I dont care why they did it, but like they did silver (chrome) edition before, then this is also pretty good choice of color.
Tho, they have lens to do and re-design. :) Maybe focus on that dear Ricoh?
Wye Photography: To me the Sony is a better performer but not by much and in the UK is £100 more expensive. Both cameras look remarkably similar.
Is the Sony worth £100 more? Considering the Panasonic has a longer reach!
From my experience Panasonic cams have sometimes better durability. Thats if they are made in Japan.
JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.
If it does real 14 bits, then fine.. its really better then. Hope its not faux 14 bits as before (bit doubling isnt same).
Yea Im aware that Nikon has rather terrible CFA due pursuing high ISO "gold medal". Tho CFA doesnt have that much to do with how many bits it can capture. You need both if you want to maximize image quality in color department.
Thats why I mentioned 1DMK3 anyway, one of very few which at base ISO can do it all. Very good CFA, nicely full bits and pleasant colors on top of it (and no noise at base ISO). Downside is obviously 10 mpix and APS-H form factor (1,28x).
Would love to have FF variant of same with lets say 12 mpix.
30 FPS isnt much relevant to pictures..
While I like LiveView, I can do without it. Video is just something "extra" for me. Also since especially video needs specific sensor (and whole pipeline) tweaks which some of them degrade stills quality Im not exactly fan of it.
A7s as lately with Sony will have again very miserable colors.. and if its anything like their sensors in A7 and A7R, it wont have even that miserable 12 bits (both are in reality 11,XX bits). It can spit 14bit files, but data are not there..
While Nikons when they produce 14bit files, it at least is over 12bits (13,XX or so.. depends on camera).
Comparing it to M-E is bit unfair tho, since M-E (or M9P) is bit different league, including low ISO image quality. But CCD is simply that way..
Real evolution in case of cameras is rather slow. Very few things are capable of really better image quality today, cause its always "something-for-something". Right now colors are going to hell due ISO wars..
Gonini: FZ1000 IQ looks considerably better
Unless they misfocused then lens of FZ1000 seem also sharper (and probably better in most aspects) than Sony.
Yea thats that classic "logic" its not newest, so it doesnt exist.
I can go bit further back and with confidence say that on base or sub-base ISO, image quality from 1D MK3 is unbeatable. And given tendencies in "evolution" of sensors, it will be probably for years to come..
D3s is most likely better than all in this article. Mentioning it was right. If you have it, absolutely no reason to swap it, since you gain exactly nothing.
That said, most people dont need higher than ISO 6400. This race towards highest numbers is very unhealthy for image quality (that and video).
Well, its PR camera, not customer.. things happen, its quite a bit worse if you review for example graphic cards.
Augustin Man: 1/16000 sec?! Sure isn't one zero too much?
Electronic shutter probably. They can go even faster. Tho I think its mostly there cause of video, not photography. But nevertheless pretty useful.
Hm, Im guessing he is leaving cause he realised that too few people actually care. Throwin pearls to swines is unrewarding job.
W4YNE 1: I now know what my granparents meant when they talked of the 'good old days'
Yup, one gets that feeling from these pics. Its like world that was somehow lost..
JaimeA: Like everything plagiarized and built with others’ technology and patent infringement, Samsung products risk failure. A salesman in the BHV (Paris largest store) told me that the TVs had a high rate of returns because of something going wrong. Our own Linda’s Galaxy has gone bust. If you buy the brand, make sure you check it and have a replacement insurance.
Kinda funny. Apparently you dont know that Samsung made first mirrorless APS-C. :)
So if anyone is copying anything, its suprisingly others..
AdamT: Hmm, that sensor tech is really showing its age, the 550D was 4 years ago , the 7D even older, the G1X MK2 has basically a Chunk of this sensor (image quality / noise wise) even the Nikon P7700 & P330 with their tiny 1:1.7" devices have far better shadow recovery, I compared them to my G1X Mk1 and the EOS-M (better than the RX100 too) , Canon really need to get off their laurels and get weaving on sensors ..
Canon is in long term testing, how far you can go with recycling sensor tech, before your customers start to really drop.
Considering a lot of people still buys their dSLRs, including models with recycled sensors, I guess they are not there yet..
On other hand, using 5 years old tech is kinda achievement (and people still buy it! :D).
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.
You might buy M-240 or M-E for being Leica, but you might also buy them cause they are only digital rangefinders.
Despite Leica T being just regular mirrorless camera, its still Leica (or at least I hope that part is true). And that doesnt mean people will buy it only for reason of being Leica, they might buy it cause they trust in it. Leica was (and maybe still is) brand in which you can trust to not let you down.
Pretty much like buying Porsche. Its just a car. But then its a Porsche..
Mescalamba: Different colors are due RT using color profile embed in DNG. While ACR/LR might interpret it their ways (they made DNG format afterall and are not exactly too sharing about details, rather opposite).
If there are distortion correction profiles in LR/ACR then they can be used in RT too.
Im just thinking about something..
Sony makes 18-55 lens for their NEX, and that lens look about same size as this one. That 1mm on longer end doesnt mean a thing, those numbers are mostly just "should be around that length".
So, what if Leica did simple re-design of exterior, gave it tad bit better build and sell it as own?
Cause lens output seems quite a bit like that Sony E-mount lens..
Otherwise disappointment in this case on scale 1-10 is somewhere around 13 or so..
Yea, but you dont know what I do. And thats that there is a LOT of undocumented stuff they DONT share. Just ask anyone who develops RT or any other free RAW converter. They share only basic stuff.. and not always even that. Thats why if DNG is supported in many other converters, always is that support at least a bit flaky, if it works at all..
If someone wanted true free RAW format, they would need to make it themselves. Or use some now explored and documented variant of DNG.
Clint009: ALL Leica model over many years are still great value, I mean, you won't loose your money at all, even if a model was not a hit. :)
I still have my Leica M4 built in 1967 (Rangefinder, film, no electronics at all) I paid that camera $650. Now this used model BODY ONLY on eBay price is range from $800. up to $4399.00
If, yes IF this Leica T is not a good hit, it will gain in value.Not the same for Japanese cameras. :(
Doesnt work for digital variants. Except Leica R DMR. And Leica S2.. those hold value for digital products, maybe too well. :D
spatz: I couldn't find a specification of the flange distance. Any chance that a Leica T-mount body might take Fuji XF Lenses with an adapter? Certainly, the ability to mount high quality Sigma glass designed for Nikon or Canon APSC would be an attractive option.
It can take almost any d/SLR lens, but as any other mirrorless, not from other mirrorless cams.
Peiasdf: Leica should buy some Fuji lens elements and let their efficient unionized German workers hand assemble the lens to insure it is 3 times the cost of Fuji.
Fuji lens have corrections in SW too.. just only well small corrections, so most people wont even notice when its without it. That said, they are rather good in various things.
That point about colors is true.. its quite funny, but one of best color transfers today has probably Samyang. :D (particulary 85/1.4 is very good)
JKP: Weird they lied about the quality of their lenses knowing they would be caught sooner or later.
Any correction is in same time degradation of original data. There is difference between postprocessing and thus enhacing whats in the image and "correcting" which is in every case just either distorting or destroying data.
electrophoto: Ha.To all those who so far have commented on the "superior leica lenses".....overpriced stuff you can get elsewhere for far less money without the lies.
As far as true Leica lens go, no.. but this? Yea, probably any NEX will do same job.. sadly true.
DStudio: I think the only one who deserves criticism here is Adobe, because they don't give you the option to not apply the corrections.
The examples above make it clear you don't always want them. While the corrections might be preferable with a brick wall, the tree's seed pods only look round in the "uncorrected" version.
So you're trading one distortion for another.
I think that will be cause mutual deal between them and a lot of companies which really dont want us to poke in true "RAWs".