Poss: I do not understand the jabs at the luxury market. It's a valid market as any of the other ones.
Besides it was a Rolex that reached the deepest ocean point in 2012 and an Omega Speedmaster at Neil Armstrong's wrist when he stepped on the Moon, not a cheap Chinese knockoff. Want to see what technology will eventually filter down to the automotive consumer level? Watch what Mercedes is putting on their flagship S series sedans. And so on.
If anything this looks like a well sorted camera for which Leica can comfortably charge a premium price. Much like Porsche can (and does) charge for a Cayenne or Omega does for the current Speedmaster (very different than the one used in the Apollo program) or Apple does for an iPhone.
Some brands enjoy having a very loyal following for very good reasons and when we belittle them, we tend to sound more like an acute case of sour grapes.
People here simply don't understand what tradition and brand really are. Some people really enjoy owning things like that because owning a frakkin Porsche 911 or an Omega or a Leica is awesome. Period. Andrey Tarkovsky and Andre Kertesz took awesome photos with Polaroid cameras. Some technically flawed but compelling nonetheless. If one would apply the "it's not ten times better" attitude here, one would definitely NOT need anything more than a cheapie to produce great work so, Leica detractors please put your "best for the buck" cameras away and rely on your talent instead of your $500 overpriced gear. I'll enjoy my D3s and yes, my Porsche in the mean time.
I do not understand the jabs at the luxury market. It's a valid market as any of the other ones.
RomanC: Dear Dpreview team,
I have to decide if I will buy a A7 II or a A7 S. For wedding photography I currently use an old Sony R-1 (don't laugh!). It was always possible to work with it without a flash in the church if it was bright enough outside, I don't like flash lights, especially at wedding ceremonies. And: I love this camera because it's shutter is nearly unnoticeable, so can work without attracting attention.
Now I want tu upgrade to a full-format Camera. I read that the A7 S has an (activatable) electronic shutter which makes it possible to take photos without any noise. What's about the A7 II? I could not find any information if this 'noiseless mode' is also available on this model.
I'm sorry but my reply was directly to your remark that 12MP is no good for weddings something I still respectfully disagree with. That includes printing big Graphi albums for high end clients as well. Your statement 12MP is useless for printing anything over 5 x 7 is simply false. Or your standards are just unrealistically high at least for the wedding industry. The wedding album is not a fashion catalogue thru which a demanding client is thumbing, nose-high distance looking for the most minute faults. I'm selling stories not clothes nor jewelry. So 12MP is good for a lot bigger printing than 5 x 7. That's all I'm saying. Realistically all that's needed for ALL wedding work is a fast camera, 16-18MP or so, hi ISO capability with a great flash system. Could I use more MP on the formal side of things? Possibly and it would not hurt. Do I REALLY need it? Nope. Never did.
Digital Imaging Technician: I bought the A7 when it came out. It's nice to see the system evolve. But to take pictures with a ILC you need lenses. And Sony, unlike Fujifilm, does not seem to understand this at all.
Give me reasonably fast primes to a descent price. The 35mm 2.8 is too slow and the 35mm 1.4 on their roadmap is too big. How about a 35mm 2.0?
I second this last statement. Sigma's 35 f1.4 is not only a fantastic lens (by any measure) but also a bargain.
My 12MP D3s seems to be doing its job quite alright... my main wedding weapon. I find its detail retrieving capabilities just fine. Granted my wife's 5Dmk2 files have better detail and hold up a bit better when printed big (regularly 16x20 or16x24 by our local lab) and held close (real close) but out in the real world the difference is small. I'd rather take the lower megapixel High ISO prowess of my D3s over any higher megapixel camera. That and quick, precise AF in lousy conditions are my main requirements of my wedding camera bodies. I'd rather have a somewhat grainier (but even that is relative). less detailed but well exposed and focused shot of a moment than an apology to a client.Just my two cents.
alcaher: Hey Canon, i give you a 30 days countdown! If you dont give canon users a +40 megapixel/ 14.0 DR sensor, when the clock is at 0, all of them will switch to the dark side.... the countdown starts.....NOWWWW !!
Add absolutely squeaky clean files to ISO 20000000.
I think only something like announcing NewCanon could have been worse...
Can’t stop laughing. This is beyond funny… marketing initiative…Whatever medication Canon’s management is on, I want it!
It’s something some people will go all ape about while others will go : ”what a pile of gravel ”… The vast majority of the population of this planet will remain completely oblivious to it…
dash2k8: "Khaldei, who staged his photograph a couple of days after the event, is reported to have hoped that the image would have the same impact as Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph ‘Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima’."
I'm sorry, but the Berlin picture is nothing close to the Iwo Jima picture. Iconic for sure, but the Iwo Jima picture is the standard of "raising banner over hostile territory" while many commoners have never even seen this Berlin picture.
To the original poster I might comment that it really depends on which side of the Iron Curtain you happened to be determined which was the more popular picture. Back in Communist Romania Khaldei’s photo was in all history manuals… Rosenthal’s was nowhere to be found… I first saw Rosenthals in a small circulation historical magazine back in the ‘80s…
You’re simply deluded if you believe the war was less brutal in any other theatres. No one denies the primordial role of the Eastern Front in defeating the Axis but only a fool would insist the war everywhere else was a walk in the park.
Oy vey! Tell the survivors of the Bataan march that war in the Pacific was a sideshow…
Vadimka: who did he have to kill for this camera? :) I mean literally, who?
Don’t forget USSR and Germany had a non aggression pact signed… That and the fact Leica started producing the III model in 1933… He probably did not have to kill anyone to get one...
vivanchenko: And speaking about propaganda, numbers of people killed and contribution made by different nations one must remember that the USSR and Russia are not the same thing. For instance, Ukraine had to sacrifice more people than the US and the UK put together. Unlike Russia and most other nations excluding Germany almost all of Ukraine and Belarus lay in ruins back then.
It is amazing how western intellectuals avoid influence of sophisticated western propaganda and how easily they fall pray to the very primitive propaganda coming from Moscow. The Russians term them rather aptly as "useful fools" and useful fulls they are.
Well, after Holodomor I might have welcomed the Germans as liberators myself… Which one was better, Stalin or Hitler…mmm…let me see… Given by the post war pain generated by Stalin not only in the former USSR but everywhere else the soviets projected their influence, I might be inclined to say Stalin was worse. And being worse than Hitler is a dubious achievement...
Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.
Sure, I believe that…Funny thing is this will be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. With only relatively few people believing this promise will be kept, Adobe will have no issue dropping perpetual licensing.Let’s not kid ourselves here. Adobe will do whatever they feel strengthens their bottom line (even they might be wrong… otherwise successful companies made questionable decisions in the past…). It remains to be seen. Forgive me if I’m not holding my breath.
Great then, they only have to kill the non CC one on the next revision.Between the two who will get the axe? Hmmm… let me think…. tough one...
razadaz: Prior Photoshop cc we were told that if you upgraded to CS6 you would be eligible to upgrade to CS7, but we would not be able to upgrade from CS5. As such many made the upgrade earlier than planned. The following year they changed the rules again. The one thing I have learned from that is that I cannot rely on information from Adobe. To me it was a case of lesson learnt.
So who do we have to freeze in carbonite at Adobe, Tony ? :-)
MichaelStringer: Most people that like CC seem to be resigning themselves to "well that's the way it is" rather than "that's a good idea". Adobe change their financial model to suite themselves. Lightroom will go rental eventually. It is currently an anomaly and must be a pain to maintain outside and inside of CC. I and many others are hoping for an alternative.
LR is not seen yet as the de-facto raw management/ post processing solution. When it will, and it will very soon, Adobe will have no issue switching it to subscription.
Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.
vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.
No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.
Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.
Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.
vFunct, you would not make it very far in the fine art or wedding business.