Reactive: How nice to see an aperture ring on one of their lenses - it's so much more intuitive than using a finger wheel on the camera body. Also nice to see that Sony realise they must improve their lens offering if they are to go forward.
Better to keep it on the lens. A body ring would either have to have an unmarked scale, or have every aperture marked from F1.4 to F32 regardless of what the lens supported. A ring makes even more sense now that lenses are AF, because your left hand is mostly redundant - while your right is trying to do everything.
How nice to see an aperture ring on one of their lenses - it's so much more intuitive than using a finger wheel on the camera body. Also nice to see that Sony realise they must improve their lens offering if they are to go forward.
This brief review didn't mention one feature that would be more useful than anything: a built in white balance meter. Imagine turning it on and pressing a 'match' button, whereupon it immediately matches the ambient lighting temperature, whether that's sunlight, tungsten, fluorescent or even flash. That way you'd get instant consistent lighting temperature across your scene, rather than some awkward mix caused by manually setting the wrong output temperature.
(If nobody's yet made a wand with that function, then © Reactive 2016)
I own a Samsonite briefcase that still works perfectly after 20 years and one serious car crash, so I understand quality items. But the price of this Domke bag is plain stupid. I once went into a camera shop looking for a tripod bag, and the Domke was £45! For a small canvas bag! So instead I went to a camping shop and bought the same thing for £15. As a bonus, the 'tripod' bag came pre-filled with a nice foldable camping chair for my son ;-)
mclaren777: The margin on these things must be at least 80% so it's only a matter of time before other companies help drive the price down.
Come on, China, bring on the knock-offs!
I expect the Manfrotto is built in China... so for sure it won't be long before an oddly identical looking model is available for $50 :-)
kimikuma: $200-400 ? I wonder how they compare to my chinese led panel which only cost me $20. My led even have the same package.
This is a crazy price for some LEDs in a box. And you can't expect a little dial on the side to be accurately calibrated - it's always going to be a case of trial and error if you're mixing it with other lighting.
Gekneldeland: Some pretty snarky comments here.
I was surprised to see that there's actually a pretty decent community build around super 8mm film. After browsing around a bit and checking out some footage I'm pretty intrigued myself.
Years ago I wanted to simulate some very old film like qualities for specific illustrative purposes in a documentary. I used a digitally simulated effect that kind of worked but the projector recorded images from these films seem just have the right "feeling".
It's the experimental qualities, the failures and unforeseen successes that kind of makes me feel excited for the medium. I don't do video in any shape or form except parties and a few personal stuff. But this looks like it could be fun. Or maybe I'm just a hipster by heart. ;)
I grew up watching my father's 8mm films. He was very careful about his shots (he had to be, there was only about 3 or 4 minutes of film before the reel ran out!). After sending them off to be processed (no chance to edit of course), he'd then have to load them onto a spool and spend ages threading the film into his projector. 4 minutes later the film was over. There really is no point buying a new 8mm film camera. Buy a good quality digital video camera, then mash up the results with every single color-degradation and scratch/noise effect you can find, and you'll get a good looking 8mm film! This product is truly ridiculous.
This is definitely a joke. Who the hell wants to mail a one-use-film to a processing company? Doesn't a Super 8 reel last only a few minutes? I'll tell my 79 year old Dad - he'll be thrilled :-)
I thought this was an April fool's joke, then realised it's December. How many do they expect to sell? Surely it will be such an *extremely* small niche of people who want to attach a medium format lens to an SLR/CSC, it's hard to believe the product will ever make a profit.
Isn't this a classic case of a solution looking for a problem? I wasn't aware my existing UV filter's tiny weight was a problem - it's insignificant compared with the lens weight. I wasn't aware it needed to be 10x stronger, as I've never been stupid enough to smash it against objects. I wasn't aware it needed to repel water and oil, since an occasional clean with IPA keeps it spotless. I wonder if Sigma will charge 'Art' prices for their completely clear glass filter? If so, they should move into homeopathy. Perhaps their next product will be a military-grade nuclear-hardened titanium lens cap?
All the doubters and Apple haters here must remember one important aspect of this design. A special feature that means it's not really an ugly bodge to cure a fundamental problem with a product. A feature that makes it beautiful. A feature that makes it worth every penny of the asking price. Yep, look carefully and you'll see it has a little symbol of a partially rotten apple engraved in the back. So there's nothing more to say - it must be perfect!
So this is a camera that can do automatic exposure bracketing and automatically refocus to create the stack of images? Now if all those images could be stored in a new 'stack' image format, you'd effectively have the Lytro-like capability of choosing your focus point and exposure later on in software, at least for static shots! How long before all camera manufacturers do this? Take a lens with a fast AF motor, synchronise it with the camera's video capability, and it could take perhaps 36 shots (3 different exposure levels x 12 different focus points, or 4 different exposure levels x 9 different focus points, etc.)... all in a 2 second burst. You saw it here first :-).
I'm mystified why the Canon EOS 760D still isn't listed on Amazon UK? Anyone know?
Biological_Viewfinder: It doesn't work for me.
The photographer was able to capture a lot; but it's so unnatural to see such a super-wide angle that it's hard to identify with it. I would rather see 1 side or the other. This one looks like "beautiful confusion".
Agree with OP. The original shots might have been great individually, but this composite just looks far too fake and over-processed. If the shot had appeared here without any introduction, I'd have said it was the work of 3D modelling software followed by heavy-handed Photoshop effects.
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?
I expect they ARE made in the same factory. It would be prohibitively expensive to replicate the tooling to create duplicate parts anywhere else. Let's say Canon gets a product made in China (for example) and orders a production run of 5000 units. The same assembly plant quietly orders enough parts from the suppliers (perhaps also in on the scam) to build 7000 units.
Those extra 2000 built 'after hours' use exactly the same external mouldings to ensure they look correct and fit the intended cameras, but inside use dirt cheap components sourced locally, instead of those specified (and tested) by Canon.
I have only ever bought one non-official product - a BG-E8 grip for my EOS 550D, branded as "Meike" - it did not pretend to be a Canon original. However, it is a perfect replica and has been attached and working properly for years now.
It cost around £40 (currently £25) and had excellent reviews... on Amazon! The Canon original was around £120 at the time (now £109). I would blame Canon for being too greedy with their prices, and also Amazon for providing the world's best marketplace for these oddly too-perfect replica products.
This looks like a very well specified camera, but at that price wouldn't a buyer be tempted with an entry-level SLR, especially as they would get a proper viewfinder? And since its specs are so similar, will DP Review be comparing this camera's images with an SLR + kit lens of the same value?
Roman_93: Well, if these features are all they put out in a year, then it is very thin and maybe comes in handy but nothing really wothwhile. Nearly no one whould have bought the new version with the old payment model.
It turns out that when innovation runs low a cloud pay model is needed to ensure cash flow rises.
Exactly right. They could do no work at all and still get paid, forever, as long as any CC customer wants to open their files in the future. It's like drilling a hole in your car's fuel tank.
Jylppy: I hate the thought that my photos are managed & edited with a software by greedy corporation like Adobe that I do not trust. There are companies that have earned their trust, but Adobe is not one of those.
I will never be OK with Adobe's disgraceful discriminatory policies. In the US, Adobe charges US$600 /year for CC. At today's exchange rates, that's £381 GBP. So what does it cost in the UK? £549 GBP. Clearly Adobe hates British people.
Somebody below said they had to PAY $120 just to *CANCEL* their CC subscription! Can this be true? Perhaps when Adobe has hooked enough people into CashCow (and cancelled all traditional licenses) they'll introduce a "joining fee" too?