yslee1: It's been years, but they still don't get it.
I don't know about you all, but I buy mirrorless system cameras both for their performance and their size.
Given it's all about power in small sizes, why in the blazes the accompanying computing power is either a underpowered tablet of some kind (with a few exceptions like the Surface Pro 2) or an overweight 15" laptop?
11-13" laptops are the key market here, and bag manufacturers almost always ignore that. Especially so now that laptop makers are starting to get clued in on the smaller sizes (see the Dell XPS 13 and Apple Macbook as examples of laptops with smaller than expected footprints for their screens sizes), making bags to ignore those for small system cameras is just silly.
Exactly on point! I have purposely purchased an old Lenovo X220, put in a solid state drive and max'ed out the memory. Why? Because it is a 12" laptop that works better than any 10" tablet. But, good luck finding many (if any) decent bags that will carry 11" to 13" laptops. Since the tablet de jur is the surface pro (or, it's equivilent), the bag makers seem to think everything they put out should revolve around that.
Why not ask an outrageous price for these. Look at the prices of lenses and cameras nowdays. Personally, I already feel that the price of the "normal" bags is getting a bit too high. Or, maybe I missed it in the discription-does a camera come included with these?!
Island Golfer: The lens does not appear to produce images that are all that sharp-at least, not of the sharpness we see in their 35mm ART lens. I look at the samples, and see a lens that is much softer, especially as the image moves away from the center. Possibly this will improve once the lens is placed on the USB dock; or run through a software program such as LenAligm/FocusTune. Or, perhaps its just the available subject matter we're looking at. But, whatever it is, I don't see buying one at this juncture. I'm hoping we see better performance once it is into production.
Yes, it does have a Fluorinlayered low-pass filter. I think that Joe85 actually meant to say that; but mispoke himself. That was why I responded by mentioning my D810 (which does not); meaning that, on my camera, the images might be sharper. No harm done. I knew what he meant.
I agree. I think my D810 would give sharper image performance. At this early stage, I really can't be sure. But, judging from the 35 & 50 ART lenses, I have to surmise that the new 24 will eventually show the same sharp images. These early examples probably should not have been posted, as they are not really lab type conditions like DXO conducts. But, I applaud Dpreview for their apparent "scoop" of the rest of the industry.
The lens does not appear to produce images that are all that sharp-at least, not of the sharpness we see in their 35mm ART lens. I look at the samples, and see a lens that is much softer, especially as the image moves away from the center. Possibly this will improve once the lens is placed on the USB dock; or run through a software program such as LenAligm/FocusTune. Or, perhaps its just the available subject matter we're looking at. But, whatever it is, I don't see buying one at this juncture. I'm hoping we see better performance once it is into production.
Somehow, I can't see people who pay $700 for a camera that has DSLR controls and shoots RAW taking too many selfies. I wish they had left the tilt screen off in favor of a smaller, thinner profile. It might be useful if you want to shoot a ground level macro-type shot. But, it appears as if it can't be held up over the heads of a large crowd to provide a view of what's in front. Of what real use is it?
I really have no use for an 85mm lens. I had the 85mm ZF.2; and sold it off to get the much better 135mm ZF.2. It's hard to imagine that this new 85mm Otis lens shows any more sharpness than the existing Zeiss 135mm ZF.2 lens (at least anything anyone would be able to see). What Zeiss needs more than this focal length is a sharper 35mm lens.
Seems kind of silly to carry this stuff with you, when you can simply bring along a lightweight tripod. It's very similar to the concept of the tripod whoes one leg screws out to become a momo pod. My Triopo does this; and folds into a very small package that easily fits into my on-board carry-on bag.
I just received a notice from United airlines that they are cracking down on casrry-on luggage. They intend to inclue handles and wheels in their new dimensions. To go in the overhead, it has to be no larger than 22" long x 14" wide x 9" deep. To go under the seat, it has to be no larger than 17" long x 10" wide x 9" deep. If they actually do start looking at the carry-on sizes more closely, It appears as if neither of these will pass their scrutiny.
This is actually something I have been contemplating. However. on initial observation, I see two things I don't care for. First is the double-zippered rear slot that accomodates slipping the bag over the handle of your other luggage. Why the zippers? There is no need for it; and it is one more thing to unzip & deal with in the terminal. Lowepro has the same feature, without this nuisance. Second thing I don't like is that it appears as if even the Apache 6 is not deep enough to accomodate a D800 + a 24-70 + its attached hood. But, all manufacturers seem to short their bags in this way. All that's needed ia another 3/4 of an inch.
$27 for folded paper?! I wonder how much they want for the shipping? What are these guys smoking? And, they put the entire design on their site. Anyone can simply make it themselves out of cheap white poster board and contact cement.
Gee, isn't this what companies try when no one is interested in buying the original deal? Now, "everyone" can have the deal that no one wants. Wanna bet that, still, no one buys into this?
Oh yeah...I'll be taking my $3,000 camera and $2,000 lens underwater in one of these homemade jobs.
Since Nikon's first entry into point & shoot underwater photography was rated at a mere 10 feet, I can understand why they would want this camera to be rated a bit better. I had two of the Nikon Action underwater cameras that both burst under pressure and leaked at less than their rated 10 foot claim (both where the flash was sealed into the body). However, anyone who is diving to a depth of 60 feet is most likely not taking an AW110 with them. I fail to see the point. The casual user, taking this to Hawaii, for example, will not go deeper than 8 feet. After trying two Nikon Action point & shoots, a Sea & Sea and a Nikonos IV, I went to a Canon SD550 and matching UW Canon case. The results were better than any previous underwater camera I had tried. I now use a Canon s95 and the matching Canon underwater case. It's simple to use. It has an underwater color balance setting. It takes great pictures above and below water.
These look like some nice bags. There is very little info on them as of now. There are a few images if the backpack series; and not much else. But, the construction looks to be substantial. Hope to see more detail, soon.
The Bravo 50 looks like something my wife would sew up for the kids to play with on a camping outing in the back yard. Also, I notice it has the same plastic male buckle insert that goes into a metal male buckle part. That should break within 6 months. Manfrotto needs to stick to what they know-tripods.
The key here is..."Nikon has manufactured 'sports optics' for many years, and is not alone (so does Leica, Pentax and Carl Zeiss, for example)". Does it really matter "who" makes these things? Hunters will use them, anyway. They may as well use one that will provide them with the most accurate kill with the least amount of suffering from an errant wound-shot.