[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu idunno, the 18-55VR is pretty small, and a slow, variable aperture design, but it's sharp and cheap, a decent kit lens for $100. 2.8 apertures are likewise on the relatively small cheap side as far as wide-normal primes go, it doesn't look like VR would add much weight there.

The 18-55 VR is totally plastic, lacks internal focusing, is noisy (for an AF-S motor) and has a very low end focusing drive. It can achieve what it does because it has a light weight, simple optical formula. F2.8 may not be much bigger (if it is DX), but put in a AF-S motor that is half decent, plus VRII (and the required switches on the lens body) and it might not be that small. The current 35mm F1.8G isn't what I would consider small either.

[Matsu]

Granted, but in the world of modern DSLR glass, it's small enough.

A quick google image search finds this comparison: 40mm DX f/2.8micro; 50mm f/1.8, 35 f/1.8DX

To me there's nothing that suggests that a VR f/2.8 35mm FX lens has to be any larger than the 35mm f/1.8DX, but I'm no lens designer, some days I'm a barely competent lens operator

The 40mm is larger because it has to extend for macro focus. f/2.8 on FX should be just about exactly the same size as f/1.8 on DX, for the same optical formula. They could (or might have to design another one). Nikon's 35mm image circle is a bit generous, it's more like APSH, than DX or APSC. The glass required to image f/2.8 on FX should be just marginally smaller than Nikon's current DX 1.8, which is also AF-S. The only real question is how much space do you need for VR to work? And again, that's where the smaller aperture buys some flexibility. It's not like there would be heaps of big constant aperture telephoto zoom glass in there. I would expect the lens to be reasonably well corrected, so not the simplest formula either, but even with VR I don't see how it could be as big as a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 or Canon 1.4L. I'd imagine it stays in the ballpark of the current f/1.8s, and maybe a tad smaller... *

EDIT: Maybe a lot smaller judging by these patent applications

35mm f/2.8VR

35mm f/1.4 AFS

Assuming those are both correct, then the 2.8VR would be downright tiny. Small front element, only six in total, (one aspherical?), lots of room for the mechanicals...

[PB PM]

Interesting note from the past week, Nikon released a second set of patents for a 18mm F1.8 and 20mm F1.8 prime (I'm guessing it is a revised design of the ones patented earlier this year). To me it seems odd to see them focusing on two lenses that are only 2mm apart. Either release the 18mm or 20mm (with the 18mm being better news for DX shooters), and release something wider like an updated 16mm (non-fisheye please. It could be a nice 24mm on DX). The only reason I could see for focusing on focal ranges that close together is that the 20mm has less distortion, which is possible.

[Matsu]

It looks like we're going to get a full court press on FX glass, and that's great because, frankly, it's due. I see them doing several general categories of lenses, predominantly of FX designation.

Here's the run down of every AFS prime that's either been recently updated/released (in bold), rumored, or is an as of yet unreleased, but published, patent registration:

18mm 1.8
20mm 1.8
24mm 1.4
28mm 1.8
35mm 1.8 DX
35mm 1.8 II - unclear about whether this is a DX or FX design...
35mm 1.4
40mm 2.8 Micro DX
35mm 2.8 VR
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
60mm 2.8 Micro
85mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
85mm 3.5 VR Micro DX
105mm 2.8VR Micro
135mm 1.8VR

Most of these focal lengths work equally well on either FX and DX. The 20 and the 50 are both a bit in-between as DX lenses, but that's OK. I'm sure a DX shooter would rather have a 55-60 for a small portrait prime, and either an 18 (as a 27mm equivalent) or a 24 (as a 35mm). Some are also a bit odd, like the 85mm 3.5.

You'd almost imagine that they didn't want to overlap 24 and 35 1.4s just yet.

I could see another couple of small 2.8VR primes as the modern replacements of the pancake. Not as small as pancake, but shapr, modern (AFS/VR) and smaller than any of the 1.8-1.4 designs. A 50 in the same style could be fun...

[PB PM]

You forgot the patent for the 50mm F1.2.

[Matsu]

I missed that one, I guess they'll have to do it to quiet all the nay-sayers. Looking at that prospective lens line-up, I'm pretty sure that I'll end up buying lots of 1.8s over the years. I don't really want 1.4s (too expensive) though the 24 and 35 focal lengths would make lots of people happy in a more affordable f/1.8 flavour.

[PB PM]

The F1.8 lineup does look impressive, without a doubt. The lens I'm looking forward to the most will either be the 20mm or 18mm. I keep thinking of the 16-35mm, but no that's too wide and bulky. 20mm or 18mm is more than enough on FX for my purposes, and would be more useful along side the 24-70mm. The choice may well come down to which one performs better for landscape shooting.

[Matsu]

I feel a little more like a photographer today. I finally bought a tripod. , but no head ...

[PB PM]

What tripod did you end up getting?

[Matsu]

I bought a fairly convincing knock-off of a Gitzo 3, like a taller 3531 mountaineer. It's a carbon fibre Dynatran 104T. There's a somewhat limited opportunity in Canada to get these new. Amvona/Dynatran is basically defunct. I'm not 100% sure how it happened, but a good guess is that they were making Gitzo copies from parts they make for other Gitzo copy-cats, and probably got shut down not by any patent enforcement, but through the politics of supply chain management. Henry's bought a bunch of their inventory.

See this thread about the 105T. You have to registeer to see the photos in the thread, but they are very instructive. They guy basically tore down a dyntran, a benro and a gitzo.

I looked at both the 104 (3 sections) and the 105 (4 sections). I chose the 104T for a few reasons. It's a bit taller, but inconsequential. However, the version in stock at Henry's was a lot more stable than the 4 section which was downright sloppy. The spider was also different. The 104 has the Gitzo style powdercoat, while the 105 had a funky rubberized plasticy coating. If you look at the linked thread, you see that his 105 has the better spider, though he describes similarly loose lower leg section locks to those I saw ont he 105 in store - he blames primarily the lower leg diameters. The 3 section 104 maybe avoids the problem because it simply doesn't have the smaller tube diameter.

What I think is going on is that production was and became increasingly haphazard; the spec changed according to supply, so sometimes you got a certain finish, and sometimes not. Same goes for the componentry. I took apart the centre column on both. They're different: the 105 column had visible burrs in the machining and wouldn't extract easily or re-insert without fiddling it. The clerk almost had a heart attack when I dismantled an angle lock - these are also different. The grey powdercoat version has brass bushings on a stainless washer, the black has a white plastic washer. Also, while the powdercoat grey seems better, both finishes rub off where the surfaces meet, you can't see this until you dismantle it.

The top plate on the centre post is garbage on both of them, and I'm probably going to get rid of it since the pod stands 62" without the column anyway. Another thing you could do is check out Markins site for one of their replacement spiders. The angle locks are compatible with Gitzo locks, so you could get the good cheap legs and throw away the spider, but you'd need to confirm the fit first. The guy in the thread actually machined his own ground level kit. Fairly simple, I downloaded his schematic.

If you're interested in getting one, I would suggest going to a store that has a few in stock and checking them out, even within the same model there's clearly variation from box to box.

So, here it is. You go to Henrys. They list it at $179. Open the box, dismantle a leg and the centre post, complain about the fit/finish and you might walk out of there with a $150 leg set that's equal of much pricier leg sets. Objectively, I'd say it's sturdier than the slightly smaller Sirui I also inspected a few months back. Is it a Gitzo? Nope. I had one open right next to it. Gitzo can do with four sections what the knock offs can only reasonable approach with three, but there might be better four section Dynatrans in the system, you've got to rummage around. Makes me want to hunt for a 1 series equivalent...

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I very much taken with the P0 head from Arca - the design seems intuitively right to me. The real question is whether to dive into slidefix or put a standard Arca-swiss clamp. Arca also has a dual clamp - which they're fitting to the larger heads as standard now - implying a transition to slidefix. Anything Arca is just ridiculously hard to actually see and test in Canada. Vistek might have some. I'll have to go look. You guys use Arca type plates. Are safety stops standardized for AS classic plates, or are they an addition? I ask because Arca's dual clamp has the larger channel groves above, and if you had a plate with safety stops, they wouldn't catch. I like Arca's L plate solution for slidefix, it then only requires a regular plate, the L goes on the head itself, but the standard plate is attractive or fitting things like hand straps of rapid strap mounts with built in dovetails.

Oh, and BTW the hand grips are total crap, they're in my office off-gassing like crazy - smells like a tire factory in here.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu You guys use Arca type plates. Are safety stops standardized for AS classic plates, or are they an addition? I ask because Arca's dual clamp has the larger channel groves above, and if you had a plate with safety stops, they wouldn't catch.

I can't speak definitively about the standardisation of safety stops. All my plates are by Markins, and none of them seem to have safety-stop features! My Markins clamp, at left in the photo below, has a pin of some sort (it's sprung, by the way), but I'm not entirely sure what purpose it serves. It stops at least some plates sliding out in one direction, but not in the other direction. The clamp does have a couple of lowered detents which might catch pins on some plates (though not mine, as I said, since my plates don't have pins).

My Wimberley clamp, at right, has a couple of grooved detents too, though they're deeper and differently shaped than the ones on the Markins clamp.



I'm the kind of person who doesn't see a compelling need for safety stops, incidentally. If you get a screw-clamp (like mine) rather than a lever clamp, you can ensure it clamps like a vice on any plate you use — at which point the plate cannot conceivably slide out.

[Dorian Gray]

And here are my Markins plates:



I don't see any safety-stop features.

Sorry for the terrible handheld snapshots. I can take better photos of details later if you want something specific.

Yes, that's a P800U. No, I don't have a D800, but I like to be prepared for any eventuality.

[PB PM]

I have a Gitzo 3531S (They are Systematic not mountaineer), so I think I'll skip on the cheap knockoffs.

As for AS plates, the safty pin (same as the one in Dorians pic) on my Markins Q10 works well. Like Dorian I opted for a knob release, rather than a flip lock. I have never noticed any hint of the plate sliding, even shooting with the D700 and 24-70 for several hours (while shooting virtically). It has saved my camera from sliding to the ground the odd time that I've slighty twisted the knob for the plate, rather than the friction knob for the Ballhead.

[Matsu]

I just decided not to go half way on the legs. Either I was going to spend less than 150 or more than 800 on the legs, not 400-500, at which point it's better to go all in - the Gitzo's are that good. I handled a lot of tripods over the last few months, Gitzo's a comfortable cut above. The way the solidity of the little 1 series is belies its size s just one exampleof their overall fit. That said, the Dynatran is quite sturdy. A friend uses the aluminium version of same, and it feels like I could stand on it. The knock offs have the mountaineer style spider - Gitzo still offers it too - you can get mountaineers up to 3 series dimensions. Systematic adds improvements and goes up to the 5 series giants...

Here are some views of the Arca P0 head.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/shop-by...rca-swiss.html

There are basically four offerings now, these first two I can ind in Canada as well

1.) the bare head;
2.) the integrated panning slidefix head, which I read is not removable without some drilling. Should be sturdier. It's a flip lock, but I expect exacting tolerances.

The next two offer flexibility - with the double dovetail clamp - but I haven't managed to find them in Canada

3.) the quickset classic kit
4.) the quickset lever kit

I can't find much information on these. It looks like the head differs slightly from the bare version in that it has panning marks. I don't imagine the clamps are integrated, but I can't confirm.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray And here are my Markins plates: I don't see any safety-stop features. Sorry for the terrible handheld snapshots. I can take better photos of details later if you want something specific. Yes, that's a P800U. No, I don't have a D800, but I like to be prepared for any eventuality.

Yup, no safety features on Markins plates. I think Arcatechs AS plates do, but that might only work if you use their heads. The Markins plates are also a little strange. For example, the P700U plate allows me to screw in the attachment for my blackrapid strap, while the telephoto PL-75 wont (the fitting is too small).

Matsu, availability of Arca-Swiss branded gear in Canada is one of the main reasons I chose not to get one of their products. Everything seemed to be bare ballhead without no quick release. I could have bought a Wimberly QRP, but that would have added a lot to the cost.

As for tripods, you have the right line of thinking there. Go Gitzo or get something around $200 (head and tripod). Don't waste your money on anything in between, because you'll regret it.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu 2.) the integrated panning slidefix head, which I read is not removable without some drilling. Should be sturdier. It's a flip lock, but I expect exacting tolerances.

Based on my experience with the Arca-Swiss Z1, I'm sure the tolerances are indeed "exacting"! These things are very well made. The issue is whether your plate manufacturer of choice lives up to those standards. If they don't, you might still get a bad fit. I can't speak from experience though, since I opted to avoid the risk altogether.

Screw clamps eliminate the need for high-precision manufacturing of the plates.

I'd love to try that P0, but it would be insane of me to try another tripod head!

Originally Posted by PB PM Yup, no safety features on Markins plates. I think Arcatechs AS plates do, but that might only work if you use their heads. The Markins plates are also a little strange. For example, the P700U plate allows me to screw in the attachment for my blackrapid strap, while the telephoto PL-75 wont (the fitting is too small).

I originally chose a Markins plate because it was easily available, and got additional ones when I was satisfied with the first one. I like the way they're very low profile, lightweight, and have rounded edges and corners to avoid catching on things. However, I haven't tried attaching straps to them.

[PB PM]

I like the Markins plates, which is why I got them over the cheaper plates from other brands. I am going to get one for my GF2 at some point, and will likely get my D600 plates from them too (if there is a D600).

As for what I said about the tripod socket on the bottom of the plates (designed for monopod use I assume), it just seems odd that one has a standard fitting, while the other does not.

[Matsu]

The studio tripods we have are all heavy older Manfrotto jobs. They do the job, but they have awful Manfrotto three-way heads. How anyone shoots anything with these is beyond me. It's so time consuming and disruptive just to make a small adjustment. The plates are the standard rectangular Manfrotto plate. Rather industrial, it lacks any kind of anti-rotation feature, but doesn't seem to slip much. I just don't like it, nor the hexagonal Gitzo plate that's on some of our stuff -- between the plate insertion and the levers, they're too fiddly. The only real benefit is that the camera is positively centered. Arca type clamps will allow for side to side or front to back movement depending on orientation.

Levers are supposed to be faster, but with all the safety catches required to avoid accidental ejection, they don't seem to be, at least not the Manfrotto style releases.

See these vids:

First the P0 with integrated slidefix. So this one is just a bit of an excuse to see the head working. It's also one of the few secure looking and simultaneously no fuss levers I have seen. The lever locks down positively, no extra safety catches.

Here's the quickset version - how I guess they now refer to the dual plate clamps. You can see on one of the shots how the traditional AS plates wouldn't engage any anti-slip pins, while the slidefix sits in the groove. This lever is a little fussier, but not as bad as our Manfrotto heads.

The L bracket comparison. I kinda like this as a universal L bracket solution. Two benefits, you don't have to keep it on the camera all the time. You keep a regular plate fitted, and you adjust the L to fit your new camera/s as needed. When you're not on the tripod, you carry less bulk without unscrewing your plate.

The Cheap Option from Sunwayfoto. Looks like it fits and some folks have been using it to provide a cheap classic AS plate solution.

Besides Robert White in the UK, I've found Dodd's in the US that sells all the new double dovetail options (fliplock and classic)

[PB PM]

P0 is an interesting design, look like it would be a great fit for a 1xxx Gitzo tripod for traveling light. I think the downside to the new slidefix plate is that only Acra-Swiss makes them, which means you are not going to have specific plates for your gear.

As for the L bracket, once I realized they don't work with a battery grip the appeal for having one died quickly. If I am shooting vertically enough to need the L bracket, I'd want to have it work with the grip for improved ergonomics. RRS does make an L Bracket for use with grips, but it costs nearly $200, way too much for a camera plate IMO.

[Matsu]

Is Arca Swiss low volume or just not popular in North America? There are all kinds of plates from good manufacturers for their gear: RRS, Markins, Kirk... and the AS classic is basically copied by everyone who isn't Manfrotto/Gitzo-Vitek but they introduced the double dovetail clamps to all their ball-heads three years ago and there are still single AS and single slidefix clamps around.

[PB PM]

Oh, sorry, I was speaking of the new small plates displayed in the first video of the P0. Standard AS plates are widely available from Kirk, RRS, Arcatech, Markins and others.

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by PB PM If I am shooting vertically enough to need the L bracket, I'd want to have it work with the grip for improved ergonomics. RRS does make an L Bracket for use with grips, but it costs nearly $200, way too much for a camera plate IMO.

There are cheaper knock-offs. I have a Markins L-Bracket for my D700 w/o grip, as the grip might introduce some instability.
I had a RRS L-Bracket for my D2Hs, which I bought very cheap (i.e. a lucky find) on ebay for about €40...

[Matsu]

Another video review of the different plate clamps here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeAkoJhOFf0

[Dorian Gray]

I bought my Arca-Swiss Z1 from Robert White, with shipping to Paris and a substantial discount (I asked) for buying a bunch of stuff together. Good dealer, and one of the few that can still answer technical questions about the stuff they stock.

Arca-Swiss is French, of course, despite the name. They don't even have a website in French, much less English! It's a very old-school company. I'm sure they're very low volume, since how many photographers really buy $400 ball-heads? Perhaps only Foba and Linhof sell fewer heads! (Though Linhof's Quickfix clamps and plates have a small but loyal following.)

I can confirm the traditional Arca-Swiss system works very well. After an initial foray into Markins L-brackets, I now use standard low-profile camera plates instead (also by Markins). For me, an L-bracket isn't strictly necessary, and it makes the camera awkwardly bulky. Everyone has their own view on this kind of thing. Many pros swear by their L-brackets.

However, having used the Z1 for a while, I have great faith in Arca-Swiss engineering. They may be throwing their weight behind the Slidefix system because it will earn them more money than the commoditised traditional clamp, but I'd bet the house it also works very well. So if you fancy it, I say go for it!

[Matsu]

I never shot in a real studio before this class. I did various assignments in one, but not a small planned shoot from front to end. I discovered a few things:

I still don't really like tripods - they interrupt my flow. I think a rapid monopod is probably a better bet for me if I ended up spending a lot of time in a studio.

When I'm forced to use a tripod, the head is critical. Too many are just too fiddly. I like them simple. The Novoflex Magicball might be the best out there in this regard, but less ideal in others - size, precision, clamping force. It's designed to be almost completely fluid, and sacrifices those other qualities of necessity.

I like a long center-column. It may not work in the field, but it's essential for getting the last bit of perspective quickly set in the studio.


Now that I've decided on the head -- P0 -- I have to figure the clamp/plate. I'm thinking that a twist knob double dovetail might be the safest way forward - it's the most universal solution vis-a-vis plate styles and 3rd party mix and match - but I really love the lever clamp of the slidefix only (which they're now calling monoball-fix) ... decisions, decisions. Dodd's in the US ships to Canada, and it's nearby, on the other side of Lake Ontario.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu ...but I really love the lever clamp of the slidefix only (which they're now calling monoball-fix) ... decisions, decisions.

You said earlier that you can remove the Slidefix/monoball-Fix clamp on the P0 with some drilling. Is that process reversible? If it involves drilling through the head of a bolt or something like that, you might be able to go back to the monoball-Fix head if you (1) buy the P0 with monoball-Fix, (2) change your mind, drilling it to put a classic clamp on, and (3) change your mind again, opting to return to the monoball-Fix.

The safe option is classic, as you know. But in my opinion, the main advantage of the classic system is the wide availability of custom L-brackets. Since I no longer feel L-brackets are worth their bulk, I'd be tempted by the monoball-Fix system (or even Linhof Quickfix) if I were starting over again.

Do you envisage using a custom L-bracket?

[Matsu]

Information is a bit spotty. My best understanding is that there seemed to be two different packages at first. The integrated slidefix (now monoball fix) clamp, and the bare head. The former had panning marks built into the head, while the latter did not. The current version differs a tad. All the clamps are available separately now: Monoball fix, and the two double dovetail clamps - quickset lever (lever) and quickset classic (knob). Their removal seems possible on all these new versions, but how, and which one you're getting from the retailer is anyone's guess... All the clamped versions have integrated panning marks, the bare head doesn't appear to, it may still be different. Online pics of some show a different profile to the machining of the top surface, but it could just be poor lighting - Arca's diagrams don't have enough detail to discern for sure.

If you look at the system charts for the Arca plates you see a disc shaped spacer for fitting the clamps, but little explanation. There's even a facility for fitting a clamp to a plate, creating clamp within a clamp for the situation where it might be needed.

This rodklukas guy is a good resource, see links below:

http://rodklukas.com/

http://rodklukas.com/resources/Arca-...c-QuickFix.pdf

http://rodklukas.com/resources/Arca-...noBall-Fix.pdf

It looks from their materials that they intend to fully support both systems. In spite of the size, Arca targets the P0 and P1 as large format heads. The new slidefix clamps are therefore directly interchangeable with rails and are the standard fit for their 3-way and geared heads, but that's not my concern, it's going to be a long time before I spend $2,000+ on a head. There are conversion parts for both systems, but no longer any standard fit only clamps. You can buy: 1. no clamp, 2. slidefix/monoball-fix only, or 3. double dovetail (quickset). This again differs from what's still in the channel - where there are plenty of Arca heads with the "classic only" clamps still for sale.

Funny thing about the monoball fix vs the quickset lever, is that the levers work in different directions. On the monoball fix, you could flip it out

I'm not so sure about traditional L brackets. You mostly need a custom fit for every camera, then there's gripped vs non-gripped, access to ports, potential problems with tethering and the bulk. Some plates look really good, but they have to be custom to solve all the other functional issues, and they never fully overcome the bulk. That's why more lenses, even the small ones, should come with integrated collars, which would avoid all these issues. An adjustable L that sits on the camera seems OK by comparison. Arca's is costly, but you just have to buy one, and can clip you camera[s] into is as needed.

When I think about the things I'd probably use most, a monopod, some sort of rapid strap, or holster system do factor in, so I have to think about ways to get them to play nicely together.

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by Matsu An adjustable L that sits on the camera seems OK by comparison.

Something like these?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc... _Release.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...k_Release.html
http://www.ebay.com/itm/L-bracket-3-...em35b8de babb

[Matsu]

A bit more like these:

http://www.imaginginsider.com/?p=105821

They're very costly, and I don't know that I would buy the classic version from Arca since you can probably get what they're selling cheaper in the links you mention. If those plates extend enough to clear any tethered plugs, then they're just as good. The slidefix though has an advantage: the vertical riser has it's own clamp, so you don't actually attach the L to your camera at all, you attach it to the tripod and just drop your camera into the bracket as you would when attaching directly to the ball head. Rob White says they're titanium and suitable for nodal rails and such stacked onto the L bracket. Very flexible, very nice.

[PB PM]

I like that the classic system has camera spacific plates, it means you don't have to waste timing switching them around all the time. Of course it means that when you buy a new camera you need to wait for new plates, but IMO it is worth it. You can buy universal plates, but as you noted that can cause problems if you tether your camera. That's not a problem for me since I never shoot in a studio.