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 I think the 614 CF has been replaced by the 634CF.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.
I already have the 14mm. I'll be interested to see how this 16mm lens performs. If it actually performs as well as the 14mm it'll be a great lens. No doubt if it had been available before the 14mm, I'd probably have bought it already, but I don't know if I'll change over unless it actually outclasses the 14mm at landscape apertures. (I've no use for f1.4 in a WA lens.)
Rod McD: This camera is an incremental evolution from its predecessor. To that extent it's fine, but once again, how about producing a slightly larger model with a bigger sensor? Everywhere you look people are extolling the virtues of very small cameras with 1" and MFT sensors (RX100, LX100). Just do it.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who do active photography in harsh environments won't benefit from the improved IQ that a larger sensor brings. And before anyone says 'buy a DSLR and UW housing' don't waste your breath. They're heavy and costly, there's no way on earth you can stuff them inside a PFD, or do all the things you need to do when you're surfing, kayaking, sailing, climbing, etc while you're hanging on to one. We need the middle ground of a tough camera with a bigger sensor.
Maybe. The key difference between the two types is that the Olympus TGs use a folded light path and the Nikon AW is an ILC and uses a direct light path. I acknowledge that my call for a tough camera with a 1" sensor assumes that a folded light path would be possible for a 1" sensor. A 1/2.3" sensor is 6X4.6mm where a 1" is about 13X9mm, so roughly twice the linear dimensions. Maybe it would be too hard - I don't have the expertise to say. OTOH, the outcome - a small, tough, submersible camera with a bigger sensor is still a great goal.
This camera is an incremental evolution from its predecessor. To that extent it's fine, but once again, how about producing a slightly larger model with a bigger sensor? Everywhere you look people are extolling the virtues of very small cameras with 1" and MFT sensors (RX100, LX100). Just do it.
I completely agree. Your shot stands out on its own. Thank you.
As I waded through all the 'miniature effect' submissions, it occurred to me that it is amazing that in DPR almost all the entrants saw TS as a means to achieve de-focusing as against that classical goal for landscapes and still lifes that are sharp from foreground to background. If this challenge had been run elsewhere the range of images might have been quite different...