Nice to see them finally start simplifying and getting back to their roots - as opposed to the fiddly Italian industrial design wet-dreams they've been coming up with as of late.
And about time for the twist type leg-locks, hopefully a little trickle down technology from big brother.
 Although I'd call this more of a medium size tripod instead of a traveler.
I understand the reasoning for the omission of the RRS BH-40 because the BH-55 was tested in the previous shootout. That's why I'm surprised to see the FLM tested here, as it's just a shrunken version of the Centerball 58.
I'm fine without seeing every model/sibling of a given brand unless it departs radically in design. I was happy to see the KPS and Acratech here, and I hope future reviews visits some more of the lesser known brands and interesting designs.
I know we'll probably be visiting small ball heads next, but I think we could use one more medium sized shoot out. That's where there seems to be the most interest. Markins has always been a favorite brand which I was glad to see included here. I'd also like to see Photo Clam, Kirk, Feisol and Foba, as well as the Arca Swiss P0, which is a departure design wise from the Z1 previously tested.
Thanks for a thoughtful and thorough review once again.
OBI656: Acratech GP is bizarre tripod head but it works 100%.
I wonder where is RRS ball head which is most disariable ball head among pro photographers 😎
In my book this review is incomplete ! 😎📷😎
Did you see the previous ball head review "battle of the titans"? The BH-55 was reviewed there.
I think I'll hold off on the "test release", because - that's what it is. Unless somebody is just itching to play with a new interface it's better to let the bugs get worked out first.
That said, they've made constant improvements to this software, and it's gone from an easy way to set up MFA to a valuable tool for determining all aspects of a lenses performance. Not every lens needs to be micro adjusted, but tracking other aspects of things like AF consistency or best aperture on a zoom can be useful.
Before I was just guessing that a lens seemed sharper at f7.1. FoCal will back that up, and also let me know I should steer clear of f9! Plus for us nerds, it's fun to compare a lenses performance on different bodies and see the differences.
Thanks for the shots showing correct rectilinear angles as well (the first 3 and the garage shots with the vertical columns).
The actual distortion on this lens is surprisingly low. A lot of people here think of the positive characteristics of a UWA as distortion. The whole idea of the lens is that it creates a forced perspective. Like a fine musical instrument, in the right hands this lens sings.
Your shots here are showing how with a very slight angle you can change the entire perspective of a shot, for better or worse. While I love my EF 16-35/4L IS, this lens has just upped Canon's game yet again and has pushed every other lens off of my short list.
I think whoever was coding these pages needs a beating as well. No tablet support - and apparently FF and IE don't work on PC either. Hmmm. Or is this apple only voting?
Yes - at least the way we code it at work is you grab those little lines on the right and drag. I don't feel inclined to start opening other browsers or my test PC's.
I actually thought I'd see the Tamron 150-600 here. Best doesn't always mean sharpest - and I would have considered this lens to be something of a game changer for a lot of people.
Love my EF 16-35/4L IS more, but don't think it's rocked as many people's world as that big Tamron has.
Then there's some other obvious omissions already mentioned below.
Maybe making it an open vote - you might be surprised?
Luckily my tripods with center columns have a cool little retractable hook on the bottom which allows me to hang a camera bag or my dukes of hazard lunch box to stabilize them. The tripods without a center column - well I don't see how this would work hanging around my ball-head.
I guess this also means that if you did use it you'd need to have your center column up?
Tripods with a center column and no hook are sort of in the lower cost bracket - and I don't see those users even considering something like this.
But, good luck to any venture that's trying something new in the photography market.
Considering I've had a Transcend SD card go through the washer, dryer and then get ironed - until the housekeeper figured it wasn't going to iron out of my shirt pocket - I can't imagine what worse things I could do to a card!
Oh, and it still works fine and the data was intact. It was in quarantine for several months, but has been relegated to the P&S. Do I really need an "X" card?
I used to hate SD cards years ago as they'd always fail, but now I think they're pretty darned tough. Delkin will have to prove longevity to me in other ways before I trust them the way I do Sandisk or Lexar for instance. In fact, Transcend was one brand I disliked for CF cards, but I've got a couple of their SD's and well, they too have a proven track record!
Honestly, I have no idea who Delkin is - other than it sounds exactly like Belkin. We'll see about investing (and believing) once they've got a history behind them.
I at least admire them for sticking to the original design of the lens, foibles and all.
I also wouldn't mind playing with one. But it reminds me of a lot of fads, fun today. A dust collector tomorrow.
If some people find value in it for their style of shooting, more power to them.
ericwestpheling: I own a set of Manfrotto CF legs (055MF4) that had ONE plastic locking tab break off after 6 years of use. This was 1 of 9 small plastic tabs, so it was bound to happen.
After searching I found there were no spare parts available online (either from the vendor or 3rd party).
I sent the legs to Manfrotto for repair and waited over 3 weeks for a reply. I was quoted $70 to do the repair: replacing a small plastic tab.
I asked for the parts to be sent to me and I could do the replacement and was told that was not an option. I was offered to replace my product with a new version with a $40 discount. This would cost $300 out of pocket.
I was told that 6 years was "A long time" for this set of legs to have lasted.
If you are working with gear, do the math: investing $300 every 4-6 years adds up.
$70 for a small plastic part is not acceptable.
I implore you to avoid Manfrotto if you like your gear and don't want to needlessly replace it when THEY say its beyond its lifespan.
Weird, I looked up the part, and it's ₤7http://www.gitzospares.com/index.php?route=product/product&keyword=r190.396&product_id=927 so what, less than $20 shipped? Just guessing on shipping costs. They sell Manfrotto/Gitzo everything. http://www.manfrottospares.com/ - the part number took me to a URL that say's gitzo (some folks just don't want to know). I've got a Bogen and a Manfrotto - and will keep them as long as they provide service. I wonder if some of these newer companies will provide parts in the future at all. I've gotten a Sirui M3204X recently and love it - but parts? TBD!
victorian squid: Nah, a whole bunch of excitement went away. If it's just a DXXXX with squared edges - BFD.
A truly and fully manual digital camera would have been something. This looks like another hipster/poseur product. I'd have been all over a fully manual skinny little DSLR like white on rice. This looks like it gives the feeling of manual control (speed controls on dial), perhaps it's more than that - I guess we'll have to wait a little longer.
And I wouldn't get too excited about no oil on the sensor or other current problems unless this sucker is built in Japan (again) - which would at least raise the interest level a point or two.
And your reply doesn't "smack of snobbery"? Were you ever even around to use a fully manual camera? 4x5? Medium format? Own a studio? E-6 processor?
Yeah. I'd love a fully manual camera. No bragging rights. I don't "hang" with anybody to brag to, much less somebody like you. I shoot for the joy of shooting and could care less about the equipment that gets me there. I'd love to have something that was exactly like my F cameras with a digital back.
If you had read my post you would also see that I said perhaps it's more than that (wait and see) - but you're obviously blinded by your fandom. I'm a purist yes, but not a dick.
Nah, a whole bunch of excitement went away. If it's just a DXXXX with squared edges - BFD.
They really should have virtual film. Instead of the useless creative effects they've got now for direct to JPG, why not virtual film? Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia, Optima, Pan, and associated ASA/ISO. That would be a direct to JPG effect I might actually use.
It'd be even funnier if you had to "wind" the sucker for each shot. And, you'd have to spend extra for a battery grip that would allow you to shoot multiple shots in succession! Nikon could bleed folks an extra $400 for that goody alone!
Oh - didn't see Frank's comments below - I guess I wasn't as facetious as I thought!
I've still got my FE2, and my wife her FM (my Grandmother killed my FE). More importantly, I've got *and use* my AI and AI-S lenses on my Canon gear! Those lenses rock - AI-S 28 f2.8, AI-S 50-135 f3.5, 50 f1.4 to name but 3 of my favorites.
I'd love to have a tiny little digital body with simple ergonomics that those lenses would feel at home on. I'm assuming this would be a non-AF system to keep the dimensions in check. I can totally deal with no AF as long as we've got something like the split-prism viewfinder they were made for! And as cinemascope says - aperture control on the lenses? Why not? Worked for me! While $3k is pushing something theoretically that simple, $1.5-2k is something I'd think I'd bite on.
But knowing typical corporate design by committee - they'll blow this one too.
Unelss it's a poor illustration of a new model - it's fake.
Come on guys? How many problems need to be pointed out? Obvious or less obvious? Ok, let's take obvious first. The wood grain (besides being the wrong type)? See how it's vertical even where the grip sticks out? Real wood would have "new" grain further out. We'd see it changing. It wouldn't look 2D like that unless...I won't even mention the "burn" shadows on the body next to the grip.
Now less obvious. What's going on with the edge of that - what would have been a shutter button? It's there, then it's not there, then it's there. UGh.
So, this warrants a posting? How can it be a hoax when it's so blatantly bad?Did I wander into camerarumors.net?
Yeah. It reminds me of the "No Stairway to Heaven" sign in the guitar store in the Wayne's World movie. Some photos should never be taken anymore. The first million were enough.
I was actually sort of hoping the book would be a dictionary with the word "cliche" or "overdone" in there.
That said - I probably couldn't take that shot that nice so I've really got no right to poke fun - and have to say well done.
SemperAugustus: I would happily trade-in my LR4 for any of these two packages. If they launch a competitive trade in program they will really poach many ADBE customers.
Lightroom 4 never should have seen daylight. It's a known fact that the program slowed to a crawl after LR3. It was cheaper for them to come out with 5 and charge people for the "new features" than to give everyone a fix (read a whole new release) for 4.
That said, and as much as I dislike Adobe these days - LR5 is a huge improvement and I actually use it now.
victorian squid: Sadly (or happily) some of those very items are mere feet away from me in my camera closet. I've still got rolls of cartridge film I never developed. And, what else am I going to look at my slides on?
I used to own a firm with an E-6 processor, and Kodak was literally down the street for the fancy kodachrome stuff. We had light tables built in everywhere.
I bet I could still load a 4x5 pretty fast. A bicycle, not so much.
Now get off my lawn you darned kids!
I've considered going to Scan Cafe, but we're talking thousands of slides. It was free for me - like digital is now. So, I'd need to edit it down to stay on something resembling a budget.
I've also considered a good slide scanner and doing it myself. Speaking of old days I remember getting a Nikon slide scanner at our firm that was probably $20k. It wouldn't pass muster for a $50 epson these days.
I've got a large format Epson 10000XL that's calibrated - so a slide scanner would be a nice addition. Now, to find the time!
Sadly (or happily) some of those very items are mere feet away from me in my camera closet. I've still got rolls of cartridge film I never developed. And, what else am I going to look at my slides on?