With a rated capacity of 4Kg, this is the least heavy-duty geared head in the Manfrotto line-up - why is it being touted it as an option for "photographers who use weighty equipment?"
One of their heads with a higher capacity rating (such as the Manfrotto 400/405/410 geared heads) would most likely allow for more precise adjustment to composition when using a full-size DSLR kit.
Simon97: Where's the review already! ;)
You're in luck, as I've just finished my review:
The mockup has a very solid, yet plasticky feel to it, and is apparently capable of mounting Pentax K mount lenses - dismounting them, however, is another story altogether. According to Pentax reps on hand, the lens you see attached to the body in our photos is a permanent fixture, greatly decreasing the flexibility of the camera.
The viewfinder is large yet disappointingly dark, and the buttons and wheels are difficult to actuate and provide essentially no tactile feedback. Additionally, the lack of labels and top LCD makes changing and confirming settings somewhat of a challenge.
The camera autofocuses silently and the shutter is impressively quiet (we couldn't hear it!), but the metering system needs work - based on image review on the rear LCD, the camera massively underexposed every shot we took.
There were certainly some disappointments, but overall the mockup shows promise. With a few adjustments, it could be a real camera.
erotavlas: EDIT: Actually I found this so everyone can relax now :)
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told the Washington Post today that the embattled agency would make changes in the language of rules governing media access, photography and video in federal wilderness areas.
"If you're news media, it has no effect at all," he said. "If you're a private individual, this doesn't apply."
Individuals who want to shoot on wild lands won't need a permit, even if they plan to sell their photographs, except if it involves props, the report said
This article is not very clear and appears to rely on somewhat outdated information, anyone interested in this issue might want to read this:
"The public originally had until Nov. 3, 2014, to comment on the proposal. Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public comment period to Dec. 3, 2014.
The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs."
Unless you are doing a model shoot or using the land as back drop for a similar professional shoot, you likely will not need a permit.
MAubrey: You know...traditionally in headline writing, if there's a question the answer is invariably know. So the question is: are you communicating the right thing or the wrong thing?
@Matt - the text is different for each photo in the slideshow.
RichRMA: No perceptible cloud motion, yet the water was obviously moving.
Not really too surprising that no cloud movement is noticeable, as this was a 4 second exposure (exposure info is given away in the ACR window, top right corner) - that's plenty of time to smooth water for the receding wave, but generally not long enough to show much in the way of cloud motion, especially at web sizes.
Alphoid: I'm not sure if the premium Tamron thing will play out. Virtually all of their lenses fail with moderately heavy use, and they don't really honor warranties. That's not the kind of reputation higher-end consumers would go for. Moving up-scale from there would either involve dramatically shifting economics on their low-end craptics, and starting to make things out of materials which don't fail with a bit of use, starting to honor warranties, etc. It would break economics on everything they make, and it would take years for reputation to catch up.
Price leader is where they are, and probably where they should stay. Or a clear split in branding.
The 15-30mm f/2.8 clearly has a rear gasket in the photos above, judging from that I assume that lens has some amount of sealing. In addition, the new 28-300 is advertised as "splash-proof" on tamron's website.
Judging from these samples, it's really quite impressive how far we've come in the past 10-20 years of digital cameras. This level of imaging fits in your pocket, with a lens that covers a very useful range, and has a viewfinder.
I had an RX100 Mrk I, loved the pocketability and just about everything else, only complaints were the somewhat detached shooting experience and the corners at wide angle - but this new lens is noticeably better at wide angle, and I think the EVF will go a long way when it comes to an improved shooting experience. Wish the battery life was projected to be a bit better, but I might just pick one up anyways.
Kevin Purcell: One other thing to note: they let the lens distortion go wild to get this lens to folde up.
These lens designs have 7% distortion at the edge of frame at the wide end of the lens. That's a lot of distortion and needs a lot of correction (it's all barrel so it's correctable).
As someone pointed out below the "28mm eq" image in JPEG shows a 25 (or perhaps 26mm eq) lens in RAW.
Indeed. It's also quite likely that corners at wide angle will be noticeably soft regardless of aperture used, as software correction of barrel distortion chews up a fair bit of resolution. This was also the case with the original RX100 - source: I had one for the better part of a year, sold it because of soft corners at wide angle (other than that and a few minor performance/ergonomic hiccups, it was about as good as I could have hoped).
If you want great corner to corner IQ @ wide angle in a pocketable form factor, I recommend taking a close look at the Ricoh GR-V/Nikon Coolpix A.
BorisK1: The table says 26mm equivalent FL, while the text says 28mm. That's a pretty big difference in WA coverage.
Going by 1" sensor 2.72 crop factor, 9.58mm * 2.72 = 26.0mm. That's what I'm rooting for, then :)
Something to consider: the RX100/RX100II uncorrected RAW files have a diagonal field of view similar to 25mm on full-frame, but after correcting for distortion diagonal field of view is roughly equivalent to 28mm.
Raist3d: If I was a Pro Landscape Photographer, as in selling big prints, etc. of landscapes and having a nice cash flow I would totally go for this.
I tried the first camera before this one and it is quite amazing. Pentax has a long history of medium format 645 film series, and this one supports all those lenses too.
Depends on how big you print and how far you have carry the camera on your back. Specific for landscape use, regardless of price I'd still give an A7r setup consideration due to the size/weight advantage and ability to adapt pretty much any lens (in particular Canon's 17mm/24mm tilt-shifts). A kit based around an A7r could pared down to the 8lb/3.8kg range w/ TS-lens/tripod/filters/etc., vs. likely close to twice that for a medium format setup. If you're doing significant time on the trail to get your shots - ie, multiple nights in the backcountry, where you have to carry a shelter, sleeping bag, food, etc., in additional to camera - all those things start to add up, and the more you carry, the slower you go.
Then again, the 645Z looks awesome, makes digital medium-format more accessible/appealing than ever - the CMOS sensor bodes well for high ISO performance, reasonable frame rate, fancy (by medium format standards) AF system, etc... definitely has quite a bit going for it.
JFMoore: Given my recent experience I am not as sympathetic as I could be. At the Oakbrook store 5-10 years ago, they had a nice store and generally knowledgeable staff (Wendy was particularly awesome), but recently service had gone to zero. The last straw for me was when I asked to see one of the Fuji mirrorless, any of them, and the manager simply said he couldn't keep them in stock and went on a tirade about how they have no demo units and he's been in this business for 30 years and blah blah. Not redirecting me to other products, inquiring about what else I might need, telling me when to come back when they might better have stock, etc. I had $2k ready to burn on something and after venting he basically walked away with an "alright, buddy". He might as well have pointed at the door.
That is not a way to treat a real customer (I have dropped a lot at this particular store, I feel if you get real pro help from people you should give them the sale).
Check out the petapixel interview, sounds like the stock issues were largely a result of the business circling the drain.
straylightrun: Sony e-mount please.
Not sure if troll (three word post makes it hard to tell, and dpreview comments are usually a wasteland anyways), but... if you're actually serious, know that due to the large flange distances this lens was designed for, an E-mount version of the lens would (short of an optical redesign) just be an extended barrel version of the standard lens. Have a look at the Rokinon/Samyang full-frame E-mount lenses compared to the Sony A/Canon EF/Nikon F mount alternatives to see what I'm talking about.
Unless you are concerned about the added flex when using a mount adapter or the additional cost of the adapter, why not just buy the A-mount version and use one of Sony's E to A mount adapters? Overall size would be the same as a native E-mount version, you'd gain access to a larger market for resale, not to mention the ability to use the lens on A-mount bodies (and vice-versa).
Hugo808: So what you're saying is I can't just point my phone at the sky and get shots like that. Damn....
Not unless your phone has a camera in it.
AndreaV: Really great shot! Nice composition and beautiful colors!Pity only for the CA on the left and right trees against the sky. Is it a HDR or composite shot? Which lens did you used?
Given the large amount of CA, this is likely an HDR (CA tends to get accentuated for HDRs in post if you do not make specific efforts to reduce or eliminate it). I suspect the lens was a zoom shot using the widest available focal length (perhaps the 24-85mm f/3.5-f/4.5 VR that is included in the D600 kit?).
ConanFuji: Very pretty. 8 secs to get that?I would have thought at least 30 secs.
Maybe it really was about to take off :D
Jogger: why dont they just make a universal head for cellphones with the standard tripod screw.. they could pack it in with the normal version
+1 for the griptight, that thing is brilliant for phones. As for Joby's gorillapods (the ones with the articulating sections), eh, not really a fan of those - so many moving parts, the design of those things just looks inherently unstable, and they are pretty bulky considering the weight limits on most of them.
I use the griptight with one of their micro 250 tripods (which is rigid and compact) to watch videos/movies on my HTC One while travelling - the combo is great for media consumption and extremely portable (the griptight mount and the micro 250 fold down to about the size of a pocketknife). You can also remove the griptight section from the micro 250 tripod and use the tripod with a compact camera (it's stable enough for my RX100 and EOS M w/ 22mm f/2 lens), or want to mount the griptight to a different tripod.
I love how "streets ahead" actually caught on.
Combatmedic870: Very impressive results in all conditions. Beats out all of the popular phones.
Sure, the extreme corners aren't perfect, but still, within the context of camera phones, the results are pretty darn impressive.
Can we get some IQ tests of the camera with the wide angle adapter in place? Because a 21mm (35mm equivalent FOV) wide angle in this small of a package sounds pretty awesome...