With Ricoh dropping its excellent but very different GXR, it looks like the Ricoh brand will be relegated to quality point and shoots and the more sophisticatedequipment will carry the Pentax brand.
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!
My 3 mgpxl.Nikon Coolpix 995, which I used nearly fifteen years ago, also produced amazing images and I got excellent 8x10's out of it. It was state of the art for consumer level cameras. But today, I use it as a paperweight. Yes I still have it out because I can't even give it away. Photography has moved well beyond it's capabilities and I can't understand cell phone users who marvel over the IQ of their phone cameras that are not serious tools but only a convenience add on for people who don't want to use a camera. The cheapest pocket sized point that costs 1/3 or less than an iPhone or Galaxy can shoot rings around them.
I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
This is what happens when the bottom line becomes the only reason to operate a business. When you have the company run by the bean counters rather than by the product oriented management as was the case at one time, then the only thing that matters is increasing profit margin over what it was in the last quarter.
This is the demand of the investment community aka Wall Street. Theinvestment gurus on Wall Street make a prediction as to what the next quarter's profits and dividends will be. If the company doesn't make that mark even though it may have increased it's profits over the last quarter, the company is deemed to have failed and the stock price drops. This is what happens when the decisions are made by the street instead of the company's product division.
It is all going down hill fast and it seems to make no difference what product the company makes as long as it can cut costs to artificially inflate the profit line to keep the investors happy.
Welcome to the new reality.
I have the prior model which is not Di III. I'm not sure what the difference is. Can someone in the know please respond?
I find the lens perfect for general traveling. It seems sharp and responsive although I find the contrast and color rendition of the Olympus lenses to be superior as they should, considering the price. The Tamron lens is a good value, however.
And this was the camera that DP Review did flip-flops over only a week or so ago. Nikon D750, "the Gold Standard" indeed!
At least the D600 had an excuse; sloppy assembly procedures. This one looks like a major design flaw. And Canons latest and greatest (?) suffers from the same bad designing.
Maybe if the big four camera companies slowed down and stopped trying to come out with new useless gimmicks every six months and concentrated on making quality cameras, they might avoid such embarrassments.
I gave up on Nikon and the other of the big four a couple of years ago. My money now goes to Fuji, Olympus and Leica; all camera companies that build honest to God real cameras and superior lenses rather than the newest in gimmick machines that will be obsolete with the next model 6 months from now.
To unhoh07:Good for you and very well put. I got my M9 back from Leica and it looks like a brand new camera.
Frankly, I've given up responding to the Leica haters. They complain about Leica high prices. But Leica cameras are all metal assembled with very close tolerancesand finished beautifully. It is a camera that is built with the reasonable expectation that it should last as long as the photographer using it.
Other cameras are priced within the buyers limits. That buyer will no doubt go back into the marketplace in 1 to 3 years in order to but the latest innovations. But do those innovations create a better image? Probably not. Our Leica's are built like a tank and are free of all the trendy garbage that in the final analysis contributes nothing to the final image.
You will never convince the critics otherwise. They no not want to be confused with facts.There is a saying that seems appropriate. "Never teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig".
just someone: Different approach than Nikon in handling faulty camera models. Haha
Simon,Turn around time for my M9 conversion to M9P specs. and with a new sensor was 4 weeks; the delay over the 3 week promise date was caused by the sensor back order. I now have my M9P camera in my hands and it is gorgeous, in so far as any camera can be gorgeous.
Mike FL: It is interesting to see/know Leica has so many old stock CCD sensors for replacing ALL of Leica M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E sensors for life which means that one camera could need many sensors.
Actually, Leica did not have "so many old stock CCD sensors", as you put it. Wait time for sensors was running into many months.The fact that they now have a large supply means to me that a more recent order has been filled and they are now available.According to my phone call to Leica, the replacement sensors came in this week and my camera has now been shipped. total turn around time for me was less than a month including the wait for the sensor.
GodSpeaks: Interesting. I had something similar happen to the sensor on my Kodak SLR/n. On the images, it looked similar to the photo on the left above.Fortumately it wasn't a problem until the camera was 5 years old, by which time it was also showing other signs of creeping failuritis.
I also experienced the white spot phenomenon on my Nikon DSLR, and in less than 5 years. On the average, the problem seems to take about 3 years or so on the M9. It seems to be related to humidity according to some sources. Given that both my old Nikon and Leica sourced their CCD sensors from Kodak, the problem can likely be traced to that company and now it's successor KPE. Several other companies also used the Kodak sensor known for its superior performance before CMOS sensors came on the market.I wonder if owners of those other cameras are also having the white spot issue.
To SimonWilder:I suggest that you read the facts before making absurd statements. Leica encourages dust removal and even has recommended using an Arctic Butterfly. I have done so as often as needed; fortunately no more often that other cameras. For spots that cannot be easily removed by convention brush/air methods, they recommend, rather than do it yourself chemical swabbing, to send the camera to Leica for professional cleaning. Turn around time is no different than most professionals; about three weeks.Furthermore, while pro shops will charge for the service, Leica does it at no cost to the camera user.
Miron09: Leica owners I happened to know since the Seventies had many technical grievances, like wrongly adjusted meters, shoddy craftsmanship, etc. Leica never recovered from the Leica M5 mishap. The lenses sometimes offer exceptional quality, but the bodies were put together with second rate parts, in Portugal, Malaysia, etc.
The only Leica cameras that are not manufactured in Germany by Leica are those Leica branded Panasonic consumer grade cameras.The cameras are near identical except for the image processing firmware and software which is Leica specific. I have seen some information that indicates that the Leica branded Panasonic cameras are subject to closer inspection, but that may be only a rumor.
As for the M, X and T model cameras, if the camera says 'Made in Germany', it was.
Found this morning on the Leica website:
Additionally, I have seen a letter address to the Leica Users Forum(http://www.l-camera-forum.com) from Leica Product Management extendingsensor replacements to those already replaced that may have recurring corrosion as well as a refund to those customers who paid for replacement in the past.
I suspect that those of you who speculate that Leica will leave their customers in the lurch have been stung by past behavior of other camera companies; more likely those considered the big four. I have yet to see any such comments from people who actually own Leica manufactured cameras.
But I do expect to see continuing back biting by those who have nothing better to do than vent your spleen without any first hand knowledge of the subject you seem to hate . So pour it on if it makes you feel important.
Mike FL: I have great respect to Leica's optical, but the FF sensor M9 is really noisy @ISO.1600 as seen from the DP sample. Again, do not forget it is from a FF sensor camera while you check the sample:
Any thought? Disagree?
The M9 sensor is a CCD rather than the low noise current technology CMOS sensors. The main reason is that CCD's run hotter than CMOS and produce more noise. A few years ago when every camera had a CCD, we all thought ISO1600 was great.
Now the CCD sensor in the M9 is probably the best one ever madeexcept for the large format sensor they use in the Leica S2.
The new Leica M's now use a CMOS sensor capable of stratospheric ISO numbers in the multiple 1000's. Having said that, there are users who swear that the M9 up to ISO 800 or so makes a superior image. Not ever using a new M, I cannot comment except to say that my M9 does produce spectacular images. ButI only shoot at ISO 1200 or 1600 if I really need to. Frankly, shooting with an f2.0 or 1.4 lens really makes higher ISO's rarely necessary.
Jim Evidon: I sent my Leica M9 into Leica for an M9P upgrade and was informed by Leica that they were replacing the sensor as well. My sensor displayed the "white spot phenomenon". But so did my old Nikon D70s. Leica refers to it as corrosion. I have read that it is a problem with the cover glass made by Schott.
Leica picked up this problem and are replacing sensors at no cost to the customers; a very expensive courtesy to the company that few other camera companies would do.
Leica has issued a notice to their customers to avoid chemical cleaning their M9 sensors, but send their M9 into Leica for a cleaning at no charge. I assume that dust removal by the owner is still OK. I use an Arctic Butterfly.
As for Leica,I know of no other camera company with the possibly exception of Fuji that pays such close attention to customer issues and satisfaction. With a company like Leica, I expect to get many years service out of my M9P and know that Leica will stand behind it. Bravo!!
That is really their problem and my good fortune. I'm sure that they passed the policy by the company bean counters before initiating it. Their cameras have survived a very competitive market since the the 1920's when most of the other companies are long gone. They couldn't have done that without maintaining a reputation and a loyal customer base. I'm sure that fed into the equation and I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about their future.
RStyga: That serves them right, they needed that bit of humility, arrogant dinosaurs... I'm happy to hear, now, all those Leica fanatics telling me how superior Leica cameras are in terms of build quality, once more...
Spoken like a person with a very big chip on your shoulder. Why the attitude? Leica owners are not fanatics. There is nothing to be fanatical about unless it is the enjoyment of using a camera without 1001 useless menu features that will never be used by the average person. Leica's are extremely well built solid cameras with close attention to detail combined by the one of the best optics on the market. Sure they are expensive. I promised myself as a young man that one day I would own one. I now own two; one for film and an M9 digital.
Your use of terms like humility and arrogant tells me that you have never met a Leica photographer. They are ordinary people that put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else. They also enjoy using an exceptional camera and are lucky enough to be able to afford one. So, enough of the attitude, and may I add, enough of the arrogance.
I sent my Leica M9 into Leica for an M9P upgrade and was informed by Leica that they were replacing the sensor as well. My sensor displayed the "white spot phenomenon". But so did my old Nikon D70s. Leica refers to it as corrosion. I have read that it is a problem with the cover glass made by Schott.
"...Whats the difference between using this or just using a normal LED video light from say Yongnuo with 291 more LEDs and at the same time 12 times cheaper?And don't tell me the only difference is, that it "flashes" instead of being permanently on...."
You obviously know very little about high speed photography. Think light duration whether it be from the light source or from shutter duration. Both allow light to strike the sensor or film plane. 1/2M sec. shutters are not consumer available if at all. I suggest you bone up on photography basics.
chewdoggydog: These dummies with all the negative bs...sdaniella, if you are so damn smart, go work for NASA.
By chewdoggydog (6 hours ago)
"...These dummies with all the negative bs...sdaniella, if you are so damn smart, go work for NASA...."I did. At least for one of it's major contractors and for many years. So much for so called "negative bs".
Back in the good old days of rocket research, we used to rely on a high fps rate camera called a GSAP to study rocket engine firings. It's total running time was a matter of seconds. It cost a fortune then.
Now there may be one for less than $700? What possible use can an amateurphotographer have for such a device once he has taken a picture of a hummingbird in flight or a bullet shattering a light bulb? It's a marvelous achievement in price vs. performance, but it's long term use to the average photographer will be in bragging rights only.
Someone said he'd pick one up in a heart beat. And do what with it? Do you have any idea how quickly it will fill a 32GB card at 18.500 fps @ 2560 x 2048 pixels per image? I would imagine we are talking in terms of seconds.
It has a profound scientific future and I cheer for the inventor, but aside from that who in amateur photography needs it? Who will want one is another matter.