firstname.lastname@example.org: Preferred the image before it was cropped. I don't think there was "way too much foreground" in the pre cropped image. The final image has dramatic light but is not quite compelling as a composition, in my opinion.
Thanks for posting your image and your thoughts, though.
Me too!, and I prefer the original colour and contrast! still v good though
It seems to me Leica are not getting the best of the deal with Panasonic if they can't source a descent EVF, I don't mind them enveloping the lens performance WRT maximum apature settings but that should be clear in their marketing also
They make beautiful Camears and this is one. that also stand out as great desingn against any manufactured product what ever it is . Leica is benchmark for industrial design. but they need a better technology exchange from theier marketing agreement with Pana, and get Sony sensors for Petes sake!
I wonder why they didn't make full use of the image circle and sensor area for the 1:1 crop
Tom Caldwell: Missed the obvious - compare the LX100 with the GM1 or GM5.
That was my feeling But GX7 makes the point more strongly. not much bigger and you are in Oly OM territory and A6000.. if compact packaging is what you are after the little sony is still king (all be it with compromised ergonomics)
One thing that holds me off this camera which otherwise I really like, is you can't really throw out the background with blur, just a bit more would have me hooked, the couple of guys playing Jazz is typical of what I mean, you want an impression of the environment but not intruding (i would take this to black and white to get rid of the horrid colors also)
I know there are other rigs in the Fuji line up which do this better, but it seems this is the circumstance for which the X100 series is made
doady: Would be an interesting camera for me, if not for the totally obnoxious "LUMIX" lettering on the front.
put a red dot on the Gaffa tape and save yourself 200 quid to boot!
vroger1: Anyone think there'll be a "Leica" version?? They didn't bother with the GM1- buth this one will sell like hotcackes...I think.
I had to read through all the press releases a couple of times to figure out they had not allready, looks like the ideal set up to stick a red dot on. although for interchangeable lens cameras they hav gone for APSC or full frame
Harry S: Interestingly, almost nobody bought the original Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. Having owned one myself I could never get my head around that, it's so small and light compared to the 70-200s, perfect for APS-C cameras.
See also, Sigma 100-300mm f4. How did that never take off?! Excellent bridge between big 2.8 primes and variable aperture 70-300s etc.
I think the 70 to 200 2.8 is a great works tool for a pro photographer, I'm not sure APSC buyers were/ are looking for a shrunken version of the same lens, somthing like a Tamron 90 2.8 macro, might be a more fun lightweight and versatile purchase, if your not making a living of of it, and you already have a superzoom or one of the longer standard zooms.
very interested to see comparison with the X100t, Leicia build quality and branding aside, does the lack of the viewfinder make up for the the faster ( and likely sharper) but sticky out lens
With 4 cameras and burgeoning range of 1.8 primes and OK ish prices. Forget the D400 FX it's not happening DX is were Nikon is expecting the ex D300 owners to invest (assuming there heads aren't turned by the Sony A7 series, which mine is)
Suspect the equivalence brigade will be out gunning for this, There is still nothing that sucks up light like the big 2.8 zooms for full frame that have been the backbone of professional photographers kit for years, and in comparison this is bit big and a bit expensive.
Had to double take I read iOS!
attomole: Because the World needs more choice of 50mm lenses, I think if I were Sony I would be happier if the came up with 24 to 70 and 70 to 200, sympathetic to videography, 2.8 or faster autofocus zooms
@EinstiensGhost, no for stills, but best you can do for video and have AF. And not many and the ones they do have share brand with Sony so that's my point for Zeiss. I don't see Leica should feel any obligation to Sony :-)
Because the World needs more choice of 50mm lenses, I think if I were Sony I would be happier if the came up with 24 to 70 and 70 to 200, sympathetic to videography, 2.8 or faster autofocus zooms
@DPREVIEW I am curious of your own position. did you seek the permission of Mr. Slater before reproducing the photograph?
attomole: The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.
If the monkey had obtained the use of the photographic equipment made it available for use in the setting where the photograph was taken and rendered it in a suitable state to take the photograph with the intended artistic intent, the photograph would be the monkey's
It did not do any of those things, that was done by Mr. Slater. He is the owner of the photographs. Pressing the shutter is not important, ownership of the equipment is not important. by the deliberate actions of Mr. Slater, not the Monkey, created the photographs even if some of the circumstances of the event that captured the photograph were random, like the lighting or weather some things are out of your control in this case the timing of the shutter even if it was accidental.
@wetsleet"I disagree. The standout feature of this photograph is the very fact of it being taken by the monkey. That is the creative element and what lifts it out of the ordinary"My reaction to this is that it conflates triggering the shutter release with creating the photograph. And whilst it could not have happened without the monkey, it was the photographer who arranged for the circumstances to come together and recognised the value in what had been recorded, Random things are frequently why a photograph is great or has value, be it fleeting light in a spectacular landscape or a President being assassinated. Copyright would not be given to God or to the assassin (unless he and the photographer are the same)
peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.
@Easycass. In your view had Mr. Slater deliberately handed the camera rather than having it snatched he would then own the copyright?
The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.
For a photographer even a budget restricted amateur I don't see the pont of anything less than A3+ Colour and B&W printer. Not that the all-in-ones are not fantastically usfull home office devices and even the cheapest branded ones I have used make nice colour prints, but A4 is not big enough to display.
There are not that many such devices out there (A3 photo printers) but I don't know of a review site that is across all the printers available and keeps pace with developments. I would have expected for the sort of people who come to this site it would be very useful data.
Mike FL: As far as I can see from all the posts that WHO wrote this article created LOT of confusing.
Actually I think the article is pretty good, the treatment of the subject is based on physics and maths which is fairy specialist and academic. I have read and watched and been flabagasted by the debate on this and come round full circle in a way."Smaller sensor cameras have more noise and more depth of field" it's not strictly true but but is the practical outcome.