Billingham 225

Some years ago I wrestled with a dichotomy. As I have remarked elsewhere, choosing a camera system is child's play compared to choosing a camera bag. It's only a sack with handles, but you know the rest.
On three occasions I bought - and subsequently sold - various colours and vintages of the Billingham 225, the middle one of which is pictured above. All these transactions took place on eBay. The costs were broadly neutral. It was a bit like a lending library.
The Billingham 225, notwithstanding its high cost, ought to be an obvious choice. It is well made and impermeable to rain and dust. The internal padding is resistant to knocks. A horse kicking one of these bags would need the vet before anything inside the bag was broken. But ...
It makes you too wide in a crowd. It hangs four square, like a sideboard, even when empty. And even when it is empty, it feels as if it's half-full. This is not a lightweight among camera bags. The several closure options result in straps dangling when you're dipping in and out. The lens pods are too small unless you've not caught up with the increases in lens girth these past 20 years or more. Really tall lenses are ... too tall. The design of the extra compartments beyond the main compartment is fussy and irritating. The brass studs on the underside which raise the bag off the ground are handy until you park the bag on a car bonnet or an antique table.
So I gave up. Even though I saw a professional newspaper man using a much-battered and slightly larger 335 model I kept my resolve, made all the easier when he swung round and collided with people, all the while with straps dangling alarmingly. I still see them in dealers' lists, sometimes quite cheap and stained and dirty yet obviously with life left in them. I pause ... and then I remember.