Craig from Nevada: From the article it appears that they finally are getting the sales volumes they need to be profitable Expect more aggressive pricing to keep product moving.
@Androole: I might have made it clearer that although the possibility exists, I have neither evidence nor suspicion of it. It is speculation only; I would expect the enforcement policies and audits of the Japanese regulators who may or may not be prying into Oly's books, that Oly is playing it honest. I know rrccad to be anti-Oly, but he asked a question and I gave a theoretical answer.
As I said in the last line of my post, I hope I am wrong (in my speculation about what is possible, not likely, iMHO.) This kind of corporate hide-and-seek is very common in marketers around the world and has been for decades. Oly wouldn't be the only one to do it.
@rrccad: You asked how Oly is recording those deeply-discounted sales. Oly, the manufacturer, is selling those kits to a distributor, who is discounting the kits to retailers in certain markets. It appears the distributors are held by Oly themselves, so some kind of Enron-like scheme is possible to "cook" the numbers for Oly's camera-manufacturing division while big losses are hidden in the subsidiaries.
Something like what they did in the past, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong!
Ian: Stanley Kubrick is smiling down on us about this one!
You are referencing Barry Lyndon I presume. IIRC Kubric wanted the 'look' of the Zeiss f:0.7 lens, its soft rendering and low contrast at maximum aperture as well as for its ability to shoot in candlelight on film.
One of these Canons would allow shooting with only one candle at modest f-stops that would render the scene as if it were daylight -- not what Kubric had in mind.http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA
To quote JFKennedy on why go to the moon: "we (do it) not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
Mssimo: I wonder if they could make speed booster for Medium format lenses onto full frame (sony a7) cameras.
They could -- I know of no physical or theoretical reason why it would be harder to do -- but as the market demand may be small, it is doubtful on economic grounds.
Henrik Herranen: Dear Damien Demolder,is there a good reason why you don't revise this article and remove the following incorrect statement: "for the specification it is a good deal more compact than a similar lens for a full-frame or even APS-C system".
It is not. In the Full Frame world there are lenses like the EF24mm f/1.4 which both perform significantly better, and have much shallower DoF + much higher total light transmission than this lens.
(Before the I-don't-understand-equivalence-so-you-must-be-an-idiot-brigade trolls in, let me just remind you that because FF has 4 times the sensor area of m43, then the noise over image area, given similar sensor technologies, are similar when FF uses ISO 400 and m43 ISO 100. ISO is just a number without any real, physical dependence. When equivalent aperture (e.g. f/1.9 vs f/0.95) and ISO (e.g. ISO 1600 vs ISO 400) is used, then noise over image area, DoF, exposure time (or in a word: everything) is equivalent.)
Nothing is exactly equivalent. Today, the word is taken to mean "equivalent focal length in 135 format" or equivalent angle of view.
I repeat: There Is No Exact Equivalent in Photography; the laws of physics require that.
Zapirian: Quick, lets put together a Photoshop action to imitate the bubble bokeh and sell it. Or even better an iPhone App to apply it to phone pics and sell it at 0.99 pence/cents.
I have an old Asahi Takumar which has the same bokeh. I tried and tried to develop a filter or retouching technique to minimize these distracting, ugly orbs and failed. If you find a way to create similar from a decently-corrected lens, let me know so I can make it reverse!
Terry Breedlove: Either there are many people posting without reading the article or they just can't understand anything they ever read.
@nathantw: Dunno why you took my reply as a negative -- I didn't mean it that way at all. You are correct, Scully came from Pepsico when I thought he'd come from General Mills.
I make mistakes from time-to-time, but I rarely get snarky after I do, and I meant my reply sincerely.
@nathantw: I thought he came from Generous Mills. Sorry for the mistake.
@E.J: Remember when Steve Jobs was replaced by a cereal-seller?
There is no substitute for a visionary at the helm. Of any company.
abortabort: Medium format will become affordable in the not very distant future, in fact it has already started and SOON medium format will be compact, affordable and take the same glass we already own.
@kirk: I have all the old prime glass from 45mm - 200mm including a 75mm leaf shutter one, just saving up for a digital 645. Hopefully with a fullsize 56x41.5 mm sensor.
As it is now, a 645D is almost within reach. It's about the same price as a Leica Q.
Some history: Hasselblad went belly-up some years ago; its trademarks and assets were acquired by another company, who tried to market restyled Sony cameras to rich Asians in Hong Kong. Even with retailers in the mix, the plan was a failure and the CEO was replaced. The new CEO dissolved the design house and dropped the lines developed with Sony.
Now, let's translate some of the interviewee's other statements.
1. Hasselblad, whatever the previous CEO thought and acted on, is not a luxury brand, but it is a (high-priced) tool.
2, They are going back to their roots, starting with a brand-new aerial camera design, as their first product was also an aerial camera.
3. Perhaps they can convince the US to take their new camera to the moon again.
4. Let's ignore that Phase One has them on momentum and Pentax has them on price.
5. They have no other products in the pipeline.
6.. "This better work, or my career is s***".
Hugo808: Cometh the hour cometh the lens.
I was thinking the ohter day that I won't get rid of my Lumix compact because the wide angle macro feature gets such good results and SLRs don't have anything similar!
@_sem_: There's math involved here, and it is the same math for all brands: a 50mm lens needs 50mm in extension from the film plane to reach 1:1. Geometry says that at 1:1, all lenses (with exceptions for assymetrical ones) the subject will be in focus at exactly the same distance from the focal point (center) of the lens, or 200mm (50+50+100).
So all lenses of the same focal length will have the same image size and depth-of-field/focus with the same amount of extension.
If you want a bigger image size, as with normal or longer focal lengths, you need more extension. But in the case of wide lenses, smaller tubes work more dramatically.
The Canon lens you are talking about might rack out its own extended helical farther than most; all the above math assumes lenses are mechanically focused at infinity.
Note: some (zoom) lenses have an optical macro setting which changes the focal length, allowing closer focus without mechanical extension.
photo_rb: I take a bit of issue with the comment that this was caused by man-made construction. Perhaps, but it is easy and popular to automatically blame any tragedy like this on man. A few sites I visited did not come to that conclusion. From what I read, there were a combination of factors, primarily calm weather being responsible for low oxygen levels.
@ oselimg: So...start with a huge lie, then when proved wrong, go with a smaller one? Huff Po as a factual source? WTF?
@oselimg: "...caused the death of millions..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_Warhttp://military.wikia.com/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
In May 2012 the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry reported that there had been 250,000 injured since 2003
I was against the operation from the beginning, but I see no reason to exaggerate its cost in human lives.
I hope this corrects the error.
Suggestion for ILC focus tracking: Allow the user to manually focus on an object and the camera tracks focus on that object wherever it goes in the frame until the shutter is activated.
This, obviously, would be easier for a live-view digital display but not impossible on an optical finder, I believe.
What think y'all?
JEROME NOLAS: That was supposed to be "my" Ricoh! Maybe later.....rather this than Sony! Is it stabilized or not? Fix it!
Is a full-frame GR M-mount module in the works? I hope so. Used GR bodies are cheap now.
The photo provided seems to show a Hasselblad-branded 80mm f:2.8 lens mounted. I don't do much aerial photography, but I imagine this optic is a) unusually sharpb) designed to be used in arrays to be stitched together. There seems to be no mention of interchangeable lenses.
Are any DPR readers familiar with the needs of aerial photography?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: This camera is for those who used to shoot with a Leica M6 loaded with Kodak Tri-X and made the switch to digital.That is the ethos of the M Monochrom. If you fail to understand this, you'll miss the whole point of this camera and surely it is not for you.Having said that, I agree with what tinternaut wrote below about the camera's lifespan. Whereas the M6 was a mechanical camera build to last forever, the M Monochrom is a computer, albeit a luxurious and superbly well built one. I'm just not sure anyone will inherit one of these cameras. (Unless, of course, its owner happens to die in the next two or three years...) They're as prone to obsolescence as any other digital camera.
Tri-X developed in what? And for how long? I used to shoot with Tri-X when I absolutely had to. Tri-X was (in)famous for very bright images, especially skin tones. The out-of-camera jpgs from this Leica look more like they're from a 4 x 5 or bigger camera circa the 1930s or -40s with dark skin tones like a WWII English movie or WeeGee's work. Yes, the shadows are blocked (to my eyes) but the data is in the RAW to manipulate the final image as the photographer intended it if he so chooses.
Also plus 1 or 2 EVs of exposure bias may help in ooc jpgs.
princecody: The 246 shouldn't be more than $3,000 in reality.
@princecody: It may be that you don't know how hard very tight tolerances are to achieve. Measuring to 0.001 (one-thousandth of an inch) requires ordinary techniques and equipment. At 0.0001, advanced techniques are de rigeur: weighted pulls, observation of newton rings, etc. Leica's tolerances for lenses and rangefinders are probably an order of magnitude higher than that.
How much do you have to pay and keep an experienced, trained employee who is among the very few in the world who can reach these tolerances?
Is price even a consideration at this level?
Valen305: Just downloaded some dng samples and didn't like the rendering at all - the highlights appear to clip early and the midtones aren't as rich as I expected. The shadow detail is OK, but overall it renders like a panchromatic film emulsion on crack.
I did the same; the DNG crashed my fave developing program (Darktable) but opened OK in UFraw; there's hella shadow detail, the highlights are unclipped well and the rendition is soft (to my taste) and lovely. Had I the jack, I'd consider it even though I dislike rangefinder focusing. (There is an optional EVF, right?)