RichRMA: Note the price didn't nearly triple, like with Nikon's replacement of the 80-400mm.
To be fair the old Nikon 80-40mm wasn't a very good lens, this Canon seems to be an improvement but likely not as big an improvement as the new Nikon compaired to the old one which was awful above 300mm.
Bamboojled: This lens really rounds out the 1.8G line!!!
Whilst we may see F/1.8 updayes of one or both those lenses(could just be the 135mm) I don't think it'll be part of the same lineup as the cheap F/1.8's, metal build, faster AF and higher price.
Frank Dernie: I think I'm going to buy one, if only to annoy the jealous-sounding inverted snobs banging on in this forum...
Ultimately I think these kinds of products have become a cheap way of people to "score points" on the net knowing that they'll be unlikely to be challenged much.
It just seems pointless to me, at least with cheaper brands people can claim why they chose one product over another in a way that could be helpful to others but we all know that very few people bashing Leica have the money to own one.
Personally I think Leica should be applauded by coming out with something that's more than just a style statement. Will it be a success? no idea but it brings more to the market than most new releases.
I'd say the reverse personally, Nikon seems to be getting more focus when it comes to the higher end market for the 1 series.
Previously you had lenses like the UWA zoom, 50mm and 85mm equivalents which whilst they might be worthwhile for a system as a whole seemed unlikely to get many people to buy into the system given that the smaller sensor offered inferior output to many rival mirrorless systems.
More recently we've had the AW1 which(if it actually performs) uses the smaller sensor/glass sizes to keep a waterproofed body compact. Now we've got the 70-300mm which looks to really exploit the extra range the smaller sensor gives whilst offering performance than adapted FX and DX lenses lack.
The V3/V2 + 70-300mm does seem the most obvious combination for a holiday wildlife camera. It won't have the low light performance of a DSLR but for safe daytime safari or bird shooting it'll offer vastly superior reach to the competision.
You missed out the most obvious one "a real camera".
arhmatic: I have a dumb question -Why are sensor sizes always measured in inches?
Most if the world is in metric. Including manufacturers. But even for people using inches in everyday life is hard to calculate fractions and compare sizes... I am a US architect, using inches daily, ALWAYS preferring to see millimeters...
The main reason is I'd say that its an effective way to disguise just how tiny the sensors in compacts/phones are.
I'm not sure why quoting declining entry level DSLR sales is a sign of a shift to mirrorless systems when the article also points out a similar decline in such systems.
Rather it seems that the higher end(by that I mean higher than compacts/phones) camera market as a whole has taken a hit.
km25: These cameras have great MP, but they are growing in size. With the grip, Just buy a A99. How many different groups of lens will Sony have ? For all the MP fans who must have the most, here it comes. For me this path leads us back to the DSLR. MP the Opiate of the digital masses. With MF, with out a ture RF. Well focusing will go back to the stone age. Aleast my Nikon F2s had a "P" screen. My Leica lens will focus at the speed of light on my M7 compared to using a TV screen. If you want 36MP and 35mm lens. By a D800/e with Sigma's new F1.4. It will even work better. If you want FF 24MP, buy the Leica M. I will wait to see what Fuji does with the next X-Pro, I am not trying to sell Fuji's. But this is the size of truemiirorless camera...about the size of my good old M7. MP and FF are secondary to true fine handling camera...were the photographer comes before the camera.
We've yet to see how these bodies perform with other FF lenses. Just how large and long the 2 primes are suggests to me tradisional RF lenses are going to have problems in the corners.
Eric Hensel: Why are so many here offended by the idea of having a great camera attached to a device you tend to have with you as you go through the day? Note this is a rhetorical statement --not a question.
I'd say there more offended by very average photography being talked up in order to sell the latest hipster lifestyle accessory.
pavinder: Could somebody please explain, as the article seems to completely skip over this point: why should anybody care if people put a #nofilter tag on a filtered photo?
If it were evidence in a court of law and had deliberately been manipulated/photoshopped/filtered etc. to deceive a jury then yes, it's important.
But this is just people's snapshots on a photo-sharing site - not a place where complete accountability is necessary. What does it matter if they mislabel it? Who cares?
A badly misplaced sense of the skill that proper post processing takes?
The more interesting point should surely be that most of these photo's are aweful.
absentaneous: I don't see where is the big news. if I am not wrong iPhone is actually a 5Mpix camera right? well, back in 2000 professional photographers were using digital cameras with less than 3Mpix to take pictures for press. that's 13 years ago. so, what's the big news again?
"Apple is cool, buy more products" is the big news.
TroyKi: Check out this big gallery with some awesome Iphone Landscape photography.
This must be some strange new defintion of "awesome" I'v never encountered before.