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.
I would prefer that too, but I couldn't *afford* the full price for Photoshop let alone both programs.
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.
AbrasiveReducer: Everything new is new again. With slogans like this they should get out of graphics and go into advertising.
Could be reduced to "New is New"
Leica T vs Pentax K01 - FIGHT!
Ok - so now I have to admit that I think something strange is going on. How much earlier was the K3 released? How much later was the OMDEM10 announced? How much time elapsed between the announcement of the EM10 and the review.