mpgxsvcd: Let’s get one thing straight. Dpreview has never given any camera anything less than a Silver award. The only thing that the silver award says is that the camera is not good enough to warrant a Gold award.
If they don't, they should have a BRONZE award.And ALUMINUM, WOOD and PAPER awards - it's only fair and logical.
And don't forget DIAMOND for the very best.
Jim Evidon: I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
What I find is that digital phones are now where digital cameras were 10 years ago. As far as I can see, the only use for digital cameras in hand held phones is (1) use it if you need to catch the freeway accident you pass when your real camera isn't handy; i.e, it's probably better than nothing...a debatable point point. And/or (2) it's good for those people that really could care less about photography and like to engage in narcissistic exercises like taking selfies. Blech!
I understand Jim's point of view. My 11 year old DSLR still takes way better photos than any modern phone.
Not bad for a superzoom. Not bad at all.
This reminds me of all those beautiful landscape photos where the only area in super-sharp focus was the stupid little pebbles all the way at the bottom. It always drove me nuts to the point of smashing the screen with my raging fists, wondering what sort of moron was behind the camera.Just thinking about it makes me crazy - someone, please calm me down before I explode.
carpeted concrete floor?
I've seen carpets with a lush, soft, 6 inch thick pile.
I assume that meteor only lasted about 1 to 2 final seconds of the 20 sec. exposure, is that correct? Did it ever hit the ground?
So what do you do if you need a 300mm equiv. telephoto on this thing?
quezra: DPR once again FAILED to answer the most important question: Does it come with matching handbag?
I'm pretty sure the handbag costs extra, as well as the sensor, strap, battery, viewfinder, and the rear buttons. The internal electronics might be included, but not sure.
Holy snap! That's one hell of a clean and sharp image. I'm actually impressed.
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.