So much space is devoted to justifying the cost of really expensive lenses. The Leica "sparkle", the Zeiss micro-contrast, the creamy velvet bokeh.
Why not accept that a $100 lens is used wide open for viewing but should be stopped down for the best results. The diaphragm must be there for a reason. And if you pick up enough depth of field, you won't have to worry about the appearance of the out of focus areas.
Or not. Get a fast portrait lens. Say, 90mm f/1.4, with 16 diaphragm blades. For $100. That should have nice dreamy bokeh.
RyanBoston: Why would they use a 70D? Is this a promotion for the camera?
Can't they do it over, with a Nikon? Everybody knows it's a better camera. I mean, it's an impressive photo, but DxO says a Nikon is better and that's what matters.
"Ownership will require the exchange of significant funds." Nice. And besides that, it's expensive!
The validity of the concept will be proven (a) if some other manufacturer makes a B&W camera and (b) it sells in quantity. Otherwise, all it has to do is satisfy the person who buys one.
I think it's great that DPR moved this lens to the top of the list of things to try out. A lens a lot of people can both use and afford. It may not perform as well as a Zeiss Tukis but for $100 it's more than good enough.
BarnET: My opinion
+ very cheap+ STM motor+ Small and light+ F1.8
- Doesn't seem tack sharp in the corners even when stopped down to F2.8
All in all well worth it's price and a good improvement over it's very noisy predecessor.
It's like painting a wall a different color but skipping the corners. Nobody's gonna notice, right?
km25: Sorry DP not much of a preview. If the camera came in about 2/3 to 1/2 this cost. I may buy it. It is just over priced. Prehaps Leica should make this camera in an other country. they did with their 35mm SLR. Just too much $$$.
The price doesn't matter. They couldn't possibly lower the price enough to attract lots more people who are price conscious, nor do they have huge production capability.
They'll sell a small number of cameras to people who aren't concerned about the price. Some will do great things; others will crow that they have an expensive camera.
I think this business model may be running out of steam, since it seems to require withdrawing from camera stores and opening their own shops in high rent areas.
The Japanese and Fuji in particular might take a lesson from the relative simplicity of this camera. Electronics, by nature, invite feature creep--like 17 speaker surround systems. But certain basic ideas just work, especially if you go with your strengths. I remember trying to push Leica SLRs when everybody wanted a rangefinder camera.
RichRMA: Almost 1000 posts on what have to be the dullest DSLR (or any) camera offerings in the past few months. I get it though; people wanted to see if Canon had turned the sensor corner and caught-up to or surpassed Sony.
Good enough absolutely cuts it. The internet generation thinks that because you can look up a ton of "unbiased" reviews from "professionals" that people who just want a camera that's better than a phone will go out of their way to seek true excellence, mess with manual focus lenses, expensive adapters, difficult software, etc.
CameraLabTester: Canon has the market pulse under it's thumb.
It knows how to churn out a product with the right level of features and price point to hit the bulls eye for maximum sales numbers.
It doesn't have to be the best camera, it doesn't have to be well featured, it doesn't have to have all the train whistles and fog horn leghorns blazing left and right.
"It just has to be the camera that the buyers are willing to part with their money, from their affordability level."
It's not about technical excellence, folks... it's about the Mob."
"They know too well how to manipulate The Mob." ---Proximo
All true. While the average, non-obssesive camera buyer may not follow DPR, they're probably familiar with names like Nikon and Canon. They know these companies have been in the camera business a long time and will probably be in the camera business a long time.
nananananana: I have been reading about the electronic spirit level of the 760D. I wonder how good this works, I can see myself using it for architecture, but I wonder if it will help much, because if the street isn't level, the spirit is going to say my building is not level, even though it might be, but the spirit won't know since it doesn't understand the street and building are not 100% level.
For a horizon however, I can imagine this to be extremely useful.
If there is one thing I hate, is taking a shot, and noticing later that it wasn't perfectly level, and having to go into a program to correct it. If this thing can assist me with getting all my shots perfectly level, that would be nice.
Old buildings are frequently not that straight. Ask anyone who's worked with a view camera and ruled ground glass.
Thoughts R Us: This is too funny. The subset of users impacted by this has to be vanishingly small.
First, we have a $7500 Leica B&W only camera. That right there means very limited sales niche.
Second, we have the fact that the camera is newly announced and is not shipping yet. So we have a very niche camera that isn't even shipping.
Third, how many people would buy this very specialized $7500 camera and actually use a consumer grade app like Photos for post processing? My guess is virtually zero.
Ideally, this problem would not exist. But existing as it does, it is the smallest of problems.
Interesting rationalization. Sure, it sounds bad but since few people will be affected, it's somehow less bad.
At the other extreme, those who have a problem with the cost of a Leica are saying this problem should not occur with an expensive camera.
Both these rationalizations miss the point completely. If you happen to be one of the few people affected, it's serious. Otherwise, the fact that you don't use this camera and software does not make the problem less serious.
SSantana75: I don't get people hating on these forums. Who the hell cares what others shoot? so what if they want to carry huge cameras and lenses around or if they want to use their phone or a little p&s, is it really going to somehow make YOUR images better or worse? does it really matter that much that someone else prefers something different to what you like? I for one take as much enjoyment out of making a good image with my phone as I do with my FF with a huge F%&k off lens sticking at the other end.
That's why I never read DPR, especially the comments.
Wildbegonia: This is just another advertisement tool very commonly used by anyone facing market competition.To point out the not so advantageous aspect of a competitor's product is a gimmick used ever since Marketing/Advertisement became a profession. What I do not understand is why it becomes almost an offense to some consumers placing them on deffense mode.
Because they are not just consumers. They are "fans".
photominion: I fear I'll end up a fatty from all the popcorn I feast on while enjoying the endless show of super bash brothers on dpr.
why don't people just accept that all the "progress" in resolution and dynamic range and noise handling won't do them any good when they don't (know to) use the gear they have?!
I always recommend to buy something around an antique Canon 50D, Nikon D90 or D300 when my students ask what to start with.These cameras handle great, they offer all the important settings on the body and are really cheap to be had, so there's a lot of money left for a nifty fifty, a strobist starter set and a really good tripod and radio trigger.
And I can guaran-damn-tee you that many of my students deliver better results after half a year than most of what I've seen from the gear-hoes on this site. ;-)
Well, if you have an older camera that gets noisy at, say, ISO 1600 (bearing in mind that professionals used 400-800 film for decades and got by) you could resort to...a tripod.
FamlilyPhotographer: i upgrade for more function such as wifi, nfc, Af systemi dont care much about IQ cuz i'm still happy w 600D's IQfor a hobby, dont bother urself by noise performing or pixel count bla bla blajust enjoy the moment
You sound like a typical camera user.
samfan: It would be funny if it wasn't coming from a legendary SLR manufacturer that still offers 4/3 DSLR lenses.
Yes I know Olympus has usually made smaller (D)SLRs than the others but still. First they leave their 4/3 customers hanging, now it looks like they're making fun of them...
Yes. The OM-1 offered the same quality as the brick-like Nikkormat, FT-QL, Spotmatic, SRT-101 etc. But that was because the "sensor" was as big as today's FF sensors, only the camera and lens were reduced in size. Quite an engineering feat. I still have an OM-4T and it's tiny, compared to my digital SLRs.
noflashplease: Fuji's X-10T is an impressive as the Canon T6i/T6S is awful - and for the same relative price. I'm always amazed by how well Fujifilm does with out of camera .jpegs and skin tones in general. This camera deserves to sell in big numbers.
The Fuji deserves to sell in big numbers. But alas the world is not a fair place, and the perfectly good but unspectacular Canon will sell in significant numbers. In fact, somebody buying a Rebel won't even look at a lens that costs $999.99.
More great stuff from Fuji and priced accordingly. Not that heavy, either. Nice.
kewlguy: I've been waiting for reviews and samples from the T6s but the images aren't really sharp here. The building photo taken with the 16-35 IS is unbelievably soft. Strong AA filter? bad lens sample?
If you mean the Westin, it seems pretty good to me. Certainly fine for anyone who would buy a Rebel. And as usual, it was mostly overcast in Seattle so there goes the contrast.
Streetutopia: I was waiting for this announcement thinking that it would lead to an X-e2 price reduction (I have the X-e1). I like this camera so much I am going to get it instead of the X-E2. Lots of gripping in this board about this camera (par for the course) but I like the design of the camera and all of its features. Fuji has made a name for itself by using retro designs. I think this too is a retro design. Reminds me of my old Yashica (60's).
It really does look like a camera from 1965. But with a giant lens attached. Looks like a camera instead of a design exercise. I like it!