String: Makes you wonder how anyone ever got award winning photos of any sporting event before the advent of AF...
Yeah, imagine a 16 year old taking one shot only, then crank a bevy tumbwheel on a non-mirror returning Zeiss Icon Contaflex with 45mm f/2.8 lens, loaded with Tri-X at the night football games. That was me, managing to get publishable shots for the yearbook and local paper…
Having used the best and fastest cameras available for sports for almost 40 years now, including the infamous Novoflex telephotos, arriving to Nikon D4 right now, I can share the sentiments of the writer what comes to mirrorless systems and fast sports photography. There is no replacement for optical viewfinder, good ergonomics, predictable AF and fast frame rates. We did get pictures before also, but quite frankly the pictures have been getting better and selection larger with the modern DSLR cameras and lenses. Why turn back to use less good gear? Sometime in (near) future mirrorless will catch up, but has not happened yet. Or maybe Samsung NX-1 is actually the real contender, not Sony?
Photo-Wiz: This doesn't surprise me. These digital cameras are getting ridiculously expensive. I sold my XT1 and XE1 because the picture quality was not any better than my XA1. The higher prices don't seem to give you better image quality...just a lot of doo-dads that are technologically interesting, and photographically almost irrelevant.
You could say the image quality is almost the same, but X-T1 and X-E1 have an X-Trans sensor, which is somewhat different, even if same resolution as X-A1. Anyway, some of us want and need a real viewfinder which X-A1 does not have. That alone makes the camera body considerably more expensive. Then again, my Nikon D4 costs over ten times as much as current X-A2 and has the same resolution sensor. If you ever seriously shot with a camera like D4 you would realize it is not the only picture quality you are paying for, but the ability to get the shot in the first place. For a pro the price is not the biggest factor, but the ability to deliver every time.
That said I often choose a X-T1 over the Nikon, quality is similar and system is so much lighter and quiet.
Looks like a direct competitor to the ThinkTank Retrospective series. I have two of those and they are good. Went through Tibet with Retrospective 7 and Fujifilm mirrorless kit, perfect fit and functionality. Who needs "luxury", rather make them unnoticeable, like the smaller Retrospectives are.
Albums 3 to 6 here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums
Luke Kaven: Since the same questions have come up several times:
Sigma's design strategy with its ART primes is to use a greatly outsized image circle. You can retrofit a tilt-shift adapter through Hartblei, and get easily 12mm of shift and sometimes more. The result is superior edge-corner performance, and improved performance wide open.
In trade, the lens is likely to be larger and heavier than other standard primes. Several lenses have been employing this strategy -- the Nikon 14-24, the Zeiss Otus lenses, the Canon 11-24. They are all big and heavy, but they perform beautifully.
@Martinka: My Nikon D800e has 46mm opening, while Canon 5D2 has 53mm. Measured with ruler, so not all that exact. Easy to see the difference with bare eyes…
Are you possibly talking about the flange DISTANCE?
Nikon has a small flange opening compared to the sensor/film size. That is what matters. I have no idea what the flange diameter and focal plane distance in m43 is, but as it is modern design the ratio might/should be better than Nikon. Lack of T/S lenses for m43 might have more to do with the target group than optical problems.
Nikon has problems with T/S lenses, because their lens flange opening is unfortunately small, much smaller than Canon for example. You can not shift a lens much before the flange cuts into the light rays. There is really no way around it.
msstudio: As much as i want to like or even love this, lets start with the lenses, a variable f2.8-4 at this price point, a camera with a focal plain shutter (and no option for silent electronic shutter) that has an x-sync of 1/250, and according to DPreview the 2nd lens we'll see 90-280 will be enormous, besides also a variable f stop, camera with 24Mpx at 14bit color dept and all this in a package that seems nearly grotesquely large and more expensive then any Pro DSLR today. I don't know, i feel i just saw the introduction of the end of Leica as we know it. But then again Blackstone always made their money back. The M is still unbeatable and the lenses simply unique.This one doesn't know where it wants to go, maybe compete with Hasselblad and their infamous Lunar or HV series, who's market i still don't get. But then i make my money with photography, i don't have to understand the camera sales market at all. I just want better tools.
Why are variable aperture zooms hated? Would a 24-90 f/4 be better? It is a waste of good glass NOT to make it f/2.8-4. The faster the better, be it variable or not.
Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.
Or wine classifications, with poor, average, good, exceptional, superior. With average and poor covering about 15% of vintages and 85% being better than average...
8x10 is not mid format… If we stay within the 135 to 120 format realms as implemented with digital sensors, 135 sensor cameras with large aperture lenses can duplicate practically all real life MF digital camera shallow DOF effects.
It is true that for smaller sensors three are no lenses fast enough to give as little DOF as MF and 135 formats do. In theory it would be possible, though, not worth it.
DOF depends on both the focal length/aperture, not sensor size alone. FOV is just the combination of sensor dimensions and focal length. MF does not have any special FOV compared to others. What comes to shallow DOF (usually people mean this rather than deep DOF) the fastest lenses are made for 135 sized sensors (some call them FF), so actually cameras like Nikon D800 series, new Sony and Canon at 50 MPix with 1.2 to 1.4 aperture lenses give more "Mid Format feel" than larger digital backs with slower MF lenses.
Besides, the paradigm has changed. In the old days bigger was better as film was film, but now the same is not true anymore, as sensors are not created equal and the IQ can not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore like in the past.
Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.
bernardly: That's why you're supposed to use RAW format.
If you just look at your JPEGs nothing happens to them, only if you open it in photoshop or similar, make changes and re-save it.
Of course DVD or BR keeps the files intact, because thy are read only. But so is any HDD if you just open files and do not save them making changes.
vFunct: de-haze = contrast adjustment.
De-haze is partly contrast adjustment, but largely also a smart engine which determines where the haze is in the picture, and applies the effect only to that area, not globally. It also corrects the colors (remove blue).
scrup: This will be my camera in a couple of years once the price comes down or if my M3 dies.
Laws of physics and optics… Camera itself can be relatively compact, but FF lenses cannot.
Slow prime without AF can be compact (Voigtlander and Leica are good examples), but after you make it 2 stops faster the diameter doubles, make it zoom and the number of lenses goes past dozen, and make it AF you need more complex mechanicals & motor to run them. So they get big and heavy.
Because people seem to prefer fast (preferably zoom) AF lenses to compact slow MF primes.
Which, by the way, can be adapted to this new camera, if one is after compactness, not modern convenience.
En Trance: And my question still remains. Is a serious photographer interested in using a camera that has a primary design objective of fitting into his wife's fanny pack??? I love the technology and specs, but I wonder about the design compromises resulting from the miniature packaging.
I have both Fuji mirror less and big Nikon DSLR cameras. While the Fujis are light to carry around, something like Nikon D4 has vastly better ergonomics and is easier/faster to handle even though/because it is bigger. And has separate assignable buttons for everything I might need. Not to mention over 1000 frames per battery, compared to paltry 200 with Fuji and electronic viewfinder.
So there are reasons why professionals prefer big DSLRs in certain situations despite their weight and size. I rather use D4 than my "spare" D800e, because it is bigger, and faster! And not for making an impression, but taking a picture, comfortably also with the vertical grip.
mediasorcerer: You dont buy this camera for practicality, you buy it to make fine art.[If your really into image creation]B&W images rock.
There are even more image creation possibilities when converting a color RAW into B&W. You can, for example, use "Wet Rock" effect which comes with NIK Silver Efex...
With this Leica there is no possibility to alter the tone mapping in post. Just general contrast and brightness adjustments are possible. If you want to adjust how the colors are converted, you must use a filter during to shoot. An anachronism right there, even if the camera is a marvel.
With normal color RAW to B&W conversion the color mapping adjustment possibilities are limitless. Which most photographers doing B&W find extremely useful. It is something that was not possible with film. And again not possible with Monochrom.
I find it strange that this aspect of monochrome sensors is not brought up in the discussion and reviews more prominently. While the sensor resolution is superb and the picture grayscale is beautiful, that's it what comes to post processing. That is a BIG point against this approach to B&W photography. With higher resolution color sensors the same resolution in B&W can be achieved, and all the B&W conversions adjustment possibilities are still there in post.
T3: It's certainly not an anachronism, any more than a Rolex watch is.
It does things like parallax errors. No other camera can.
aris14: Α jewel that practically all photography lovers would like to have.Last Leica's pix I saw were the pix from an X1 of a friend pro.There were kids portraits shot in BW (natural B&W) for his exhibition.A couple of those pix (circa 50) required a heavier retouch in PP than minimum, all done in LR.The result was awesome.To my opinion a fair to good pix can be PPed in various excellent BW conversion s/w for excellent results. I understand the way purist photogs approach, no matter if you can get even better results with PP from a color image. The only thing you cannot handle in PP is the quality of the lens, this very fine characteristics an excellent glass can deliver.
@ HowaboutRAW: Not really. The resolution remains the same.
BUT: monochromatic sensor, like the one on this Leica, puts out better resolution than a color sensor with the same pixel count.
So in s way you are right, but the wrong way around...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: This camera is for those who used to shoot with a Leica M6 loaded with Kodak Tri-X and made the switch to digital.That is the ethos of the M Monochrom. If you fail to understand this, you'll miss the whole point of this camera and surely it is not for you.Having said that, I agree with what tinternaut wrote below about the camera's lifespan. Whereas the M6 was a mechanical camera build to last forever, the M Monochrom is a computer, albeit a luxurious and superbly well built one. I'm just not sure anyone will inherit one of these cameras. (Unless, of course, its owner happens to die in the next two or three years...) They're as prone to obsolescence as any other digital camera.
Data is there to bring up shadows, but no color data to adjust the color mapping of the B&W image. That is the big, BIG issue with this specialist camera.
A Nikon D810 or similar 36 MPix color camera gives same B&W resolution AND the possibility to "filter" the final B&W conversion in all possible ways in post.