This article utterly proves my point about the Fuji X100 series being an utter waste of money.
When you can get this sort of IQ in a small camera WITH a zoom it makes no sense whatsoever to limit yourself forever to a 35mm lens equivalent.
This is not 1950.
bigdaddave: Nothing at PK to even remotely make me upgrade my Canon cameras, which is good for the wallet, but not really good for Canon, they are beginning to lag dangerously far behind
The 7D2 might be a great crop body which I don't need in any way.
I need a 1Dsx(or even a 5D4) with 40 meg and there's nothing coming
Nothing at PK to even remotely make me upgrade my Canon cameras, which is good for the wallet, but not really good for Canon, they are beginning to lag dangerously far behind
joyclick: Now,that's a camera !!!
Why don't I understand?
If you want to buy one that's your choice. The fact is when someone is paying you (like they do me) I won't work with limiting equipment.
No proper wideangle or tele lens is a joke. It doesn't have to be f2,
Paying that sort of money for a fixed semi-wide lens is just crazy and SO SO limiting. Put a decent range zoom on it and it's very interesting. In the 1950's the tech wasn't there to make a good zoom, now it is. Use it.
Emperor's new clothes, retro is always best.
A fixed lens, utterly limiting, a pointless exercise in posing
But it's got a fixed 35mm equivalent lens!
This is not the 1950's, this is obsolete before it even starts, don't be fooled.
Well they're in color and they're of Berlin in the 50's, but....
bigdaddave: In which universe is the Nikon 1 better than an Eos M?
Not this one, but then Canon have been the odd men out here for years
Just goes to show, one man's good is another mans dull and boring.
Dull and boring
Fuji obviously thought enough people would 'need' it.
What we WANT is a full frame camera in a rangefinder body with a good EVF at a sensible (non-Leica) price.
Whether we will ever get it is debatable, but it's not like Canon and Nikon couldn't do similar things with film cameras
In which universe is the Nikon 1 better than an Eos M?
Extremely interesting and innovative, but not images I would put on my wall
bigdaddave: Anyone feel like posting a link to a shot that is so amazing it had to be taken on one of these Leicas?
Surely there must be something more special about them than just the old design and absurd price?
No, thought not.
Yes, great, but absurdly expensive lenses
Anyone feel like posting a link to a shot that is so amazing it had to be taken on one of these Leicas?
I lived a couple of miles away and the original crossing went years ago, it's now in a different place..
Why on earth choose 45 years as an anniversary? Wouldn't 50 have been far far more sensible, if not then why not 37 or 42 years?
DP you are really letting your standards slip. This and boring pictures of an old jet? C'mon there is GREAT work being done out there, start showing that instead of poor work by your friends
bigdaddave: Interesting that the 5D3 images might be a little smaller but they are consistently much sharper, especially at the higher ISO's.
I'm sure the D810 is very good but it's overkill for 90% of subjects compared to the excellent Canon
They are put here for direct comparison and the Canon are much better whether you choose to believe it or not
Interesting that the 5D3 images might be a little smaller but they are consistently much sharper, especially at the higher ISO's.
Looks like a really interesting new technology to me - far too soon to buy the camera though.
I fear it might turn out like holography though and not be something for the mass market but it's certainly a new photographic tech that might, for example be incredibly useful for medical photography.