T5.0-8.9 doesn't sound impressive, at least in the lower range (and I doubt it's gonna be T/5 until 999mm). How do cine people deal with bad speed in low light? I get it that with 1080p it's not such an issue compared to 36 MPx prints, but with 4k I guess things start getting noisy.
Geez, what's your problem guys, so they asked a fashion designer to make a bag and put a white camera inside it. Big deal. It's just a white camera in a white bag. Something you can buy for your wife as a gift if you you know she doesn't appreciate the standard big black cameras. (And while I don't know SmC's work she's probably known enough that the bag itself would cost as much when bought separately.)
It's not like they had to pull firmware programmers or lens designers from their work on your dreamed out Canon MILC to make this.
vFunct: 4k should only be done on a professional cinema camera.
It should NOT be in any dSLR.
In fact, dSLR for video is useless. A real cinema camera is always better than dSLRs. The dSLR body is not designed for video, since the mount points are always near the center of gravity, causing it to be unstable and shaky.
Additionally, the full-frame sensor causes everything to be out-of-focus. Professional editors constantly complain how horribly unfocused dSLR videos are. You end up with much better shots with a smaller sensor, like super-35mm.
At this point, only amateur photographers shoot video with dSLR videos. I never hire dSLRs videographers and always choose cinematographers with real video cameras for jobs.
Once you add all the cinema accessories to a dSLR rig, you're just better off with a real video camera, for better quality results.
I hope Nikon comes up with a separate cinema system, like what Canon did.
4K may not be important for consuming yet, but it will be in 5 or so years and when that comes, 1080p video will look bad, just like when you try to watch VHS today, or impress with 5 MPx images. Simple future proofing, an important thing especially for people who hope to still sell their product 5 to 10 years from now.
samfan: Usual Nikon, can't say anything, don't know anything, won't predict anything, usual crap about customers, market and strategy that just shows how lost they are, and cameras consist only of IQ and AF, nothing else.
I know you can't slap these PR people, but did you at least puke on him?
And after Nikon brought out the FF, many opted to stay with DX. Shows there's market for both. Also, today not just DX is good enough for most uses, but even smaller (m43) is.
BarnET: Good interview.
Some good questions, and interesting answers.It seems Toshiaki Akagi wants to move forward with Nikon's strengths.
Their camera's already offer class-leading image quality with their Dslr'sand they have good AF systems.
I also agree that AF improvements can be made. The D300S AF module is already quiet old. And it's still the best available for Nikon Apsc users.A new one for the D7200/D400 would be great
And then the old one can go into the D5400 and the 39 AF system in the D3400
With Image quality they are depending on other companies.I wonder how they can get better results on the short term.
Perhaps making a deal with Samsung.
Hello and welcome to Earth. What else is different in the mirror universe you're coming from? Could you show us the interview you read there?
Not really, DSLRs are used by pros, indie moviemakers, travelling video bloggers and what not. Very popular. I can't see the logic in that either but if that's what people want...
Also, Nikon will get around to making their separate cine system in 2045. It will shoot 1080p and will have 3 lenses to chose from (all 28-xx eq. f/3-5.6) when everyone else will have holographic 3D.
Shortly after introduction, 3 systems are purchased by museum and 4 by hipsters, after which Nikon announces they are happy with the response and are evaluating demand for 4k.
Usual Nikon, can't say anything, don't know anything, won't predict anything, usual crap about customers, market and strategy that just shows how lost they are, and cameras consist only of IQ and AF, nothing else.
tom1234567: Samsung NX1 is a better camera Samsung’s NX1 camera is ready to capture life as it happens. Thanks to 205 phase-detection points and 209 contrast-detection points, the NX AF System III covers an incredible 90% of the sensor area. This super-wide AF area is superior to those in digital SLRs. With 15 frames-per-second (fps) capture speed, it can track and capture moments that you don’t even see coming. This isn’t for a short burst, either. Up to 70 full resolution JPEG images can be captured at a time, so beats canon out the park they better go back to the drawing board
Well, other brands have fanboys to do the same job, Sony in particular. Poor Samsung, everyone still regards them as fridge makers so they have so few fanboys they need to pay them.
(tongue in cheek)
Harry S: Interestingly, almost nobody bought the original Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. Having owned one myself I could never get my head around that, it's so small and light compared to the 70-200s, perfect for APS-C cameras.
See also, Sigma 100-300mm f4. How did that never take off?! Excellent bridge between big 2.8 primes and variable aperture 70-300s etc.
Badi, I'm guessing you had a Canon version? Sigma/Canon often weren't a very good combination (maybe it has changed now). I had a Nikon version and it was blazing fast, I also had the luck of it being spot-on.
Indeed, the original Sigma 50-150/2.8 was absolutely lovely. Tokina 50-135/2.8 also had pretty good reputation. Why they were not popular - I'm not quite sure, I'm guessing they had too much competition from Canon 70-200/4 and Nikon 80-200/2.8 (old versions) which could be bought even more cheaply and optically are better.
It's also a matter of reputation. Sigma didn't have a very good one, while Tokina was quite unknown and the 50-135 had some issues (slow focusing).
And, there's the thing of focal lengths. I guess people welcomed that 200mm suddenly became 300mm. Since photogs were already used to haul around the heavy guns, it was be a plus for many.
It's only in the recent years that MILCs are showing that smaller cameras are possible with the same IQ, so naturally smaller lenses are also expected/welcome.
samfan: Heh. "Unfortunately there's no touchscreen on this camera", now that's something you don't hear from company reps often. You can really tell this guy is realistic about the camera and personally likes it. His posture completely changed when he had to repeat the stupid marketing pitch about how everybody from your grandma can use the LX100.
All the camera companies should have people like this.
Anyway I'd rather like to see them make this lens for the GM5. Well, uncropped of course. Honestly saying the camera is using a 16 MP m43 sensor is a bit of lying on their part since it only uses 12 MP. Isn't the imaging area closer to 1" then?
BTW if I'm not mistaken, the digicam's 4:3 ratio comes from the computer industry where 4:3 displays used to be standard, and that in turns is related to the PAL standard. Which I find a bit odd since most of the initial PC breakthroughs came from NTSC countries (US, JP) with native 5:4 ratio. I gotta look it up someday.
I'm not actually used to printing, but if I print something, it's 20x30 or 40x60 cm (8x12", 16x24") which happen to be 3:2 but it's more a coincidence than anything. When I had my first digital compact I always thought there's something odd about those images.
As for LX100, well, it's fixed lens and quite big so doesn't really interest me. RX100 III seems like a better choice for a compact camera (and also natively 3:2 to boot) even though it's lesser in the lens speed department, then again it's 20 MPx so advantages go both ways.
That's true. I prefer the 3:2 ratio so I really hate 4:3 sensors since cropping to 3:2 changes the FOV of wide angle and prime lenses compared to native 3:2. 16:9 while not my first choice is fine for many purposes and a wider horizontal angle could be worth it.
However I'd much rather see selectable aspect ratio in ILCs. Panasonic already does that with the GH series, I wish they'd put the same capability in 'lesser' cameras. I also wish Olympus would stop spoiling the fun with insisting on 4:3.
Yea I just looked it up. 4/3 sensor - 225 m^2, 1" - 116 m^2, LX100 - 180 m^2.
Heh. "Unfortunately there's no touchscreen on this camera", now that's something you don't hear from company reps often. You can really tell this guy is realistic about the camera and personally likes it. His posture completely changed when he had to repeat the stupid marketing pitch about how everybody from your grandma can use the LX100.
marc petzold: The M60 is a photographers dream - digital, but like i wrote before, reduced to the max, just the mechanical stuff you'd essentially really need, minus all that rubbish you don't ever need...the only problem is the amount of cost, with the matching lens, as set...you've to buy two from the 600 worldwide, if you'd like to use it - one for the show case, and one for carefully composing photographs with it....and don't forget your white gloves, then. :)
That seems like a very arbitrary selection if you ask me. Why 5 AF points, why 4 fps, why 16 MP, why no JPEG, why a 3" / 920k LCD, why in particular APS-C or FF sensor?
And more than 100% viewfinder? That would mean it can't be a TTL finder which means other limitations.
If someone gets around to make a really basic camera, I'm guessing they'll also try to make it as cheap as reasonably possible while retaining decent build quality. It would probably be designed as cameras of the 70's with just the most basic LCD and, I'm guessing, it would come in m43 mount.
Then again someone may get around to making a affordable M-mount camera but that would indeed have to be FF to make sense these days I think.
kodachromeguy: The new M 60 is really cool, but I do not understand how it works. With no screen, how do you check the capacity of the memory card, or check battery capacity, or format the card? And will there be a way to change parameters like metering points? I agree with the previous writer that it is refreshing to have a camera without the rubbish that often looks like some programmer added just because he could. As for the critics that this is a status symbol: maybe it is in Europe of Hong Kong. But in Middle America, it means nothing because almost no ordinary suburban photographers have any connection with Leica whatsoever. They just do not know what it is.
You don't need to check the capacity of the battery or memory card because with such a camera you take 10 to 100 pictures a day, not 3000 like with a 10 fps DSLR. But there is a button for checking the battery capacity.
You don't need to format the card because apparently Leica doesn't use crappy camera firmware which cannot handle cards formatted somewhere else, so you can just format on the computer (this is actually true, I'm not making it up).
Metering points...? You know it's a Leica right? You might just as well ask for autotofocus. You don't get anything besides aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
photosen: It *is* as thought: sadomasochism takes many forms... Such as no review screen. Why review on the spot when you can go back home and cry your eyes out? This isn't to say someone won't like this "feature", which is why they'll have to pay for the privilege. A fool and his money...
If a LCD-less Leica was cheaper than the regular one, it would be desirable for many. Not everyone needs a review LCD. And yea, some would even pay more for such a camera for added robustness for example (if it was made truly bulletproof that is).
Such as it is, a 15k € collector's piece, it doesn't matter whether it has an LCD or not. It could easily be sold as just an empty metal shell and nobody would be the wiser because nobody is gonna take photographs with it.
Akos Kozari: I'm thinking on what Oskar Barnack would say about creating a machine that not aiming to make the photography as easy as possible. I think it does not fit to the original philosophy... It is my 2 cents. On the other hand: i can confirm: Leica has a feeling and i would be happy to own one. Now if i would have money i would rather choose Fuji X-T1 instead. That follows the philosophy i meant...
Well the best camera these days according to Barnack's philosophy would probably be a decent smartphone.
Indeed it would seem that the creation of Leica's feel was a side effect, but side effects often find their own life in the world.
That's actually pretty cool. I wonder if it crossed their mind to make a standard edition of M-60 and sell that as a low-end version of the digital M. Even better with a BW CCD sensor like in the Mono.
I mean, not everyone actually needs an LCD (otherwise nobody would use film Leicas still) or other trinkets. And considering Leica has no problem charging $700 or whatever it is for a $10 RAM chip and a piece of glass, I'm guessing they are charging a lot of the LCD itself.
BTW DPR: that 15,00 Euro is probably 15,000?