Zvonimir Tosic: This is subjective, opinionated review? Well, compare this 18 page review full of graphs, numbers and test shots with Ken Rockwell's review of the GR.http://kenrockwell.com/ricoh/gr.htm
No, no, you can't make me! It's cruel to even suggest.
Marek Rucinski: This is an example of an interesting practice: put some hardware in the device, for which the user pays (the cost of the wifi chip was included in the price), and then increase the value proposition of the product (by enabling the feature) *after* the product has been sold (!)... or not.
I think this practice is not only dishonest, but also damaging to the client (who pays for a feature he may never see enabled in the end) and therefore should attract attention of relevant regulating bodies.
Sadly, examples of very similar practices start to pop out regularly (uncompressed hdmi in Canon 5d III, cropped hdmi output in Nikon D600), but this seems to be the boldest example to date. In case of Canon/Nikon it's difficult to prove dishonesty, because they can claim genius, and incompetence of their engineers, respectively. Situation here is different, because there are physical chips that were obviously meant to be there from the beginning, but were intentionally not enabled.
I suspect they built this around some standard tablet chipset that included WiFi because it made sense for other reasons. They likely didn't have time to write the firmware to make the WiFi work before the camera release. I don't think they intentionally left it out for any nefarious reasons. They were under pressure to ship the camera, and that was a feature they could defer.
Richard Franiec: The announcement says it all. A fashion statement just like previous "titanium" or "safari" edition. This time with super-premium price tag. The "RAW edition" imprint is clever but misleading and not even worthy a laugh.How about tossing in some EVF or at least a decent grip, Leica? I guess added value is not important for targeted audience. And Leica knows it well.
Decent grips are your department, Richard. I love my V1 Richard Franiec grip. Looks and works splendidly and a great value. Unlike this absurd camera. I understand the fool from G Star RAW was waving around a lot of money, but Leica could have said, "No, thanks, our brand is important to us." Leica executives don't know how to say 'no'.
I know some Nikon 1 shooters who will be happy with continuous af with the adapter. The continuous af is a Nikon 1 strength, so being able to use it with longer legacy lens is impressive. There are a lot of other features I would have valued more, but this is a substantial feature for some people and Nikon didn't need to do it. I expect it's something they were working on for the next round of bodies.
nonuniform: CRI=85 and $1200, hmmm, no, at that price I'd expect a higher color index. I was thinking they would cost around $500.
The CRI of LEDs will no doubt rise, but for now, well, not great. It's because the white ones are blue LEDs with fluorescent materials to add the warm colors. They all have a big spike in the blue and are weak in the adjacent colors. The more of the blue they convert to other colors, the less efficient the light is, but the better the CRI. I suspect the LEDs being used here were not developed specifically for this, so they have the same CRI as household lights. The price seems a bit high for what they are. I 'm starting to use them around the house and find them quite a bit nicer than CFLs, even if they are rated no better. Instant on, usually dimmable (though be wary, as some dim badly), very pleasant.
onlooker: Samyang is the new Tamron (remember Adaptall days?).
Back in the eighties many of the Tamrons were competitive with other third-party lenses, if not the best from the big guys. They were good value and very sturdy. I still have an 80-210 in case I need to club an intruder.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't wanna bash Pentax. I really don't. It is a respectable, innovative and honest brand which makes DSLRs I wouldn't refuse to own and would certainly enjoy. But... that pink and gold colour scheme...? I don't know what's worse - Pentax offering it, or thinking someone will actually buy one.
(long pause in order to clean the vomit off the keyboard)
I'm tolerant of colorful cameras. The candy apple red looks quite nice. But pink and gold? That looks like a Christmas ornament. I can't imagine anyone ordering one of those.
Timmbits: I would have liked to see Pentax make this a mirrorless, with a removable adapter on the front, to use legacy lenses, or removed, to use lenses with a shorter flange to sensor distance. It would make for good competition to mirrorless (apsc and mft), as well as prism and mirror systems. When it comes to saving a company, bringing it back into black ink, offering incentives for new lenses could be of immense help.
I'm glad to see Pentax still in the game, and rejuvenating their line. I'm predicting that the weather-sealed version will sell better than the slightly less expensive version.
They tried that already. You can get the K-01 for practically nothing. Some of that was the awful styling, but more was that mirrorless buyers want a slim camera. If you have to make it the size of a dslr, might as well make one.
Pangloss: Even at a lower price, the only significant market for this camera is Japan, it's not likely to gain traction anywhere else. There is no market anymore for these $500 toys in the rest of the world. Pentax and fanboys can argue that the IQ is excellent, but in the end it's the size and the color combinations that matter for the Japanese market. For the rest of the world, this camera just doesn't cut it at this price level, as it has to compete with many other compact and mirrorless cameras with better IQ and better feature sets. A NEX-F3 will spank this Q7 in terms of IQ at any ISO for the same $500, whereas the LX7 for half the price will easily provide more flexibility and more features in a slightly larger package.Conclusion: nice but FAIL.
The LX7 can be had for under $300. If the Q7 actually becomes price competitive, it might be interesting, but I don't see people buying one of these and a bunch of lenses.
Why didn't they do this from the start? Not that I would buy one, but it at least stacks up better against advanced compacts and the focal lengths of the lenses make sense. Make a tiny mirrorless system then cripple it needlessly. Stupid.
Gregm61: Panasonic definitely needed to be doing something. Their sensors s....., well....they're not good.
The sensors they provided to Olympus and used in their own older cameras are from years ago, and are not at all comparable to what they are using now. The G5 was good, and the G6 and GF6 look very good. Only slightly worse than the sensors Sony makes for Olympus.
Richard Murdey: Slightly disingenuous in the diagram they released.
It shows an organic layer, a bottom electrode, and a "protective layer" on top. For this to work, the protective layer actually has to be conductive, so it can function as a counterelectrode. Which means you are having to make transparent electrodes which has its own set of difficulties.
Photoconversion (light energy creates separated, mobile electric charge) is pretty hard to do in a single organic layer. I wonder if the photoconversion layer is actually composed of an organic solar-cell like multilayer structure or whether instead it works on the principle of photoconductivity.
(Sorry, its close to my day job. I actually wondered a while back whether anyone was thinking of making an organic image sensor. The idea has been kicking around for 60 years, but of course the process tools and materials available are vastly different now...)
Are the transparent electrodes used on LEDs applicable here? It's very much the same problem in reverse.
ogl: New Imaging Technologies (NIT) offers world class CMOS imaging sensors based upon a unique and patented pixel technology which provides intrinsic high dynamic range response of more than 140dB, no noticeable fixed pattern noise and operability without image artifacts to more than 90°C.
Given that models for two different photosites were presented, absolutely. The smaller is for phones, the larger for cameras.
FreedomLover: What about this ?
Clear Photos in Dim Light: New Sensor a Thousand Times More Sensitive Than Current Camera Sensors
May 30, 2013 — Cameras fitted with a new revolutionary sensor will soon be able to take clear and sharp photos in dim conditions, thanks to a new image sensor invented at Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
In any case, the amount needed for a sensor is incredibly tiny. This is not going to deplete the world's graphite supplies.
FrankS009: Interesting to see different sensor technologies being developed. Some will take market share, other perhaps superior in technology, will disappear as happened with colour TV. Do look forward to better sensors. Don't think it will happen in time for my next likely purchase - a Panasonic GX7, but we shall see.
Not too long ago that Panasonic was talking up that color splitting layer that would eliminate color filters. Combine this with that and you could have something very interesting.
viking79: I like to see the improvement in incident light angle. Mirrorless APS-C has issue with this, I would hate to see how bad a full frame mirrorless would perform in the corners with existing lenses. A sensor like this could help a lot.
Yes, but I find it telling that there are still microlenses. Not that they are bad, but they do suggest that light coming in at extreme angles is still an issue. The color filters and protective layer would still reflect considerable light striking at too much of an angle, even with modern coatings.
JackM: The people here and in the Leica forum making excuses for this camera are the definition of fanboy.
The absurdly slow lens. A fixed lens can generally have better specs than an interchangeable one, and this is far worse. From one of the world's great lens makers, that's inexcusable.
meland: The only thing Leica are perhaps guilty of is in bothering to send their press release on the X Vario to DPR and in doing so exposing themselves to the ridicule of people who have little understanding of Leica's real business and who naively think their opinion on photographic minutiae actually matters. It's a bit like trying to market a Riva launch to someone who lives in a council flat. This camera will probably sell quite well to its intended market. It's just that it's intended market isn't most of you, however some of you are unable to appreciate that.
The current X2 has not sold well. Why assume Leica buyers are stupid? They have disposable income, but that doesn't mean they want flawed products. The classic Leica rangefinders take nice pictures and allow for the use of great, classic lenses. This will probably take nice pictures, but only in limited circumstances, using a lens that isn't a classic. It is much closer to a faltering X2 than a current M.
Too expensive for most of us, but maybe about right for typical Leica buyers. The only real problem is that the lens is slow. A fixed lens with such a modest zoom range should be much faster than this. The RX100 is a reasonable model. Sure, it has a smaller sensor, but it's proportionally smaller overall, too. It's lens starts out at f/1.8 and ends at f/4.9. And that's a lens that reaches the equivalent of 100mm, not 70mm. Yes, Leica has high standards, but this lens is needlessly slow.
Prairie Pal: I do believe there are enough Paris Hiltons and rap stars in this world who are so clueless that they will buy several pimped out versions of this camera simply because they live in a world where absurdity=fashion. Because there is nothing left out there for them to throw their money at.... this camera will suffice. It is them that this concept was designed for.
Plus they don't take pictures. They pose for pictures. They pose for life.