I wonder what camera the director used to shoot the whole video... it was most impressive, with perfect lighting and exposure, especially the indoor scenes.
But does it have image stabilization, fast auto-focus and 4K video?
vroger1: The reviews mirror what other sites have stated. It never ceases to amaze me that a company such as Leica could turn out a product which is so esoteric. I don't believe I have ever seen one in use. This problem is not strictly Leica's. Canon has for years striven to produce digicams with wide appeal but always leave something out- be it a viewfinder (Optical or EVF) or a fast lens. The only company in solely my opinion, which has time and again succeeded in bringing out digicams with the widest possible appeal is Panasonic.
But could all those fine Fuji lenses handle FF?
What ever happened to the trusty, wonderful 50mm "normal" lens? The 50mm focal length used to be my most useful lens by far. It was great for most of my shooting situations and gave me the best quality images. Why is it being ignored these days? Why has it fallen out of favor? It just gets no respect.
It would have been more helpful and informative if we had some indoor shots of people at ISO 800 to ISO 6400.
maxnimo: Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?
The only thing I can think of is a sneaky, dishonest realtor who wants to make a small room appear huge.
The fact remains that I have never EVER seen a crowd of people taken with a 20mm equivalent lens (or wider) where the faces toward the edges weren't blurred or distorted badly.
As far as good photographic technique, it all depends: if we're talking about artistic photography, that's a completely different animal. In artistic photography anything goes. Even a white smudge taken by a toddler could win first prize somewhere.
"........Yeah, NO ONE in photography uses wide angles! Yeah, right."
Yes, but are they SERIOUS photographers?
daddyo, your reply is the only one I consider somewhat valid, although the faces toward either edge in that crowded room won't look very nice.
As for ultra-wide landscapes, I've seen hundreds of them taken with very expensive PRO cameras, and they'd never pass my test. A landscape with blurry edges is junk to me, not to mention the overall geometric distortion of reality.
Okay, I'm trying hard to not burst into laughter, but what would a serious photographer use a 7-14mm lens for?
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
Yeah Everlast66, it's ridiculous. And so are all the silly amateurs that think FF systems are "PRO".The only truly "PRO" system is 8"x10", which is what I use for all my "PRO" stuff. For me anything less is a child's toy.
This lens could either be too cheap, or too expensive. It all depends on its optical quality.
I sure am curious how it would compare to similar glass from nikon, canon, samsung and fuji.
Does it come with a T-shirt that says:
"ADMIRE ME - I'M FILTHY RICH"?
maxnimo: Horrible lens! Probably has plastic elements full of mold and mildew. And full of scratches too. And must be blurry all over. Probably can't even do color and has zero bokeh. Yuck!
But what if I'm wrong? What if this lens performs better than a Leica?
Relax... chill out... it's not the end of the world!The lesson here is that you can't trust anyone. Even a perfect person is not perfect and can be wrong! Only believe what you see with your own eyes. Trust no one!
Horrible lens! Probably has plastic elements full of mold and mildew. And full of scratches too. And must be blurry all over. Probably can't even do color and has zero bokeh. Yuck!
Simply adorable! Now why can't Canon come out with something like mango-lime or a chocolate-vanilla?
I liked this review. It seemed straight and honest and to the point, without all the stuffy BS.
maxnimo: What we should be striving for is 240 fps video on true 240 fps monitors. The result would simply blow you away.
Video at 8K resolution and 240 fps would be close to ideal, but I certainly don't expect to see it this year... I'm not that foolish. But I would prefer 1080p /120fps video than 4K at 60 fps. Then the next step should be 4K at 120fps, then 1080p at 240fps, then 4K at 240fps... and then eventually to 8K at 300 fps - the ultimate.
Speaking of legalities, I realize it's illegal for us photographers to to shoot photos with such drones, but would it be legal for us to shoot people with bullets, blow up their homes and incinerate wedding parties, like the government does?
I know all about the human limit of perception, and the maximum happens to be about 300 FPS... that's when motion appears like looking out the window at real nature.120 FPS is a good start, as nearly everyone finds it far more soothing to the eye than 60 FPS, even when doing simple tasks. And have you ever seen a camera panning across a landscape in a film? Even with motion blur it looks like a jittery, fuzzy joke - technology from 100 years ago.
So we still have a bit more to go to reach the ultimate FPS.
maxnimo: Very nice.
I'm curious, though. Did he have a bodyguard with him? If he ever passed through New York or L.A. all his stuff would have been robbed within 10 minutes. But since I don't see any big city pics I assume he was smart enough to avoid those places, unless of course he had a bodyguard, or a loaded weapon.
JanePete: In NYC I was robbed in the park, robbed on a street, attacked in a subway station and nearly killed on a sidewalk by hooligans in a truck aiming for my head with a 2x4. This was all in broad daylight, and I didn't even possess anything of great value.So please don't tell me it's nonsense.