maxeythecat: Sorry but GPS belongs in your car, not your camera. ' Nuff said.
There are places in the world--not many--that are not as instantly recognizable as the Grand Canyon or Eiffel Tower. So, for those rare occasions, GPS might be useful. Even if you don't use it, its hard to see what harm it causes, unless you're concerned the folks from Area 57 are tracking your photos.
HSway: Looking at the Sony, Fuji and other major players in mirrorless field I am actually *glad* that Nikon and Canon effectively as well left them this segment to themselves. They build systems I have serious doubts Nikon would come close to. Same for the large sensor compacts. Nikon was always, except an occasional feat, struggling outside the dslr.The more so that the segment is picking up more slowly. They perhaps deserve more coin than they get at the moment but this is a work that will pay off though it can’t be quite fully evaluated by a yearly profit just yet.
This is the argument Jeff Bezos makes. Amazon is such an innovator that the absence of profit should be overlooked.
Ian Leach: Although this focal length is going to be used more for objects than scenes, it would be nice to see how it performs right into the corners. Sky, sea, tarmac and dirt don’t tell you very much. Please always have one f8 photo looking across a town with buildings receding into the distance.
While I agree, I'm sure it's just fine at f/8.
Just be thankful it's not Nikon. Samsung has already admitted there's a problem and that's a huge first step.
AV Janus: Looks to me that only works on current state of things. What if a trend changes?Only works for predictions if it monitors constantly and updates its popularity database.
Anyway I wish they would just stop with the algorithms and everything, it just takes human skill away from anything they touch.
That's the idea. Remove the unpredictable. Remove the variables. Increase productivity. It really is just one step away from a bad (but incredibly expensive) science fiction movie.
Adrian Tung: The next obvious step would be to put this algorithm into phones and cameras and have it score your photo even before you press the shutter release button. T__T
Put the camera in a drone, instruct it to make the most color saturated photos possible, run them through lots of plugins and of course maximum HDR. Perfection. Let technology do the heavy lifting.
It was very generous of her to compensate all the photographers whose photos were used in this study. Some people think that images online are just there for the taking.
The Davinator: Amazing how many have never calibrated their cameras.
It's amazing the results were good enough that people didn't see the need.
bobbarber: What strikes me, as a guy who was alive back then, is that we went to the moon in the first place. No, we didn't have cell phones, and the only computer in school was a massive apparatus in its own room which you had to program with terse text commands. But we weren't quite as backwards as it might appear to the current generation. Making it to the moon was a serious accomplishment. That, and the Beatles.
And the Dave Clark 5. But things really were 180 degrees different. Getting away from phones was considered desirable. A family of 6 got a station wagon instead of a utility vehicle. There wasn't much on TV so we didn't watch much. And no Windows; no Microsoft at all. Things are better now.
Thanks, DPR. These are great and more would be even better.
Retzius: Leica is focusing most of their marketing effort on the fabrication of the hand polished aluminum unibody and almost none on image quality. They know their faithful will spend a small fortune to capture the "essence of photography", although a hand polished aluminum body will do nothing to improve their images.
The emperor has no clothes.
This is like saying a $12,000 watch doesn't tell time any better. It's true of course, but there are people who like and can afford these things, which is fine. Now, when somebody says their Rolex does a much better job of telling time, that's a trip to the fantasy factory. It's natural for people spending this much to work overtime at seeing the differences but consumers should be happy that they can get similar or identical results with a camera in their price range.
AngryCorgi: Stupid prices are stupid, no matter whether you milled 10% of the camera out by hand or not, that's no reasonable justification for it being 2-3x the price of the competition. How about you sell a Leica Lite model that's made by *gasp* machine, and sell it for half price and see what the market says about your hand-made excuses.
The company has changed hands many times and they have hit on a formula for survival (for now) which is to acknowledge they will never sell huge numbers so they might as well get a good premium for what they do sell. There's nothing wrong with this but discussions of whether a Leica is worth the price miss the point.
nunatak: why is it anyone who is critical of Leica's business practices is a hater? Leica is the Louis Vuitton of cameras. a famous brand which caters to people who like to wear famous brands.
for some people this camera will be a great value. for most others, not so much.
It is also hopelessly naive to think that anything marked Leica is automatically superior to the same item bearing a different name and a lower price. Or that every item in the Leica line is superior to all the competition. No one would suggest every lens Nikon makes is outstanding because it's made by Nikon. Well, some people would say that.
Good review. Maybe a different scoring system is needed. Gold award is a given, but just below that, an ergonomics score (admittedly, somewhat personal & subjective) and an image quality score. The two scores would not be combined or averaged.
Given that even the clunkiest digital cameras do more automatically than most film cameras ever did, and people still enjoyed photography and got great images, there are people who will trade convenience for quality and some who won't. For example, a Zeiss lens might get a low score for it's autofocus performance (none) but a high score for image quality. Same for a camera that needs to have the mirror locked up or one that is only good at low ISO speeds. These are obviously serious drawbacks but some users may be willing to live with them.
JaimeA: It is confirmed. The Sony a6000 does NOT have an electronic level on the LCD finder or the EVF. It is not mentioned in the Manual either, confirming the omission. Unbelievable. However, Sony has thought it important to keep the “Toy Camera” feature ….. Boggles the mind. Especially in this camera, thought as an improved successor to the NEX-7, itself a real gem.
I have electronic levels in my Nikon and Canon and they're no more accurate than a bubble level in the hotshoe. They would be great if they were super accurate. So far, the iPhone level seems more precise.
Timbukto: Confused how every single review outlet has declined to make substantial impressions on its AF...its like every one of them signed a NDA in regards to what they can say about its AF. This includes Tony Northrup and TheCameraStore, etc...*every* official reviewer seems to have not given detailed impressions on its AF...either every reviewer has exactly the same thought process, or there seems to be some NDA in place...that makes it so true test of AF comes after pre-orders perhaps?
The silence speaks louder than words perhaps....
Yes, but if you say it's a "pre-production" camera, it implies that if there are any flaws they need not be taken seriously since the actual production cameras will be different.
In the world of tomorrow, these things take off, fly around and when they try to land, there's another drone in their spot.
For many years the emphasis was on getting everything sharp (f/64 if need be). If the background was distracting, you found a better background. For the last few years, people want minimal depth of field, even using sharp and expensive tilt lenses to get Lensbaby results. So the Lytro makes perfect sense. You can have as much sharpness or blur as you like, and even assign the location.
With focus no longer an issue and exposure both automatic and extended by HDR, the only thing that remains is for the camera to choose the subject and time of day.
If there's any money left for the author this could be a good thing but I suspect it will be like eBay--you do the work and they get the money. It might still be worth it to get exposure on Amazon.
FartIng: Having bought G1X - and realised the only advantage was the articulating screen - I sold it within 2 months.
The Macro was awful and there was a HUGE time lag from taking a photo to seeing it on screen.
The G16 is a DREAM to use on the other hand! - and the full HD 1080/60 is sweet.
Farting is right. The G1X is slow, slow, slow. Not as slow as a film camera where you had to do stuff like focus and set exposure, but slow compared to any of the small sensor cameras, including Canon's. The "macro" really is a joke (although the image quality is so much higher, you can crop).
But all this was known about the G1X, so why did people buy it expecting something else? Like buying the G1X mk II and saying "where's the viewfinder?"