FTW: If we wait 3 or 4 generations further, we get one at 1800$, just like at all other brands. A bit expensive for a FF NEX with a 24 mix Sony sensor.
Nope, because Leica's aren't expensive due to the reasons that other companies can make an expensive camera. Leica was even expensive when people were using film, and the same type of film that cheap cameras could use, no less!
nickthetasmaniac: DPR - why have several release announcements today fallen straight to the bottom of the page, while the 6d preview rays at the top?
@cre8unique: Did you not understand what Andy actually said?
News releases are just in chronological order. They didn't write those. They simply publish them. Their content, which is referring to their own hands-on previews, and their own opinions, are valued more on their own site than a ho-hum press release that's duplicated at every website.
GabrielZ: OMG I'm smitten! This is the Leica M-series I've been waiting for! Beautiful, versatile, fantastic. When Leica released the M-Monochrom a while back, I lamented the fact they didn't release an M10 and went on to give my wish list of features a potential future M10 might have, and for the most part this is it! All I have to do now is get rich so I can afford to buy one of these...ha ha, fat chance but I can dream!
Why the hell would I go and search for one of your posts? Are they that important?
I understand the new feature. I was just wondering whetherpeople really asking for focus peaking from their Leica?
I understand why a Fuji, Sony NEX, Samsung NX, or Panny/Oly m4/3 user would ask for it --- their systems suck for manual focus. And DSLRs......forget MF. In most situations, they're horrible with MF, and pointless since you're still relying on a green dot to appear in the OVF when you achieve focus. The camera still determines whether the image is in focus. The only thing the user does is drive the lens instead of the AF motor.
Rangefinders are already great at fast, accurate manual focus. Focus peaking is a great feature, but I don't know why you'd buy a rangefinder if you didn't think you could achieve focus manually. I suppose there may be an old Leica user who wants to upgrade, but doesn't have good enough eyesight to use a rangefinder anymore?
Yeah, and what feature was that, faster manual focus?
The M9-P looks better due to the lack of the red dot! I'd rather have that instead of this.
If they wanted to sell a barebones Leica, which is already bare-bones, why not just sell the new M (M10) without video, and sell it for $1000 less?? Make it $6000, and make the M cost $7000. If someone wants Live View and video recording so badly, they get to pay for it.
nawknai: Am I mistaken if I say that this D600 appears to be a D800, but with a 24 MP sensor and a semi-plastic body? If so, then this is a great deal.
I expect the AF to be slightly worse as well, but that the differences will not show themselves in most shooting situations.
Nevermind. It's the same disasterous AF as in D7000.
ThomasH_always: How can someone (dpreview reviewer) call D600 fairly low costs, whereas we are confronted with a "price surprise" on a large scale? Rumor was, and expectation was around $1500, and I would say: That would be enough for a body like that, with D7000/D5000 like controls.
For me its a clear and decisive "no buy".
No, that was a rumour. Rumours aren't necessarily accurate, but you chose to believe it and raised your hopes to that rumour.
Personally, I figured $1999 would be the starting price, and it's close enough.
Am I mistaken if I say that this D600 appears to be a D800, but with a 24 MP sensor and a semi-plastic body? If so, then this is a great deal.
HopeSpringsEternal: prices are too high. The 35mm f/1.8 needs to cost around $250 at most.
Why "$250 at most"?
What world do you live in?
I didn't realize it was going to be so small. "That's what she said!"
Uh.......judging from the photos, if Sony had just made it as large as an X-100, they could have fit a built-in EVF and made everyone happy!
Matt1645f4: If this was just $300 cheaper i'd not even think twice about buying it i love fuji cameras and there lenses are great, and as for retro design, its a proven working system thats not been improved or bettered in over 50 years. and to call people old Cane is just showing your own immaturity.
Actually, I believe that for what you're getting, the X-E1 is a bargain, with or without the zoom lens.
JackM: Now if they make a 23mm (35mm equivalent) f/2 *pancake*, I am IN!!
They're making a 27 mm f2.8 pancake. Not sure if that fits your needs well enough, but to me, that's close enough!!
I don't mind a few zooms being introduced, as long as Fuji continue making those sweet, sweet primes!
I'm looking to get into this system with a 35 mm, then 18 mm, and then possibly the 27 mm pancake because it's tiny and a good focal length.
And Sony bought Konica-Minolta, so it's not like the employees in Sony's TV Division were suddenly forced to design lenses.
Uaru: I welcome adding Auto ISO 6400 to menu. This absence was inexplicable to me. However, I also find it inexplicable why it seems it still will not be possible to set minimum shutter speed - this is even more important!
FUJI, are you listening??? Please...
I'm very very surprised that minimum shutter speed wasn't a part of this firmware update, considering how easy it would have been to implement, and therefore, how easy it would have been to make many, many customers happy!
I also want a "Max shutter speed" as part of Auto-ISO, but baby steps....
If Fuji officially reduce the price of the X-Pro1 by $300, then all the predictions I made 2-3 weeks ago will be correct. :D
It'll still be too expensive though, now that the X-E1 kit costing ~$1400 USD all up. The X-Pro1 should really cost $1650 or so (yes, I'd pay $250 for an OVF), but I don't live in Fantasyland, so let's say $1800 would be considered reasonable.
wkay: what hands on? all DPR has done is be an advertising mouthpiece for Fuji. If they had their hands on it, why cant they take one lousy pic with the stinking thing?
Because it's a pre-release version, and the image processing isn't necessarily finalized.
It's a very typical agreement with the camera manufacturer. If DPR ever released photos from a pre-release camera, camera companies wouldn't trust DPR again, and they'd never be able to offer the pre-release observations that other websites can offer.
magneto shot: let it go guys.... embrace the new dawn. typewriters are long gone....
No, I could take a Galaxy S3, install Instagram, and shoot a better quality photo filled with equally synthetic flaws, and be even more "instant" due to the LCD screen.
Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
CameraLabTester: The Hong Kong holiday is a pinch of salt to the enormous humongous gazillion pictures buffet feast Wiki is gonna amass as a windfall...
Talk about disparity to the extremes...
Yet like zombies, contestants all go like lemmings over the cliff.
Wikipedia is a website that works based on donations. What sort of prize were you hoping for? I think this is pretty good, and it's not like Wikipedia can sell your photos afterwards. They're free for everyone to use. That's the deal.
And I think the prize is pretty cool.