All Leica needs to do now is throw this in the bin and do it again with a FF sensor, an M mount and focus peaking.
Unlike you, I actually really like the Leica T.
However, I do wish Leica started with a FF model. I suppose they realize that as photography becomes more and more easily accessible, and cheaply (i.e. via mobile phone), even Leica needs to compete on price, even if on the very high end. ;)
Kassra: how much does a block of aluminum this size cost? few bucks? maybe 10? extra weight around the neck and shoulder. no effect on longevity or performance.a marketing gimmick which is a decade behind trends.i'd be more interested in an innovative, plastic body.
Sure, and my wood desk is just wood.
That is....until someone actually does something with it.
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't go all out and design a FF camera from the start.
This will definitely compete with the significant majority of the current mirrorless market, but Leica was never into competing with that market.
I guess this camera makes more financial sense to them? They're trying to stay relevant in a photography market where people are relying more and more on mobile phone cameras.
Well Microsoft can't use the name Nokia anyway. Nokia still exists as a company. The only name they can use is "Lumia".
Microsoft can also label a product with the "Nokia" name if they release a "dumb phone". However, they won't do that, so in reality, they can't use the name Nokia anyway.
People keep calling this phone a successor to the 920. It's not. It's an update of the 925.
I truly cannot tell if this is a joke.
It sounds like an April Fools thing, but then I see a link to the Patent Office, and unless the US Patent office, which I'm sure is a barrel of laughs, has put up an April Fools prank, then this may be the dumbest patent I've seen in a long time.
ijustloveshooting: really wonder what they've smoken to come up with a crappier kit lens...wt heck with 18-50? with slowe ap.
Also, Sony needs to produce another kit lens just for Australia. How much could this move really be saving Australians? It's not like the 18-50 f4-5.6 could be much cheaper than an 18-55 f3.5-5.6.
Sergey Borachev: Did someone file a patent for the steering wheel+brake+petrol pedal interface in a motor car? If not, maybe I should quickly do that and get very rich. One of the football teams filing a patent for the slam dunk in basketball to prevent other teams doing it? A patent for a recipe? Where will this end and how much is this costing consumers?
This is nothing like what is being done these days.
It's costing consumers nothing. If anything, they're benefitting because with patents, there's a reason companies are spending money to create something totally new. Sure, patents sometimes such the life out of an industry, but the majority of the time, we've all benefitted.
RStyga: I think Pentax 645D is still the cost/performance king *by far*.
@Black Box: Even Nikon would know that's not true. ;)
Have you ever seen MF digital images? They're stunning in a way that D800 images are not.
They both take high MP images, but one takes nicer photos than the other. A D800 has its benefits, but those benefits are related to very high ISO, weight, and lens selection.
Frank_BR: Size-wise the Sigma dp2 Quattro is a giant. Indeed, it is wider than a Nikon D4! It is even wider than a medium format like the Leica S!
On the other hand, technically speaking the dp2 is a dwarf:1. Maximum shutter speed: 1/2000s2. Maximum ISO: 6400*3. No video4. No interchangeable lenses
(*) The low maximum ISO is a strong indication that the dp2 sensor is noisier than the traditional Bayer sensor.
When you're outside in the afternoon.
RichRMA: Not sure why they can't make this with the ability to change lenses.
Because the camera wouldn't be this thin.
Dimit: I think it'll be the greatest success of Fuji.Ergonomics wise: Won't be any better within the next 100 years!Design wise: B e a u t i f u l , for the first time after the profound neutral design with the cheap grip of XE-1 & 2 and X-PRO.If the price is right ($ 1400-1500 and not $1800 as rumored in Japanese sites),then it's an instant hit!..and I'm not a fuji shooter
Because it won't be $1000.
Aaron801: Am I missing something or is this new camera pretty much like and an XE-1 or XE-1 but with different body shape? With the same format and the same mirror-less design, it doesn't seem like much of an innovation.... certainly not a very useful innovation. From my way of looking at it, the hump on the top of the camera just makes the thing a little bulkier and the small size of Fuji's other cameras was one of the things that made 'em so cool. That XE-2 is pretty much the "destination camera" for me though it was a bit beyond my price range so I got something else... If I was in a position though to buy a more expensive camera, I'd be much more interested in something like the XE-2, or the Pro 1. I think that both of those cameras look really slick and aren't any bigger bulkier than they need to be. Form follows function in my book, I guess.
Did you not see the additional dial and buttons?
It has a great design, and that's coming from an X-Pro1 and X100 user.
munro harrap: Have you looked at the COST of this item. It costs the same as a new D610 body, or a D800 body grey market.
My Leica screw 50mm f1.4 Canon lens cost me £50 thirty years ago and certainly would be as sharp as this machine which N.B. is an F1.7 lens. It does not act as an f1.4 lens. And I have an Olympus f1.4 that you yourselves can still buy for £50 that will be as good as this thing.
Given the fact that it is very unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference between their results, AND the unlikelihood of ever getting perfect focus at speed with an SLR in poor light (unlike a Leica in this respect) what a complete waste of money.
Thanks for the anecdotal evidence.
The comment section needed it.
shaocaholica: Why did everyone 5 years ago say it was impossible to put stabilization into a fast prime?
What does that even mean? How is it not fast? It's f/1.2.
NoCoShutter: DANG. I knew they'd make this lens. I have the 35/1.4 and it is absolutely STELLAR. I bought the 35mm Art at the same time as I bought a Canon 50/1.2L (it was time for an upgrade) *except* that the $1200 Canon 50/1.2 was **worse** than my Canon 50/1.4. And by a long shot worse on color fringing, blooming, and flaring. Oh, and focus. So I sent it back. The Sigma? RAZOR sharp even wide open. But be ready for a DOF measured in mm when you get close. There is no Canon L I own that is as sharp wide open as the Sigma 35mm Art. Bravo! ... and where do I pre-order????
Hahaha, "specialty lens". Sounds like you're trying to make up excuses for Canon.
When you spend a lot of money on a lens, you want something that's better than the cheaper versions. The 50 mm f/1.2 is worse in almost every way, and that extra aperture size isn't going to change a thing regarding the final result --- the photos --- which is the only thing that matters.
The current Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 is so good, especially the bokeh.
I'm only comparing it to the 50 mm f/1.4 lenses from Nikon and Canon. The Canon is the worst of the bunch, while the Nikon is good, but doesn't produce photos as pleasing as the Sigma.
I don't think I'd go for this "upgrade". The old one was also a fantastic size. I don't like this new lens due to its width.
I suppose if the results are incredible, it won't matter, but I had no issues with the current version.
The model in photo #2 is smoking hot.
peevee1: No VR again. For tripod-only photographers.
What is wrong with your hands?
I'm all zen-like when I'm shooting my 50 mm . A 35 mm would be even less of an issue.