smorti: So glad I recently switched to Lightroom. Would not appreciate having that decision forced on me.
So glad I recently switched to Lightroom. Would not appreciate having that decision forced on me.
badi: I wish i could see some "same images" comparison with this lens vs the fuji xf 18-55/2.8-4, somehow i think that this is the same lens category... "nicer than kit", and so on... my bet is that they will be similar, and the fuji is fatser, has optical stabilization, and is also very nice built. The leica lens is also built in japan, and so on, so the "leica build premium should be much less"... so ok, pay a few hundreds for the red dot, but, still, it is some 1000$ more expensive than it should.
disclaimer: Yes i love fuji, but i like leica as well, and I consider their new camera quite great, but not so about the new T lenses.
Whoops, it seems my reply was absolutely stupid. I apparently misread the bulk of your comment, and thus what I wrote makes very little sense.
Nick932: Even with non production software on a brief test the IQ was better than my EM1 and A7r using the same Leica lens. It is a bargain for this price. Less expensive than my EM1 and A7r. It feels solid and light with a very nice comfortable grip, no thumb rest is needed. EVF is nearly a must for precise composition and wide angle MF lenses. It has a crisp display even in London bright sunlight. The User Interface still needs work is not flawless. However, it is not an M but a good AF complement. On the other hand if one can afford an M using the EVF the focus is just a snap very quick and clear but no modern UI.
Congratulations Leica for making these excellent products.
If any of you read any of the reviews of using Leica (or any rangefinder) lenses on the Sony A7, you'd have seen that many wide-angle lenses showed terrible results - despite being amongst the best lenses ever created for film (search around google for the technical explanation why - to do with angle of incidence - too long to post here). The Leica M solves this problem with a unique micro-lens layout which counteracts this effect, enabling the use of wide-angle M lenses on a full-frame sensor without nearly as bad distortion, vignetting and colour shifts, even before software correction. Potentially the T does so as well - it would make sense, considering Leica have the technology - that remains to be seen. But it does render some of your conjectures essentially baseless.
You have not yet had the chance to evaluate the results of the T lenses... but you happily come to conclusions about their comparative performance and relative value. Hum.
Yanko Kitanov: Leica - do you believe your customers are idiots to whom you may lie regarding "optical corrections" while they are buying a Sony NEX cam with Sony NEX glass for 10x the price?? A pathetic way to show that you are going down.
Yanko, you are being deliberately obtuse. Your logic seems to be 'the Leica T looks quite like a Sony NEX, thus it should cost the same' along with 'the lens uses software corrections to correct vignetting and distortion, so does the NEX kit lens which is roughly the same shape, therefore it should cost the same'. Obviously, both these arguments are extremely flawed - the reasons why are too trivial to merit an explanation.
Also, if you insult someone's language use and conclude that they clearly have a low mental capacity, at least use decent grammar and style to make your point - otherwise you come across as hypocritical as well as facetious.
smorti: Anyone seen what uncorrected Sony RX1 files look like? To put it simply, heavily distorted and strongly vignetted. Yet that 35mm lens is one of the highest rated by DXOmark.
The fact that digital corrections have been applied to this Leica lens does not show that it's poor quality (every manufacturer does that nowadays); there's a lot more to lens quality than that.
People seem to be having an issue with all manner of things in relation to this camera. As far as false advertising goes, you'd have thought that if Leica were trying to make a point of having a highly optically-corrected lens, they'd have told someone other than just DPReview - or in fact put it in their promotional materials.
Until DPR clarifies how they came across this information, it seems most likely there was a simple misunderstanding somewhere. (The facts so far are: one online reviewer was under the impression that there is no software lens correction; this has been mentioned nowhere else on the internet - not even in Leica's own promotional materials - let alone by any other reviewers; it turns out that software correction is used, as it is in most cameras, and it is relatively simple to check whether this is the case as has been shown by DPR. It really seems overwhelmingly likely that someone simply misunderstood or miscommunicated something along the way.)
Well precisely, you've answered yourself. This is clearly a very good lens, and Leica is using software to correct distortion and vignetting. It has extremely high resolution and micro contrast, and reviewer consensus seems to be that it has excellent colours - none of these things have been edited by software.
The fact that software is used to correct the things it does, does not make it a bad lens.
Anyone seen what uncorrected Sony RX1 files look like? To put it simply, heavily distorted and strongly vignetted. Yet that 35mm lens is one of the highest rated by DXOmark.
aim120: @Richard ButlerSony says that the EVF " With about three times higher contrast and resolving power compared to the original α77".
But you say its unchanged ?
The EVF is changed - however the rear screen maintains the original A77's VGA resolution (but with additional white pixels).
This has screwed up RAW support for Sony RX1 - if you have one, don't download! I've just had to uninstall & move back to 5.01 (which works fine).
The main problem is the distortion correction disappears, so all your images re-distort as you watch - which is scary if you don't know why it's happening!
So am I right in thinking that the Ricoh GR, Nikon A, Sigma DPMs, Fujifilm X100S, Sony RX1/R etc. aren't going to get a roundup - despite being clearly a separate and self-contained class apart from the others, targeting a user-type which clearly has a large presence on this site, are wildly innovative in terms of offering significant gains in image quality which rival or even supersede DSLRs, and are truly portable? It's not like they are even niche models anymore - they are well into the mainstream as far as sales go.
Kiril Karaatanasov: This is non-sense. Very subjective choice and a poor one!
E-M5 is 2 years old!!!! It is also the same price as NEX-7 thus way overpriced compared to NEX-6 for example.
It seems GX7 purposely got demoted altough it is better than E-M5 in just about everything.
NEX-7 was excluded. Why? Because it is better at everything and DPR rated it higher than E-M5, so no way E-M5 could be rated tops? Is it because Sony are not advertising here enough?
As well any APS camera gives much more creative control than any m43. This is just a sad fact Olympus got it wrong. No need to praise them for that oversight. It would be fair to say all m43 have limited IQ and limited creativity options. Than you can start comparing apples to oranges.
What is X-e2 worse at compared to the melenium old E-M5?
Silly. A camera does not get worse over time; normally others appear which are more refined. Clearly, in the opinion of the reviewer, this has not been the case here.
Also, it is clearly incorrect that "any APS camera gives much more creative control than any m43". It depends on the lens as to the depth of field and the sensor technology as to high gain noise as well as many other factors.
I'm glad DPReview made a 'subjective choice' - I or anyone else can easily make an 'objective' choice from the specs list... The difference is, they've handled and used the cameras for a long time and I (we?) haven't.
robmanueb: "All things being equal, if you can add a function, why not do so?"
Then they mention the battery might not be up to it and the lack of microphone jack. Well that would seem like two good reasons right there. Whatever format video comes out at on modern SLR cameras someone will always complain that it's needs to be higher resolution with another frame rate with more manual control over all the video functions and no jello roll regardless of how prone CMOS is to that effect.
So I'll give a third reason, price, video as a function is not a free lunch and it's not a firmware hack away. So a bunch of photographers who don't take video get to rationali$e buying a high quality camera they wouldn't have been able to afford if it had video. The high ISO will make people covet this over a D610. So it has niche.
Well done NIkon.
Video as a function IS actually a free lunch BECAUSE it is a firmware hack. Their sensor will cycle at x frames per second anyway and video is just a reading off of that. The only added cost is the microphone - which, at the quality it would be and with Nikon volumes, adds next to nothing. I think leaving it off is simply patronising.
mzillch: Staged:-split second timing which would be nearly impossible to duplicate even in a studio setting, by hand [no triggers], without the pressure of being under enemy gunfire and getting your camera hand blown off, in one take.
-the soldiers face, a major point of interest, falls EXACTLY at a "rule of thirds" intersection despite the camera being aimed with an awkward, over the head grip, with NO viewfinder use to compose such accuracy.
-no camera blur, subject blur, full frame focus, good exposure, no visible gunshot wound [not that there has to be, but seeing it would add to the credibility]
-"overhead shot"? Looks more like tripod height to me, but who knows
-no negatives nor contact sheets have ever been seen, showing for example the shots leading up to this one (the flubs)
- " O. D. Gallagher, of the London Daily Express, "was sure" that Capa posed it: "While sharing a room, Capa apparently taught Gallagher how to fake a good action shot too."
Actually, plenty of camera blur. Exposure & focus would have been pre-set (focus presumably at hyper focal). Composition would have been fairly easy - even though he was shooting above his head he could have had a good idea of where everything was. There wouldn't have been a visible gunshot wound so soon. Also, this was the film age - there wouldn't have been loads of dud shots before hand, photos were spaced out and thought out.(And why is the fact that the London Daily Express alleges it, a good reason to think it's staged?!)
Robo2k: Well Aperture is one of those products that Apple gives as much attention as to the iPod classic. Seriously, why should anyone bother using it when Adobe is doing a much better job?
Take Logic Pro. Long time after 9 was released, everyone was saying what you are saying; then they released X which is fantastic. New versions of Apple software are slow in coming but worth it.
Sebastian Firtman: Mmm, You need look : www.memoto.com :)
And $9/month to use it after 1st year? No thanks...
canonalex: I like it! It makes photography available to physically challenged people who cannot manipulate the complex menus and scroll buttons.
Nice derogatory comment there, Manuel.
papillon_65: I won't be buying one but it looks pretty damn decent to me. Too expensive? don't buy it or wait a year and buy it for 50% less, what's not to like? People have been moaning about no rangefinder option in m4/3's so Panasonic have now built one and people are still moaning, who'd be a camera manufacturer? tougher gig than fracking in Balcombe......
This is not a rangefinder! Just because it is styled similarly to a Leica does not mean that it uses the same viewfinder system as one...
(Only Leica currently make digital rangefinders.)