I was at the Leica Store in West Palm Beach, and they had the T.
First, this is a real thing of beauty. It's gorgeous. If you appreciate pretty things, you will want one.
In an age when designer clothes can cost thousands of dollars, I'm not sure why people are so resentful about Leica's high prices. It's just like a designer handbag, but you use it every day. Why not pay a few extra bucks to have a more beautiful and sensuous experience in your photography?
I think a lot of people would love to own this, but can't afford it. That's just the nature of Leica's niche.
I will say that there is substance behind the pretty face. This is the best assembled camera I have ever seen, and I thought the software was beautifully crafted and very well thought out.
Then the Leica guy all but grabbed the camera away from me before I got to really know it. Sad, and poor salesmanship ... but if I was just a little closer to Leica's target demographic, I would have bought one on the spot.
John Tran: While doing some night photography near the Imperial Palace in Tokyo this evening the designer of this camera, and the D800E passed by, and seeing that I was using a D800 stopped for a chat. Lovely guy, and proud of his babies, especially today.
I'm willing to stipulate that the retro design elements are pretty expensive within this camera. But I'm puzzled as to why they wouldn't build retro elements around a D800E system to get a $3,500 premium camera that had the high resolution and better autofocus of the D800 series. I think more people would want to buy that then what they created.
Najinsky: I got a chance to play with the RX1 and to be honest after 5 minutes I was done. Focus was too slow indoors. I had my OM-D and was also trialing a 6D, and the indoor focus speed of those two really brought home how lagging the RX1 AF was. Add to that the lack of focus peeking during full view cmposition and I knew very quickly I wasn't going to be happy with that knd of performance on a premium product.
I don't mind the price, but I just would find it itritating to be constantly reminded they hadnt pulled out all the stops for their flagship product.
After my brief hands on I took a trip to the cybershot forum here, and sure enough there were a number of negative comments regarding focussing. For sure, some would have been user error, but some would also have been camera performance.
Hopefully, some firmware updates and perhaps a few tweaks to the build (not uncommon in high value low volume productions) will tempt me to look again in a few months.
I think the focus is fine for posed pictures and anything still, but it's certainly not going to help much for fast-moving people. At the same time, the design is so nice it's really easy to love. I'm just about to spend $2,100 on a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, so I can't afford the RX1 right now, but next time I have that much to put into photo equipment, I will probably buy one because I love the design so much.
But I have to admit, the autofocus is the one thing preventing it from being the perfect camera of its type. I wonder if they ran out of space in the body for a better autofocus mechanism? Why couldn't they use the same system as a DSLR?
muju79: I sold my x100 and got a RX1 two days ago, but tomorrow I am going to bring this metal thing back to the shop and FAST.The WB capability of this camera is giving completely unreliable results compared to the x100. Sometimes it gets it right, but most of the times the color rendition is very poor, again compared to the x100.
Moreover, in some light conditions there is a nasty green-magenta shift which has been widely documented elsewhere. This not a "defective copy issue" as you can see the same bad color cast in many pictures produced by other RX1 so I am going to say it loud:
BEWARE IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING TO BUY THE RX1 !!!
Life is short, I'm not going to spend hours with LR to fix the WB/color cast issues of the RX1.
That said, quality build is excellent, lens is superb, whatever, who cares...it just makes me feel worse about the fact that I cannot keep it.
I checked out the three images cited by Mugu79. Sure enough, the first image has an ugly green cast in the water. But what does the description say? He didn't like the muddy water and turned up the green to counteract it. Oops!
The other two shots had what seemed like perfectly fine color to me. I would have to have been there to see the actual scene to be sure, but nothing looked out of the ordinary.
I visited the Sony Style kiosk in the Aventura Mall, where I saw the RX1 and was immediately smitten by the design. So I went back and was able to take a few shots that I saved on my personal memory card. The image quality is very close to that of my D4 (which I had with me to do the comparison). Unfortunately, the RX1 ran out of battery before I could make the full set of comparison images I wanted, but even with my limited set, I was impressed with what this cute, tiny camera can do.
I think a lot of the detractors just don't like the price :(.
I'm confused, I have the monthly Creative Cloud subscription, and I'm not seeing the Photoshop upgrade. Is it still on the way? Has anyone else downloaded it successfully?
Cerdo: Just a simple question before the North Americans wake up: do you really believe these devices are smart or intelligent, or is it rather that the humans who believe so are stupid? (ups, maybe stupid is one of those four-letter words in North America)
I am wondering why there is so much bitterness about the idea of a "smart" camera. It's just a camera that can do its own image editing and send its output directly to the Internet. That seems like an inherently desirable thing to me. The photographer who gets the first image of an event often gets to define the event and gets paid the big bucks. In this situation, the smarter our cameras, the better they are.
The people who use these devices well are smart. Those who use them badly are not. Nothing new there.
It seems like you spent much less time dedicated to operating your gear, but much more time processing them in various apps. Is that an accurate impression?
Your pictures are beautiful, but their composition makes me think you really did miss having your telephoto lenses, and that's probably why the DSLR is going on the next trip :).
Could some kind soul tell me the advantages of the 11-27 lens over the 10-30? Why would you produce two lenses with specifications that close?
I like the ideas behind the Nikon 1 system. It prioritizes operational and autofocus speed over resolution, just like the Nikon D4 does. The smaller sensor makes focus less critical, which means the autofocus doesn't have to work as hard, which means it can be very fast in operation. This seems like a good compromise for many.
I checked amazon.com and I'd say sales are fine. It's sold in a lot of different colors and packages, which splits up its market share. I found Nikon 1 series cameras at #20, #27, #31 and then I stopped counting but I think there are at least six more models out there. And of course the bestseller list includes cameras and lenses, so it's higher up in the camera list than it looks.
So it's here to stay and has some nice features. Hating it is a silly waste of time; if it's not for you, well, it's not for you.
Ashley Pomeroy: It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
I have to agree with you: I don't understand why the WiFi isn't integrated into the camera body. This seems to be a place where consumer electronics companies, like Samsung, have an edge.
Think about we poor D4 owners: We have to pay $877 for our WiFi, while the D3200's is only $59. However, the D3200's is strange. It appears to only be capable of interacting with Android or iOS devices, not computers. I dunno if the public really wants something so inflexible. Thoughts?
I see a lot of semi-pro photographers at the wildlife preserve I visit. I think a lot of them are imprisoned by their tripods and huge lenses, so they don't have the flexibility to get the best shots. In that respect, I see the point of the original poster. At the same time, she seems unnecessarily cruel. Most of these people seem to be having a good time, and if that's exchanging bragging rights about $6,000 lenses, well, I'll probably do the same with my D4 when I get it :).