Rod McD: Am I the only person here yawning? More choice in 35mm and a 45mm, both with enough feature acronyms for alphabet soup and both rather substantial? Good they might be but excited I'm not. With all the CAD design technology available, surely it's not beyond manufacturers to offer smaller lenses with high IQ? That would offer some real choice that's more than a difference in brand name on a large lens. I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion.
To Dave Oddie and PazinBoise. It may not be new but the preoccupation with lens speed and the abandonment of compactness as a goal has kind of got out of hand IMO. It's actually getting difficult to find smaller lenses without going Leica. And exactly how big does a good 35/2 have to be? - Forget the Canon 35/2 on size. The Pentax FA 35/2 lens is only 44mm long and takes a 49mm filter. It's all of aspheric and AF and a good performer. The Leica Summicron 35/2 takes a 39mm filter and is another good lens. The fact that it's not AF may effect the barrel size but has nothing to do with the necessary front element size needed to collect light. These new lenses are all substantially larger and take 67mm filters. Saying that that's fine because it's smaller than the f1.4 lenses that are even bigger just shows how far out of touch we are with what small means.
@Tieu Ngao. Yes, but you have to carry them to get to your subject, and yes, if you happen to shoot at wide apertures. Like many others, I'm into landscape and nature. So I appreciate portability and rarely use very wide apertures. An assumption that is always made here is that fast lenses are some sort of panacea for low light. They aren't - they only work IF your subject suits shallow DOF. Mine don't. So moderate apertures are just fine, and small size greatly appreciated.
Am I the only person here yawning? More choice in 35mm and a 45mm, both with enough feature acronyms for alphabet soup and both rather substantial? Good they might be but excited I'm not. With all the CAD design technology available, surely it's not beyond manufacturers to offer smaller lenses with high IQ? That would offer some real choice that's more than a difference in brand name on a large lens. I'd be happy to use moderate apertures to get smaller lenses, but the world seems to have been overtaken by fast lens religion.
Despite all the arguments here about doom, gloom and dwindling sales (of non-phone cameras) we probably have more choice than we've ever had before. It's a good time to be a photographer.
Phones may have taken the bottom of the market because they answered the needs of millions, but there's still a case for the specialised camera. Even if the numbers change, I suspect that there will always be a market for both.
Yes there are developments from its predecessor, but yet again Canon's M series falls short of better featured cameras from the mirror-less competition. Limited native lens range. No built-in EVF. Not sealed. No sale. Canon appear to be aiming at the bottom of the market as if mirror-less users are limited to P&S upgraders (if there are any left ). There are too many great mirror-less cameras for this to make Canon a competitive mirror-less player unless they introduce a higher level model.....
BattleBrat: Nah, I'll stick with my Sliks
Hi Matthew,I have a Gitzo 1228 (their first CF Mountaineer model from about 15 years ago) and a Slik 614CF for lighter work (hiking and kayaking use). I've had the Slik for about two years and it's been fine though not used all the time. Good little tripod and still in good shape. The only 'fault' has been that the thread that holds the two sections of the centre-post together became locked through factory tightening and lack of use. (It allows you to remove the bottom of the post for very low work). Once I got it undone, some grease and hand tightening fixed the issue. I think the 614 CF has been replaced by the 634CF.
No specs, so we don't know size and weights yet. I can't help thinking that they just look more complicated and lumpier than a simple ball head with a classic top plate and thread like the Gitzo 1177M. It you're traveling, they're neater and lighter to pack around. I suppose if I was working professionally on some kind of assignment a QR system might suit, but for real travel, minimalism rules. I hate having a plate permanently mounted to the base of my camera.
Thx. That's a really unusual image and worthy of its place. The four elements (sky, tree, crop and track) really come together to make it. Well spotted. Rod
B&H list and display 158 table top/mini tripods including those reviewed here. Most follow a few basic themes.
Rod McD: It's interesting to see the evolution of DPR's views about touchscreens. It has evolved to be simply a "con" to not have one.
I disagree. Part of the appeal of Fuji's ergonomics is their analogue control. I can't see how touchscreen control would integrate with dials. Fuji has very deliberately headed in the analogue direction - and with business success. Quite why the reviewer thinks it is a con not to have one in a camera designed to offer analogue core controls and why other posters think it fits within that design goal is beyond me. If you want a mirror-less camera with a touchscreen, there are plenty on offer. For me and many others, a touchscreen would be a deal-breaker.
Hi Caerolle - OK, I hear what you're saying. TBH there's little intellectual difference between a scroll wheel and a dial/ring on the body or lens. One has to turn them to operate the camera. It's just the execution that is different and which we like comes down to personal preference. I must admit to preferring the physical dials when it comes to looking at the camera to see the settings - even before it's turned on. FWIW I use all of the exposure modes at different times, and have never used auto-ISO once.
Huh?? You may not like their preset functions, but it's a massive non sequitur to the rest of your diatribe. There is nothing in the design of Fuji cameras that prevents anyone from shooting RAW. Many do. And nothing that leads users to the use of auto modes any more than any other system. They offer easy analogue access to ISO, SS, aperture and EC which is about as direct in exposure control as it gets.
To everyone who replied....... Thanks for sharing. I guess I expected to be in a minority here, but so be it. The fact is I just don't LIKE touchscreens. Not everyone has to. I prefer using the EVF for focusing so a touchscreen is useless. I often use MF lenses. I often use MF with AF lenses because it can be more accurate. I frequently use hyperfocal focusing to get everything in focus for landscapes, so focusing on any point is redundant. And in my experience with phones, touch screens are poor in bright light, impossible with gloves, dodgy when we wet, and dodgy when old. I'd simply prefer a camera without one thanks.
It's interesting to see the evolution of DPR's views about touchscreens. It has evolved to be simply a "con" to not have one.
The upgrade to the non-f1.4 24mm prime lens was well overdue. Hopefully it's as good as their other 1.8G lenses. But a 72mm filter thread? I guess it was necessary but personally I'd rather have had a slightly slower maximum aperture to get a more compact prime lens.
No marks for portability. Its mass is 940gm and it has an 82mm filter ring. I've no doubt it'll be a great performer, but it's too big for my tastes.
I think I'd rather have a 24/2.8, 28/2 and 35/2 all with 52mm filters. Come to think of it, if I had a high res sensor, I'd probably just opt for two - the 24mm and the 35mm, and crop the 24mm to get a 28mm FOV. A landscape kit in two small light lenses. If I added a small 50mm, it would span a little more range and still probably be lighter than one of these.....
Looks like a great camera. Sony seem to have addressed some of the thorns in the side of the original A7r - reasons I didn't buy it - and added many additional features including IBIS. One A7r issue I can't see any mention of is the raw and jpeg compression issues. Anyone know if they've improved the processing?
And what of WA lenses? They've released a 28mm with front end converters. Zeiss will offer the Batis 25mm, and there are rumors of further Loxias, but otherwise one must resort to zooms. It would be a more attractive system if there were some more (and very convincing) WA primes.
Rod McD: This lens will be appreciated by photographers whose priorities are for speed, but is perhaps too big and heavy for many Fuji mirror-less users who migrated to the system for a small light kit. At 550gms it's only 30gms lighter than the 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 zoom. With the Australian dollar in free-fall, our local price is probably going to hit $1400. I'll be keeping my CV Apo Lanthar 90/3.5
Perhaps now that Fuji have released their road map's big fast lenses, they will develop some of the smaller sealed lenses that so many people want. A sealed 35/2 is already on the road-map for this year. Hopefully they'll offer similar small lenses in a range something like 16/2.8, 23/2, 55/2 and 85/2.8. All sealed and with an aperture ring please.
Yes I know, but that doesn't help anyone who owns an XT1 and wants a small 23mm lens for it. A lot of the X100 23mm lens is also inside the camera, so it's design may not lend itself to development into an interchangeable X mount lens.
This lens will be appreciated by photographers whose priorities are for speed, but is perhaps too big and heavy for many Fuji mirror-less users who migrated to the system for a small light kit. At 550gms it's only 30gms lighter than the 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 zoom. With the Australian dollar in free-fall, our local price is probably going to hit $1400. I'll be keeping my CV Apo Lanthar 90/3.5
It's been a long time since this lens was announced last year with the second versions of the super-wide 15/4.5 Heliar and the Ultron 35mm f1.7. I think the 15mm is now available, but are we ever going to see the 35mm? To me it seems to be a more interesting lens than the 40mm.
I didn't buy an A7r because of the lack of WA lenses and it's good to see some options finally emerging. I wish the design of the 25mm was Loxia. I can't see the need for AF with WA lenses. A 25mm is probably a better FL than Sony's new 28mm to team up with the Loxia 35/2 or the Sonnar 35/2.8 for a landscape kit. It's a tad close in FL to the 28mm and will need to be an excellent lens to avoid losing sales to the more moderately priced lens. It'll be good to see how it performs in comparison to both that and the 16-35.