do the job fitting the basics like VCT plate or the Panasonic equivalent, (not sure of model no) which I have. Looks better than the VCT plate and is exactly the same construction as the VCT but pretty much in all black colour. Classy.

You can fit your big batteries and some other accessories in the bag as well. It works perfectly as an airline carry on bag should the need arise.

Looking at the build quality between Kata and Portabrace and Petrol, Kata's zipper as an example are much smaller and somewhat less robust than the others. Bases of the 2P's are much sturdier than the K and overall build quality of the Kata is not as good as the others, so after a good close look and comparison, it was either Petrol or Portabrace. I have had Portabrace bags for the past 20+ years without any problems, so I have the CO-OB coming within a week, the Petrol was a few weeks away. Nothing wrong with the Petrol bag. Superb construction, possibly marginally better constructed than Portabrace (open to personal opinion) but difference is "splitting hairs." Go for your favourite and you will be just fine.

I also have a Lowepro Nova 200 in chestnut brown (again classy & nice colour to boot!!!) for various accessories including various batteries, filters, LCD monitor, zoom demand unit and whatever bits and pieces, lunch, snacks you require to take on location with your PMW-350 camera. A great sized bag with loads of padding.

Hope this helps. Best wishes.

It (PortaBrace CO-OB) works perfectly as an airline carry on bag should the need arise.

While I would much prefer the more solid construction of the Porta Brace compared to the Kata TCCT, the problem with the Porta Brace is it does NOT meet strict carry on requirements for most U.S. domestic airlines, or generally 22 x 14 x 9, and 45 total.

Various airlines, various rules. Just like different carriers have different baggage weight limits. So what does one do???? Gotta make a choice depending on the majority of your requirements. Just last week I travelled on 2 domestic Qantas flights with a larger bag than the CO-OB with my PMW-350 and I did not have any trouble taking it in as cabin baggage.

That's taking a chance because they could make you check the bag at the gate if it doesn't fit inside the template.

Here's the rundown on US Airlines:

****************************************************************************************************
The following U.S. Airlines have a limit of 22 x 14 x 9 or 45 linear inches, 40 lbs max:
American
Continental
Delta
Hawaiian
Northwest
United
US Airways
****************************************************************************************************
The following U.S. Airlines have a limit of 24 x 16 x 10
Southwest Airlines
Virgin America
JetBlue
****************************************************************************************************
The following U.S. Airlines have a limit of 24 x 16 x 12
Frontier Airlines
Spirit Airlines
****************************************************************************************************
The following U.S. Airlines have a limit of 24 x 15.5 x 9.5, 35 lbs:
Midwest Airlines

The Porta Brace carry on is the way to go. I have used mine with the 350 and now the 800. Great protection, very nice pockets, excellent shoulder strap, and no problem carry on. I have carried on my bag with South West, US Air, American, and Continental with out even a word from baggage or on board staff. The bags fits perfect in the overhead of even the smaller jets.

Also purchased the Porta Brace Tripod Shellpack Case for local and travel excellent choice. And for my on camera strap I also purchased a Porta Brace strap a lot nicer then the standard Sony strap. All bags are black so they don't stand out.

Sorry Paul, but there is a problem at 27.5 x 14 x 7, it's not legal size for ANY U.S. Domestic Carrier. And if it was really only 7 inches wide, the PMW350 would not fit. Slipping past the agents is one thing, but I've seen oversized stuff get taken off the plane and go to checked baggage when flights are full, airlines are more strict about carry on, and more people are trying to avoid checked baggage fees.

PortaBrace - Product Detail:CO-OB (http://www.portabrace.com/productA-CO-OB)

Thanks, Tom, the carry-on dimension summary is helpful.

With that in mind, I might just stick with the Portabrace CTC-4 as it is closer to the acceptable limits, although, airline carry-on is not my most important criteria, whereas, the fact that it has been in my possession, unused for some time, carries greater weight. That said, the 350, with stock lens, microphone attached and Anton Bauer battery adapter plus Dionic 90 all fit with room to spare. The VF bubble is in the correct location and the outside pockets appear to be the same as those contained on the CO-OB.

The TCCT is sitting in my laundry room awaiting FedEx pickup. Although it meets the airline criteria, inserting and removing the camera with lens attached is hardly quick and easy. Furthermore, there is considerable chafing of the VF or other parts of the camera body on the rigid edges of the case itself. Perhaps that is why the PMW-350 is not listed on the Kata site as one of the acceptable cameras for that case.

Tom you are quoting a size bag that I don't own. How did you come up with that one? I had stated that I recommend the Porta Brace Carry On. They make many sizes. Mine is the CO-AB-MB and I was told by baggage handlers at 4 airlines with the bag in front of them and fitting in the framed carry on tester that it is fine for carry on. I was not trying to slip it by the agent as you say. I just have to remove the camera from the bag and any extra batteries so it can be scanned. Also 7" is fine for the 350 regarding width my bag is 6" and both the 800 and 350 fit perfectly. Have you tired these bags Tom?

Ron,

I was going to order the Kata TCCT a week ago, and hesitated. Now I'm maybe glad I did.

But I thought for airline use you were supposed to remove the viewfinder and put it in a separate pouch, and then when you convert it for field use, you extend that opening in the front. Doesn't that give easier access?

Tom you are quoting a size bag that I don't own. How did you come up with that one? I had stated that I recommend the Porta Brace Carry On. They make many sizes. Mine is the CO-AB-MB and I was told by baggage handlers at 4 airlines with the bag in front of them and fitting in the framed carry on tester that it is fine for carry on. I was not trying to slip it by the agent as you say. I just have to remove the camera from the bag and any extra batteries so it can be scanned. Also 7" is fine for the 350 regarding width my bag is 6" and both the 800 and 350 fit perfectly. Have you tired these bags Tom?


Paul,

I used the CO-OB because it was mentioned in the thread, and because if you go to the Portabrace website it's the carry on bag they recommend for the PMW350. Also, I don't know how you measure the PWM350 but I have a tape in my hand, and it's at least 7.5 inches with the lens installed and the viewfinder removed, measured where the hard plastic of the hand grip perturbs out, and more like 10 inches if the viewfinder is in place.

As for what the baggage handlers told you, all I can say is I'm not the one making up the rules or putting them under the traveller information on airline websites. Those are the facts.

You are correct in regards to the suggested method of airline portage, and in that instance the insertion issues that I described may be nonexistent. However, once you have arrived at your destination and have reassembled the 350 with lens, VF and battery in preparation for daily use well, that is when the problem surfaces.

I found, and perhaps others have found a more effective method, that in order to insert the fully assembled camera into the TCCT you have to somehow spread the upper lips apart while at the same time fighting with the flaps and inserting the camera and to do that quickly, without scraping the VF, would require three hands. Removal seems to present an even greater problem. Once inside the case, the assembled camera seems well protected but for my dollar, the Portabrace CTC-4 is more user friendly—and that's not because I already own it. It opens wide, there is no chafing whatsoever and the camera can be inserted and removed in a flash. Furthermore, there is only one zipper to deal with, rather than the separately zippered and Velcro ended flaps that refuse to remain in the open, laid out position when you are trying to remove or insert the cam. And, almost forgot, there is more usable storage in the Portabrace. The CO-OB appears to be the same case as the CTC-4 with slightly enlarged dimensions and I am sure it would present the same ease of use. Of course, this is all just my opinion based upon personal experience. Others may have encountered a more pleasant experience with the TCCT.

Paul,

I used the CO-OB because it was mentioned in the thread, and because if you go to the Portabrace website it's the carry on bag they recommend for the PMW350. Also, I don't know how you measure the PWM350 but I have a tape in my hand, and it's at least 7.5 inches with the lens installed and the viewfinder removed, measured where the hard plastic of the hand grip perturbs out, and more like 10 inches if the viewfinder is in place.

As for what the baggage handlers told you, all I can say is I'm not the one making up the rules or putting them under the traveller information on airline websites. Those are the facts.

I suspect that the stated measurements do not account for the VF bubble found on the cases.

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.

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?

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.

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 (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=642) 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) (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=642) it appears quite roomy, and I'm wondering if you have the zipper opened that releases the side expansion?

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?

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?

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.

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 (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=642) 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) (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=642) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Sorry Ron I was making that point to Tom.

Understood, no problem.

Hi Guys, I've a bit out of the loop stranded in the US trying to get home!

Ron's comments on the ease of removal of a camera with VF from the TCCT are valid, the bag does not open as wide as most quick draw bags. I have a Portabrace bag as well and it is certainly easier to get a camera in and out of the Portabrace, but the Portabrace I have does not meet airline regulations and having just today witnessed an irate passenger have his slightly oversize carry on bag get checked in to the hold, it's not a risk I want to take. The TCCT is primarily aimed at those of us that fly a lot and I honestly think that for carrying on a full size camera it's the best camera bag I have seen. If you don't need to meet airline regulations then there are cheaper and probably better bags.

I find that if I insert the 350 into the TCCT lens first and twist it slightly as it goes in and out of the bag it's no too difficult to get it in and out. I think the build quality of the Kata bags is very good. It's a different design philosophy using softer more flexible fabrics to Portabrace's use of rigid sections and coarse materials.

The TCCT's stiffener band can go around either the front or the rear of the camera in flight mode. Once on the ground it slips in to the extension section to make that rigid, although for a 350 you probably don't need to make use of the lens extension unless you have a very long lens.

Sorry to hear you are still stuck Alister. I hope you have had a chance to do some storm chasing, lots going on this time of year.

I just need the bag to fly. I would also feel it's better protected in flight if the viewfinder is not protruding while in the overhead bin.