zlatko: The 24-70/2.8 is heavier than Canon's excellent 24-70/2.8 version II. And the 85/1.4 is heavier than Sigma's or Nikon's 85/1.4.
The bodies is where most of the weight savings resides.
focuspulling: I'm surprised by how insistent folks are here about the size issue. Yes, Micro Four Thirds is a smaller sensor, but Panasonic deserves lots of credit for being first-to-market with mirrorless, portable, CONTINUOUS f/2.8 aperture zoom lenses that are not priced into the stratosphere. Their G lenses, especially 12-35mm and 35-100mm, are a dream team.
Someone in one of my camera user groups said it best: evidenced by the launch of the a6300 simultaneously today, which is a jaw-dropping bargain, it's clear that Sony is in a panic to keep its coffers full from high-tier revenue, while its margins on electronic bodies is slipping away (just like HDTVs and smartphones where they can't make their big wealthy margins anymore). All the marketing jargon about these lenses is motivated by profit, to justify dramatically inflated pricing on these "G-Masters," but actual tests will mean everything.
The competition is Canon and Nikon who still do not have mirrorless.
rrccad: wonderful lenses by Sony. interesting dual AF systems.
let's hope they up their game on support and service for these expensive babies
from a kit perspective - makes Olympus look pretty good from a kit size and weight perspective.
Oly can't resolve at this level and is still crop -- great crop gear though. Right now Fuji, Oly, and Sony seem to be rocking the scene.
1. I find the "Blown Highlights" comments pretty silly given the insane degree of Dynamic Range in this image.2. Please keep in mind that Ice Caves can be extremely dangerous.
Guidenet: I've always considered the big four of Arca Swiss, Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins to be the largest part of the Arca dovetail market with Aratech in there at a slightly lower price point. Quite honestly, I've never heard of the rest of them in both tests.
Personally, I'd not consider Gitzo because it's not Arca compatible. Gitzo is part of the Manfrotto group which is also not represented in either the 2014 or this review.
If we consider ballheads which are not Arca compatible, then we're certainly missing Manfrotto which probably has a market share larger than all these put together. Their top models are superb. I'm a little surprised at their omission. The Hydrostatic and magnesium models seem technologically interesting enough as well as being as unique as many that are represented but unheard of. ;-)
Maybe this is a list of ballheads owned by staff members and therefore readily available for review. Nothing wrong with that.
I have owned RRS and Kirk plates and L-plates. I have also owned a number of off brand ones. Right now on my A7II I am using one from Sunway Photo and have been very happy with it on both my A7II.
That upgrade cost is why I went with AS. The only time I buy plates is for new cameras. You can get plates from around $10 up to around 170 if you want RRS or Kirks. The real advantage is when out with a group anyone using the platest is free to try my set up. L Plates also make my life easier. Over time I believe that both Manfrotto and Gitzo will be AS compatible across the board.
When Manfrotto and Gitzo complete going Arca-Swiss compatible, then their heads are worth testing, otherwise I would not recommend them.
RichRMA: I bought a ball head out of China on Ebay that looks a lot like the FLM unit. Has dual ball tensioners/locks and works perfectly. $25.00 and free shipping. Pay $350 for an Acratech ballhead? Not likely.
Also I bought one, loved it so much I sold it for what I paid and then bought the higher end model. Cheap can be really nice, but when your gear is not he floor broken it won't matter if you wasted space and weight by carrying backups.
That's fine if you are an amateur or semi-pro. On the other hand if you are a travel photography, or a wedding photographer you do not have the time or luxury. I am not saying that you can't, just that it is not wise.
I would never put a $3000 lens on a $30 head. I do not want to carry around 2 or 3 heads in case 1 breaks. I spend more on my head because i want to put my camera and lens on it and never have to worry.
It's like buying a $2000 stereo and a $50 set of speakers...
The difference is that the guy with the Acratech does not have to waste time replacing his broken head, because it simply does not break. I love mine, worth every dime. Another point is that I would rather own a head that isn't going to break and drop my camera on the pavement...
I have owned two Acratech heads and would happily buy another if I needed to. The head is simply amazing. Worth every penny I have it on a Feisol 3301, what an amazing combo.
larrytusaz: I picked up a Nikon D5000/18-55mm kit for only $175 around two weeks ago, it even included a portrait grip, 2 spare batteries, a Toshiba case and a 4G card. It would totally blast any of these to pieces. Yes it's large--so? When you care about quality, you only use the good stuff, not the stuff the Kodak/Polaroid crowd is using. Besides, if you can't deal with an SLR, there's always a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100, or the Sony NEX-6 which I also have and which, with Wi-Fi, can beam your images to a device for instant sharing, if that really matters so much.
The best camera is the one you have with you...
This is not an article about owning Full Frame, Crop Sensor, compact cameras, no it is about Camera Phones. Stating that the regular cameras are better is like saying that a Corvette will win you more races than a Honda Civic, duh.
Not everyone has a camera with them at all times, but most have a smart phone with them. That is what this article is for.
Neroon: Simple answer is no.
Canon needs lenses and they need full-frame to be taken seriously. This fact that they are not selling it in the US speaks volumes about their attitude.
Combine that with the endless wait for a high MP camera and what do we get? Two cameras that will not ship till mid year at best and that cost more than $3500. In the meantime I am selling off all my Canon gear and going Sony.
Not sure where you got the idea that the Sony f4 lenses cost as much as Canon's 2.8 Trinity? Yes, they are more expensive than the f4 Canon trinity, but not as much at the Canon 2.8s
Simple answer is no.
Acratech is my choice -- have never regretted getting one.
A lot of misinformation in this list
I have been shooting IR for several years. For the most part I do B&W images. The differences can be very striking. You do not need filters or tripod, though you will get sharper images.
IR is vastly easier but still challenging in Digital. You do not have special film and handling, you can handhold any shot you want unless the shutter is too slow - just like regular photography.
Here is some of my IR work: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjuAREAW
If you do not see smartphone as the enemy then you are clueless. Unless you are admitting that you are glad to be out of the no margin market.
El Profe: It makes no sense (to me) to design a classic or retro looking and hopefully with simple A, S, M controls (no 100 scenes modes) body and then damage the retro concept by using an EVF. If it has an OVF i think about it. But if it has an EVF i don't even bother not even to read about it (no matter the price).
Feeling a little archaic are we...let me know when you come up with a design that uses the X lenses and can fit a mirror between the lens and the sensor. I know, it could be a tiny mirror that shows 20% of the scene...next stupid complaint please.
konanon: If I may be allowed to dream...put that sensor in the E-M1 and you have yourself the perfect mirrorless camera. Well, for me at least.
Wait a minute. Aren't Olympus and Sony in some sort of partnership? Wouldn't that be interesting. The alpha 8 with E-M1 technology.
Dream session over.
That will be the A9r...
I am really not sure why Bogen and Gitzo both keep going their own way on the design of quick release plates. Does anyone know why?