I found your video presentations outstanding, very interesting. As a result of these, not only did I learn very much, but I also bought a few cameras. Namely the LYTRO and the Samsung NX1. I confirmed my conviction about the leadership in the photo industry by SONY. Very disappointed with Canon and Nikon, who seem to be lost in the woods somehow.
What I think that DPR should have done and can still do, is to post each video separately so that we the viewers can see them at any time we have the opportunity to do so. You already have them, they should be like the TED talks, or Apple key notes.
I loved the format, and for the most part found the presenters very good.
km25: Leica needs to think long and hard, is this camera really worth $7-8k. Can we make it cheaper. If Leica got rid of the expensive RF system, replaced it with AF. The cameras would still be made in Germay. Lens ground in Germany and assemble in Japan. The costs would be a lot lower. The camera $3-4k. Lens would be less then $3k. The new APS-C Leica is a start. Leica needs to jump in with both feet. In the days of film, buying a camera that last you a "life time" maybe an investment. But with digital and changing technology. What is todays marvel is tomorrows doorstop.
The last time I looked at my Cartier watch, it just told time... hell even a ten dollar watch does that. I believe you are looking at the wrong argument in all of this.
Leica, seems to do a few things right, and then many more wrong. Get better advisors for starters. The ones you have, suck. You are not Apple, let us get that matter out of the way, no sense imitating them.
The prices, in neither high or low, it is what it is for the product they are offering. The discussion can not center around price, anymore than a Cartier watch is about telling time, solely. If that is all you need, look at your cel phone and the issue is resolved. So taking picts with this instrument, is about something more than just taking a picture, and here it seems to fall flat on it's face, when you compare this camera with the Sony A7r.... same price range, but nothing in this T model camera comes even close to what the Sony has to offer. Couldn't they have figured this out earlier ?
And then their video, imitating the cool Sir Jonathan Ives from Apple, with a not very cool looking or sounding chairman of the board of Leica. Sounds pathetic. Those strings hanging from your glasses like some academic out of his league, looks down right painful.
So why not a full frame sensor? couldn't they get an idea from Sony, to resolve this? From all the video of how they polish the aluminum for 45 min, I was left with the sense, that no sooner I would work with such a camera, that it would be filled with all sorts of nicks and tarnishes to the body, given that it looks so overly delicate. In other words, a work horse this is not.
I bought a 18-200 Tamron lens which is very good for my NEX-7 can I use this lens on the new A7r ? or does it need a lens adapter, and in case I do, which one?
I also have some new LEICA M lenses, will they fit the A7r directly or with an adapter...
it's surprising to me that THINK TANK, still uses the same rollers that are so hard on ones back. Instead of the more practical option of wheels that move in any direction, and which one can push or pull according to ones' needs.
Also the weight of the camera bag, is totally ridiculous in this day and age, with so many light weight and strong materials.
It's like their design department needs a total overhaul, or someone in charge who understands photographers.
Steve Jobs. already said it some time back, Adobe had become lazy in dealing with customers needs. Thus the Flash black out from all Apple portable devices.
But I would add as some others have already stated, Adobe became greedy and trying to milk the cow for all it's worth. There is nothing left of the splendor that Adobe had a decade ago.
Adobe might be better served by imitating Apple, rather than Kodak.
CS6 is bloatware at its maximum.
what do you get, when you put a reborn Leica Co after going bankrupt, together with an almost defunct Kodak company making their sensors, well, the niche products that have very poor after sale service, cameras that are about two years behind the market curve in developments, etc.
In the analog era, the investment in R&D by Leica was quite limited, after all in 50 years basically nothing much was ever changed. THen came the digital era, and they were left in the dust, not understanding exactly what had hit them. Their product line, late on any measure in the development curve vs the market.
Last I heard from their own employees, was that they were so strapped for cash they could not invest in having a modicum of inventory to supply dealers in a timely manner, let alone all the developments needed in R&D.
Kodak also was a great name, even one of the early developers of digital cameras, but what they did not have was an idea of what to do with it all.
The more I read and look at the specs of this new masterpiece of deception, the new Monochrome Leica M9, the more I have to wonder the sanity of those who invest in this sort of equipment. Of course photography is the least of the issues at hand, as if it was really about making great pictures, what you need and want is the equipment with the greatest possible flexibility to offer you a wide choice of options from which to select the most appropriate ones according to what you are about to take pictures off.
Now to have the privilege to spend twice as much money for a fraction of the options, is about having to look in a mirror and ask yourself is you are totally deluded or what.
Take a 34 megapixiel file from the new Nikon with a Zeiss lens, and then compare it with the 18 Monochrome from Leica, and you have to scratch your head how they could even sell one camera body.
Furthermore, you have the choice of creating the image in b&w or color among two hundred other benefits.
mugget: Wow - alot of people completely missing the entire point. Why even bother making comparisons to another camera brand? The fact is the M Monochrom is a rangefinder. NO ONE else makes a digital rangefinder! For people like me who prefer to use a rangefinder (especially digital), there is no other option. Personally, I just don't enjoy using a DSLR anymore, I have no desire to use one ever again.
If you're happy using a DSLR and you can make the images you want, that's great and I'm happy for you! But complaining about the price of Leica makes as much sense as complaining that Lamborghini, Ferrari and other luxury brands are too expensive...
When you write that no one makes a digital range finder camera other than Leica, maybe you want to take a look at the Fuji X100.
Amnon G: Seems to me like it would make sense to have the LCD super hi-res (e.g. 921,000 pixels) without color filters. It would make it match the sensor and give superior brightness and reviewing ability, losing color only in the menu system which seems a great compromise to make for the benefits.Having a crappy screen on this camera is inexcusable. Not the right place to save a few $$ and definitely doesn't serve potential customers.
my iPhone has higher resolution that then back screen on an $ 8000 camera body of the Leica. How is that for nonsense.
dbo: Leica is is also kind of philosophy.
People nagging and complaining about those masterpieces are just prooving enviousness. Either because they can't effort a Leica or just because they're too poor in skill to apprehend what its made for.
For those who desire to own a Leica, and are short of money - well then, Leica have some bridge and compact cameras in their line-up. But be warned, they're expensive, too.
before you start writing off people, better you learn some spelling. effort is not the same as afford. Or then go off ranting about poor skills if someone has a critical comment about Leica.
Rather than putting down people, maybe you would like to put up arguments that are solid, if you have them.
pedromeyer: you don't purchase a Leica to take better pictures, any more than you buy a Rolex to get a better record of time. It's all a bunch of nonsense to discuss the unique quality of pictures made with a Leica, as most of the time, the LEICA is so slow that you will miss out on the great images, to start out with. If I compare my Canon with the Leica, the Canon runs circles around the Leica ( and I have them both). So let us be honest with ourselves, the Leica is not a very competent tool to make images. No one, I assure you, will be able to see a picture and say, well that could only have been achieved with a Leica. That might have been true, circa 1950, but today in the digital age? not a chance. Leica's business model is not about making the best cameras to take pictures, but to sell to those who enjoy the feel and quality of an almost hand made tool. A Cartier watch, if you know what I mean.
The reason it all takes so long to be delivered by Leica is because the Co does not have the cash flow to finance their needs adequately. Imagine they only service their cameras in Germany, so when, as happens all too often, something goes wrong it is a major event to resolve the obstacles of their tech support. For instance with the equipments having to cross customs in different countries.
You can't be a world wide player, and then act locally, its nuts. And it is only going to get more complicated.
Maybe you would like to consider, speaking about glass, that Zeiss makes some pretty astounding quality lenses as well, and these stand up to Leica lenses very comfortably. And my Canon, and Sony cameras at close to 25 million pixels, with some Zeiss lenses, are shear magic as to what they register. If we are talking about making pictures. Now if you are talking about jewels, my wife loves her diamonds useless as they might be.
And as to Hugo's remark, about being or not a very good photographer, I don't think that this is the subject of this debate. BTW, HCB died when the digital cameras were for him not even an option. I suggest you re read what I wrote, about the fifties, which when he made his pictures.
Some people just need to upgrade their internal chip, to acknowledge they are no longer operating in the fifties and the values that prevailed then. Leica did not go broke for nothing. They simply did not understand what was going on.
you don't purchase a Leica to take better pictures, any more than you buy a Rolex to get a better record of time. It's all a bunch of nonsense to discuss the unique quality of pictures made with a Leica, as most of the time, the LEICA is so slow that you will miss out on the great images, to start out with. If I compare my Canon with the Leica, the Canon runs circles around the Leica ( and I have them both). So let us be honest with ourselves, the Leica is not a very competent tool to make images. No one, I assure you, will be able to see a picture and say, well that could only have been achieved with a Leica. That might have been true, circa 1950, but today in the digital age? not a chance. Leica's business model is not about making the best cameras to take pictures, but to sell to those who enjoy the feel and quality of an almost hand made tool. A Cartier watch, if you know what I mean.
Depending on what your intention was, of asking the worst possible photographer to test drive the camera and lens, I would think it was a gross mistake to be so careless and uninterested in what you offer your readers. Absolute lack of professionalism, I might think. Unless you of course wanted to make SONY and Zeiss appear in the worst possible light intentionally. I think an apology to your readers is merited.