Until then, I had not shot any film since 2002 when I sold up all of my film cameras.  Actually, that’s not quite true, I still have an APS film camera and little Polaroid Fisher Price thing lying around somewhere, but they’ve not been used since around the same time.

So, there I was.  Not only was I wondering around the streets of Liverpool shooting film on a cartoon emblazoned camera which had cost me the princely sum of £1, but I was also having fun.  Not the same kind of fun I used to have when I last shot film 7 years ago.  This was different.  Not only am I a different photographer from when I was back then, but I’d become so entrenched in the digital way of life I was still checking for the LCD review after the first few plastic, hollow shutter releases.

There’s something very liberating about shooting a camera which has no means of focusing apart from physically moving it within the suggested shooting zone of 1-3m, no means of adjusting the exposure apart from switching on the built-in flash, and no means of knowing whether or not you’d just ‘got the shot’ without dousing it with chemicals.  Heck, I didn’t even know what ISO the film was.

Being used to shooting in low light conditions and allowing auto-ISO to ramp things up for me, I avoided using the flash even in a dimly lit church.  The result was some photographs of bright white window shapes surrounded by very dark grain.  Not quite the serene scene I’d pictured in my mind, but it did make me smile at a time when digital would have had me reaching for the ISO button.

Technically, the photographs I took weren’t the greatest I’d ever shot, but there was an organic, almost unpredictable quality to them that’s so different from the precise, binary world of digital I was used to.  I had to have more.

I’d toyed with the idea of medium format before, after playing with some of the cameras owned by other Fab Collective members, but in the end I’d decided I didn’t want to invest in a whole new system.  So, I decided to get myself a used film body with which I could use my existing Nikon lenses with.  After a bit of research and deliberation, I started fishing on eBay and landed myself a Nikon FM2n; a fully manual camera which would even continue to work without any power source.  I’d decided I wanted to branch off away from the world of digital and auto-focus, back to something which was essentially the same as my first ever SLR; the Minolta SRT-101b.

Holding the FM2n up to my eye was like going back to the place I’d not been to for a long, long time.  It was good.  I’ve shot about half-a-dozen frames of XP2 so far and have no idea whether any of them are sharp or well exposed, but that doesn’t matter so much right now.  For now, I’m taking photographs.

Pete saw this and was insistent we have a whiteboard installed during our exhibition. So, we did!

Whilst Clay Enos found his subjects on the streets, we engaged the people who came to visit the exhibition. This might seem like shooting fish in a barrel, but it really wasn’t. Getting your portrait taken is probably one of the things you’d least expect to happen at a photo exhibition. After all, the idea is to go and look at photos. Right? So, the process still involved approaching a stranger and asking them to stand in front of a plain white board so you can take their portrait.

Those people who hated being photographed still hated being photographed. Them being within the walls of St. Luke’s didn’t stop them from saying, “No, thanks”, but a little encouragement was often all that was needed to get a willing subject.

Now, you might wonder where the fun and creativity is at. “Where’s the stunning vista or bikinis? All you’re doing is getting people to stand in front of a white board!” On the face of it, that might be all it seems, but when you’re forced to work in such restrictive conditions it really does take a lot of creativity to pull off something a bit different.

Putting creativity to one side, the interaction with people and the actual taking of portraits provided fun on both sides of the camera.  Some clearly relished the opportunity to be a part of the exhibition whilst others just enjoyed having their portrait taken.  There were probably a few who were less keen, but agreed anyway.

It was a great way to get to know just who was visiting and why they were in Liverpool.  Some were locals, lots were from different countries from around the world.  Some had come specifically to see the exhibition, others had just been walking past and decided to see what was going on.

Also very interesting was to see just how different the portraits were as they varied from photographer to photographer.  Some went for straight portraits, some asked their subjects to do anything but smile, some asked their subjects to pose, some just left it all to their subjects to choose how they wanted to have their portrait taken.

What might seem like a very simple and even boring way to take portraits is actually great fun and very involving.  Even if you don’t want to go as far as setting up a board on the street, why not do what one of the collective did and set one up in your back garden and ask family & friends to pose?

Just a warning though, it can get a bit addictive!

Out went the Canon EOS 5D and in its place came the Nikon D700.  So, why the big move?

• Improved high ISO performance. From everything I’ve seen, read and heard from others, the D700 has arguably the best low-light capabilities of current DLSRs.  As I mostly shoot in natural light without flash, being able to use higher ISO settings without significantly degrading image quality is a significant benefit to me.
• Automatic ISO selection. This was a hugely useful feature which I missed on the 5D.  Shifting in and out of low light conditions meant manually changing ISO along the way.  Forget to change from ISO 1600 when moving from a dim room into the bright outdoors meant unnecessarily noisy images.  Then there’s the reverse of moving from bright conditions into low light with ISO 100 and trying to shoot with shutter speeds likely to suffer from camera shake.  This might not be an issue for some, but it was for me.
• Up to 9-exposure bracketing. The 5D could bracket up to +/-2 stops, but only for 3 frames.  The D700 is capable of bracketing more frames which offers potentially better material for HDR.
• Live View. I’ve found this to be a very useful feature for those times when looking through the viewfinder is difficult (e.g. when holding the camera overhead) or just not the preferred option (e.g. when shooting candids).
• Electronic virtual horizon. For landscape shooting, I usually carried a hot shoe mounted double-axis spirit level to help ensure my horizons are level, but this meant not being able to mount a flash gun or radio remote release receiver.  The virtual horizon removes the need for a separate accessory and can be layed over the Live View image.
• Bigger, higher resolution LCD monitor. Compared with the 5D, reviewing images is a whole lot easier with the D700.  A larger screen with a higher resolution gives me a better idea of whether a shot was focused correctly and is sharp etc.
• Access to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I love shooting landscapes and usually with an ultra-wide lens.  On the 40D, I used a Canon EF-S 10-22mm and on the 5D I used an EF 17-40L.  The images and reviews of the Nikon 14-24mm showed it to be a fantastically sharp lens, even sharper than some fixed focal length lenses within the same focal range.
• Improved autofocus system. With 51 autofocus points and more focus modes than I can shake a stick at, the D700 has the best performing AF of any camera I’ve used.
• Faster access to important settings. Having more dial and switches to control important functions such as autofocus mode and bracketing means less time hunting through menus.
• Built-in wireless TTL control of remote flashguns. Who needs a separate remote flash controller when there’s one built right into the pop-up flash.
• Built-in pop-up flash. Whilst it’s not something I’d use unless I really had to having the option of a flash on board is a nice option to have when you’re desparate for light and you don’t have your flashgun to hand.
• Ability to use lenses designed for cropped sensor bodies (DX) on a full frame body (FX). When I sold my Canon 40D and old-graded to the 5D, I was forced to replace my EF-S mount lenses with EF lenses.  I’m unlikely to want to use DX lenses, but it’s nice to have the option and should also make the upgrade path for existing DX users a little smoother as they’d be able to continue using their lenses before upgrading to FX lenses.

The above are some of the main reasons why I migrated to Nikon.  At this moment in time, Canon just don’t seem to be able to offer what Nikon can at this level.  The 5D Mark II was the obvious consideration, but with all I’ve researched the D700 was the better route for me to take because it seemed to be the better overall package.

For example, Nikon’s implementation of the auto-ISO feature is an excellent example of how they’re delivering to photographer’s needs.  Not only does the D700 (and some other Nikon cameras) let you specify a maximum ISO value, but you also get to specify a base ISO and a minimum shutter speed which it will maintain by varying the ISO giving you the best quality output for as long as possible.

For example, let’s say you set the base ISO to 200, minimum shutter speed to 1/100s and maximum ISO to 6400.  This means the camera will try to maintain ISO 200 as possible as long as it’s able to use a shutter speed of at least 1/100s.  Only when 1/100s becomes insufficient for the metered scene is the ISO increased.  Fabulous!  It’s so obvious and yet not every camera manufacturer offers this feature.  Why?

So, on the whole, the move to Nikon has been a wholly successful one barring a slight defect with the D700 I received and I’m very impressed with the lenses I’ve got.  The 14-24mm f/2.8 is very wide and very sharp.  The 24-70mm f/2.8 is also incredibly sharp.  Much sharper than Canon’s equivalent L lens, I’d say.  The 85mm f/1.8 is astounding as a portrait lens.  Its relatively low cost belies its sharpness wide open and its ability to blur a background.  The built-in remote flash control has opened up a whole new area of photography for me to explore and so far, I’m loving that too.

If Canon had produced a like-for-like equivalent to the D700 then I probably would still be shooting Canon now.  Trouble is, they had their chance with the 5D Mark II and, in my opinion, blew it.

As far as operating systems went, Windows was what I knew best and what I’d stuck with for many years. Sure, I’d had experience of other operating systems such as Linux, but Windows was what I used to work and play for the majority of the time.

Nowadays, my thirst for more productive time is at an all time high. As a photographer processing lots of relatively large files, having a computer platform that performs and is stable is a high priority. Unfortunately, my main Windows computer had become more and more unreliable as time went on. Having received many glowing first-hand reports on the latest generation of Macs and also from my own experience at Apple stores, I decided it was time leave the annoyances of Windows behind.

That brings me to today. I’ve left behind a large, noisy PC tower to a shiny, quiet, compact MacBook Pro. Not only has the transition been quick, but it’s been easy too. For almost every application I used on Windows, I’ve been able to replace with a Mac equivalent. For the few applications that are currently (Mac versions are under development) Windows only, I’ve still got the option of running them from within a virtual Windows installation running within the Mac OS.

The operating system is friendly and just lets me get on doing what I want to do rather than having to mess about with too many settings and having to install drivers. This means that I don’t need to put on my technical hat to and I don’t feel the need to swear at the computer because a window or dialogue from another application has just rudely popped in front of the one I was using and intercepted the keystrokes I’d just made.

All of my peripherals, bar my ancient scanner which required a driver download, worked when I plugged them in. Connecting to wireless networks has been completely painless. Photoshop, Lightroom and Photomatix are all running faster than I ever had them on Windows. Even the memory issues that plagued Lightroom for Windows seem to have been left behind. The integration between these three mainstay applications also seems to be tighter on a Mac. Images can be exported from Lightroom to be automatically fed into Photomatix and back again. No need to go digging in Explorer!

As I still have the monitor I used with my PC, I simply plug this into my MacBook Pro (requires an adapter) and I get a very useful second display which can be used to extend the desktop or can serve its own purpose e.g. to provide an alternative view of images in Lightroom.

Then of course, the software that allows me to connect my Canon 5D to a computer also comes in a Mac flavour although I’m one who prefers to transfer images directly from the memory card using a USB card reader.

The downsides of migrating to Mac? There’s obviously the cost of such a migration to consider. Apple Macs aren’t cheap and then there’s the added cost of software to consider although some developers will allow you to transfer licenses for such a transition. The user interface is different from Windows although there are elements to it which are similar. You can still browse through the file system, you still have windows which you can maximise, minimise and close, etc. Some applications have a slightly different layout on Mac from what they have on Windows. The menu layout in Firefox being an example, but it’s not something that takes very long to get used to.

As I mentioned earlier, there were a few applications which I simply couldn’t find Mac-compatible alternatives which were as good.  For these, I had to turn to a virtual installation of Windows XP using VMWare’s Fusion.  It’s worth noting that installing Windows XP via Fusion was easier than installing it on a real computer because Fusion handles all of the driver side of things and even sets up the network connection for you.

The most technical issue I came across was to do with the fact that Mac OS X can’t natively write to NTFS formatted drives which caused a slight headache as that’s how I’d formatted my external hard drives. Fortunately, a solution was just a quick Google away in the form of MacFUSE and NTFS-3G.

As an experienced, computer literate user, my migration from Windows to Mac has been smooth and uneventful.  From the perspective of user-friendliness and stability, Mac OS X has been very good at keeping the gears and levers out of the way of my productivity.  For others who are less confident with computers, I think the move to Mac is still a good one as the benefits on offer after the move has been completed are very worthwhile.

As I’ve seen and heard from many Mac users, Macs just work.  I’m certainly not going to argue with them.

Anyway, the path from 40D to 5D is considered by most to be an upward one due to the increase in sensor size even though the 40D is 2 years the junior in terms of release dates.

Okay, bigger sensor size.  What exactly does that mean?

Technically speaking, DPReview provides the following information about the difference in 40D and 5D sensors:

Canon EOS 40D

• 10.1 million effective pixels
• 3.1 MP/cm² pixel density
• 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor

Canon EOS 5D

• 12.7 million effective pixels
• 1.5 MP/cm² pixel density
• 35.8 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor

These spec’s tell us that the 5D’s sensor has a much greater area (855.62mm²) to capture light than the 40D’s (328.56mm²), approximately 20% more pixels, but that the pixels are spread less densely.  We know that the individual photosites which collect the light from the scene are larger.  This means they can collect more light than the photosites in the 40D sensor within the same period of time.  More light means more information about the scene and less pixel density means each photosite is exposed to less noise-causing interference from other photosites.

In real-world terms, this equates to:

• Greater dynamic range
• Less image noise especially at higher ISO settings
• Easier to blur backgrounds due to shallower depth of field (no field of view crop factor)

For me and the type of photography I engage in, this means the sensor in the 5D is a better sensor than that in the 40D.  There are, of course, other differences between the two camera bodies, but none are as important to me than the sensor.  Now, with that out of the way, have I actually noticed any difference in the photos I take?  The answer to that is most definitely yes!

In terms of user experience, some of the differences I noted 5 months ago are still prominent.  The biggest ‘downgrade’ for me in terms of user experience is the lack of a permanent display of the current ISO setting in the viewfinder.  Accidentally shooting at ISO 3200 when ISO 400 would have been a better choice is just too easy to do.  Also, more of an issue is the amount of sensor cleaning that can be required.  A lack of an automatic sensor cleaning feature costs time and money spent on cleaning tools.  Less annoying are the lack of Live View and the smaller LCD on the back of the camera.

All in all, I’m very happy with the move I made from the 40D to the 5D.  Even though the 5D Mark II has been release, I still feel very content with my Mark I.  When teamed up with a selection of good quality lenses, it’s a combination I find difficult to falter.

However, having shot with 35mm film in the past, in the back of my mind there was always the desire to get back to shooting with a full frame sensor.  With the recent release of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, I decided it was a good time to look for used copies of the 5D Mark I.  Given that the 5D is 2-years older than the 40D, it might seem like a bit of a downgrade, but most of the features I use are also on the 5D and then there’s that glorious full frame sensor.

After much consideration, I ordered a used 5D body earlier in the week and received it yesterday.  As yet, I’ve not been able to test my 5D outdoors.  I only got it after darkness had fallen and the weather today has been awful.

Here’s what I’ve found to be the biggest differences between the 5D and 40D (relevant to my style of shooting), so far:

• Full frame sensor. The 5D features a 35.8 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor as opposed to the 40D’s 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor.  That’s approximately 2.6-times the surface area which is quite a significant difference and I’m hoping to see this difference reflected in image quality especially when it comes to shooting landscapes.
• 2.7 million more pixels. More pixels, but spread over a larger area.  Aside from the numbers, I don’t yet know what the real life difference is until I can get out to test it.
• Smaller LCD screen. This makes reviewing images slightly less beneficial as it’s more difficult to see whether or not anything’s blurred.  The 40D screen isn’t ideal for this purpose either, due to it’s relatively low resolution compared to the likes of the 5D MKII, but at least it’s 0.5-inches bigger.  You can still zoom the played back image as per the 40D.
• LCD screen flanked by buttons on left-hand side. This means the LCD screen is further away from the left-hand edge which is a plus point for me as I’m forever getting oil from my nose onto it resulting in constant wiping of the screen.  I’m not as bothered about greasy buttons.
• No built-in flash. Apparently, the larger prism means there’s no room left for a built-in flash.  This isn’t much of an issue for me since I rarely used the 40D’s built-in flash as the results I got from it weren’t great.
• No Auto ISO in AV mode. Aperture priority mode is where I spend most of my time and the 40D provides automatic ISO selection in this mode whereas the 5D only offers automatic ISO selection in fully automatic.  I usually shoot in the lower ISO modes, but do find auto ISO useful on occasion so this is something I’ll miss.
• No fully automatic picture modes i.e. portrait mode, sports mode, night time mode. The 5D’s target audience is more towards the professional end of the market so there are less of the more consumer oriented features.  Again, not really an issue for me since I never really used them.
• No Live View. The 5D pre-dates Live View and this, unfortunately, is one feature that I’ll miss especially when it comes to framing low-level macro shots.
• More prominent Depth of Field preview button. It’s in the same location, but it protudes more from the body making it easier to find.  I always had trouble trying to find the DoF button on the 40D when looking through the viewfinder.  Maybe it was more flush with the body because it was less likely to be used on a more consumer-oriented body?
• Different shutter release sound. The mirror of the 5D still clunks, but the shutter noise is more of a whisper.  It doesn’t make any difference to image quality nor does it have any impact on how I use it.  It’s just a difference I noticed straight away.  I guess it’s similar to noticing the difference between exhaust notes when it comes to cars i.e. a bit nerdy!
• No sensor cleaning. The 40D automatically shakes the sensor upon start-up and shut down.  The 5D has no such feature and any dust collecting on the sensor has to be removed manually.
• Different menu structure. The menus that control the 5D’s behaviour are structured into a single list with the jump button to take you straight to the next section as opposed to the tabbed approach of the 40D.  No great shakes here, but the 5D method might be a littler easier to use.
• Only 10-second self-timer. On the 40D, I used the 2-second self-timer a lot as a means of releasing the shutter without causing any movement of the camera or lens.  10-seconds is too long to wait to take a shot.  Fortunately, I’ve got a cheapo wired remote release which I can use instead.  It’s just not as convenient.
• Different layout of function buttons. For some reason, Canon decided to change the layout of the function buttons that live in front of the right-hand LCD.  That means it’s going to take me a little while before I can change ISO without taking my eye away from the viewfinder.
• Current ISO hidden away. The 40D shows the current ISO value in the viewfinder and in the top-right LCD panel at all times.  The 5D only shows the current ISO when you press the ISO button to change it to a different value.  I think this was a very poor design decision since it’s too easy to be shooting at a completely unsuitable ISO without knowing it.

Full frame means that I can no longer use the APS-C format EF-S lenses, but it does mean that I get much closer to subjects  in order to obtain the same field of view.  This can make a huge difference when it comes to making a subject more prominent against a blurred background and it’s this shallower depth of field that I was really hankering after.  From the indoor test shots I’ve taken, the shallower depth of field is very noticeable.

Hopefully, the weather tomorrow will be improved and I’ll be able to get some naturally-lit shots.

PhotoGearUser.com is a website I’ve been working on for photographers to rate and review their photography equipment.  In return for airing their thoughts and carrying out a public service to other potential users, reviewers get a link back to their own website.  So if someone reads your review and finds they want to know more about you they can just click on your link.

There’s a few reviews already up.  I’ve posted a few and others have contributed.  I’d really like to get more product reviews and have been thinking about possible incentives such as gift vouchers or maybe even cold hard cash.  Maybe run a monthly lucky draw and an award for the best review.  What do you think?

The list of products is far from complete so if there’s something you want to tell the world about or just have a rant and it’s not yet listed just drop me a line.

As well as the f/1.8, there are f/1.4 (2/3-stop faster than f/1.8) and f/1.2L (1/3-stop faster than f/1.4) versions each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

• 50mm f/1.8 (aka nifty fifty) offers sharpness, shallow depth of field and low-light capability in a very light and inexpensive lens.
• 50mm f/1.4 improves on the build quality, image quality, autofocus performance and bokeh of the f/1.8.
• 50mm f/1.2L delivers the best sharpness, image quality and build of the range, but at a cost of money and weight.

On a full-frame camera these lenses offer a versatile focal length suitable for a wide variety of different subjects.  On a cropped sensor body, the 50mm focal length moonlights well as a short portrait lens, highly usable for full-body through to head and shoulder portraits.  The maximum f/1.4 aperture is very effective at blurring backgrounds helping subjects to really pop out of a photo.

I used to own a 50mm lens on my old Canon 1000FN, but must admit that it didn’t get to see much action.

Now, with my 1.6x cropped sensor 40D, my 70-200mm f/4L is just too long to get the kind of bokeh I really want for portraits and as good as my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is sometimes its depth of field just isn’t shallow enough.

After seeing its almost cult-like following and a number of wonderful shots (including this one), I decided to take the plunge again with a 50mm lens after deciding the EF 85mm f/1.8 would just be too long for portraits on my 40D.

Interesting to note that Canon’s 50mm f/1.4 seems to fall behind in the sharpness and contrast stakes when compared against Sigma’s own 50mm f/1.4.  Here’s a link to a 100% crop comparison of Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM and I’m afraid to say that the difference is very apparent.

Given that the Sigma costs about £100 more than the Canon it ought to perform better, but of course they’re just photos of charts.  What’s more important is their performance in the field and I’m glad to report the Canon’s no slouch in any department.  What’s more, the shallow depth of field and bokeh – albeit octagonal – make for very pleasing results.

With a Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW or one of its siblings, this isn’t the case (or rather the bag).

The SlingShot 300 AW is the largest of the SlingShot family and it’s probably just as well because it’s not a small bag by any means.  Able to carry a ‘professional’ camera body (or a camera body with a grip) as well 3 to 4 lenses, accessories and other non-photographic kit, the 300 model is probably the most capacious bag you’d want to carry with a single shoulder strap.  Saying that, I’ve seen some more traditional shoulder sling bags (think Billingham) that are probably just as sizeable.

Some of the features of the bag include:

• Interior Dimensions Inner Dimensions: 11.8W x 6.5D x 11.8H in / 30 x 16.5 x 30 cm
• Separate compartment for accessories or non-photographic paraphernalia
• Single padded shoulder strap and a padded waist belt
• Built-in rain hood
• SlipLock loops for add-ons
• Small compartment on front of the bag for accessories
• Built-in memory card pouches

Now, there are plenty of bags that can carry just as much as the SlingShot 300, but the main unique selling proposition of this bag is the way in which it can be swung from the wearers back, under the left arm and then sit just under chest level.  With the side access panel then facing up at the wearer, there’s no longer any need to take the bag off before getting access to your equipment.

From this position, the bag also provides an excellent support to rest elbows on.

The video below demonstrates just how the bag rotation process works.

Having a side access panel as opposed to the more traditional front opening, I feel, makes it more difficult for someone to remove the contents from the rucksack without the wearers knowledge.  With potentially thousands of pounds worth of equipment, my preference is to keep it in sight or at least feel confident about where it should be and for me this is a great feature that offers such reassurance.  The contemporary single shoulder strap design also helps to make the bag look less like a camera bag and therefore is less likely to attract unwanted attention.

There are two clips that, when fastened, restrict how far the side panel can open.  As well as being an additional security feature, these help prevent your equipment from spilling out onto the floor should you be in a hurry and over enthusiastically unzip the panel.

Whilst the bag is perfectly comfortable in use, it can become uncomfortable when laden due to the single shoulder strap.  Extended periods of use may well need to be broken up, but with lighter loads it’s much less of an issue. It is possible to carry the bag across the other shoulder instead, but this is not what the bag was designed to do, feels slightly awkward and you lose the ability to swing the bag to get at your equipment.

To protect your equipment, there’s plenty of padding in the lower compartment which can be customised thanks to the dividers being attached to the sides of the bag by Velcro.  I was able to carry my Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS lens mounted onto my Canon EOS 40D together with additional lenses and flashgun without any problems.

Protection from rain is provided with a built-in rain cover which stows neatly away when not in use.

For those wanting to carry a tripod with them, there are SlipLock loops on the front of the bag positioned to allow one to be slotted through vertically.  Now, the bag is quite deep and with a tripod carried in this manner you really need to be careful you don’t hit people with it as you turn.

Conclusion

There is a lot to like about this bag and for those photographers who want to be able to switch from ‘carry mode’ to ‘shoot mode’ in as little time as possible this is a great choice.  The bag is constructed using high quality materials and feels like it’s built to last .  There’s plenty of room for a variety of photographic equipment and should hold enough to last through an entire day of shooting if not longer.

The sling design is both its killer feature and Achilles Heel. For photographers likely to be carrying heavy equipment for an extended periods of more than a few hours at a time then the single shoulder strap could become uncomfortable.

For everyone else or for shorter periods of use, the Lowepro SlingShot 300 AW is a high quality, spacious portable storage solution that should serve its purpose very well.

Pros:

• Offers super fast access to camera with mounted lens.
• Modern one-shoulder sling design.
• Padded waist strap helps spread the carrying load.
• Capacious.
• High quality construction.
• External tripod loops.
• Built-in rain cover.

Cons:

• Single shoulder strap design could become uncomfortable when carrying a heavy load for a few hours.

Photographs of the Lowepro SlingShot 300 AW in use