Eric Hensel: I see a number of posts lamenting the flap; discussing the ability of various materials to withstand rain, while ignoring the fact the good, easy-sliding zippers leak like sieves.
Only if you're submerging your bag in water.
A regular zipper is fine for most shooting situations where you're not in torrential rain, and nowhere close to a building or your car. That, or a "waterproof zipper", which is not waterproof if you submerge the bag, but is waterproof enough to stop rain.
"Waterproofness" is rated based on the pressure (psi) required to force water through a material. A zipper would rate poorly in a measured test, but realistically, rain that hits your zippers don't face a lot of downward pressure.
I think the biggest problem with these bags is that they're ugly. Big, and ugly.
tobibu: For my Fuji X, I use the "Little Messenger" - bag from Compagnon.
It fits the camera plus 3 to 4 lenses and has a dedicated 'slot' for an iPad or 10'-Netbook.
Made of genuine leather, it's really nice tonlos at, en plus...
That massive logo is atrocious.
daddyo: I can just picture myself -- scarf around my neck, pipe in my mouth, zinging along on my Vespa with one of these smart looking bags draped across my shoulder. It just gives me chills.
Do they look "hipster" to you because you don't know what a hipster is?
Catalin Stavaru: 1/2.3" sensors just don't cut it these days. The image quality is just lacking as there are also too many pixels for the sensor size. At 8MP with larger pixel they could make a point, especially that cropping is not always needed with this kind of zoom. I don't really understand why all this craftsmanship put into a 1/2.3" camera. However it may probably work very well for video.
My phone also has a 1/2.3" sensor, and a larger aperture. Personally, I don't really see the point of buying a dedicated camera with a 1/2.3" unless you desperately need the zoom range.
Even for those who need the zoom, I don't know why so many small sensor, large zoom cameras exist.
Is the market for such a camera that big? I honestly don't know, but am curious about it.
But again, if you need the zoom range, this is the answer...
Jylppy: DPR should maintain caution when writing about "vendor Golden Sample". All vendors hand-pick the best-of-the-best to hand out those to media for "review". Therefore LensRentals' Cicala's approach to test a sample of lenses (bought through open retail) is far more accurate representation of expected end-user experience.
Anyhow, Tamron's new lens is really interesting and there is nothing Tamron-specific in this Golden-Sample-approach - all the vendors do it.
Let them send their best. You'd still be comparing like with like.
Lassoni: wow... photojournalism contests = ppl have no integrity or honor
what happened to capturing the moment?
It's the Tour de France of photography.
Riquez: It actually seems like the mayor didn't like the dark side of his town shown & has tried to find some way to discredit. I think Troilo has pushed his creative licence a bit but there doesn't seem like any gross cheating. 1 photo was in the wrong town, that is why he was disqualified.
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't "get" photojournalism.
Quite frankly, I'm sure he knew the contest rules, since he plays by the same rules when he's working. That makes him a cheat, and yeah...he should be disqualified.
It has nothing to do with the mayor's own personal motives, because Troilo was disqualified because of his own decisions. No need to make baseless statements about the mayor, because all it does is distract people from the real issue, and it's that Troilo knowingly tried to deceive people.
Chaitanya S: I thought whole purpose of mirrorless system was to have lenses that were smaller and lighter. That 90mm macro is bigger and heavier than Tamron 90mm VC lens designed for slrs. These mirrorless systems are mainly a marketing gimmic and they have a diminishing returns based on sensor size to lenses. APS-C and micro 4/3 format seem to be right choice for those people who want to travel light and still want to take good quality photos.
Actually, that's not the point of mirrorless systems.
That's the point of a mirrorless system TO YOU.
princecody: Steve Huff just posted a quick video on the *new Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Lens. Said it was better than Leica & Best E mount lens to date for IQ. BHPHOTO seems they a had in stock that have now sold out. I'm interested in this lens & obviously Sony's *new macro lens & how it compares to the Olympus 60mm macro lens :)
Steve Huff is terrible though. He's a terrible photographer, and I don't like his reviews. He's just a bit better than Ken Rockwell, but that isn't really a compliment to Steve Huff.
lighthunter80: For $1,600 the 35/1.4 has to be better than any other 35 fr9m Canikon or Sigma.
The 28/2.0 seems to be priced fair.
But the only fair price comparison for the Sony 35 mm would be with Canon and Nikon producing lenses for their own mount.
I know that Zeiss produces/designs theirs (probably?), but they're pretty much just working for Sony on their lenses at this point.
Sigma doesn't work like that. They don't work closely with anyone, and part of their strategy is to offer better value for money.
Angrymagpie: I'm trying to understand why a super sharp 35mm f/1.4 would be a good thing. A very sharp and fast standard FL prime like a 55mm is good versatile lens that could be used for portrait where details, sharpness, and subject-background separation are simultaneously important. A 35mm is not usually used as a portrait lens as far as I know. I'm not criticising the lens of course, I'm just trying to understand its purpose and the advantage of trading off compact size for superb image quality and f/1.4 in the context of a 35mm lens.
Huh? Why would you want an incredibly sharp lens for portraits? It wouldn't be a flattering lens.
I understand that sharper is usuallyconsidered to be better, and you can always make a photo less sharp later in post, but generally speaking, when you're talking strictly about portraiture, I don't think sharpness is a huge factor when choosing a lens.
Which then leads me on to say that I disagree. A very 35 mm f/1.4 would be a GREAT lens to own, because it's not expected to be a portrait lens (not full time, anyway), and so you probably want as much detail as possible.
Calvin Chann: Of the three, the only one that doesn't interest me is the 28. I've never really gelled with 28mm, much preferring 24mm. Look forward to seeing how they perform.
I feel the same, but of all the FE lenses, the 28 mm is the one I'd want the most, followed by the 50-something prime.
"Congratulations on winning a Hasselblad Lunar!"
Meh, no thanks.
nofumble: Bigger sensor = need more light = larger hole.
If you ask for a FF, then don't complain of big ars lenses. Otherwise, stay with APSC.
Size isn't the only issue. There's also optical quality.
There are big and small versions of many different lenses, such as 35 mm lenses. This new Sony 35 mm FE looks huge to me, but so is the Sigma 35 mm, which also happens to be fantastic. They used to make a smaller 35 mm lens, but it wasn't as good. The Nikon 35 mm is also big.
Perhaps it's impossible to create a small 35 mm FF lens, with AF, that's as sharp and well-corrected as these lenses?
There are always tradeoffs.
Marty4650: Except for that 28mm prime, those are some really big lenses!
They probably are pretty good lenses, but it defeats the purpose of buying the "smallest FF body" when you need to attach a big honking lens to it.
Of course, everything is relative. I'd say these kits are still a lot more compact than any Nikon D810 with similar lenses....
At this point, the purpose of the A7 cameras isn't to reduce weight, or to sell the smallest FF body. They got rid of the mirror, and it just so happens to be the smallest FF body because nobody else bothered trying to compete with Sony on that front.
These lenses are big, but no bigger than standard DSLR FF lenses. There are exceptions, of course, but it also depends on how good they are optically. The Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 isn't small either, but it's amazing optically, so photographers understand why it has to be this way.
ecube: I am from the old school. No pixel peeping, just simple tool to remove dust or small unwanted distractions from the photo.iPhoto, Picasa, Nikon ViewNX2 more than meet my needs. Otherwise, PhotoShop 7 if I really want to pixel peep.
Back in my day, I had to sketch everything.
KariP: I really feel like an idiot...I have used Aperture for 4 years - and now it will become slowly useless. Aperture is not updated or serviced...XX000 images... WHY did i buy it?
Now i have to start a migration to some other system - not sure if it will be Lightroom or something else. Something from a reputable company. I hope. Something that professionals use, but not made by Apple - because there is none.
Anyway, it will mean a lot of work and probably some losses. Luckily i'm not a professional !!! In the future i will NOT buy any important hobbyist software from Apple. "Photos" and its functions look like a toy ... and everything stored in iCloud. Really? 500G of photos in the iCloud ....This fantastic development makes me feel like an idiot and a fool - obviously Apple guys agree.
Capture One Pro 8 is great. If I were to start from scratch, I'd go with C1 over Lightroom. I'm pretty sure they provide a pretty good Aperture to C1-Pro migration tool.
Unfortunately, I'm already a Lightroom user. It's.....OK. Everything is great except the image quality after processing RAWs. Yes, I know how bad that sounds, but C1-Pro does a better job.
D 503: Dynamic range is irrelevant in a time when no one prints. This is a digital camera for the digital age. I have never printed with digital.
Do you mean pixel count is irrelevant, because if so, I sort of agree.
Dynamic range is still important though, whether you print or not.
En Trance: 5D IV would be the equivalent of Canon running back home with its tail between its legs. No turning back now. UNLESS you think one 5D at 50MP and one 5D at 22MP is somehow REASONABLE and not INSANITY!
Canon is making a 5D-4. This isn't meant to replace it.
That's why they didn't call it the 5D Mk-IV. ;)
And this is why I don't understand the complaints and disappointment.