fastglass: I had a chance to use one & it's amazing.
If one can (1) afford it (I can't), & (2) isn't intimidated by using a camera system this expensive (I was), & (3) can appreciate what it offers (I do) - go for it.
Personally, I think it was a mistake for Leica to invest the resources they must have into a system this limited in it's appeal & affordability. Still, it is very, very impressive.
I agree 100%. In the article, they mention 6,000 cameras as being the total market? It seems low, but, still, even if it is 24,000 units, it is still tiny compared to what Leica could do if they developed a real equivalent to the film rangefinder camera or better yet, the next digital camera. The M9, with all due respects, was so plagued by problems that they must think of the next one.
There are some insights, of course, but overall, it's softball all the way
SemperAugustus: The deal is, pay per month perpetually with no ownership perpetually. Over 5 years you have paid $1,200 and own nothing. That is provided that ADBE does not jack up the price during those 5 years, which I see happening, specially when you wouldn't own anything, so it would be either all or nothing.
Nah... not really.
1. There are many options to PS2. The illusion of owning is just that, illusion, you own a piece of software, yes, but it becomes obsolete fast, you spend much more in upgrading and in 5 years, probably spent more money to "own" some antiquated code.
I have Elements... 8 in the Mac, 10 in the PC and will probably upgrade to 11 on both.
Instead of LR I use ACDSee and it works great
I haven't used PS in years and, frankly, don't miss it a whole lot
Who has time for 2 sites?
More and more I see secondary and tertiary sites die well-deserved deaths. If you don't have a killer app, why would anyone have 2 sites, especially when one is so weak. The 500PX site is very lame, offers nothing new in terms of audience or feedback.
I've narrowed it down to my five:
1. Facebook2. LinkedIn3. Instagram (because it is so much fun)4. Flickr5. Twitter
In that order.
Another absolutely useless P&S and POS camera that will be purchased by a few people with more money than sense.
1. Non-interchangeable lens and not even a zoom? Toy camera.2. No viewfinder? Soccer mom3. That ugly round appendage you have to pay extra for, which increases the size of the camera considerably? An afterthought
I'd rather buy a Fuji X20, really, APS-C or not
It is a picture... of course, but not really a portrait. A portrait should tell us something about the subject.
On another bent, I'm surprised no one has taken a couple of shots at him
The perfect second camera to carry in your briefcase, in your car and your pcokets. I tried one of the early models and fell absolutely in love with it. It is an amazing camera. No shutter lag, reasonable price, viewfinder, good zoom range (similar to my Canon 24-105 f4), beautiful design...
Perfect street camera
1. No built-in viewfinder2. Non-interchangeable lenses
Point & Shoot.
The Fuji X20 has it beat by a mile and basically costs the same
I think that the answer is obvious; there is a huge number of photographers who prize the object over its functionality. If not, why would people buy those failed Leicas X's, the non-interchangeable lens + no viewfinder ILS's, etc. Obviously, they are purchased by people who value the object more than the functionality, if not, we would see buyers insist on "de rigueur" things like interchangeable lenses, viewfinders, lower costs...
But, to each his/her own, I suppose
My sister just bought the camera and I had been really impressed on the specs but, when I used it for over 15 minutes, I was thoroughly disappointed. The feel of the camera is off, the handling... hard to pinpoint but it just did not perform to expectations
LOL. It's funny, but that's about it. DP Review readers tend to value form over function, it seems.
Love it love it love it
Very very near ideal
No viewfinder, no interchangeable lenses, no sell.
Having no viewfinder not only makes it more difficult to frame and compose the shot, it basically puts you at soccer mom level. The add-on viewfinder then gets you back to SLR size and conspicuousness
Interchangeable lenses are the hallmark of a professional camera, the Leica M3 already had them and it was in what year, 1492? 1860?
Having a full frame sensor is not enough if the camera limits your creative freedom in an arbitrary way. Why have only a 35? Why not a 28? or a 37? or a 49?
As a professional, I love my RX100, I can sneak it into places, fits in my pocket so it is always available, gives me a large sized jpeg, can shoot raw, and for $650 it is really a good deal. The 4:1 zoom is basically similar to my go to leans 24-105 f4. But it is a point and shoot and makes no pretensions of being anything else.
Photographers who buy the RX1 are not thinking with their heads, it is ultimately a very limited camera.
Essentially a full frame point & shoot for $2,800. No viewfinder. One non-interchangeable lens. As a professional, I am not buying all these limitations. If you are in need of a Leica look-alike to feel good about yourself, spend the dough. But, if you are serious about good photography you need a camera that expands your capabilities, not limits them. The NEX6 looks like a much better alternative for the money
MarceloSalup: What a non-event. One would think that, today, you could easily develop an interchangeable lens body. Who wants to be limited to the lens that a manufacturer chooses for you?
@Roland... I don't follow your argument at all, sorry. If 90% of the cameras sold have a fixed lens, it is probably because 87% of them are point & shoot, so they don't qualify in this forum (which I assume are professionals or at least advanced amateurs)
@Inevitable - you are right... and wrong. There are many of us who keep an series of lenses which will be used depending on the need. But, even if you ONLY like primes (which to me is weird, since most modern zooms and most modern camera+software+lens combos easily beat primes) why limit yourself to ONLY one prime that a manufacturer chose for you?
There are moments when you want a 50 (I also have the 50 1.4) and there are times when you want a telly (I have a 70-200 2.8) or a wide angle (I have a 20-35) or a nice range for a catalog shoot (I have a 24-105).
I would think that, as you improve and improve and improve, you would want to be less limited by your equipment. Not more.
Takes some balls!
dopravopat: OK, find yourself shooting a Wedding and suddenly the camera reports "low battery". DUH! You cannot replace it, the camera has to be plugged in for 30 minutes to a charger. Horrible.
There are so many more things in life than DSLR's, think about all these products: mini-flashlights (for restaurants, for emergencies); emergency radios; motion detectors in halls to turn on and off lights as people walk so as to save energy; really thin thermostats; RF transmitters in pens (or wifi transmitters) with a little lens to serve as a mini scanner... I mean, the possibilities are endless