JaimeA: Reading the specifications we found out that this camera has NO image stabilization. Totally nuts if you like closeups, interior and night shots.
Lack of image stabilization is no big deal. Many expensive prime lenses for DSLRs, especially wide angle lenses, have no image stabilisation. This camera should be much easier to hold steady at low shutter speeds than a DSLR . No mirror slap and the leaf shutter will have less vibration than a DSLR's focal plane shutter.
Also there is a practical problem. The OIS elements in a lens would probably need to be where the leaf shutter is. There is also some loss of IQ in a lens with OIS.
But if you really think you need OIS, there are plenty of other cameras that have it.
vkphoto: I would love to see Nikon taking similar approach by developing "no-frills" digital camera with no LCD, no AF, split screen, raw-only FM2.
They might if they thought they could sell them for $20K - somehow Leica are the only ones who seem to be able to pull that off.
gbvalli: It is not "The Essence of Photography": only "The Essence of Luxury", and, to me, fairly aimless .
I think cameras like this have a collector base - not a user base.
joyclick: why not put in a film cartridge and film transport levers and .....revive film photography a la fashion industry cycle?
The MA has a flash sync speed of between 1/30 and 1/60s - but they do throw in a couple of rolls of Tri-X
Anadrol: The worst is that Leica employees are currently laughing about the idiots that will pay 20K for that, well I don't have pity either for snobs that like to burn their money... they should rather give it to charities though, if they don't know what to do with it.
I suspect the people who waste their money buying expensive European fashion accessories like special edition Leicas have about as much real concern for the poor and suffering as Marie Antoinette.
WTF is "anthracite leather"?
Only ever heard of coal named anthracite, never a beast - and if it doesn't come from an animal it isn't really leather.
Is it just some expensive kind of Naugahyde?
pdelux: Only Leica could remove essential features (LCD) and have people applaud their Bravery. Whats next, lets remove the shutter button and just have a monocular.
Take your current leicas and turn off the LCD, and you simulate the same experience of being very annoyed that you cant review your images, just like in the film days.
Since most "special edition" Leica's like this will be bought by wealthy collectors who will hardly ever, or never, use them the LCD is certainly not essential.
1elementin7groups: Ha, hype about a new lens? Look at how many people already own it or had it! Looks like it has been around a while! ;>)
Yes, DPR should disable the "I own it" until a product is actually shipping - and the "I had it" until a few weeks later.
Thiom: Not that much smaller or more lightweight than the equally spec'd DSLR competition by Canikon. It eventually turns out as I always suspected: lenses for FF mirrorless are not going to be that much smaller than SLR designs as they have to deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.
The A7s are nice cameras for sure, but for traveling really light and compact regarding the entire kit as possible with APS-C mirrorless or MFT shooters have to confine themselves to relatively slow primes. If one's happy with that, OK. But when fast (zoom) glass is desired brace yourself for DSLR-like bulk and weight of the kit bag.
With zoom lenses they are unlikely to be able to reduce much size and weight from an equivalent FF DSLR lens.
With some wide angle primes they may not have to use retrofocal designs which should make them smaller and lighter.
But the body size does count too
km25: Snyc is at 1/200 and 1/4000 is fast enough for vast majority of photographers. Nikon F2s had a 1/2000 and snyc of 1/90..Nikormat was 1/1000 and sync of a blazing 1/125. And it all worked for everything from the sports to still life.
Why do you need to shoot wide open in bright light? You expensive f/1.4 lenses should perform much better with the aperture closed down a stop or two.
If razor thin DOF and bokeh is that important to you get an ND filter.
Dodi73: Hence, on my ideal DSLR, that might be really the successor of the D700 whenever it will come out, I would like- 18/20 MP max, there's plenty for me - I prefer high iso / dr improvements. - pro command dial layout, body and grip ( D700 and F6 are best for me ) - focusing screen dedicated for mf lenses (or for af lenses working in mf) or other focusing trick- 11 cross type points displaced as in D2x / F6 and all the rest where Nikon likes. - 1/8000s and 1/250s (why not trying 1/500s) sync flash? - gps - I don't want AA or OLPF, let me get the image as it is and exploit my lenses accordingly. Eventual moire it's my problem, not theirs.
What I can leave out - LCD- video capabilities - wi fi- anything faster than 8 fps - no need for me going beyond it.
A full frame sensor with only 18mp and no AA filter?
While you might not mind the moire and artefacts - many others would complain.
Jose Ernesto Passos: First:Copyright is retained by the author of the work of art. Not the owner of the equipment.
Second this picture became famous because it was a monkey's selfie.
If the owner of the camera says he took the picture, the picture will loose it is main reason for its popularity. Saying the truth, that is, the picture was taken by the monkey... The conclusion is ... wikipedia is in the right track.
That black macaque is making a monkey out of everyone.
Anyway Slater is getting a lot of free publicity and lawyers will probably be debating this for years.
stevez: B&W is traditional and so are chrome cameras. It should have been made this way at the onset.
So they could sell both versions to rich collectors?
I'm sure I'd love to use such a camera - but one look at their prices kills any lust.
VikingPhotographer: Back in the good old days of celloidfilm cameras nearly all the cameras of all brands was in "chrome" with black "leather", the black models came fx in Hasselblad because of small faults in the chrome, so in a way the were never first choice at the time. Then the black versions became popular for some press photographers and black became more popular, but it was still chrome versions that was first choice. At the time where plastic became more and more the most used material for camera bodies, then black became the norme, not because they were more popular, no because chrome was to diffucult to look nice in plastic ! I must admit that chrome plastic looks very cheap compared to real metal chrome ! But take a look at a Hasselblad chrome, it just look so nice ! The new - still much too expensive - Leica in chrome look cheap and depressed. At the price of a Leica, I would rather but a Fuji X-serie plus a Canon 5D, plus a Sony, plus a...
And if you want to shoot nice B&W, a good used silver Hasselblad 500 CM is a lot cheaper than a Monochrom Leica.
disraeli demon: It's a simple way for them to generate a small extra product line I guess, so fair enough.
A Monochrom sensor in a Typ-240 body though… that would be something.
I wonder what type of sensor that will have.
Peter CS: Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda? Time will tell...
Legal fees? I suspect the Walton's are already paying a raft of lawyers who work for them full time. Maybe they thought those lawyers weren't working hard enough for their money so they got them to file this ridiculous suit.
Peiasdf: Liberal trash, it is the Waltons suing Bob’s Studio, not Walmart. If you read the source, the Waltons offered $2000 for those boxes of negatives of themselves but Bob’s Huff think she can cash them for more now that the Waltons are rich and famous.
Unless the Waltons were hired as models by Bob's, Huff shouldn't have the right to cash in by selling Waltons' studio photos to tabloids.
Why not? Where any business has grown as much as Walmart a certain amount of luck is inevitably involved. Mrs. Huff has also got lucky in that some of the pictures her late husband took in the course of his work were of people that later became very rich and famous.
If you were a professional photographer who was lucky enough to take pictures of some ordinary person who later became very rich and famous - wouldn't you, or your children, want to sell those photographs for as much as they became worth?
Not "Liberal trash" - Mrs Huff is being entrepreneurial and trying to get maximum return from the property (copyright) she inherited and is entitled to - just like the Walton's are certainly taking advantage of all the wealth they were fortunate to inherit.
Wubslin: I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.
Presumably, since the photographs were taken by a studio, the photographer was asked to take the pictures - so, anyway you look at it, he did have a 'right'.
Helen Huff has every bit as much right to take advantage of the copyright she inherited as the Waltons have to take advantage of all the money they inherited. At least those photographs taken at Bob’s Studio didn't come at the cost of thousands of American jobs exported to the People's Republic of China.
I'll bet the late Mr Huff paid all his taxes and treated his employees decently- unlike the Waltons who apparently use every loophole available to avoid paying taxes and have pay wages so low that a large percentage of their employees need to rely on food stamps and federal benefits.