abluesky: I loved my Dad's XA when I was a kid. I learned photography on that, and took some of the best photos of my life, before I knew a thin about the theory of what I was doing. One thing I played around with was firing the shutter just before attaching the flash unit for some neat effects.
I also loved the mju. To me it was a spiritual successor to the XA.
A DIGITAL XA. Make it as small as the original, with built in finder, same clamshell design. Go nuts on the lens and exquisitely match it to the sensor. Find a way to as IBIS. I can dream.
Until then, I'm not spending the cash on an interchangeable lens camera without a FF sensor. I shoot with a Ricoh GR, and am wrapping up one year just exclusively shooting with it. I also have a Pentax K-01. If I have to carry something around other than a compact, I'm going for the low light, high ISO IQ, no matter how pretty. And the Pen-F, like the X100, is indeed a pretty camera, even if they both border phony nostalgia. But what do I really know - I thought the K-01 looks amazing cool (lack of finder, heavy weight, large size, and poor haptic skilled it for me).
The logic is simple if you view the article as being something more than m43 article and rather about beautiful Olympus cameras throughout history and how the Pen F fits within that legacy as well as on the modern retro nostalgia first generated by the Fuji X100. That actually seems to me to be a more logical reading of the article, since the article doesn't really discuss the virtues of m43 at all. To me, it's not a m43 article - it's one fundamentally about camera and Olympus camera design. The article also made a point to mention how this form of the camera can be more important than the performance, using he X100 pre order history and subsequent AF performance as support for this claim.
I wrote my comment in response to these two aspects of the article. I loved my Olympus cameras and shared my opinion the XA and mju as well as my desire for a digital XA. I then shared my opinion which disagree which somewhat disagrees with the authors that the aesthetics of the camera can be more important than the performance. This is not an indictment against m43 per se, because they could make a m43 XA and I would totally buy one. This is more of me just sharing my opinion that high iso low light performance is important and more important to me than compact size which doesn't really fully fulfill the practical use of compact size.
Seems pretty logical to me if you read the article the way I did.
I loved my Dad's XA when I was a kid. I learned photography on that, and took some of the best photos of my life, before I knew a thin about the theory of what I was doing. One thing I played around with was firing the shutter just before attaching the flash unit for some neat effects.
I've been waiting to purchase a FF until the K1 and causally after its release because of one thing - lenses. I'm not interested in old lenses because I shot with the FA77ltd on a K-01 and was not impressed. I'm not really interested in zooms unless they are like the SIGMA 18-35 1.8 zoom - an equivalent to a range of fast primes. So, I will continue to wait until I see some lenses on the roadmap. For me, it's not an investment because I don't make money of of the expense. I need to be wise with my money. So I need a system with the right lenses. I prefer Ricoh - Pentax. But so far the lense lineup doesn't motivate me.
maximme: welljust the first page of the link, ( showing the concentric ring )the LX100 and X100T already beat GR2
do you guys see something different ?
Also, compare the green foliage in the upper right hand area. The Fuji shows quite a bit less detail than the GR, in both Raw and JPG.
However it seems to me that the GR is underexposed in this comparison.
Yes - compare raw files.
I don't know what settings DPR used to compare jpgs, but the GR's engine is very customizable.
I've lost my desire for Leica, at least as far as digital ones are concerned. I still would like an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera with a full frame sensor and M-Mount, but the rest of the Leica design philosophy doesn't really appeal to me anymore. With the film cameras, there was something about the camera that seemed to represent the "sin qua non" of a camera. Now, it seems almost pointless and impractical, a nostalgic appeal to an allegedly more romantic, bygone era.
Serious Sam: http://fujilove.com/fujinon-xf-16mm-f1-4-wr-review-2/
Looks huge on the X-T1...
Its also more than 100g heavier than the 14mm. Given the hyperfocal distance on a given distance, The 14 looks a much better choice IMO.
On a Ricoh GR (same APSC, 18.3mm (28mm equiv) 2.8), there is remarkable performance at 5.6, and hyperlocal hits around 7.1.
I would imagine that his lens can perform even better than the GR lens for those who pre/zone focus.
I work with GR 2.8 all the time. 1.4, for me, would be insane.
So, if the 16 1.4 can maintain the sharpness, render deeper DoF at any given aperture, and perform under much darker conditions, then I'm incredibly interested.
My only concern is the minimum focus distance.
Looks like an amazing lens. Makes me want to invest into the system now. Maybe with the next generation of sensors.
Why compressed raw Sony! Why!?
Cane: Fact: Leica making digital cameras is like Patek Philippe making computer driven smart watches to compete with something like the Apple watch. The brand name carries the clout and the heritage, but what has made them mechanically great doesn't translate into electronics greatness. Leica, like Patek Philippe, isn't an electronics company. All the heritage in the world won't change that. And these types of camera are more than a lens and dial layout, they are sensors, circuit boards, hardware, software, etc. Like it or not, that's the truth about a modern day camera. Sure they can add a little old school pixie dust, but if you can't get the main ingredients right, the frosting can't make up for it.
Bottom line, Leica is not going to outdo the big electronics companies in designing electronics, no matter how many old German craftsman are hand making red dots. And the gap will continue to widen.
Howadboutraw, you make some good points. Since I don't have a leica to test, I wonder about how much better the image quality is due to the lenses, when they use the 16mpx sony sensor that I am very familiar with. What I have seen is photos taken with the M, and actually had the opportunity to sit with a group of photographers as we processed our photos, including his. Again, I would have to test it myself, but the M's files had way less latitude than the Canons, Nikons, Pentax, and Ricoh cameras that were also used. And I don't think I would shoot with such an expensive camera if I couldn't play with the RAW files. I use phones for JPG snapshots.
Excellent point. I wonder if the lenses differentiate between cameras and watches. While I don't like the big black DSLRS as far as a fashion statement goes, I am all about ergonomics and haptics over fashion any day, unless the stylish camera was dirt cheap.
This plus the cheap, non-Xtrans Fuji!
I use the Ricoh GR and Pentax K01. Check my gallery out for a sample of my work. Ricoh/Pentax may make some very serious and excellent cameras. But this is hilarious.
I totally agree. I fell in love with photography with my father's Olympus XA back in the day. My first digital camera was a Ricoh GRD4 and now I use a Ricoh GR. Lots of photography advice revolves around learning with a DSLR, but I found that using small, but high performance compacts can be of tremendous benefit because you can take them almost anywhere.
Jogger: Fuji has the only successful APSc fixed-lens compact on the market. Others from Nikon, Sigma, Ricoh, etc... have flopped despite being good cameras.
I would worry though, the 1-inch compacts are gonna eat their lunch.
The GR has flopped? Where do you get that from?
Looks new and interesting and I would like to try one before I make a judgement.
This was the worst article I've ever read on DPR.
abluesky: If it weren't for the subscription model, I would never have been able to afford Photoshop and Lightroom. For me, it's more economical to pay the subscription fee. I also appreciate all the updates. If you really want Adobe products, they are all pirated anyway, even CC. If you are going to blame anybody, blame the pirates.
That would be a great option. Pay upfront for a limited number of updates, or subscription for unlimited updates.
Yes, I agree. I use Photoshop and Lightroom to produce all the media for a small business I run, including printed material and web-based media. That alone has led to outside work that has already paid for three years worth of of the subscription. With a little bit of luck, hopefully I can spin that off into a separate business as well.