It seems like such a complete waste. Overpriced, over-designed. It reminds me of the old GM cadillacs that were nothing but rebranded Chevy's. Their only claim to fame is the name... and that won't last that much if they keep destroying the brand.
Could it be that some common sense is creeping into the scene?
All good (and an excellent quality) except for the lack of interchangeable lens. Who wants to take pictures with just the one lens that some anonymous designer chose for you in Japan?
Seems like a lot of noise for what is, bottom line, another retro looking thing. I like that it is full frame, I would really like my 7D and 60D NOT having video if they had lowered the price by 30%, but otherwise, no biggie
kadardr: I want a camera with proper manual focus!
So why don't you just get it? Stop moaning.
1. Install a split screen in your DSLR... $50 to $150 depending on whether you do the installation yourself or not2. Use MF on your lenses on your DSLR3. If you have it, use "peak" focusing
Cameras are not the one with the focus, lenses are.
What's the problem?
I am sure many photographers still decry autofocus the same way many drivers decry SMGs and paddles, yet, Formula 1 drivers all switched to SMG and paddles years and years ago.
The issue of manual vs auto focus is moot in most cases and, especially, in lenses that are clearly designed to be used in action, like the 85 mm. If you are in the middle of a portrait session, you can't really manually focus with more precision than auto-focus... everything moves too fast.
As a Canon user I welcome the use of dual and however many pixels they would like to throw in to make our cameras focus faster, better, sharper.
Clear proof that Leica is no longer a photographic tool but rather a fashion icon.
I am in awe at the power of branding. Leica is the master.
The camera has no improvements (except for the margin) over the LX7.
The guy on the video is so full of rhymes with hit.
Yet... I am sure that there will be enough suckers to spend $1,300 for a camera that, at B&H, can be bought without the red dot for $398 AND then argue with sane photographers that it is worth it.
I bow before Leica.
They are the masters
MarceloSalup: I would hope most of the people reading this site would have those, for sure. I recently added one more: a bean-bag-mini-tripod. It is a beanbag with a tripod head and great when shooting in locations where the mini-tripo is too clumsy: for example, windowsills, held against a light post... the bean bag conforms to the surface really well.
I have one, a Gorilla tripod I picked up somehwere for like $14. Love it. I had a brainstorm today... I might clamp it to my shoulder during events for the flash, who know it might give my light a new angle?
Man! Almost perfect except: no viewfinder and a 4.9 on the long end...
MarcMedios: It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.
I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.
I said I used it, and I'm pretty sure it was a 14, because it certainly wasn't a 12, certainly not a G1X and definitely not the 10. I never bought one because it did not fit my other need, size. But I was certainly impressed by the G's. And I really stand by my assessment: put a little Leica logo and half the photographers would be salivating but, because it is an evolution of something that is pretty good, everyone is going "yawn".
Shamael: Canon follows the degenerating way of humanity. It is a real involution we see here.
I will be politically incorrect: this comment is dumb. Period. It has nothing to do with photography and it has nothing to do with humans.
It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.
I don't know... they are not that original at all. I think all of us at some point of another have toyed with the visual repetition of high rises. I was seriously underwhelmed.
I just bought the X20 and am thrilled with it. I can't see myself spending any serious money for an advanced camera without a viewfinder
fuego6: just curious - why would anyone buy one of these cameras now a days?? I mean - I owned a G9 and loved it to pieces... but with many mirrorless cameras not much larger in size - why bother with these small sensor P&S's?
I own several DSLR's but I always keep one of these handy, in the car, in my briefcase, my backpack... they are really handy. I'm getting the Fuji X20, however, which has no shutter lag, good viewfinder and about the same zoom. The shutter lag on these ones is pitiful
camerosity: Wrong, dpreview. Your Canon bias is showing. The Nikon Coolpix P7700 is a direct descendant of the Nikon Coolpix 990 introduced January 27, 2000. It was the top of the line of the Coolpix models, just as the Canon G1 was the top of the line of the Powershot models.
Get your facts straight. I don't work for dpreview, and I already know more than the staffer they asked to write this article!
@Camerosity, apart from the trivia about the heritage... who could conceivably care about heritage? What matters is the performance of both. And it is really bad for both!
Both are pretty bad! The shutter lag is astronomical. This review makes the perfect case for the Fuji X20
It truly doesn't matter. Leica, except for the brutal semi mid-sized SLR is not relevant any more. I think that the X2, which is terrible and over-priced, and their Leica-branded Panasonic Lumix models, which don't add anything, proved that they have lost their way. Big ho-hum.