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.
Mattersburger: Any top-flap bag will open away from you ... just turn it around.
Not every top loader opens away from you. Take a look at the very convenient LowePro AW 75. It opens to the side. It makes it very easy to remove your camera (even with a large 24-70 nikkor lens attached). The Think Tank top load bags cannot just be turned around. They are designed to actually fit onto the Think Tank belt system. The shoulder strap is more of an afterthought. If you turn it around, the very large velcro belt loop protrudes. It looks like it was turned around.
Think Tank bags are made too narrow, too small and too tight to fit the larger full frame cameras with today's longer, fatter lenses. The top flap on their top loader bags, that opens away from the body, makes it additionally difficult to get the camera out of the bag. I bought one for my D800, tried it once, and put it on the top shelf in my closet. If they were made more roomy, and with the top flap opening to the side (like Lowepro), they might have something. I would recomend trying your gere in their bags before you buy. I wish I had done so.
A too familiar conclusion for these types of "do-it-all" lenses from Nikon:■Very soft results at telephoto■Extreme distortion across most of the range (but can be corrected in-camera with recent SLRs)■Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end■Flash shadowing at wideangle on smaller SLRs■Large, heavy and expensive compared to other superzooms
I agree with the post by Andreas Stuebs. Comparison of several different bags, with a current popular camera and lens combination in mind (i.e. D800 + 24-70) is much more helpful. Perhaps Manfrotto, Think Tank, Tamrac and Lowepro AW series, etc.
The Manfrotto MB SH-6BB Black SOLO VI HOLSTER was a very big disappointment. It is made with a smooth (as opposed to ballistic) nylon, much like a purse. The zippered closure is sewn so close to the opening that it is virtually impossible to zip, or unzip, it with or without the camera inside. The camera and lenses mentioned will fit (barely) with the lens hood reversed. But, you must litterly stuff the neck strap into the case, and force it closed. The outside flap has a buckle closure that has a plastic piece pushing into a metal piece. It is a broken buckle, waiting to happen. The shoulder strap is wide enough (and, of ballistic nylon); but has no padded sleeve for your shoulder. Manfrotto should stay with designing tripods. If anyone wants one of these, I will sell my brand new one to you for $30 and pay the price of postage myself.
You need a method of quickly finding things you are interested in when you go to the "For Sale and Wanted" forum. Sorting through page and post after page and post renders the forum of little usefulness.
Additionally, while I realize you might need to hire another employee to do this, I think that it would be most useful to have a method to post comments directly to manufacturers that could be sorted and catagorized. Then, somehow forwarded to those manufacturers (even if they don't listen to the suggestions).
"We constantly do reviews, of course, we ask users for feedback, what they like and don't like… we do that for all products, whether it's a Coolpix or a D4. We do it constantly. We get the feedback, and send it to the engineers in Japan. If you want your products to be successful in the market, you have to meet the needs and desires of your customers.
Seriously! Where is the D400? Two years of "user feedback", requesting it! And, you call that "meeting the needs and desires of your customers"? How so?!
dmanthree: I always wondered why someone would buy these rebadged Pannys. The software bundle isn't that great, so is the prestige of that red dot worth that much (assuming Leica prices it as usual: much higher)? I'll stick with my FZ150.
"Another pleasant valley Sunday, here in status symbol land!"
You're undoutedly correct. Lieca had no way to jump into the digital market on its own, so they teamed up with Panasonic. Lieca got the camera and Panasonic got the glass (Lumix and the M9 are the same deal). The only difference between the Panasonic and the Lieca is a $250 software package that Lieca puts into its camera.
Randy Benter: I bought an S100 and returned it because the lens was VERY soft. Maybe I should buy 10, keep the best one and return the rest. Even if I did buy 10, I probably would not get one as good as the one that will eventually be provided to DPR.
Where did DPR get the 3 samples tested so far? Where are you going to get the one that finally makes it in the review? I recommend that DPR go to the local camera store, buy another S100, and if the lens stinks, then report the truth. If DPR allows Canon to provide a special S100 that is better than we consumers can buy, then the review is worthless.
Exactly! 2 strikes and you're out, as far as I'm concerned. After 3 strikes, why keep looking for a "good" one? If the dog bites you the first time, it's the dog's fault. If it bites you the second time, it's your fault. When you find the good one, let me know how much you want for it. Your brief review is enough to stop me from randomly buying one, and hoping it works as designed.