Am I the only one that doesn't want a camera that looks like it's from the '70's?
Am I the only one that can't tell jack from these type of tests?
Chris Vincent: If you squeeze it does water come out of the front?
Remember, photography is serious business. No fun is allowed. Cameras must be black, have lots of protrusions, and look like every other camera. We don't deserve a choice! We are sheeple!
mgm2: Regardless of the rating, DPR using a DCR review is unconscionable. They can try to rationalize it all they want but it's just wrong. The end result is that there is an appearance of "two" reviews out there in the market place when there is in reality just one. It's not fair to the manufacturer or the buying public.
If it had Nikon or Canon on the name plate, I think things would have gone allot differently.
tesch: No Viewfinder?
Oh the humanity!
carlgt1: the review (69% conclusion) seems a bit harsh considering what we've seen of IQ and a DXOMark of 80 -- all in a $749 camera? It seems easy to overlook the quirky design/ergnomics for that.
Did a Pentax employee run off with your wife?
Jim Evidon: History is full of failed cameras that produced spectacular images. Both Pentax and Ricoh have a long history of producing excellent cameras producing superior images. But images aside, the camera simply lacks the look and the features that will make it a seller. The design of the camera makes it the Pontiac Aztec of the photographic industry; truly ugly. The lack of an EVF, either built in or as an accessory is a deal breaker. The images from my NEX5N and OM-D (EM-5) are equally spectacular, as is the focusing speed and fps speed, and both cameras are in great demand. If this camera is an example of what we may expect from the marriage of these two fine brands ( Ricoh and Pentax), I predict that we will ultimately find them in the dustbin of photographic history.
The Nex is even uglier, and the OM-D looks like it's from 1970! Whoohoo! Is everyone in DPR like 70 years old? I don't want a tube tv, a two piece cell phone or a camera that reminds me of bell bottoms.
Michael Ma: Looks like something you would pull out of a kid's toy box.
Good, because every other camera looks EXACTLY the same.Toys can be cool mr. sheeple.
Boris: Nice of Oly to make a nice fast 75f1.8! Price is a bit high but a optical good, well made metal lens ain`t cheap. The Pentax metal 77f1.8 costs near $900us...good lens. Don`t care what it is on FF since I will shoot this lens on M4/3.
It's about what I thought
Peiasdf: Just checked out Pentax's lens line up and I cannot find a single fast normal prime. The cheapest "50mm" is 35mm f/2.4 at $180 while the fastest is 31mm f/1.8 at $1,000. Where is the cheap f/1.4~f/1.8?
Good cameras, weird ass lens line up.
With the launch of this camera, they are releasing a cheap 50mm f1.8, so there!
Regardless of all the right and wrong in the mud slinging debate here, how can anyone stand behind Leica's decision to put a 230k screen in a $2000 camera, in 2012? It insults people's intelligence.
You can spin this like the rinse cycle in your washing machine, but if you were in that Leica executive meeting when they made that decision, don't tell me your mouth wouldn't have fallen open?
skebe: I own leica X1. It is of formidable caliber camera. Picture quality is uncomparable with any camera of similiar size. In fact it would benefit from only some technical improvement and engineers in Solms did just that. X1 is not camera for every one. You are talking of technical sides caring little about the joyful exprience you get by operating such state of the art instrument of newest digital technology at its best in such strightforward and simple way with breathtaking results only the Leica is capable of. X1 requires from you development of truly close relationship to be enjoyed saying nothing about the best workmanship. It is sheer pleasure to take photos with X1 and even more more to watch the results. Bravo folks at Solms and thank you for dedication and wonderful exprience and joy you provide me with every minute with my Leica X1.
Why does everyone have to throw in the caveat that you have to somehow tap dance just right to use the camera, meaning only a select few can do it?
You do realize they could do things that make sure everyone can tap dance without ruining the experience, like shake reduction, a better screen, etc. You can still feel all smug with a simple Leica, and probably take the same picture and find the same joy in taking them, without needing to make up excuses for getting shafted by the brand.
I know going from lone wolf to wolf pack ruins the Leica experience, but you Leica types are suppose to be above all that.
MikeNeufeld30: I thought the Pentax was ugly... Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winnnnnnner
Scared to think what you think a 'good looking' camera is.
Anyone find it odd that Leica and Panasonic are buddies, yet that's pretty much the Oly viewfinder that the panasonic m4/3 crowd always wanted on their cameras? If they can steal it for Leica, why didn't they do that for panasonic?
maybe the name is too long to re-badge across the front.
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.
Dear Lord, I hope you are one your fourth Scotch as you typed that.
Where did they even find a batch of 230k screens, in a time capsule somewhere? 2 1/2 years it took to come up with this!
ryansholl: There have been ugly cameras in the past, but this one really does take the cake. Others may say what they like about "absolute image quality," and it's not bad in that regard, but if the absolute in image quality came with a Fisher Price badge on it I'm pretty sure I'd not be the only one to shy away. Or "My First Sony" actually seems most fitting, looks a lot like my cassette deck @ 6 years old.
Let me guess, you eat dinner at 4:30 for the blue hair special?
This review seems laced thru every segment with a tinge of bias. Right from the start, the reviewer is obviously in the camp of not liking the design aesthetic. I don't recall hearing how 'ugly' and boxy the Nex 7 is! That thing will win no beauty contest itself.
And for the price, why are you comparing it to the k-5 and not the k-r? If I wanted a camera that looked like every other camera, there are plenty of smaller sensor mirrorless camera's to choose from.
So tell me, why does camera have to be just like the next one? Can nobody be original?
My God, could they sprinkle that with any more rose petals and perfume? it's like their spin team (I really mean marketing team) went into overdrive to make this problem sound as mundane as humanly possible and their camera as fantastic as humanly possible. I don't work in advertising, but do the people that do really think they can fool customers by writing flowery prose?
Does sony hate ultra wide angle?