WR Protector Filter vs Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3: which is safer?
Sigma WR Protector Filter is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Sigma
WR Protector Filter
PFAS grade
Excellent 85/100
Overall grade
Good 73/100
Verdict
Buy
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
Fiberglass filter media with cellulose
Confidence
72%
PossibleFiberglass fiber shedding
PossibleMicrobial biofilm growth in housing
PossibleBacterial colonization if unused
Think Tank Photo
Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3
PFAS grade
Excellent 85/100
Overall grade
Good 59/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Ballistic nylon, weather-sealed fabric, metal hardware
Confidence
45%
PossibleUndisclosed water-repellent coating chemistry
PossibleCoating degradation over time
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Fiberglass fiber shedding, Microbial biofilm growth in housing and Bacterial colonization if unused on the Sigma and not on the Think Tank Photo.
- We flag Undisclosed water-repellent coating chemistry and Coating degradation over time on the Think Tank Photo and not on the Sigma.
- The Sigma is Fiberglass filter media with cellulose where the Think Tank Photo is Ballistic nylon, weather-sealed fabric, metal hardware, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
- We are less certain about the Think Tank Photo grade, at 45% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.
Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More waterproof camera & lens protection cases: see the full ranking