DPReview like all sites has it prejudices. Consumer Reports is a good example. Some brands will never make it in it's estimation.For DP Review, it is apparent that Sony rules and some other brands appear to be consistently less favored. It's possible that the connection with Amazon and it's sales objectives play a part, but without evidence, I won't go near that one.
The reader must take all reviews with a grain of salt and take whatever objective information is available while attempting to filter out conclusions that seem slanted. In the end, it is our decision and our money.
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME!(caps intentional)
AlanG: I guess this is nice for video but pretty rough for stills.
It clearly is not rotating the GoPro camera through the lens axis let alone through the exit pupil. So how will it accommodate for parallax between photos on relatively close objects? And of course the ideal location for rotation will vary from camera to camera so I think this is just going to be "sort of OK."
Polaroid's website doesn't show it yet, so no weight limit numbers.
It looks like the parallax problem is nonexistent. See the link below. Simply attach a standard Arca-Swiss type clamp onto the threaded boss and use a longer than normal Arca-Swiss type mount on the camera and slide it until the lens is centered and clamp it. I have a Wimberley made Arca-Swiss mount that is 3 inches long and would be ideal for this application.
It doesn't look all that heavy duty so I wouldn't recommend using any camera but the small and compact ones with a light lens. The Sony a6000 or the Leica T with a 23mm prime lens look to be the ideal size and probable upper limit. Obviously something smaller would probably be better.
Check Amazon's return policy and if O.K., send it back if it is inadequate for your needs.
Jim Evidon: If I read the article correctly, by employing a global shutter effect to the entire sensor, they could totally eliminate a mechanical shutter; either focal plane or leaf, and simply use the firmware to electronically turn the sensor on or off at user adjustable “speeds” resulting in a lighter, mechanically simpler and more accurate camera.
To the user, the controls could look familiar with dials and wheels, but the internals would be completely electronic. I expect the new product could hit the market within 2 years or much less. I suspect that the project is further along than is reported.
Times they are a changing.
Tae it down a notch guys. Save your ire for something more worth while than shutter sound volume. Your own volume would drown out any shutter in the universe.
Next, we will have a hybrid/electric car on the market for the testosterone challenged that emits pre-recorded V12 Ferrari or Lamborghini exhaust notes.Zoom-zoom.What a world.
If I read the article correctly, by employing a global shutter effect to the entire sensor, they could totally eliminate a mechanical shutter; either focal plane or leaf, and simply use the firmware to electronically turn the sensor on or off at user adjustable “speeds” resulting in a lighter, mechanically simpler and more accurate camera.
villagranvicent: Even uglier than my Hasselblad Lunar...
If you bought the Lunar, you are in a difficult position to offer any negative opinions. People who live in glass houses, etc.
dsut4392: What's with that flash position? All the advice I have ever read about underwater photography is to get the flash as far off-axis as possible to reduce backscatter from suspended particles. Moving the flash 5 cm off-axis might halve the backscatter, but it would only increase the flash-subject distance by 3% (based on the 20cm minimum focal distance - the difference would be even less at greater subject distance). This position looks like a recipe for "fish in a snowstorm" pictures.
Putting it in the body would have required extra seals. By placing it behind the glass lens plate, they took advantage of an existing seal and avoided another potential leak point. It's not an ideal location, but any serious underwater photographer invests in an external flash anyway.
As ugly as the Nikonos and just as functional. If you want good looks, get a date and forget about cameras.
mgblack74: $3000 waterproof CoolpixA/Ricoh GR/Fuji X70. Lol.
Not worth a response. Someone doesn't know a lot about lens size and quality, I guess.
"What's with that flash position? '
A waterproof flash in a compact package, I guess.
Maybe there is a waterproof socket for an external flash somewhere. If not, there should be.
supeyugin1: This is very weird flash location for underwater photography. You will get a lot of backscatter. Apparently Leica didn't hire underwater expert when designing this camera. Also not good for macro with 20cm close focus. And 35mm equivalent is not very useful underwater either. They should have gone with 24mm or wider.
These is the only opinions I agree with so far. The Nikonos (I had one) used a 35mm lens for FF, so 24mm in the Leica XU would give an equivalent FOV for an APSC sensor. You don't want to go too wide because there is enough underwater distortion anyway. A 35mm equiv. lens plus the magnification you get from water/glass diffraction gives you a nice frame size.
That will be on the next model...or not.
RStyga: When you spend $3K and, still, you get a mere 15m water proofing you know you got a Leica. They're hopeless...
So get yourself a cheapy Olympus, Ricoh or Panasonic waterproof to 10-15 feet snapshot camera and be happy. For reef diving where most of the fish and color is above 35 feet, the Leica XU is ideal, especially where you get a larger than usual APSC sensor for UW plus a f1.7 Summilux lens and close focus to a little over one foot. To match it you'd have to buy a MFT or APSC camera with a comparable lens plus an expensive waterproof housing and external waterproof flash since the on camera flash inside the housing would produce all sorts of unwanted results.Spoiler alert: I am a former Scuba Diver who knows a little about underwater photography.
It is best if you know what the facts are before giving an opinion. But what the H--L, this is the internet where unfounded opinion takes up most of the cyberspace anyway.
Aroart: I'm hoping this is the expensive Leica version of a rebranded less expensive Panasonic to be coming out soon...
The Leica X series ( X, X2, X-E and XU)has no relationship to Panasonic since it is designed and built in Wetzlar, Germany by Leica. Hence the higher price range. You are confusing it with the V-Lux and D-Lux line of cameras which share design and many parts with comparable Panasonic cameras.
ekaton: dpreview`s title is misleading. This is not an underwater camera but a rugged all weather go anywhere one, for the expedition and the rougher outdoors. And as such it is interesting. Courtesy to the headline used by dpreview many of the critical comments are based on the assumption that it was developed for the underwater world - something Leica does not claim. The price is high, but otherwise this is an interesting camera for the adventurous.
It is definitely and underwater camera and that is the only reason to pay additional $700 over the price of the Leica X. It is as much an underwater camera as the Nikonos, but not as deep.Nikonos: 160 feet; Leica XU: 50 feet.
Amnon G: What's that flash location? Is "red-eyes" a premium feature now?
It is a logical placement for waterproofing the flash. Redeye is not the biggest problem encountered in underwater photography and I doubt that any fish would have a problem with that anyway. Should it be a problem when taking photos of Aunt Tilly and the kids, Lightroom, Photoshop and other post processors solve the problem with a click of the mouse anyway. What is there about 'underwater' that is hard to understand?
This is the first quality underwater camera since the Nikonos series. It is not capable of deep dives to 160 feet as was the Nikonos, but waterproof to 15meters ( 50 feet) would cover most of the reef photography around the world.Below 35 feet, the light dims and is too blue for any decent photography anyway.
At $700 more than the Leica X for waterproofing in a much smaller package than the cumbersome land camera in a waterproof box is not at all bad.
The only negative I can see is the apparent lack of hot shoe for a more powerful flash, although there may be a socket somewhere on the camera.
My scuba diving days are over so I have no use for this camera unless I wish to shoot under a waterfall, but it looks to be a very promising camera for the specialized market at which it is aimed.
For that price, I can get a Billingham Hadley, except that I already have one.It has lasted years, will continue to do so and still looks great. Domke makes great reasonably priced bags. My wife has one. But at the price that this one is listed? Get real.
KTClown: Only 16 megapixels?
By straylightrun (14 hours ago)Even m43 has surpassed them in MP count.
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. A 4/3 sensor has 60% the area of an APSC sensor and by it's very size the APSC sensor has less noise and better IQ everything else being equal. I own both 4/3's and APSC cameras as well as FF. It's the final image that counts and not mgpxl count. No doubt 20 mgpxl sensor will outperform a 16 mgpxl one OF THE SAME SIZE. Get real.