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.
atamola: These "DP top picks" are really shameles and laughable.
The "How are these lens chosen" should read: based on what is most convenient for us.
The Samyang 35 f1.4 is an absolute optical marvel and the undisputed champion £ for £ and yet is missing from the list.
These "Top Picks" are nothing but shameless retail sale catalogs disguised as objective reviews.
For want of one lens, the list was panned. Dear oh dear.
mrbonsai: Can anyone tell me what the shutter lag is for the M-1 is?I have been searching but can't find this information.Thanks in advance.
33 inches? That's about 2 nanoseconds. Really?
The people look a bit plasticy, don't they? I think the noise-reduction setting is rather harsh.
tbcass: I'm confused. What is "in camera RAW processing?" I thought the whole purpose of RAW was to give you a totally unprocessed image for post processing on a computer.
More image-editing than simple jpeg output, less image-editing potential than a computer. It's another option. Choose to use it or choose not to use it. Simple.