Why touch screen? This is not an iPhone or your Sunday picnic snap tool. This is a rugged pro DSLR, which many pros will use in adverse conditions. It must work when the user wears gloves on. DPR was again running out of silly excuses to find 'cons'? And thus pushed this phenomenal DSLR into comparisons with categories and demands that are irrelevant.
Zvonimir Tosic: And DPR recommends … Nikon D7100?Gosh, both 7DII and K-3 are far superior machines, kings of this category. Both in capability, ruggedness, and one in price too. And we are supposed to trust DPR’s ability to acknowledge truth and facts?Good Lord, what is going on with this site?
If K-3 is a semi-pro, and 7DII is pro, and we don't know yet about A77II category, then what are they doing in the same enthusiast category with D7100? Thus the whole setup is bogus and the whole exercise of recommendations ridiculous..
And DPR recommends … Nikon D7100?Gosh, both 7DII and K-3 are far superior machines, kings of this category. Both in capability, ruggedness, and one in price too. And we are supposed to trust DPR’s ability to acknowledge truth and facts?Good Lord, what is going on with this site?
This is more "REVIEWED vs WE DON'T WANT TO REVIEW THEM" round up.
I mean, what is the point comparing Nikon and Canon DSLRs — ALL of which DPR reviewed and scored favourably — with cameras of manufacturers you have never reviewed, nor you intend to.Who wins? You and your award badges already decided that, because you review only that what you want to be considered good and valuable to your readers.
Hence this "roundup" is silly, if not totally ridiculous.
Potemkin_Photo: You've just been "Hasselbladded!"
You understand that Nikon has been making special edition cameras since time immemorial? Hassy has nothing to do with it. Or maybe, for you photography started with digital age?
This should have been the standard version.
Mike FL: Half of the price goes to the name as Leica is Leica. Other than that:
- Get any Fuji body + Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 If you want better sensor and better SPEC'd lens for the same sensor size and FL.
- Go for the best of the best, Sony RX1.
- Still like the Leica look, BUT not Leica price? Fuji X100T looks more liking a Leica than a real Leica.
You still want get exactly the same camera but half of the price? It is POSSIBLE if Panasonic decided to re-badge this Leica to Panasonic... Why not?
P.S.Oh, almost forget, Panasonic should be add a built in GRIP. or other people will complain/think Panasonic do NOT know how to design a camera, just like they complain/say-to Canon G7X, Sony RX100s...
Never see any one complain Leica having no DRIP. Never, ever...
But do you understand what is the “logo” price? I think you do not. It is impossible for a small manufacturer like Leica to deliver cameras at the cost that big Japanese manufacturers, who dab into multiple other things, can do. But take a look how priced are cameras from Canon, a successful imaging company; in their category, theirs are premium products. See the new 7DII; it costs a good price, but as a reward, Canon has superior marketing and customer support centres. How they do that? You pay for that through the premium price. Canon is not worried too much — the 7DII will fly off the shelves with much higher price and inferior sensors than Pentax K-3 with much lower price and better sensor. Only way for Pentax to sell more is to discount more. But people trust Canon more than many other brands, it delivers and gives more. You must pay for support, marketing and real presence. Leica would go out of business if they do not offer all that.
Zvonimir Tosic: For those who compare Ricoh GR with this Leica X.
Lenses: . GR has 28mm equivalent lens, Leica X has 35mm equivalent. One is f/1.7, one is f/2.8. So they are not comparable. It is questionable how would Ricoh's 35mm lens compare to Leica's 35mm lens. Ricoh never made a 35mm GR, not the same lens in digital age
Marketing: despite being about 100 times smaller a company, Leica shows 100 times better marketing efforts. You can easier find Leica X in shops than the GR. Leica's service is better experience too. How they do that, I don't know, but it shows strategy, thinking, commitment despite minute size of the company. Perhaps is better ask: why Ricoh fails to do that?
Price: Leica's price is higher than Ricoh's. But you need to put all arguments on the desk: if a small company works harder and must charge more because the cost of their operation is high, why would you endorse a big player then, who can lower the price, but still does not care. For its main business are copiers anyway.
I thought replying around threads with no valid economic arguments is usually your forte Carl. Marketing cost and service is part of a product cost, and when a camera from a niche manufacturer comes out dirt cheap, it means something. That is the abc of economy: there is a reason Ricoh's GR is cheap. Because it has no marketing cost nor service cost necessary integrated in its price. Building good marketing awareness costs a lot of money. Building a good and efficient service network costs a lot of money. Real people must be employed and awarded. But Ricoh skims on that, skims on all important customer support. So by buying cheap, you finance the wrong guy, a guy who really does not care. And you celebrate because the camera is cheap and lens sharp. But it is infinitely easier for Rich to make a sharp lens, than spend extra millions in improving sharp service. Once you need the full extent of a product's awareness and support, you finally understand why some things are cheap.
forpetessake: Old glorious names are complete disappointment nowadays: first Hasselblad, now Leica becoming the synonyms of expensive mediocrity.
It is the economy of scale and mathematics of large numbers that DPR members demand, but never really understand.
cgarrard: Makes Ricoh's GR look like an even more incredible value. The sensor and especially the lens from Ricoh seem to blow this camera away at a fraction of the cost.
Yet, the Ricoh doesn't have the bomb proof build quality (although its still very excellent), Leica styling, or the Red Dot. And to people who buy Leica, that makes all the difference. Its not about value, its about vanity- at least in this case.
Oh wait, I'll give two more points to Leica. Packaging, and service, both to which handily go in their favor.
For those who compare Ricoh GR with this Leica X.
X is like fine dress leather shoes; lovely when walking slow pace in the city during a sunny day, but a nuisance when raining, snowing, when in the great outdoors or when one needs to run or walk very long distances. I presume if Leica wanted to make a really good, sturdy, excellent performing and dependable photographer's camera within its X series and 35mm lens, they would endanger their M line and 35 mm cron/lux lens in particular. Then, suddenly, those $2800 will be just a fine price to pay by any reviewer.
Well, they are giving some earnings for charity. I would presume more that a usual amount. Although the camera by itself has nothing to do with photography news, nor can I see any photographer using this, this is a good news that someone thinks they can transform photographic tools into news that could help someone. Considering Nikon's own bottom line, they will never do the same. So if Brikk does something with the fame of Nikon's camera, well, good on them. Maybe some kids will get better education and some hospital some supplies.
Zvonimir Tosic: Totally not interested in zoom lenses. but I have to admit this one is good.
Price is comparable with the competition, and the street price will always be lower, and when it comes in kits, it will be dirt cheap. So for a lens with quality motor, best coating on the market, and the WR, this may be the only lens some user will ever need. Why it's not f4 constant? Well it starts at f3.5 and ends at f5.6, so average is f4 anyway.
Well done, Pentax engineers.
Blur does not entirely depend on aperture, but on quality and distance of the background. If the background is natural, not too contrasty in change of light and shade, yet far enough behind the subject, f4 or f5.6 can produce a very nice bohkeh and all the subject plus some close foreground will be in focus. This kind of lens provides us easily a classic, beautiful and well focused portrait on subject and part of its close surrounding. Not a postmodern type, loaded with heavy blur where only tip of the nose is in focus. Yuck!
iudex, 85mm is 130 mm equivalent in 35mm Leica format. Thus the lens is good enough for medium telephoto. Traditionally, portrait focal lengths are between 70 and 100 mm in Leica format, and this lens fits the bill. You would not want ultra sharp lens for portraits anyway, and with good wide end — hopefully done well and without much distortions— this lens can be a discerning photographer's little workhorse. If the wide end is really good, then the price is well justified.
So it is premature to throw negative comments about price.
If nothing else, coating used and developed by Pentax is best in the market, and I would rather take one average Pentax lens than Sigma's top shell lens, because Pentax lens is usable in more situations thanks to WR and/or superior coating. Even 30 years old Pentax coating performs better than today's Sigma's.
Totally not interested in zoom lenses. but I have to admit this one is good.
Marty4650: Nikon makes a very similar lens for quite a bit less. The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, which sells for around $600. But it may not be weather sealed.
While you really don't need to be competitively priced once you lock someone into your lens mount, setting prices too high can discourage new customers from getting on board.
How much would Nikon's lens cost if it had weather sealing?
Wallace Ross: It seems to me that comparing this against a regular camera is pointless, it is something completely different. I used the most up to date Google spherical app today and the whole process for one image including stitching took about 12minutes which makes creating a street view type walk through impractical. Then there is the Theta
Wallace, many people who buy smartphones as a primary photo tool will never need full 360 degree panorama. Most they need, and which many pictures show, is 120 to some ~180 degrees, most of the time.
However, targeting smartphone users is secondary to what Ricoh should have done. It is better to include this toy with their upmarket cameras, to enhance features of Theta and the camera. When you carry an iPhone to take shots, you hardly bother with extra equipment. And when you pack your camera, there is always room for Theta.
There is another reason: not a single camera in the market has as good or as simple stitching of the pano shots as the iPhone. iPhone has superior CPU power. Japanese cameras today lag compared to iPhone's photo abilities which utilise much more sophisticated software and the CPU power.
Yet with Theta, at least one click does 360 degree pano. Many DSLR users would love that option, but Ricoh leaves it to .. smartphone users?
Not a very smart strategy.
Imagine Apple designing an iPod which cannot connect to an Apple computer? That is how Ricoh designs Theta — engineers have a “cool” engineering idea, but that idea has never had clear marketing purpose from the beginning.
As a result, Theta is just one trick pony to be used with a smartphone, because Ricoh thinks it can become “the player” in the mobile devices market, together with Apple, Samsung and Sony. Who needs extra Theta for $400 when an iPhone by default does a seamless panorama as you see fit, and within a few seconds?
That is Ricoh's fault in thinking. Instead of "outsmarting" Apple, which they cannot, they should pursue their traditional camera market at the same time, and strengthen it with Theta, include Theta in camera deals, etc.
But again, it takes a century for Ricoh Imaging's marketing (if they have one to speak of) to add two and two together.