Zvonimir Tosic: New S Typ is the first MF camera that shoots 4K video (24 fps). It beats Pentax 645Z in that. And Leica S lenses are marvellous too.
No, but its worth as camera probably. At least S lens are best known to man right now..
Photoman: "does not offfer the M3's amazing..." Spelling mistake, but such a beautiful camera.
M3 is amazing anyway. :D
RStyga: The RF film Leica cameras are nice but I'd personally prefer the Zeiss Ikon (sadly, out of production, I think, but still available new for $1100-$1500) which is a magnificent camera with the highest standard of build quality and better ergonomics (handling, film change, volume design & weight) than Leica M RFs.
And if they made digital Ikon, they could make rather big fortune on that.. would get one myself.
Its a lot of S/M, especially if you are so unfortunate to ever try one.. life is never same after. :D
Next time, EVF completely to left Samsung (like old Olympus E-1 or much more recent NEX-7 etc.).
But yea, that "pro" look almost oozes out of it. Somehow reminds me Pentax (no wonder there either). Im curious about output. BSI sensor of this size.. hmmm..
nathanleebush: Love the clickless aperture feature as someone who uses my A7s for both stills and videos equally. Shame.. just bought the existing Zeiss branded 35mm f/2.8. Just wish these had OIS, as jello is the achilles heel of the camera's video mode, and it pretty much requires IS lenses.
If you dont mind AF, then Leica R had about best telephotos known to a man. Tho Canon isnt bad either.. and has AF. :)
Leica R is dead system tho, as is Contax C/Y. Today neither Zeiss or Leica makes anything over 135mm. Apart some hyper-expensive cine lens from Zeiss.
They can, when they produce something matching best Leica or Zeiss lens. :)
Summi Luchs: Nice lenses - I had a few Zeiss ZM lenses and was very happy with their optical quality. I guess the Loxias will be very good. But why do they duplicate the 35 and 50mm focal lengths already available as genuine FF E-mount lenses ? A wider lens (24, or better 21mm) or a portrait (85-100mm) would have made more sense to most A7 users.
Easiest to design and there isnt that much really good 35/2 or 50/2. These seem to be that case..
Tho with ability to use Leica lens, dunno.. guess you are right. But if you have money, apart wide-angles, you can use any Leica lens on it (WATE works great too if someone has a lot of money and wants a wide-angle from Leica).
Yea, nice E-mount compatibile wide-angle (18mm maybe?) and maybe 90mm f2 portrait lens, would be probably better.
Tho maybe they did these two as they are most used.. so if someone buys lets say new A7s and wants Zeiss lens with it, they can grab one or both of these. They targeted rather niché market tho..
Krich13: What is the point of Loxia 50/2 again? The FE 55/1.8 is faster, has autofocus and better bokeh (Sonnar vs Planar -- that is, Double Gauss). And this Loxia is not even cheaper by any significant margin...
Seems very sharp, like MP sharp. Bokeh isnt bad actually. No CA at all.
35/2 is similar case, only bit of red-green CA, I guess those files are straight out of camera JPGs without any PP, which means both Loxia lens are good due very good optical design, not software tricks.
Why is that important? Well, less software included to "fix things" better for photographer.
Also 35/2 looks to have very nice Zeiss "pop" very similar to ZF/ZE line. Plus it seems without distortion.
I guess these lens are simply for people which appreciate good things done "old way". There is a lot of us actually.
Felix11: "Both lenses, as we might expect, are manual focus only"
I wasn't expecting that, I am disappointed as I thought the Sony FE lens range was about to get significantly better.
Why did DPR expect that I would know they were manual focus?
Its for folks like me which like ZF/ZE lineup or old C/Y lens. Not only videographers. I think Zeiss gets that. :)
Nothing to do with Sony protecting themselves.
They dont have OIS as it compromises image quality (any kind of stabilisation does).
Angrymagpie: Trying to understand why one should choose these pricer MF lenses over the existing FE35mm f/2.8 and FE55mm f/1.8. Perhaps they would be slightly sharper (though that's a bit hard to imagine especially in the case of FE55 f/1.8)
I guess different look of photos and pretty good image quality. Both designs are new.. Im quite curious how they will perform.
Also Sony branded "Zeiss" is apart from some rather old Alpha gear actually just Sony with badge. These will be "true" Zeiss.
IMHO if MF with them will be as good as with old C/Y then its perfect.. AF is nice to have, but Sony E-mount cameras are not exactly best with AF anyway (really not Panasonic level :D).
I guess its bit hard to explain if someone never used proper MF lens.. but when you do, then unless you must have AF (sports and such), then one is kinda inclined to actually use MF instead a lot. Also with good camera, it makes off-center compositions soo much easier and faster. :)
Everlast66: "essentially the Sony Alpha 7 series at the moment"
Also the VG900 video camera, I actually think it was the first and only E-mount full frame camera for a while.The option to switch off the aperture clicks of the lenses should have given some clue to the above ...
Yep, it was first and only E-mount FF for pretty long time actually. So long that many thought, Sony wont make regular E-mount FFs at all.
That 35/2 might be nice with it..
..and for so many years now is Canon (or Kwanon) making things right in marketing department but so wrong in camera. Maybe time to get back to beggining and try again?
I wonder how many companies Leica inspired.. certainly wasnt aware of this. Very interesting.
its a shame that nobody saved Kodak, both digital and film division. Most will never know how much we lost.
Heh, Im sure nobody misses that part. Im just speaking about goods they created and they could create, if they didnt have ultra-stupid management.
They made few things that nobody else ever did and most likely never will.
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..