Markol: I've been a huge fan of Jeff for many years but the final thoughts he put together destroy much of his reputation IMHO.While I'm not at all against this camera, an enthusiast would never argue that he doesn't print large anyway so the inferior IQ is ok when going on a once in a lifetime holiday. But amazon will be happy with the text, that's for sure.
"Destroyed his reputation." People do like their melodrama, don't they :D
snapa: It's simply too big and heavy. As much as I like the larger 1" sensor, if it had only 16MP (for better low light shooting capability) and 25-300mm equivalent zoom range to make it smaller/lighter, it could have been a contender for me. As it is, it is as large and heavy as a mid range DSLR with a kit lens and has lower IQ and high ISO capability. Not many people need/require 20MP or 400mm as a travel type take anywhere camera. Also, 4K video will only be truly utilized by <5% of people, so that is something most will pay for without needing or using it. It's basically a marketing gimmick for all intensive purposes at this time. Once people own 4K capable computer monitors and TV's, it may be worth having that option at that time.
"For all intensive purposes."
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES! AAAGH! YE GODS!
We need more grammar Nazis. I can't be the only one.
Sony should slow down and finish what they start. A strong array of lenses for existing product lines would be good. How about value-for-money lenses for the a6000?
fortwodriver: This is absolute BS... The f-stop is a measure of the ratio of the diaphragm opening to the focal length of the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to talk about light transmission, please do your research on T-Stops and stop making this stuff up.
T stop is more accurate, yes, but as consumer cameras have TTL metering, the differences are not enough to invalidate F-stops as a metric.
Even Newton's 3 laws of motion aren't completely accurate, if you go down to a quantum level of measurement, but they are accurate _enough_ for engineering purposes and for our lives.
You, sir, have come here to pour scorn on stills photographers and tell us that you're in some way one of the 'big boys' in the movie world. You are not here in the spirit of sharing knowledge of the art of photography.
Barney Britton: Sorry about that - we like to keep you in suspense. The system for scheduling homepage stories is separate from that which schedules articles - hence the snafu.
Hopefully you can see the article now, sorry about the break in service.
Oh FFS Denis.
Wubslin: Another overblown, overdone, oversized, overweight, overpriced failure from Nikon then?
Time to stick a fork in it.
Some people are quite active on forums. That makes them experts.
The Name is Bond: An 85mm is not for headshots or even head and shoulder shots.
It's for head and half torso at the most.
You need a 135mm equiv minimum for headshots.
If you don't believe me then try it with your consumer zoom. It makes a huge difference.
She looks a bit flat-faced at 350 mm but the comparisons were informative. Thank you. I can see how different focal lengths would suit different faces too. Clearly, 85mm isn't the whole story for portraits. I shall take pics accordingly.
Y U Leica?
nickthetasmaniac: DPR, I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the sustainability of using 1.2kg of aluminium to create a 94g shell? Even assuming the waste aluminium is reused, this still requires a great deal of additional energy. Or do these things not matter so long as "The result is an extraordinarily tactile, solid-feeling object."
Being a niche, artisan manufacturer does not excuse Leica from its environmental responsibility.
And there's the fact that Leica owners aren't buying new cameras every 18 months. That's good for the environment.
Poweruser: Although 15/1.7 sound spectacular on paper what you are really getting is a moderate wide angle (35mm terms) with almost no option to work with selective depth of field. Unless you really close up, compact camera / phone style.
Would it matter if this lens was f2.8 instead? A fast aperture at this focal length helps the smaller m43 sensor to gather enough photons in bad light. Picture-wise at 15mm it doesnt make a difference at all.
We must have bokeh. We don't know why, but we must have bokeh.
yabokkie: if the AF is really good, and better if good with EF lenses, many of us should be able to put m4/3" behind us.
What camera do you shoot with, Yabokkie?
Without ever having been in the same room as one or seen any sample pics, I can say that this is a good-looking camera. The design team got it right this time.
Macist: Without GPS, it's useless as a travel camera.
Fail, since superzooms are mostly bought for travel photos.
I just tell people where my shots are taken. If that isn't enough for them, then they can sod off.
Scott Birch: I can't believe the whining from people in this comments thread.
And I am frothing at the mouth at your insolence in calling me out on this. It's all gone a bit ironic, hasn't it? Even so, still incredulous at the whingers. It sounds like a good camera. At least get your hands on it before you slam it on this forum.
I can't believe the whining from people in this comments thread.
People whining about 'post' and Photoshop perhaps never used a darkroom.
aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.
Carabas, you're assuming that total originality is an absolute requirement for every piece of art, yes?
PinPoint: wow, a dumb rubber cost around 20% the price of a camera body with sophisticated electronics and mechanics... I changed all the 4 tyres of my car and that cost me around 2% the price of car body...
Hi EssexAsh. People who cannot spell 'tyre' tire me also :)
Breathtaking. Thank you.