Poss: I do not understand the jabs at the luxury market. It's a valid market as any of the other ones.
Besides it was a Rolex that reached the deepest ocean point in 2012 and an Omega Speedmaster at Neil Armstrong's wrist when he stepped on the Moon, not a cheap Chinese knockoff. Want to see what technology will eventually filter down to the automotive consumer level? Watch what Mercedes is putting on their flagship S series sedans. And so on.
If anything this looks like a well sorted camera for which Leica can comfortably charge a premium price. Much like Porsche can (and does) charge for a Cayenne or Omega does for the current Speedmaster (very different than the one used in the Apollo program) or Apple does for an iPhone.
Some brands enjoy having a very loyal following for very good reasons and when we belittle them, we tend to sound more like an acute case of sour grapes.
I'm in both camps. When I do serious shoots, I don't care about the brand of camera, I just want the best tool for the job. For me, doing automobile photography, that's a 6D with mainly fixed lenses, the 35mm and 135mm f/2s serve me well, with a 24-70 f/4 as a lightweight all-around. I use a Sony RX100 for a pns, great camera. I paid $1K on closeout for the Hasselblad version of the RX100, which I know is exactly the same camera as the one I already have. Why? It's not even pretending to be a better camera, it's purely aesthetics and brand that make it more expensive than the Sony. Because it feels more special, and in my situation of taking pictures of expensive cars with wealthy owners, it's something different, doesn't look like a cheap pns, starts conversations, and makes me happy bc it's a little piece of jewelry, which the Sony and Canon are not. It's not all about numbers and IQ.
tkbslc: The X100 series has delivered on this camera's exact goal for several years now. Not sure what the fuss is about.
@Sean65: that's not entirely true. I can afford either camera easily, I use an M6 with 35mm Summilix, and I chose to get the X100T. Why? Because it's 35mm, a much more useful focal length for me, it's much smaller and lighter, it has useful film simulations of the slides I used to shoot, and most importantly, it has an optical vf. Or an evf, but coming from an M6 the optical feels so much more right. The evf takes away the clarity of the optical, and the ability to see what's about to move into the frame, which is a huge part of the optical vf style of street shooting. If the Q had an optical vf it'd be really tough, size/weight vs probably better picture quality, but as it exists it's no contest. And if you want a better car analogy, the Leica may be a Ferrari, but the Fuji isn't a Polo, it's an Audi R8, and you absolutely need AWD.
Charlie boots: This sounds more like lightroom calibration to match the camera than camera calibration as the calibration is only appliccable when using lightroom and is only appliccable to a specific light colour. Change the location and the light and one needs to recalibrate for the new light situation. This then means that for each photo shoot there needs to be a new calibration. How does one then manage within lightroom as it is not possible to automatically have lightroom change claibration profiles automatically to match each photo shoot. This has to be done manually.
Yes, this is the problem. Camera color profiling only works under one specific light temp, so for completely controlled shoots (catalog work where the fabric swatches need to be accurate) it's a small help, but for general shooting it's unnecessary. Who wants accurate color anyway? Most people want bluer skies than the light cyan that exists, greener trees than reality, and healthier more ruddy skin tones. I did many experiments with the McBeth and came to these conclusions.
As the author himself writes: The difficult thing is to work out how many calibrations you need to do. In theory you should perform a calibration for each lighting source, lens, and even ISO. In practice, unless you work in very controlled conditions this is probably too unwieldy and will slow up your workflow.
That about sums up my experience.
"order of magnitude"LOL!
The article makes the statement that the physical dials will let the user see the parameters at a glance, but it's not a strong argument because an LCD will do that as well. Personally I don't find this to be true. Having grown up shooting Nikon F3, FM2N, Leica M & R, Mamiya 645 & 7, Fuji RFs, you get the idea, I really dislike LCD screens because they present too much information and my mind goes into a "wow there's a bunch of numbers crammed into a little screen" mode, and it takes me longer to figure out than simple dials. Most of this is history of course, I expect that the dials would be just as annoying and confusing to people weaned on a digital-based LCD era camera, but then the Df wasn't aimed at them.
My main concern before I buy is that the focusing screen will have been optimized for f/2.8 lenses and the larger aperture Ai-S lenses I want to use will not be precisely focusable. The FM2N has the best screen I've used, 0.86x, makes all these cameras VFs today look small.
DPNick: It's spelled Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
Mr. Pither. It's spelled just like brotherhood except with a pi instead of the bro and no hood.
GIF has a hard G, don't care what he says.
It's not a word, it's an acronym. And since the first word of that acronym has a hard G, so does the acronym. Do you pronounce scuba skooba, sooba, or shuba? Everyone I've heard calls it skooba, because the sc combination is not formed from normal usage, but from self contained. It really doesn't matter how he wants to pronounce GIF, he can't change the rules of English.
It's spelled GIF, but it's pronounced Aunt Jemima. Sorry, doesn't work.
It's spelled Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
So he took a bunch of pictures of dirty slackers and losers while he was one; I don't see the brilliance. It's not quite Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Doisneau, Friedlander, Lange, Stieglitz, etc.
Poweruser: Still not sure where the point is with wide-gamut screens?
95%+ of users cant see any difference because their devices run SRGB at best (often times uncalibrated), think of tablets, phones, all Macs, etc.
Also, you cant "print" Adobe RGB.
Why can't you print AdobeRGB?I thought there are many printers that have enough range.
BJN: The question is how consistent the color and tonality are across the large display. I tried and returned a 30" Dell display that has wide gamut but that had very poor consistency across the display. You can't do accurate work if only a portion of your display is showing accurate colors.
I'm guessing that at $1600 that the hood and calibration package are extra.
Yeah, I returned the 30" NEC for the same reason. What's the point of wide gamut if the screen is beaming at me and driving me crazy with inconsistent colors? Went back to my Apple 30", it's sRGB but consistently so.
Last year I bought a K-5 and a Nex-5N, both of which apparently have the same sensor. It's spectral response is strange, and I could not get accurate color out of either camera (after much experimentation, red or blue, take your pick, but not both). I sold the Nex, bought a Nex-7 as soon as it came out, and it has wonderful color. I hoped Pentax would either do a FF or update the K-5 with the 24MP Sony sensor, but they've done neither. Too bad, because I like the K-5 a lot but haven't used it since I got the Nex-7.
Does the sensor still have the blue/red color problems of the K-5?If so not interested.
dsm6: Can someone help me rationalize the design decisions here. It seems that the metal grip location where you would place your right hand would be quite slippery while wet, and less grippy than the material used for the rest of the body. The shape of the lens side seems completely counter-ergonomic to being held by a human hand even for carrying purposes. Also, blue buttons with blue print on some of them for an underwater camera?
The D10 wasn't pretty, but this seems like a big step backwards ergonomically. It seems to me much more likely that one would accidentally cover the flash on the D20 versus the D10. Or maybe I'm just missing it....
When it slips out of your hand and disappears into the water or some ravine, you'll have to buy another one.
Brilliant design, eh?:)
I wonder whether she was just as outraged over the cost of her diamond ring; surely at least a month's salary and without a doubt a completely manipulated market.
abolit: what the point of making this lens if Sony has already made the same one.
That is a question to ask Tamron management, not dpreview visitors.
skytripper: Someone please remind me why a small NEX body is an advantage if you're going to hang a big honking lens on it, making it essentially the same size as any other DSLR?
It's not all about the size, but the weight.Nex with 18-200 will be moderately smaller but much much much lighter than any DSLR.
SaltLakeGuy: That's all well and good, but I just have to say I can not heartily agree with all that's been said. I've been at the digital thing since the mid 90's having owned at least 2 pro DSLR's and 7 other semi pro bodies. I can't even how many L lenses and Nikkor's I've owned along the way. With that said, AFAIAC Canon has the WORST consistency in their lenses of any manufacturer I've yet used. I generally had to return most L's purchased AT LEAST once as they provided unacceptable corner sharpness or focus accuracy. Generally speaking after replacements arrived I was pleased with the performance. I personally had Pictureline pull 6 24-70 f2.8L lenses from their stock and showed their salesperson how poorly they performed wide open with excessive CA and he agreed sending them all back for replacement. I finally got a perfect one from B&H first time out. IT is NOT ME, it is without question the product. I'm happy to report only ONCE did I have to return a Nikkor as all the rest have been great
Looks like you read past the part where Roger suggests that people like you should not read past.
SydneyHarbourBridge: These test photos are seriously worrying.
Because the photographs themselves are so bad it makes it harder to judge the lens/camera but if you try hard and imagine that the photos were any good you come away extremely disappointed.
Disappointed enough in my case to consider cancelling a pre-order on the camera.
It is a Zeiss lens but shows absolutely no character. Bland would be the kindest word that you could use. The dynamic range is average.
This glass just can't make up its mind about anything. It is struggling.
Unlike the photos posted here if you look at photos taken with classic Zeiss lenses, say those for Hasselblad, there is no comparison. It is just not possible to take a bad photo with Hasselblad lenses. There is some voodoo magic in there that says 'we have given you a lens created by the hand of god, step up to the mark.'
This lens says 'Sony paid us a lot of money to put our name on this. We are really sorry'.
Please cancel your order and leave this camera lens combo to someone who will be able to take good pictures with it, because that won't be you.