arhmatic: All this camera bags are just screaming they are camera bags.Just waiting to be stolen.Terrible style.
Just put your camera in a pouch, then throw it into any bag, so it looks like any random bag.
If it's a larger SLR, then it might eb tricky, but with mirrorless and 2-3 lenses, you can fit it into any shoulder bag. And all this "protection" worries are non-sense. You are not in a war zone
Kinda hard to steal a bag (whether it looks like a camera bag or not) when it's on you! The single best way to prevent a camera bag from being stolen is simple to have it on you at all times, or to have in in sight at all times. You put down *any* bag (whether it looks like a camera bag or not), you're inviting it to be stolen. So the reality is that all these "theft" worries associated with a camera bag looking like a camera bag are overblown. It's not as if someone is going to run up to you and rip it off your shoulders! I've traveled throughout the world with a camera bag, and have never had such a thing happen. Same goes for agency photogs and pjs working all over the world. They'll all say the same thing: doesn't matter what your camera bag looks like, just don't leave it un-attended!
As for why we prefer to use real camera bags, it really comes down to effective organization and access to our equipment. Throwing all our gear "into any bag" just doesn't cut it.
SeeRoy: Another camera bag. Fantastic breakthrough. There was such a paucity of camera bags to chose from up to now. It's trific to know that industry is in a white-hot ferment of innovation, plugging all those yawning gaps in the limited range of commodities that are on offer. It's good to know that all that entrepreneurial energy isn't being wasted creating trivial and redundant junk.
That's like saying that clothing designers should stop designing pants and shirts, because such things have already been done! LOL.
Sorry, but the reality of business is that you regularly have to refresh your product line. Even if it means just minor refreshes, or minor changes. Also, not every refreshed product or new product introduction needs to have "fantastic breakthrough". Sometimes, companies and businesses need to refresh their products or introduce updated products to the market simply to remind the market that they exist! In other cases, small aesthetic changes need to be made in response to changing times and changing tastes. If you've ever run your own business, you'll understand these things.
People who think that companies should *only* introduce new or updated products when they can offer "fantastic breakthrough" simply don't understand the realities of business. Update or die. Few companies can get away with not updating or refreshing their products.
Philip Sm: If Fuji are listening, I would like them do something about the RAW size 31mb's for a 16 megapixel camera.
They need to have option so it can be smaller or be able to determine if you want 12 or 14 bit output.
Some photos people would not need the whole 16mp but only want the raw at say 8 or 10mp
MR Fuji - Listen I would absolutely buy it but 31mp raw TOOOOOOO big!
What you want is what Canon offers with their RAW files: RAW (full size RAW), mRAW (medium size RAW), and sRAW (small size RAW). On Canon's 18mp sensors, that equates to 10.1mp for mRAW, and 4.5mp for sRAW. Since Canon introduced this feature, I've found it to be tremendously useful. I shoot weddings, and with the huge volume of images that we shoot, larger file sizes quickly add up. I've always found that 10mp is plenty for most wedding images, so I shoot most of the wedding at mRAW. I only switch to full resolution RAW for the portrait and large group shots.
I love being able to adjust the resolution of my RAW files, just like you can with JPEGs. Hopefully, other manufacturers will adapt this strategy with their RAW files too.
Rod McD: University of life : Water resistance is better than no water resistance, but..... - All fabric backpacks and bags leak. Sooner or later.- No fabric bag offers crush resistance worthy of the term.- Cameras in a backpack are behind you and on your back.I haven't found a better solution (for me) than hard shell cases, but they aren't perfect either. Only very few models can be worn over the shoulder and opened to work from without putting them down.....
As for water resistance, just apply a water-resistant spray product, such as Kiwi Camp Dry. I apply it to all my camping gear, backpacks, shoes, etc, that I want to repel water. Works great!
wudyi: Don't care for those plastic yolk clips. Too awkward. Strong magnet would be more to my liking. But I'd never use a big bag like that anyway, so who cares.
So why post at all about a product you'd "never use" anyway? Lonely? LOL.
Island Golfer: This is actually something I have been contemplating. However. on initial observation, I see two things I don't care for. First is the double-zippered rear slot that accomodates slipping the bag over the handle of your other luggage. Why the zippers? There is no need for it; and it is one more thing to unzip & deal with in the terminal. Lowepro has the same feature, without this nuisance. Second thing I don't like is that it appears as if even the Apache 6 is not deep enough to accomodate a D800 + a 24-70 + its attached hood. But, all manufacturers seem to short their bags in this way. All that's needed ia another 3/4 of an inch.
With the zippers, you can use it to store flat things when it's not being used on your luggage. Without the zippers, that section of the bag is completely useless when it's not being used on your luggage. So it totally makes sense to include those zippers (as opposed to not having the zippers). After all, what fraction of the time is this bag going to spend on your luggage, versus the amount of time it is going to be used off your luggage? Obviously, it's going to spend most of its time off your luggage, so you might as well be able to use that rear section as a flat storage compartment...hence the zippers! D'uh!
Digitall: Does Sony just makes updates to products that will sell poorly? has some logic. Certainly many users are waiting months for a some light to enlighten the RX100 in some aspects? Oh no, after all, the RX100 and RX100 II sells well. No need upgrades. Sony philosophy.
@Digitall- why the obsession over whether they are selling well? Why all the digging around and research? Time to take your meds and get a life, LOL.
I think it's great that at least some companies are willing to think outside the box. As a 1st gen product, I think it's great. Future iterations will only be better. The first of anything is going to be fairly primitive. In today's smart phones, we have extremely powerful devices with considerable processing power. It only makes sense to be able to attach a photo module onto these powerful little computers we all carry around, to harness their power. I'm glad Sony was forward-thinking enough to see the potential of this idea.
Craig from Nevada: This looks like a very good value.
@Francis Carver - very poor and pricey? LOL. I use Canon APS-C and FF DSLRs, but I'm also using m4/3. m4/3 is the system I'm enjoying the most. Ultra compact, excellent lenses, excellent selection, in-body stabilization means all my lenses are stabilzed, I really love the form factor, and I don't mind paying a little bit more for (much) greater portability of all the lenses and the entire system. I also bought a Canon EOS M with 22mm pancake, 18-55 zoom, and 90EX flash, but that system is still not ready for prime time yet. Nevertheless, the price had dropped so much on the kit that I said, "Eh, why not?" (It does do video quite well, though.) So of the various systems and form factors I'm using, each does have its pros and cons, but the system I am currently enjoying the most, and that I am most excited about, is m4/3. Don't be so close minded. It's good to experiment and to use different form factors. Compared to my m4/3 system, my APS/FF DSLR gear is ginormous.
JimBob0: I really like this and I would so like something a bit different for occasional non work use. So torn between SL1 (so I can use my lenses) or this and doing something a bit different.....
I'm a Canon DSLR user, but I also now use m4/3. For compactness, I don't think a DSLR can compete with the compactness of the m4/3 system. I just love how compact m4/3 lenses are. They truly are tiny compared to my Canon DSLR lenses. For my non-work shooting, for casual around-town street shooting, and especially for travel, I prefer my m4/3 gear.
So, yeah, I'm running two systems. Each has their strengths. And like you've said, it's nice to have something a bit different...change things up.
ybizzle: Buy a new EM-5 body for $799 (B&H) or a used one for $500 and call it a day. Pricing for this doesn't make sense when the body is only $100 cheaper than the EM-5.
Does the E-M5 have wifi or a built-in flash? Nope. I really like the convenience of both these features, so for me the E-M10 is the better option over the two-year-old E-M5. I personally hate the add-on flash of Oly's other bodies. In fact, I've even misplaced that add-on flash. No idea where it went. So for me, it's just a lot more convenient to have a built-in pop-up flash like on the E-M10. As for wifi, I think all modern cameras should have wifi these days.
Peiasdf: So it is a crappier E-M5 for $50.00 cheaper. Hmm. Don't like these updates when there really isn't any improvement over existing products.
I'd rather have the E-M10 because of the inclusion of wifi and the built-in flash. Handy features to have. How is this "crappier"? I think it's crappy that these companies make you carry around a silly little add-on flash, even if you just want a pop of fill light. And I think every camera should have built-in wifi. We live in a wireless connected world now. Modern cameras should have this feature. Thankfully, more and more of them do. But alas, not the E-M5.
ybizzle: You can buy used EM-5 bodies for around $500 these days so why bother with this? That's what I paid for mine at a local camera shop. Why pay more and get less?
Used is always cheaper. Many of us prefer to buy new. Plus, a used camera, in good condition, isn't always readily available for purchase in every store. Besides, things like built-in flash and built-in wifi are handy and valuable inclusions for many of us.
SammyToronto: Nice camera, but it doesn't add enough to the e-pl5 to justify the $300 extra it will sell for, imo. That is if you didn't pick up the e-pl5 + kit lens + the 40-150mm zoom for C$450 during Christmas sale, which was an even better deal.
The inclusion of an EVF, built-in flash, wifi, focus peaking, better controls (twin control dials, more customizable buttons), higher resolution LCD screen, the ability to use flash *while* using the EVF, etc., definitely makes the E-M10 worth the extra cost to me. And for those of us who already have the kit lens + 40-150 zoom, the bundle adds no value.
mpgxsvcd: The Olympus E-PM2 is about $200 after you sell the lenses it comes with. The only advantage this camera has over it is WiFi. Not worth 3x the cost.
Built-in EVF, built-in flash, Wifi, mode dial, twin control dials, more customizable buttons, focus peaking, better image stabilization, tilting LCD screen, higher resolution LCD screen, the ability to use a flash *while* using an EVF, overall handling...there's plenty more that the E-M10 offers over the E-PM2! These two cameras cater to two entirely different classes of users. The E-M10 is a more serious shooter than the E-PM2 is. The E-PM2 is just above a point-n-shoot.
forpetessake: Fascination with retro will come to an end as soon as manufacturers find out that their new cameras are not selling any better than their predecessors.The fake pentaprism on mirrorless camera is like a saddle on a cow. The 30 y.o. controls is a dead evolutionary branch, discarded in DSLRs many years ago. Fuji would have better return on investment if they finally made a good grip, which wouldn't require attachments, and touch screen LCD wouldn't hurt either.
Uh...hate to break it to you, but that "fake pentaprism" is really the housing for an actual viewfinder...it just happens to be an electronic viewfinder. But electronic or not, it still requires a certain amount of space and volume. You seem to think that "mirrorless" should also mean "viewfinderless". You still have to put that viewfinder somewhere. In some bodies, they squeeze it below the top plate, in other bodies they put it above the top plate. In this case, they put it above the top plate. But there's nothing "fake" about it.
T3: This is "retro" done right. See Nikon Df for "retro" done wrong. Nice to see that Fuji put a tilt screen on the back. It shows that they weren't being slaves to the whole "retro" fashion simply for the sake of being slaves to retro fashion. And yes, it even does video. Take that, Nikon Df!
@King Penguin - the fact that you don't have any other choice other than the Df-- if you're in want of a "retro" style Nikon body-- because you're locked into the Nikon system, does not necessarily mean that Nikon's design decisions were "right". I would argue that the X-T1 is much more in the spirit of a digital Nikon FM3 than the Nikon Df is: more understated, more compact, less cluttered. Nikon simply went overboard with all the locked-down knobs, dials, and switches on the Df, piling it all onto a fat body.
As a former FM3 user, I would have much preferred that the Df were more like the X-T1, in control layout, size, and understated elegance. Because a camera like the X-T1 reminds me much more of my long-departed FM3 than the Df does!
As for whether it's "retro" or not, I consider the use of the numerous marked top-plate knobs (knob with ISO markings, knob with shutter speed markings) in lieu of simple finger wheels and a digital screen to indicate all settings and exposure values as being of the "retro" design genre. After all, how many "modern" design cameras have a knob with every ISO value marked on it? No, a "modern" interface would simply have a finger wheel, and the ISO value indicated on LCD screen. Same with Exposure Comp, etc.
And don't be naive in thinking that Fuji hasn't adopted the "retro" aesthetic as a design theme of most of their latest cameras, right down to their XF1 pocket camera. "Retro", or "classic" styling, it's definitely there.
Yep, at quick glance, the X-T1 can easily be mistaken for a Contax 35mm film SLR from a few decades ago.
@JDThomas - have you tried a Df? It's aggravating as heck, because in Nikon's pursuit of "retro", with all those knobs and dials, they made a camera that ended up being overly cumbersome to use! Yes, it negatively impacts user experience! That's how Nikon got it wrong. And things like the elimination of video, for no other reason than to cater to their "pure photography" retro marketing campaign. All these things are reasons why Nikon got it wrong.
The whole point of the "retro" knobs and dials are to bring back a certain degree of tactile and visual simplicity to camera controls. That's what Fuji does successfully, but the Df fails at. The Df ends up using dials and knobs to bring complication, rather than simplicity.
Parappaman: That flash is bloody HIDEOUS! I would be very surprised to find it was designed by the same team who styled the camera.
All these add-on flashes look kinda hideous. But fortunately, you only have to put it on when you need it. They all look like add-ons (because they are!), there's just no getting around it. But I doubt many people are going to be walking around with the add-on flash permanently mounted to the body. I never see anyone with these add-on flashes mounted, unless they are about to use them.
russbarnes: Massive, massive yawn. Fuji have already become as predictable in this market as Canon has with its DSLRs. Every single release near identical to the last, the sensor is the same to three years ago, it's like Fuji are playing a fruit machine trying to find the right combination of a body that actually sells. The fact is that until they enter the full frame market, no one will take them seriously, if they put this body around something like the A7R sensor then it would sell, but failing to produce any lenses that could be used on full frame suggests this is years away. By then, Sony will have stolen the march on them.
I'm at a loss as to who believes this is a winning strategy from Fuji because their sales are so bad they don't even register in some countries. If they want to prise away customers from the DSLR market, it's not going to happen with £1000 crop sensor cameras and £1000 crop sensor lenses....
Not everyone wants or needs FF. APS-C is still, overwhelmingly, the most popular and most used ILC format by far. And quite frankly, I think Fuji will sell a heck of a lot more of these cameras with APS-C sensors, especially at their attractive price, than they would if it had FF and a much higher price tag.
I use FF. I also use APS-C and m4/3. Each format does great. But I certainly wouldn't say that FF is best for everything. It still requires larger lenses. even on a mirrorless body. I like that the T1 is APS-C.