falconeyes: The lens uses anomal dispersion of an organic material as first discovered in 1870 by Christian Christiansen.
It can be a very good lens with APO characteristics.
Nevertheles and even though the material is sealed by two ordinary glass elements, I'd prefer Canon specified the expected life time of this lens. After all, organic materials are prone to decay.
My point is that a lens has many modes of failure. Many compounds can break down or fail over time, organic or inorganic. Electrical connections fail, moving parts wear out or snap, etc.
I don't see any reason why Canon would not have addressed all modes of failure for all components (including the BR element) and highly doubt they'd knowingly put out an L lens with only a few years shelf life. If they're that incompetent, I'd stay away from all Canon lenses (BR element or not) because the BR element will be the least of your problems.
Chris Yates: No image stabilization even at this price? I suppose Canon realizes that people who buy this lens are switching over to the SONY A7r II system and would not need it the IS feature :P
Adding IS isn't done with magic. Adding a stabilizing element to an already complex and heavy lens design may have been undesirable for its intended use. It could have made the lens much larger, heavier, more costly, less sharp, or have more chromatic aberration.
You'll note that Zeiss didn't put IS in the Otus. They had a specific goal in mind and adding IS or AF would have been barrier to achieving that goal.
There are options for people who need IS at 35mm, this lens isn't one of them. But in its current state it will likely meet the needs of many other photographers. I suspect this will be a very popular lens.
The plastic casing, gaskets, and wire coatings are all organic.
I see the word stronger and harder being used interchangeably. The problem is that a substance can be 4x harder and resist scratching, but be prone to breaking from impact.
From the text they're saying the coating is harder. So I suspect the underlying glass is the same. While the coating may be durable, coatings don't add strength to the base material. So I wouldn't be using this filter as a ballistic shield, as the glass will break just as easily as before.
DPR should drop their A7R II from a balcony for comparative purposes.
Celsus: Wow the crying in the article comments is hilarious. So much complaining from so few people, none of whom have any intention of buying the camera. I mean why did you all click on this article in the first place?
If you want to be sheltered from the comments from non-Sony users and prefer only positive affirmations about your future purchase, I recommend the manufacturer-specific forums.
eazizisaid: Haters after the long used 14bit argument, now uses the weather sealing to bash on the A7rii.
Just a question. Did Sony ever advertised this camera as weather sealed ? NO
So stop this childish non sense...
Childish? I see nothing but constructive criticism. What's childish is taking personal offense to criticism of a *tool*. Stop linking your ego with your camera.
Weather sealing is important to many people (just like DR is important to many). On my vacation last week, weather sealing was critical and I trusted in it to allow me to take photos I wouldn't have risked without it. Meanwhile, I missed no shots because of lack of DR...
If the A7 III has improved weather sealing you can thank those that demanded it. Similarly, if the next Canon product has improved DR, I will thank those that spoke out.
Snikt228: Disappointed in the lack of weather sealing (again). This really should be a priority in a $3200 pro camera.
I've seen an A7 II fried in a very light rain, hesitant to use my gear at all in any sort of weather
When Roger Cicala did his teardown he found that the only gasket on the entire camera was on the battery cover, and even that was a partial gasket.
I guess that qualifies as 'weather sealed' in Sony's world.
Bought a Sirui ball-head for $100 shortly after DPR's review of them and have been very satisfied. It was a substantial upgrade to my similarly priced Manfrotto head.
dedirg: can you tell me any reason to purchase e3-rt over this??
It appears this flash can act as a radio master, so I don't see any reason to get the transmitter. I have the transmitter and would have preferred to purchase this flash had it been available at the time.
Off hand, the only obvious 'advantage' is ergonomics. The transmitter is smaller and lighter. It also has a button layout similar to to the 600EX-RT flashes, so some might find it easier/faster to use if they are working professionals with a bunch of 600ex-rt flashes.
SnappyUK: I can understand banning flash photography as a way of minimising the negative impact it has on the enjoyment of others on the tour, but it bugs me that wherever you go, you are given the same old spiel about the ban being in place to protect the works of art. While flash lighting is bright, its duration is very short and I imagine it would take an awful lot of flashes to equate to the impact of the ambient light to which the artworks are continuously exposed.
The important phrases I see are:
"In the vast majority of pigments " (not all)
"almost all small camera-mounted flashes" (not all)
I assume the job of a curator is to ensure ALL the pigments in ALL the paintings survive, and NO flashes damage them. Protecting the "majority" from "almost all" is not a fail-safe policy.
nicolaiecostel: So there is this other company that makes exact replicas of Canon products and you will use those products without even knowing that they are not made by Canon. And that company makes those products for a lot less.
Kinda puts in perspective how much "the brands" are overcharging for products.
They are exact replicas in appearance only. We don't know if they're of the same quality on the inside. Since the value of a flash is 100% on its performance/reliability and 0% on its appearance, I'd say the visual similarities are utterly meaningless.
tocar: When and if these flashes fail or explode Canon's reputation would be at stake. How come they copied everything including the name? Are they selling these flashes at the same price as Canon's?
"These flashes are made by the same people, in the same factories"
The 600EX-RT flash is made by Canon in Japan. It's their top grade professional flash, and like most of their professional products, its made in Japan by Canon. I own one, it clearly says "Made in Japan".
So are you're saying Canon factory workers in Japan are making extra flashes and selling them on the market? Seems unlikely.
It's far more likely these are reverse engineered copies made in China. Counterfeit electronics are a huge industry in China worth billions. A plastic mould is cheap, especially for a company already equipped to mass produce plastic parts.
valenttin: First guilt is on the Canon shoulders... They contract with a China/Taiwan/Singapore/Philippine/etc company one thousand products. The company made two thousand using exactly the same components, made in the same place, with the same workers. They was very nice to make some physic differences between products. Greed cost so much... I use Metz, always made in Germany!
The 600EX-RT flash (the one being copied) is made in Japan....
DBE: This may be a 'niche' response, but I will stick with a DSLR / OVF for the foreseeable future since an EVF cannot be used when photographing night landscapes. With an OVF your eyes eventually adjust to the darkness and you can properly frame your shot by starlight. An EVF? Pure black - at least with my previous Sony SLT. The same goes for bright sunlight. The current crop of EVFs cannot and perhaps never will match the dynamic range of what your eye sees through an OVF, and the 'look' of a final print is what you remember from the viewfinder composition. But then again, I still create framed prints, which may also be going the way of the Dodo ...
I've shot with both OVF and EVF in low light and far prefer the OVF. I have no desire to make dark shots look like full daylight and want to see the scene for what it is. When shooting in mixed conditions, for example a concert, the EVF would often blank out when overcome with bright lights. The OVF just works.
mosc: I really don't get this type of product at all. It's nothing against Think Tank Photo's particular offerings here and I'm sure they make other products that I would prefer but I really just don't get this offering.
These are not sturdy enough to protect a 70-200 in the overhead bin of an airplane let alone checked baggage. These are not sturdy enough to put in the luggage area of a greyhound bus (with somebody famous's name on the side). These are bizzare to think about as camera-only backpacks on a hiking trip compared to a more general purpose bag. They certainly don't offer any type of holster-like ease of access middle ground either.
Anybody want to explain why I'm crazy?
This is for situations where you will be doing a lot of walking. Examples would be day hikes in natural or urban environments or people who do their travelling on foot.
Like any properly designed backpack this will distribute the weight and will not destroy your shoulders. When you are at your destination, you remove the camera from the backpack and will be feeling a lot less pain/fatigue and can focus on taking pictures.
Its not great as luggage, not great as a holster, nor great for backpacking to the top of Mount Everest. In contrast, each of those things is poor as a day pack.
So you need to figure out your needs and use something appropriate. This may not be for you.
Combatmedic870: Where does one find a 50tb hard? Is it a single picture on multiple hard drives??? If so....can this still be considered a single photograph? I looked for 50+ Tb hard drives I couldn't find any. Also what kind of processing beast would you need to make this?!?!? I'd love to hear about all of that!
It's most likely stored on some kind of cloud storage.
EskeRahn: This seems like a project done just because it is possible.I find it hard to find any other reason...
Personal satisfaction, the admiration of your peers, and most important: publicity.
A better commercial would be to show a muscular guy shooting his DSLR, with camera in one hand while the other does curls with a telephoto lens. He hands his camera to a curious onlooker who immediately collapses because his atrophied arms can't support the weight. An Olympus salesman appears and hands the feeble guy a camera, who is overjoyed to discover there are cameras made for people like him. The athletic and lame guy then become photography friends.
So the buckles on the front are non-functional and just for looks??? I was going to comment on how buckles are completely impractical for a bag you want frequent and easy access to. But from the video, it seems they don't actually fasten anything. If so, why are they even there? Just for that retro look?
I'm OK with items with a strong emphasis on style, but it needs to be functional style. IMHO, false buckles just cheapen the bag. It basically says: I am pretending to have a retro bag.