I'd rather see someone partner with Osprey (or similar pack maker). Start with a proper backpack design (hint: it really is all in the hips!) and extend that design for camera gear, rather than trying to start with a camera bag morphed into a backpack.
fireplace33: I see lots of comparisons to the 70-200 2.8 but hardly any comparisons to the 70-300 VR (which has F4.5 - 5.3 in the 70-200 range) Any good reason for me to get this new one if I already have the 70-300?What sort of improvement could be expected?
@fireplace33 My bad, you said you already had the 70-300, not that you'd be looking for one.
Mike Cialowicz: $1400 and they make you spend an extra $225 for a tripod collar... ridiculous. I was really looking forward to this lens, especially since it's lighter and smaller than the 2.8 version, which makes it great for hiking. However, at $1625, looks like it's a big skip.
Can't wait to see what the Tokina 70-200 f/4 is like.
@cameramen: I never go hiking without my Gitzo 1541T.
My 70-300mm VR extends on zooming, is soft past 200mm, changes exposure as you zoom, and is generally cheap-ish/plastic-y feeling.
I'll be selling mine on fleabay in short order -- along with a lot of other people, I'm sure! If the 70-300 suits your needs, you should be able to pick up a used copy for a very good price.
Doug: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Tripod-Mount-Ring-A-II-Review.aspx I think Canon has a white t/pod ring
Canon has both a newer white tripod ring and an older black tripod ring that fit their 70-200 f/4 lenses.
For a few clicks more: They are all good but nothing exceptional other than the extra resolution maybe. Except the high ISO ones, my Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images.
"Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images."
Rock Kenwell? Is that you?
Fave Photog: Is the purpose of these images to showcase the 24-120/4 or to showcase the abilities of the D600? The answer is obviously the 24-120, or else Nikon's best lenses would have been used: The 14-24, 24G, 35G, 85G, 200G, 70-200VRII, etc.
Another basically useless 'review'/'preview' by DPR.
@babola: A DX kit lens for an FX camera? Uh, no.
Good on ya, mate!
/fake Aussie accent
I'm curious if DPR generally gives camera manufacturers a mulligan on a bad review result + an updated firmware, of if this was a special favor to someone at Fujifilm?
What other DPR camera reviews have (quoting Andy Westlake) "been substantially rewritten to take into account all of the improvements with the new firmware, and highlight useful new features"?
If this was a special case one-off for Fujifilm, won't that further encourage them to release substandard cameras before they are ready, knowing that they'll get a free pass later to fix problems found in production cameras and getting another shot at the review later. And will the same "generosity" be extended to Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/etc. in future reviews?
It just smells fishy to me. Bloggers are forever complaining that they aren't treated like journalists. Perhaps if more of them *acted* like journalists, that wouldn't be an issue?
Remember that a reputation takes a lifetime to cultivate and a moment to ruin...