pew pew: I,m kinda a sony fanboy, but I was under the impression that in the compact category the pana lx 100 was the best for video
giuliomagnifico: It should (from Leica website) use a very quite, almost not audible, shutter...I'm very curious to hear it =]Anyway it could have been a black and white only camera, much more cool and fashion!
Also, there is this official (10min) promo video:
Exploring Porto with the Leica M-Dhttps://vimeo.com/164548974
Should be the same as the previous M262:https://youtu.be/R2RIz5xtxdI
The quietest digital M so far. And notice that horrid sound of the M-E in comparison. The M240 i believe is very close to the M262 sound.
saeba77: image the same quality sensor and similar AF in a mirrorless body as the A6xxx.Damn if only Nikon making that not cannibalize his own market:(
That doesn't cannibalize anything. Just a good sensor in a mirrorless body.
Tungsten Nordstein: 'Nikon's *freshly-revived* flagship APS-C line'
you make it sound bad - like it was on the verge of expiring or something.
Nah don't worry, just leading another fleet.
onlooker: So without the LCD we should save a bit on body thickness, and also on weight (glass + electronics). Right? Well, let's see:
Leica M-D:Dimensions: 139 x 80 x 42 mmWeight: 690 g
Leica M:Dimensions: 139 x 80 x 42 mmWeight: 680 g
This is perplexing. What is the gain here?
It's a typo or wrong info. The M-D and M (Typ 240) are both listed as 680g, where the M (Typ 262) is only 600g. The difference is in the top plate being aluminum in the latter, but heavy brass in the M-D and M240.
A display and a few buttons weigh almost nothing, but not even 1 gram of difference seems strange. The M-D is the only one that mentions the weight being with battery in the Technical Data, but i don't think they would change that all of a sudden. I'm sure there's some other reason.
skytripper: Not compatible with the new iPhone SE? That's odd.
Just haven't updated the list.
JohnEwing: Show us the top plate, please, without some bloke's paw all over it. Plus all the other usual views.
There are two with 'paw' as always. Do you guys not see them!?
In any case it was not a request - he ordered it like they ow him something. If he truly felt that the woman's fingers (not actually a bloke i presume) are in the wrong place (i mean seriously), then he could simply have noted why that may be of importance. Even if it is an idiotic prospect in my opinion.
badi: "noise had to be added back in to get the Lytro footage to match the Alexa" ... that's strange, if i were making a tech demo, i would certainly love to prove that the IQ of my product is better than what's best available... it's this kind of unsupported claims that i don't really like.
On the other hand... it seems we are indeed on a beginning of a new era ... finally!
Oh i was done. :-)
... so you don't know what a paragraph is.
While that part is explaining what is essentially a kind of demosaïcing that every raw file goes through, times 36. And that really doesn't make it CGI.
Unless we're being anal about the acronym, but then we're gonna have to call every digital photograph ever taken to be CGI. Or even digitized film for that matter.
marike6: Some shops still have the Coolpix A for $369, a pretty fantastic deal. And since it uses the proven D7000 sensor, IQ is banging. Not a pretty as the X70, but half the price and no IQ / RAW converter issues and they make a dedicated VF for it, unlike the X70. My Ricoh GR III is easily my favorite compact of all time for shooting (on the Greek Islands it performed like a champ). A good 28mm lens that focuses close is a revelation that will improve your photography immeasurably. The Ricoh GR I sells for $550 new on Ebay. It could be that other RAW converters like Dcraw will produce better RAW conversion for the X70, but as a Lightroom users I don't want to change. So I might have to grab one of the last few Coolpix A's or the Ricoh GR I. Thanks guys.
Either way, it is a tweaked Sony sensor.
HowaboutRAW: Any chance of non-lossy raws shot on a Canon or Nikon APSC body?
Which is a DIFFERENT lens. Meaning its not 'only' longer, or shorter, it is simply another thing entirely.
John, it shows the camera from all angles, describes, and criticizes it in abundance.
They way you said it suggests you are for some reason entitled to have it handed to you on a silver platter tailored to your desire, and somehow unable to achieve this on your own .. ?
Since you were so nice to respond though, will this suffice? http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x70/product_views/
Check the specs if you're looking for dimensions.Or the press release for additional images: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160115_03.htmlOr google for JC's sake. :-)
Mach Schnell: How much harder would it have been to make the lens f/1.8 instead of f/2.8?
Oh boy you got me. Yeah i'm being cryptic now because you responded so nice to me. But initially i did quite literally point at the contradicting matter directly, though being 'subtle' in leaving the realization of such to you. That either helps to widen ones views favorably, or you know, said person gets offensive out of frustration and it goes sideways. Sorry 'bout that.
Michael Ma: It looks like one giant Lytro camera. I'm guessing most film makers are incredibly picky when it comes to lenses. Would they rather shoot with this than the lens of their choice? DPs use Arri just for the brand name and default color profiles.
I think the point is that shooting with this could potentially BE any lens of choice. ;-)
I'm sure that in the long run you'll be able to adjust 'character' of the lytro capture as well in post, just like we're able to do new things with our old raw files now when new software is introduced.
Fun fact, but none of that paragraph was about CGI.
They did show the best IQ possible. But as a cinematographer you don't want your shots to looks completely different from one scene to the next unless intended. So it was demonstrated that they need not worry about that.
"CEO Jason Rosenthal commented that the short film was shot on both cameras to speak to how interchangeable footage can be with other cameras. Importantly, the footage appeared virtually noise free"
Wow. I guess it was too subtle of a hint, but don't worry you'll get it some day. It's extraordinary to see you struggle though, somehow able to hide the answers in your own contradictions every time.
Mr. Raw. Please read again what i said and try to understand it this time. It can only go one way. You can adapt a long flange back to a shorter one, but you CANT make a short one longer.
You've been here so long one would think you would know this by now. But i guess anything is possible as i remember even explaining something about Raw to you which i found odd for obvious reasons. So starting to think you are either daft, or you are just trolling.
Great thing about native mirrorless lenses of course it that it can be F1.4 without being extraordinarily large like an adapter DSLR lens would have been.