armandino: Ok went out and bought one today, I was pretty pleased with the IQ I saw online and I had a pretty good idea of what to expect from ergonomics and performance as I owned pretty much every single Canon DSLR worth having.Just a quick comment: one thing I absolutely LOVE from Canon as a pro user is that there are never surprises. Every iteration is built on top of the previous one, conservatively and thoughtfully. See the next post for more:
A superb post. Thank you.
lakel4444: As a teen, can't decide between the 7d mark ii and the 70d.. help?
Weeeel, the 70D costs $999 clean, $1350 with the 18-135mm, and the 7D II is $1799 clean, $2149 with the same lens. You could decide on the basis of price.
Lassoni: uhh.. some painting is suddenly landscape photography?
Well, the liberal aristocracy. They're fesses.
Please let us have no talk of cracks. Call them fesses if you must.
bigdaddave: Numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 won something?
I must dig out some of my rubbish shots and submit them
Prixnobeldefoot: Some of the pictures are interesting.However, I find it sad that none of those have a "natural" look.I know Photography is a visual art, but I feel that nowadays people tend to value more visual effects than content, you have to make it appealing to the most people possible. It has to pop out...
Like #3, let's give them a sunset, some flowers, add some contrast and saturation and done. It's well executed but it's s been done a million times. I find it rather cliché.
I like #1 and #7 because they're intriguing in a way.
Ahh, yes. It's j-school, that's what it is.
<quote>controversial is just a bullcrap word </quote>
nicolaiecostel: Number 6 looks like it's made with an iPhone and instagramed. 9 is not a landscape, it's a bloody tree and nr. 8 and 7 are architectural photographs. 1 is inexplicable, nr. 2 is a picture of a lady taking a hike. I mean, c'mon !
Glad you broke the ice, Nicola. Of course, we all have to be kind, but none of these images is my slice of liver.
I agree completely.
smafdy: But when will they deliver a Full Frame model?
HowaboutRAW: "But it also made the camera seem a little delicate, and fragile."
Seemed plenty solid when I handled it.
NB: Magnesium can feel a lot like plastic.
"However, it does seem a bit blasphemous to put the revered 'Summilux' name on a lens that isn't an f/1.4, and sometimes is closer to the brightness of an Elmarit than anything else."
The above quotation is preposterous. I suggest that the author use the newish 50mm M f/2.0 APO Summilux (8,000usd) and not get lost in the names, but concentrate on results.
You're a good sport, HowaboutRAW.
That SAAB picture is really poor. Makes me cringe.
Uh-oh, I think that's a little mean. If you think so, I'll retract it and apologize.
fmian: 'since it created the first 35mm film camera 100 years ago'
I don't know man, if you're going to write articles up on the internet for a whole bunch of people to see, at least get your facts right.Not going to bother reading the rest of the article.The first line pretty much sums up the (lack of) knowledge the writer has and the laziness in not bothering to research on the topic.
See? People are ok.
pdelux: Pretty average images. I dont mean to be disrespectful, but those images could've come from any camera released in the last 5 years. Where is this "leica" look Leicaphiles are always raving about?
I can see right on this page what Leica has to offer and it amounts to a medium banana.
In the full-sized image, highlights look a little "orby."
Lenses with glass elements. What will they think of next?
Ruy Penalva: I think, besides the poor lens inventory, it is not a camera for serious still shooters.
Google Translation as follows--
tell me that feels ....not have a real camera ..I swear .... but the years passwill never forgetTHE G1 was the firstAnd the systema maturoBest camera gh4all until today ...
Thanks for the very good reference.