Matei H: This is The Guradian's tell-all "How to take bad pictures in 10 minutes or less"And DPReviw falls for it. Umbelievable!
This was a troll. And you fell for it. "Umbelievable!"XD
Nice article!By the way, would you mind, ehmmm, exchanging back yards with me?!? :D
Ashley Pomeroy: No. These are dull, uninteresting images. They're not even at the level of postcard shots and there's no progression from the first to the last. He would have spent his time more profitably if he'd invested in a telescope and shot the night sky instead. From the same vantage point.
Looking at his website I see a pervading blandness, and I can't shake the impression that after standing in the cold and wet for an hour the photographer was unwilling to admit to himself that the concept was flawed and the images worthless.
Troll alert! :(
EmmanuelStarchild: Yet another reason to switch to wildlife, nature, landscapes, etc.
Sssshhh, Getty Images can hear you.
Poweruser: Deleting comments says everything about what DPR thinks of its "community": Useful idiots to generate traffic.
...and still whining, all of the whiny whiny community returns to post how much they hate all of this and generate even more traffic. Weird how the interwebz works, huh?!?Oh, wait, that's the human factor in the equation. Right.
I also agree with many commenters about the uselessness of a non-replaceable battery.Although this would possibly favor a hybrid: low capacity non-replaceable battery (such as this sprayed one) in tandem with a replaceable high capacity hot-swap battery.So, in practice, the replaceable battery runs out of juice, he fixed battery kicks in letting you swap the replaceable one on the fly.Never run out of juice, never switch off the camera, et voila! :)
darthmuller: What Next?????!!!!!! Why bother? The day is near when we will not need to use our creative brains, can nobody see this coming? What happened to the days when we took pride it the photos we captured?
I really feel this is killing creativity and I hope others feel the same.
The end is nearrrrrrr!!!Oh grow up...
JackM: Awesome, but does Sony have to pay Canon royalties for the design?
Naaah, they go to Nikon, actually...
Aaron MC: To those hatin' on the lens, y'all be crazy. I'm totally happy to plunk down the cash on a lens like this. Olympus is finally giving me what I've been wanting for THREE YEARS. Good lenses FTW!
I am upset by the lack of a lens hood, though. That's pretty cheap on Olympus' part.
I have to agree on this. For a 900$ lens the hood should be included and not 90$ aside.Otherwise, I'm really happy having chosen Olympus as my gear.
shaocaholica: Thumbscrew lens hood?!?!? Ewww.
And the color! Yuck! And the font engraved on the lens? Despicable. And that curved big thing in front... the lens? Whooooo! Too big!
Thank god we're not at war and these aren't actual problems.
Calvin Chann: Sorry, but for me the colour of the thing is a serious point. I haven't bought any of the Oly lenses that are mentioned in this preview, because of the colour of the things. All my camera bodies are black (except a white G3 that I bought by mistake) and to me, a silver lens on a black body is not discrete enough.
Looks like Oly have lost me as a potential customer!
Cartier Bresson photographed many many MANY years ago. The sheer fact to HAVE a camera was a look-at-me factor.Nowadays that's just a "1st world problem".
ZAnton: It is very strange that each year Oly and Pana are making accent on progressively cheaper and smaller cameras, but their lens prices are going over the clouds.It looks like a trap for beginners, who buy a kit first, and then start building a system.
It is very strange that each year Canon and Nikon are making accent on progressively cheaper but not smaller cameras, and their lens prices are going over the clouds anyway.It looks like a trap for beginners, who buy a kit first, and then start building a system.
Sufyan: Sorry, the one-source light can be good, but the light here is not well done and it is over in many photos,
We all would be glad to see your article with perfect lighting.
SteveNunez: Pricing is disappointing......Panasonic has a chance here to lure prosumers to micro four thirds with high quality glass but if priced at near dslr like prices the enticement wanes a bit......sad really!
Don't buy it.As far as DSLR prices go, take a look at high grade Canons' with constant aperture. They cost at least double.
peevee1: Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM costs $700-$800. Panasonic wants $1300 for the equivalent 12-35, which also costs less to make (less glass, less surfaces to polish)? I am very disappointed they decided to go this high-margin/low-volume way. Especially given the fact that it allows to extract higher profits (compared to high-volume/low-margin way) only for "status" goods, and the X brand lens certainly does not carry any status. Incompetent marketoids.
So, let me get this straight, you're saying that a high-quality, constant aperture, all (or "much") metal lens similar to, let's say, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM, which costs about 2,700$ should cost less than 1300$ (which btw is half the price) just because you say so?Ok, then I want a Hasselblad for 200$. Or else they're shitty.
gambale: Compared to my Summilux 25 1.4 this looks bad, sorry! Better to have two lenses with good quality.
And the rest of us should give a damn... why exactly?
supeyugin1: Sony 16-50/2.8 has the same equivalent focal length, same aperture and better DOF, and costs $620. It can be also used on NEX via adapter. Panasonic wants to charge twice. They are out of their mind! The rough equivalent of this lens in terms of production costs is $200.
Superyugin1, change hobby. NOW.You're not REALLY multiplying x2 the aperture because of the m4/3 format, are you? ARE YOU? Please tell me you're not.The aperture is the same across different formats, it's ONLY THE FOCAL LENGTH that changes in other formats in equivalence to 35mm.f/2.8 is f/2.8, there's no "equivalence". Please study before you state such atrocities.Geez.
My Fuji X100 blows this away in every category! Faster lens, sharper screen, viewfinder hybrid and built in, and overall more pleasing to use! Not mention costs half as much. Between this and the M9 Mono, Leica disappoints yet again!
I'd be glad to know who of the 99% have a Leica from which they have been disappointed, though.
Zvonimir Tosic: It is all about "going back in time" philosophy, "when the world was young", and in such a philosophy actual product does not make any practical value, nor takes any photograph — it's all about being different at all cost (or lack of it), and leave the brand name take the photos in people's minds and give them appropriate value as such, by selling the experience of "simpler and happier past".Leica is not in business because of photography, but because of its own name, which is a synonym for a simple time machine that operates only towards the past. A hi-res modern OLED screen would diminish such a feeling. They do camera design just once, and stick with it forever, even if it's flawed and begs for improvement.
It's hard to compare apples and oranges.But I really think Leica is doing a great job making and marketing their cameras.And at the same time I do not see any scam about it.
Michele Kappa: Wow! How nice it is to see so many persons hating Leica and at the same time posting so many comments on each article about Leica...The LCD sucks! The IQ sucks! Price too high! My xxx blows this one and costs half! My yyy + zzz blows this one and costs a third! It's ugly! (WHAT?!?) What outrageous noise! Leica sucks! Leica will die!
Meanwhile, [fairytalemode] in a little village in Germany [/fairytalemode], Leica has lasted a century building beautiful, trustworthy cameras that never lose their value, which the greatest photographers in the world have used to create some of the most memorable photos ever.
Really goes to show: if you can't have it, at least hate it. :P
Beautiful replies Manuel and Abrasive, quite a nice read, thank you.