AbrasiveReducer: Canvas is heavy and cheap (at least to the manufacturer.) This bag is over 4 pounds, empty. Canvas tends to soak up water too, even when treated. The only upside is that it looks like you're roughing it. Those big metal hooks add weight as well, and there's no shoulder pad. Ballistic nylon may not look as cool but it's much lighter and the good stuff is practically waterproof. To each his own.
I have to agree with you regarding the use of materials and the weight. 4 pounds empty is nothing to sneeze at, and I'd gladly trade the admittedly cool looking canvas for something lighter that's weather resistant and just as durable. I understand character and looks carry a premium, but I'd never sacrifice functionality for form.
amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are
1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.
2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.
3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.
4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )
5. Very high quality build.
6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)
ConsIt is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)
As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.
Oh, well, in that case: People got distracted by Nikon D5 and D500. They were announced a few hours after the Panasonic lens, and it appears they were a tad more popular. I feel kinda bad for Panasonic, in that respect. They probably thought Nikon was just going to throw a bunch of CoolPix cameras at us and call it a day. (That's what Canon did after all, as is the CES tradition.)
Ross the Fidller: "Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms),"
To mention "light gathering" at all & in that context is typical FF fanboism BS. Why did you even mention it?
I'll correct that whole statement for you!"The lens is relatively compact, given its long reach. Although its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field, its still impressively small and light for 600mm equivalent lens. The lens itself is 227mm (8.9'') long, and comparatively easy to add to a mid-sized camera bag."
Please, stay credible by not looking like a FF fanboi.
Of course, being 300mm it is going to be smaller & lighter than a 600mm lens!
Considering Richard has written a number of positive reviews of Micro 4/3 cameras, I highly doubt he's a 'fanboi' (a general insult that had little meaning before you degraded it further by trading a 'y' for an 'i'... trust me, I've been dealing with 'fanboys' since the mid-90's).
DPR has made it a regular habit to mention equivalency over the last few years. Read any story or review about a compact camera, and you'll find a chart or a paragraph about equivalency (e.g. yesterday's TS100 overview, all of the Sony RX100 reviews, etc.). Micro 4/3 users are not being singled out. To think they are is false and unwarranted.
"The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well."
By 'dog pile' do you mean 'a mere single mention'? And, did you read the whole Panasonic 100-400mm overview? From the article:
"Naturally, the small size and weight do come at a cost: with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends, respectively, subject isolation and noise performance on a MFT camera won't be the same as what you might get with a full-frame 800mm F5.6 lens."
Try reading those articles again, carefully this time. You might realize the physical size of the sensor does not receive the same amount of light as something twice its size, and that has a tangible impact.
And, yes, technomad, they do talk about physics. I also like physics, and yet, what was said in the article is not wrong (despite even my believing quite the opposite in the not too distant past).
Uh, DPR published several articles about this:
Not all of those articles are strictly about sensor size, but, cumulatively, they do explain why "its F4 maximum aperture is equivalent to F8 on full frame in terms of depth-of-field and light gathering (in total image terms)" is a perfectly legitimate statement.
Mssimo: Show of hands: Nikon D500 or the rumored Sony A6100 ((see sonyalpharumors))
36mp BSI sensor,silent electronic shutter mode,IBIS (5 axis stabilization?)4K recordingTouchscreenFast EVF larger than Optical VF on D810?Wifi and other featuresPrice around $1000 to $1300 (my own guess)
Being an owner of Nikon and Sony cameras and lenses, I'd be more inclined to buy the D500 for the following reasons:
1.) It's an announced product, not a figment of the rumor mill2.) Sony hasn't released a compelling APS-C E-Mount lens in quite some time3.) Of the existing system of E-Mount lenses - both full-frame and APS-C - few are really worth their asking price, in my personal opinion.
I'm sure you might think differently, and you're entitled to do so. I just don't think it's a proper apples-to-apples comparison.
MikeMiami: Nikon rolls out the D5 and D500 and Canon rolls out trio of inexpensive 20MP PowerShot ELPHs. Hmmmmm I wonder who has been listening to consumers!
Barney has a point: CES has not exactly been the place where camera companies release pro-level DSLR's. This is actually a change in behavior for Nikon.
Soggoth: $2000 looks a bit steep for DX camera
Agreed with BarnET. The Canon 7D Mark II debuted at roughly the same price, and the Nikon D500 is (arguably, at least on paper) the more advanced camera.
Also, Mssimo, the NX1 retail price was $1,500, just to be fair.
Bernie Ess: @ Mr. Roboto:Well, generally no camera I have used in the past (DSLRs) could add anything via apps, and Firmware Updated were very rare. So as far as I can see, this app adds a really useful function, and does it in Raw even. So if you think this is not worth 10 bucks, then just leave it alone... So far, I know of no other camera that adds this in Raw or adds it at all, so I guess 10 bucks is not much.
But that's a bit the mentality of the "app age": Should be free.
10 bucks is below the threshold where I start to think...
I don't think it has anything to do with the "app age". If this were Fujifilm or Samsung, this would probably be a properly integrated feature that came with a firmware update. It's also a one-trick pony, which just adds to the feel that it shouldn't cost $10.
Yet, Sony feels the need to label new features as "apps," and that's exactly how they feel. They're separate from the rest of the shooting experience - exposure parameters from P/A/S/M are not carried over into "apps". It's cumbersome to locate the Apps folder, find the app you want, wait for it to load, make all the changes to your exposure (because they're not the same as they are in the normal exposure modes), and then take a picture. When you want to take a normal picture, you have to quit the app.
For this feature, I'll keep my $10 and just take a few exposures and merge them later in Lightroom. It'll probably take less time, I have more control over the results, and I'll have not wasted any money.
Ron Poelman: Let's see, DPR tests them, rates them, then we vote = profit ? Redundant, at best, tautological, probably, productive, not really.You could be forgiven for thinking we matter.My vote is for a decent level of display quality in the Posts,couldn't see the category, but.
It's either that or the Canon 1D-X Mark II:
DPR spelled out is Digital Photography Review. That's 24 letters. 24 letters divided by the number of words, 3, equals 8. If you take the year 2016 and add the numerals together, you get 9. 9-8=1. The first initial in DPR is a D, and there are two words following that, for which the Roman numeral is II. If you go through all the names of the DPR staffers, nobody's name contains an X or has the first name Mark. Therefore, 1D-X Mark II in 2016 confirmed.
Which one you really believe (HL3 or 1DXmII) all depends on how you do your math and the style of your tin foil hat. I prefer a retro snap-back trucker cap because it makes me look like an ironic hipster instead of a conspiracy theorist.
Wait, I see where Ron is going with this:
DPReview tests and reviews cameras and lenses, then they let us vote for them. DPR wants us to think we matter, but they're really interested in profit. Next year is 2016. If you add those digits together (2+0+1+6), you get 9. DPR has 3 initials in it. 9 divided by 3 is 3.
Half Life 3 has just been confirmed by DPReview.
DaddyG: Definitely the best general purpose DSLR ever made.As a Canon user, I could only hope for something like the D750. Unfortunately Canon are always so careful about cannibalising their other product lines. One great thing about mirrorless is that this increased competition surely must force Canon to be more generous with their product feature sets.
I have to go with tarheelbost on this one, neatpicture. Your original comment essentially reads, "Aside from the pictures taking functionality, the Canon 5D Mark III is awesome."
Also, I can't imagine that Nikon was targeting the Canon 5D series at the time, considering how they introduced the D750 at a MSRP that was $1,000 below what the 5D Mark III was selling for.
Xentinus: Isn't it a little bit too noisy that second wedding photo for 1250 ISO?Maybe missed the focus?
I owned the D7000, and the only metering problem it had was no different than the metering system of every camera I've used, in that it can't read the minds of photographers and judges what it assumes is the "proper" exposure based on the metering mode and an imperfect algorithm.
It's not a "problem" so much as there's no universal understanding of what "proper exposure" is.
tex: WHYYYYYYYYYY????????? is this only for iPhone? The iPhone is hardly ubiquitous. I see as many Galaxy's now as iPhones.
I live in one of those cities you mentioned, and visit the others frequently. See previous reply and read my comment above, as they're still salient to your original statement. Your market analysis is based on anecdotal evidence, not empirical analysis or an objective consideration of the utter dumpster-fire that is providing 3rd-party product support for Android devices.
whyamihere: For those who complain about the lack of Android support, I can only respond by reminding people how utterly fractured the OS really is:
Samsung produces dozens of Android devices running different versions of Android that are forked by varying TouchWiz modifications. Lumu, being a small company, does not have the resources to test what would be hundreds of combinations of software and hardware to ensure compatibility.
And that's just one manufacturer.
It probably make sense for Lumu to put their efforts into a platform that only has a handful of devices, where most users tend to use the latest version of the OS, and which can be more-easily tested for QA. Testing the latest stock version of Android on a few ubiquitous devices is simply not representative of the majority, and they'd likely not want to have bad press because their device failed to work with your Samsung Galaxy Rectangle Note S6+ Whatever.
Bill: Defining "the very best" works only for "the present time" because those models will be supplanted by another set of "the very best" by the time the Lumu hits the market. There's also the argument that flagship products are a thing of the past as most phones and tablets reach feature parity. Lastly, you're making an unfounded assumption that people who would dump $150 into a light meter that connects to a mobile device and not $300+ into a dedicated metering device are more likely to have the latest, most upscale phone(s) available. The prerequisites for this device to work is any iOS device with the correct connector, meaning a cheap iPhone 5c or a legacy iPad Mini will work.
Where I live and work, I see more iPhones than anything else.
Anecdotal evidence ≠ accurate representation.
For those who complain about the lack of Android support, I can only respond by reminding people how utterly fractured the OS really is:
DStudio: In the PetaPixel article Reuters cites the extra time photographers take on editing RAW images. And they're correct - it is often a waste of time when news-gathering - even when the photographer has an efficient RAW workflow.
However, that's the *photographer's* problem to solve, not theirs. I guess their liberal mindset (the bad side of it) is showing through here. They want to solve someone else's problems. And they will do so by mandating "the correct solution" for them.
It's good for Reuters to manage their workflows. But it's dubious to dictate the freelance photographer's workflow for him. I don't mind them specifying the types of edits allowed, but it's dubious when they get their fingers into the photographer's pie, dictating the original image format.
DStudio: Your problem is you tried injecting ancillary politics into what is already a political situation by asserting that media is inherently 'liberal'. You distracted from your own point by making that assertion. If you left out that middle paragraph, you would have found more agreement. Instead, you inserted a conservative heuristic - media is overwhelmingly 'liberal' - and derailed the conversation.