A good range of lenses would be nice.
Conrad567: The largest problem I can see, is that if you want a film like look to your videos you need to shoot at 24fpp [approx] and @ 1/50th sec shutter speed. This makes it impossible to make a sharp image of certain subjects, cars, kids, pets, trees while there is any kind of breeze etc.
One day 24fps film won't be such a Holy Grail. Because we had it in cinemas for a couple of generations we assume it's the be-all and end-all. That doesn't have to be the case for much longer.
I didn't understand the appeal of Leica until I picked one up. Ahh ..
GaryJP: Pretty sure this is an April 1st provocation but I am sick of the bellyaching about selfie sticks.
Photographers have ALWAYS taken pictures of themselves in front of assorted tourist features and the amount of room needed (as no one can be between the camera and the subject) has always been exactly the same. It certainly beats giving your camera or mobile phone to a random passer by to shoot you and your friends. (Particularly inadvisable if that passer by is wearing sports shows and can run fast.) It is also no bigger a problem in terms of space taken up than a tripod and a camera on a self timer.
Yes, they, and LCD screen cameras of ANY kind should be banned in venues such as concerts, but this isn't much of a real problem as most are shooting at the stage, not themselves in an anonymous crowd.
As a friend's kid once said to him: 'The fact that something didn't exist when you were born does not automatically make it a bad thing." The kid was right, My friend was wrong.
I used to sneer at it, but then I took some really nice party pics with one. The angle was a great one for flattering a group of faces.
Is this sample broken?
iae aa eia: I would prefer to have seen a 1" sensor with a lens with the same aperture of the LX7 (even if the tele end was as short as the LX100). That aperture range was a trademark. At least for me, it was like, "Man, I have a 1.4 Leica lens. Wow!" I know this isn't all, but it was quite an appeal. It really was a surprise to see an even larger sensor, though, but I miss this step lighter aperture range. I think I also miss the cleaner but catchy design of the LX3/7 and that less matte metal housing. But, well, aside these sentimental issues, it's quite an update.
I'm no longer sure what this argument is about.
I think we're arguing about different things. I think we all know what F-stop is. I said a couple of comments up that F-stop is a ratio.
I understand that F-stop is about brightness, but it's not the whole story when it comes to photon-gathering and IQ.
Dude, quantity of brightness is not the whole story, that is all I'm saying. It's also about how larger sensors and lenses gather more photons at any given F-stop and incorporate them into a superior quality image, with better signal-to-noise ratio and a greater control over depth-of-field for those who require it. Instead of repeating your point, try to understand the one I've been making.
Hence the discussion of equivalency - or do you not wish to discuss the graph at all? Interesting ...
Your attempts to teach are cute. The concept of aperture equivalency is a valid and useful one. Look at the table in the article and learn from it. Bokeh is a result of reduced depth of field due to larger apertures, not F-stops. Light-gathering ability is compromised by a smaller sensor's inferior treatment of gathered light.
The amount of gathered light is pretty much beyond debate. Larger holes let more light in.
F-stop is a ratio. actual aperture is a physical measurement. Hence the use of aperture equivalence by those who assess such things and the film industry also.
The F-stop might be a lower number on the LX7, but the aperture is larger (and more light is gathered) on the LX100.
YiannisPP: Those "I own it, I want it, I had it" numbers are like a statistical distribution of people's ability to perform the simplest of actions, i.e. press the correct central button ("I want it"). It seems that about 10% of DPR users fail to control their fingers/mouse so as to push the right button. That is pretty surprising, 10% is a lot.
Those buttons are useless.
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.