abortabort: Between this 16mm and the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, APS-C is really starting to be interesting as a format. Until recently it has essentially had to suffer a fate of using it's big brothers lenses that don't quite fit properly (so to speak) and the occasional bone thrown by the OEMs to have FL coverage - if with utterly slow zoom lenses.
With the advent of mirrorless system cameras, companies are designing lenses SPECIFICALLY for those systems / formats and everyone is getting on board! Take Canon for example, they have NEVER offered any fast primes that are EF-S specific and nothing wider than 35mm is remotely 'cheap', now they have the 22mm f2 for EOS-M giving a proper 35mm equiv. Fuji have their 23mm 1.4, 14mm 2.8, 18mm 2 and 27mm 2.8. Sony have their 16, 20 and 24, plus the wide converters and the Zeiss 12. m43's have the 12, 14 and 3 17's plus 20.
Yet in SLRs the closest thing to a fast wide prime from the OEMs is a hand-me-down, super expensive, FF, 24mm f1.4 for a measly $2000 ;)
...adding re. the comment about wide primes: Pentax makes both a 14/2.8 and a 15/4.0 (the 15 is part of the very compact and high build quality "limited" series).
I'm using a 5DIII but, given my preference for primes, if I was using a crop camera it would be a Pentax.
Re. "Pentax is the same boat": looking at the slrgear index I count 13 (yes, thirteen!) aps-c primes (DA in Pentax nomenclature).
CarVac: I want a small 28mm equiv for aps-c dslrs.
Not some huge semi-fast prime (77mm filter threads!).
Not some huger, faster (!) zoom.
I'll even take f/4 if it's small.
Either way, more options are better.
...adding: I also second the Ricoh GR suggestion, or alternatively the Panasonic GX1 (or equivalent Olympus) and the 14mm f/2.5 (equivalent to 28mm f/5.0), altogether less than USD 600 (and for about USD 300 more you can get the G5 or G6, and have a viewfinder and a more SLR-like grip).
Cosina Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5. It's 30mm (Nikon) or 32mm (Canon) and manual focus, but it doesn't get any smaller - and with good image quality.
highwave: I figured it out!
This is the greatest marketing scheme in the history of camera.The Leica marketing department is Genius!
This camera was just created to hypermarket the Leica M!
Think about it; it must have cost them next to nothing in development cost (it's practically a repainted Leica X2 with a glued on Tamron Lens and they won't lose much money supporting all 3 people who will buy it) yet it's getting near 500 replies on its debut day!
And the replies are basically "Why didn't Leica stick to the M system" That's the cheapest hyper-advertisement I can ever think of.
Not even the D800 and OM-D of last year garnered this much attention.
Tamron would be too embarrassed to put out such a slow narrow-range zoom. And, yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity.
chrisnfolsom: Ok, here are some clarifications from http://www.slrlounge.com/breaking-news-panasonic-fuji-developed-worlds-first-organic-sensor.
Fuji/Panasonic organic sensor: 88 dB = 29.2 EVNikon D800E: 46db = 15.3evCalculations and formula at the link above - wow!.
The organic layer is .5 microns vs 3.0 microns so the incident angle can be increased from 30-40 degrees to 60 degrees while reducing color mixing.
I had read on another link that there was no apparent easy way to manufacture these sensors at this time though...
I'm pretty sure those calculations are wrong by a factor of two (the usual confusion between power and amplitude, 3dB vs. 6dB). This makes the reported dynamic range similar to the best current sensors, which is not a bad start for a new technology.
davidrm: Well.... If you wander around one major haunt of the offensively rich, which is St Tropez, France, you'lll note that cameras don't figure very high on the list of rich person status symbols. And when they do, it will much more likely be the ridiculous sight of some 60 year old Russian multi millionaire snapping his, ahem, "daughter" with a Canon 1Dx and a huge L lens. Not a Leica in sight. No end of Ferraris, Aston Martins, huge Yachts, Gucci, Versace, etc etc, but zero Leica. If the rich guy status symbol theory actually panned out, this would be the no-brainer location for a Leica store. But no.
Not that I own or want a Leica, just an observation.
Depends on the market. I suspect this is mostly for Asia and Middle East. I talked to the store clerk in the Leica distributor in a major Gulf city. He told me that their main problem with Leica cameras like the D-Lux (what an awful and embarrassing name, by the way) and X series was they could not get enough stock. Sometimes people would walk in and buy 20 to hand out to family and friends for some occasion.
46mm f/6.4. Excellent.
Ivar Dahl Larsen: Great photographs under circumstances most People of today cannot apprehend. Let's never forget and may it never happen again.
"ah, yes. Good ol' europeans... Some things never change, do they?" -- You do realize you are quoting an American? An abundant supply of pompous fools, that's what never changes.
kayone: Math is wrong on the 42.5 caption, should be an 85mm f 2.4 equivalent
The f-number tells you the relative aperture (focal length over actual aperture). For a given scene illumination and shutter speed, the f-n. also determines the light density on the sensor. The total light is equal to density x area (think of how much water you can collect from 1" of rainfall over 1 sq. ft vs. over 4 sq. ft). The total noise in an image is proportional to the total light used to make it (quanta and Poisson processes and all that).
And all of that is why any doubting Thomas can pick up, say, a G5 and a 5DIII and check that (RAW scaled to same size) ISO 400 on the G5 has about the same noise as ISO 1600 on the 5DIII. That means you can shoot at, say, f/2.8, ISO 400, and 1/100 sec on the G5 and f/5.6, ISO 1600, and 1/100 sec on the 5DIII (i.e., unlike you stated, the same shutter speed) and end up with very similar images (DOF, noise, motion blur).
I'm sorry if this makes you feel insecure is some weird way (we can all be strange creatures at times).
But then you have two stops less total light hitting the sensor. That is, a quarter of the photons, which means twice the noise amplitude (plus whatever read noise the sensor has, which may dominate at low ISO).
Put another way, ISO 1600 on my micro-4/3 gear is a completely different thing from ISO 1600 on my 35mm-format gear. (This doesn't matter much if there's enough light that you are in a range where the noise is very small either way -- but in that case the shutter speed "advantage", if there was one, wouldn't matter either).
Rage Joe: This way, for the same scene illumination, you'll get the same shutter speed. Because the actual apertures (diaphragm diameter) are 42.5/1.2=35.4mm and 85/2.4=35.4mm, that is identical, the total light on the sensors is the same and, for sensors of the same generation, the amount of noise in the final image also about the same (even though one is at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 400). This doesn't just work in theory, it also works in practice: I have both kinds of gear and can attest that, with a bit of care to do controlled comparisons, this is easy to verify first-hand.
tkbslc: 85mm equivalent f1.2. Not too shabby at all. (I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with the 42.5x2 math.)
150mm f2.8 could be a killer sports lens if the focus can keep up. Not sure who else really needs a lens that long and fast (and probably expensive).
The equivalence is to an 85mm f/2.4.
Depending on the optical quality, price and weight, I may get this to replace the Olympus 45mm f/1.8.
JohnMatrix: Does the screen flip past 90 degrees? i.e. can the social media slave who uses this camera easily take a picture of themselves?
I think you mean 180 degrees.(P.S. - ah, had missed the "past", sorry)
Colbert made the plea, and the NY Post got right on the case:http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/421746/december-03-2012/the-word---base-instincts
I like your shot, I think this deserved a better ranking... Thanks for sharing.
Hugo808: Sooner or later someone else here will have the bright idea of checking pics from different cameras side by side. Then the astonishing truth becomes apparent - there aint hardly any difference between these products. Especially at base ISO in bright sunlight.
Sorry you had to hear that from an amateur and one who has used the same digital camera for 5 years and honestly can't get his friends with their regularly upgraded super duper stuff to show him the difference pictorially.
Plastek: are you suggesting that you cannot see the difference between a compact camera and a full-frame sensor at, say, ISO 3200? If that's the case, and assuming you have your corrective eyewear sorted out, I suggest a brain MRI scan at the earliest.
jon404: Could've just jumped in the pool with a little Olympus TG-1. For that matter, why not just put small cameras in the swimmers' caps?
The swim goggles would be a better place for that.
FTW: Well, it are good and clean pictures, but at 600$ for the place at the Olympics and an estimated ( I put the bar low) 12000$ for the lens, the pictures can be good. There is not much more stuff in an 800 mm lens than in a 300, so what makes the price of it then. You might say the low amount sold. But, if it is at reasonable price, they will sell more too. On the other end, just a few need that and many would like to have it, but can't afford it. If all on this planet was worth the price you pay for ....
"There is not much more stuff in an 800 mm lens than in a 300, so what makes the price of it then." The answer is much tighter tolerances in the glass polishing, in the coating thickness, and in the alignment in assembly. With the tolerances needed for an 800mm to be pixel-level sharp on the D4's 16MP, a 300mm would be pixel-level sharp on a sensor with 114MP.
dzajba: The light is very pleasing, but the blur of the background seems digital,optically impossible, given the distance from the cyclist, the focal length and F5...
It's very obviously added in post. See the guy in the background just in front of the cyclist's face: he's in focus.