Eleson: Top picture:f/11@38 mm , subject distance , what? 4 m?= Dof from 2m to 58m !
Am I to judge the excellent panning technique here or am I missing something? As far as AF , that shot doesn't require AF.
Thanks Carey, looking forward to anything in that fashion. I think even of people dismiss it as not applicable to their shooting (I shoot tiny birds, I shoot unpredictable subjects, etc etc) it still shows RELATIVE differences between bodies...
In cases where those differences are larger (pro bodies vs lower end, maybe one brand vs another, PDAF vs CDAF/PDAF vs DFD/CDAF etc) it could be a real eye opener as far as how large (or not) the gap really is.
I think something like two different sized targets at two different speeds each, even if it's just a simple trajectory towards the camera, would be pretty telling and not necessarily a lot more work than the bike ride test.
qwertyasdf: Mirrorless having better lateral tracking?! What is that?! I guess if the subject is moving laterally, you can see the AF points moving excitingly on the screen, but the AF is doing absolutely nothing .___________.
" We have three dimensions in the real world guys. "
Ok... But anything moving laterally is usually not moving out of a focus plane, lenses don't focus on specific 3D points in space and exclude everything around it.
Impulses: Why has a set of repeatable C-AF/tracking tests never been developed? I'm aware that it's easier said than done, and that results would probably not be applicable across all or even most scenarios... But still, at least you get a baseline and a relative comparison measurement. If camera A can consistently follow a drone or RC toy (or something else easy to reproduce) better than camera B then you've got concrete data to back up anecdotal impressions.
This has bugged me since forever... Seems camera review sites treat AF testing like most smartphone reviews treat battery life, neither is magic or impossible to test scientifically. I know DPR Eds have stated a number of times they're working on it, and yet this article opens with the preface that they're reviewed and not pros, which would seem to further highlight the importance of a repeatable test. Don't get me wrong, i still appreciate the article...
Anecdotal evidence just seems to make it real hard to tell how far apart different bodies are in this regard. I'd love to see even an imperfect test, even if the conclusion is you need a pro to really bear our the differences amongst top end bodies, more interested in the gap between those and the lower end tho...
Hell, deserted road + car with cruise control = very very repeatable... Some sorta RC toy for a smaller target. I'm sure it can be done in some fashion and with some degree of success, just dunno why it hasn't been done or what I'm overlooking...
AprilW: But what is its dynamic range?
Probably very high given the composite nature of the final shot... Not that it should matter much, the museum should have full control over the lighting. Yeah I know you were being tongue in cheek... It probably IS something they've weighed tho.
Impulses: It's pretty ironic that the selfie trends (nothing against it mind you) are actually pushing manufacturers and people towards ultra wide lenses, got a self portrait.
I'll grant you that in many cases the point is surely not to get a flattering snap... More like a "this is me at XYZ", but a whole bunch of people do aim for flattering selfies, with a wide lens, that's probably anything but...
Going ultra wide is only gonna exaggerate things in those scenarios... Doesn't really seem like the smartphone world takes notice of that at all tho.
I'm not even talking realism, like said before, for many selfies are simply about documenting the place/company, BUT for a lot of others selfies are about taking flattering pics to show off a look, etc... Going wide flies in the face of that, I don't think many women realize what's going on with their faces in a selfie. Some do, and they still don't understand why, and OEMs going wider exacerbates this.
Yeah someone kept posting that comment repeatedly, I don't get it either... There's a nuanced difference between successful tracking and AF being able to keep up tho, maybe that's what he meant, or it was just nonsense.
I think much of that nuance goes over a lot of the readership's head... Like you said, can't win, if you dumb it down and explain all that in the article someone will complain about that instead. This is why I think repeatable tests using a RC-something (or a car in cruise control, or what have you) are worth developing...
Said kinda test won't be the last word on continuous AF performance, they won't apply to all shooting scenarios, hell manufacturers could even potentially cheat with the pattern recognition, BUT they'd at least provide a mainline comparable across all price brackets and it'll illustrate to people some common scenarios they can look out for in their own shooting...
Why has a set of repeatable C-AF/tracking tests never been developed? I'm aware that it's easier said than done, and that results would probably not be applicable across all or even most scenarios... But still, at least you get a baseline and a relative comparison measurement. If camera A can consistently follow a drone or RC toy (or something else easy to reproduce) better than camera B then you've got concrete data to back up anecdotal impressions.
It's pretty ironic that the selfie trends (nothing against it mind you) are actually pushing manufacturers and people towards ultra wide lenses, got a self portrait.
RedFox88: That phone wouldn't fit in a pocket. The "grip" is too big. If you out a grip that doubles the phone area, you should just use a real camera.
Ehh... It's probably still no thicker than some of the first gen smartphones like the HTC EVO/Desire... I like the idea of a combo grip/battery/controls, extra battery could've been bigger tho.
Bernard Carns: Thank God this didn't take us to the white background website!
That's great, I was never a fan of the dichotomy or the back and forth clicking... This will make the Connect content I care a about more visible (no offense to Lars).
Mike Evangelist: I would never trust my cameras to a strap attachment that is basically string - no matter how well made that string might be. Those little loop-type fasteners are fine for a cheap point & shoot. But hanging a few pounds of expensive gear from them is foolish.
(the fact that they now have wear indicators on the loops demonstrates that they know it could be a problem.)
Frankly, I don't foresee the new kind wearing down at all despite the new indicator layers... It is much much tougher than the stuff they used in it's first two incarnations, much much tougher than what Optech or any other QR uses. It's actually a little stiff, super tightly woven, and it self heals to an extent under stress.
I broke several guide threads (fishing line etc) trying to use it to push the Peak Anchor it thru an eyeley into which it ultimately didn't fit, and it didn't fray even one millimeter, instead it knotted up and only got stronger at that section. I could see their old ones fraying, heck you could bunch it up and undo the braiding until it stretched out again, the new ones are super tough tho.
catleet2016: I can't believe all the negative comments regarding the anchor, I was a kickstarter backer with the original peak design clutch, with the original (not the updated) anchor, after seeing the warning label when i received the clutch, i would do a quick look on the anchor before throwing on the strap, and 2 years later, anchor shows very minimal sign of wear, but will most likely replace it with their updated reinforced anchor soon. Again 2 years of regular use to the beach, hikes, and road trips!
I believe they've actually gone thru three different iterations, I've got the dyneema ones and the newest vectran ones (I think that's what they're made of anyway)... The newest type is definitely the toughest, the braiding is ultra tight and didn't slip apart at all if you bunch it up, and the self healing way it knots itself up if you get really rough with it totally works... Plus it has those wear indicating layers. Only downside is it's nigh impossible to loop thru small eyelets.
I kept using the old kind on my small GM1 because of this, and simply added some split rings to my OM-D unto which I attached the Anchor Links... Could've used the existing triangle rings but they dug into my fingers on the right side.
Jestertheclown: Those "easy to use; undo in a flash", fasteners would make you a prime target on the London Underground.Your camera would be "undone and gone in a flash."You'd never see where it went nor ever see it again.
They're actually not that easy to unlock, the thief would definitely have to be familiar with the system to even have a hope at doing it unnoticed... And yanking the whole thing from your shoulder seems far easier, or cutting it which you can do to most straps (Peak's might be a little thicker than most).
Matsu: Have they resolved the connection point weaknesses? When the system first appeared, failure stories quickly followed. The slot where you insert the buttons had a nasty habit of coming apart.
I've never had an issue with mine (after over a year with them), I use them with two different cameras and two different straps (sling slider and wrist strap). They feel really secure and always lock on the first try. I do have two different versions of their Anchors, the new and improved cord is stiffer and harder (or impossible) to loop thru some eyelets, but I just added an extra split ring in between because the wear level indicator layers seemed worthwhile. I still haven't worn thru any of the old ones, tho I use pretty light M4/3 gear.
CanonKen: I disagree about the metal scratching the gear (and what I am assuming caused the reviewer to give this 3 vs. 4 stars). I have used this strap since not long after it was available, and it has not caused any issues, in or out of the bag. I have hiked with it, wrapped the strap around the camera, and otherwise 'used' it (not just casually or infrequently).
You state 'risk' and 'fear' of this happening, but not it actually happening. Of course it could happen, but it does not seem likely.
Now to your point, would a different material (either coated metal, or plastic) have been a better choice? Probably, but until I read this review, the thought or manifestation of damage never came up.
If anyone wonders why I have such a passionate defense, it is because this is the best strap I've used, and I'd hate to see people shy away from trying it themselves.
It's a valid concern IMO, the metal parts have no load bearing anyway so it was pointless to make them metal. Plastic (see Artisan & Artist) or a nice leather pull (see Custom SLR Slim Strap) would've worked just as well.
I bought both the Slide & Lite, gifted one and haven't really used the other... They're not terrible and I don't think the metal thing is a deal breaker, but there's better executed straps of this kind out there (cheaper too).
I'd say Peak's is easily the best built of it's kind, but it's arguably overbuilt in a way. I like the color choices tho, and could easily get over the metal... My bigger issue with it is the use of two sliders/locks rather than a single one.
SteB: I haven't gone Peak Design yet for my straps. However, I was thinking about changing all my cameras and binoculars etc, to Peak Design, simply because it's possible to use one or two straps to fit them all. I'm mainly interested in how well they perform, rather than hypothetical concerns like the strap adjustment buckles scratching equipment.
My idea of using it would be so I could detach the strap and store it separate. I do a lot of all day photography in Summer, and when you're out all day straps tend to get a bit damp with sweat, and storing them with your cameras and lenses isn't such a good idea. I find it's sweat and skin residue that tends to attract fungus on bags and straps. So it's probably not a good idea to store any strap being worn all day with your cameras and lenses, to protect them from fungus.
To me the logical place to store this type of quick detaching camera strap would be in the mesh outer pockets most camera bags have.
I'm not a huge fan of the Slide itself, for my purposes I prefer the very similar Custom SLR Slim Strap or something from Artisan & Artist... The former is thinner tho and the latter hard to find. Peak's Slide is easily available and probably the best choice for really big/heavy gear... I do absolutely love Peak's QR Anchor Link system and I use it often to swap between a wrist strap and my A&A strap. Their QRs feel much better made than any other I've seen.
mrmrbill: Custom SLR "Glide One" is an option that addresses the reviewer's "cons" whilst keeping the same great features.
And the Artisan & Artist Easy Slide series too, which predates either. Peak Slide is very far from being one of a kind. Luma Cinch is older too...
Those are all sliding adjust-on-the fly straps that can be worn cross body, over the neck, etc. Many of them even have better sliding mechanisms that don't throw the center padding out of place and/or don't require two separate sliders.
I like Peak's stuff, I use their Anchors with my A&A, the Slide line is neither unique nor the best value tho. It's the most over built of it's kind tho, so if you need something really rugged then it's got that going for it.
The Slim Strap does the exact same thing.
tkbslc: This feels like divine intervention. Just yesterday I saw a camera with the red quick release buttons and was trying to figure out what brand/system they were from. But I wasn't having any luck. Then I find this review the next morning!
I like that they have a wrist strap and hand strap with the same QR system and that the buttons left when going sans strap wouldn't get in the way.
They also sell those QR separately btw, I'm using them with an Artisan & Artist slider strap and with a Joby wrist strap. I bought both Slide straps and didn't care for some of the over designed parts or the clumsy dual slider system (I much prefer a single slider a la A&A or Custom SLR's Slim Strap)... Their wrist strap looked pretty bulky too.
Those Anchor Link QRs are fantastic tho! I've bought several different Optech QRs (similar to what everybody else uses, 3 prong clip) and they all look and feel much cheaper than the Peak Anchors, the little red discs are indeed more unobtrusive when not connected and the actual connection feels much more secure.