J A C S: The word "world" in the context of world's first, etc., is mentioned 5 times! BTW, Leica has 21/1.4.
By the pound, the Sigma is an even bigger bargain.
There are two reasons for the ubiquity of jpg and .pdf. One is, small file size but the other is the lack of unnecessary complexity. Though beloved by some, unnecessary complexity tends to make people look for something easy to use. Though I have been pirated and bootlegged more than I could ever count, I still think jpgs should be kept simple.
--And, as pointed out elsewhere, the DRM will take months to develop but, with any luck, just days to crack.
alcaher: Is Ken Rockwell in the commitee??.... maybe Jared Polin would be better option for the commitee.
Both excellent choices.
A 42mp camera with a Zeiss lens in a package this size sounds great to me. I'm going to rent one from Roger.
But you have to wonder, if DPR readers, who are enthusiasts, think the price is too high, what will ordinary people think? Sony will need to get this camera into the right luxury publications and into the hands of stock traders who go into B&H on their lunch. In short, Leica buyers.
photomedium: Finally back to civilization for shooting location. I had enough of Seattle.
You don't think the Space Needle is fascinating?
Sdaniella: Fast 24mm, Please! (FF)Enough of the pedestrian hardly wide longish primes = 35mm (nor longish hardly wide 28mm, no thx)
If they can get decent resolution and illumination in the corners. As the article points out the rear of the 35mm lens is close to the sensor.
JurijTurnsek: Most comments read: "I would love it if I had the cash, but since I don't, this camera is rubbish."
The standard comment which will be repeated endlessly. "Don't hate the camera just because you can't afford it." Why can't somebody be be able to afford it, yet still not like it? Why couldn't that happen?
And let's not forget standard comment #2: "It's a camera for pros (like Ken Rockwell) and if you can't afford it, you aren't a pro."
If it had a 28mm lens, I could "afford" it. Since it doesn't, I'm not interested. If I could live with a fixed 35mm lens I'd go for it.
CaPi: - 3299$ + tax- viewfinder like that?
What will Europe be paying 4000+€ ?
First time I am actually angry.
Is this a supposed to be funny, Sony?First The A7x II updates pushing into the super luxury segment - now this?
Who is supposed to pay for that? Is there a market you kept hidden? Will this compensate for all the low and mid-end market lost to smartphones?
This is continuosly moving in the wrong direction. Leica to my mind isnt thriving or leaving a huge market unserved. This is developed for a chosen few who barely kept this segment alive.
I seriously fear Sony is driving this branch of their corporation into the same mess they did with televisions and smarthphones.Dont die on us.
42mp is pretty big for someone who just wants luxury. It's one thing to say "I just buy the best because I can" but another to have the commitment, time and the hardware to deal with 42mp files. I guess you could use it for small jpgs.
RolliPoli: I guess there are a lot of kids who will be going to hairdressing school rather than engineering school; a few divorces too. Ah honey... honey??? :o
When Ken Rockwell admits he's just a hobbyist, Bernie will be president.
Donnie G: Congratulations Sony! You've finally built a camera that genuinely impresses me. I can actually see this RX1R II as being my around town travel companion. My first impression is that it would be a very good stealthy choice for available light candids and other mostly static scenes. Despite its 5 fps burst rate, I wouldn't consider it an action camera due to typical EVF issues, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I would use the camera in the same manner that I used my Leica M3, back in the day. Sony needed another strong and unique offering in the over $3,000 price range and I think they have the right one now. Great job Sony! :))
Maybe, but if you wanted to change the lens on your M3, you could.
Sweet! They won't sell many, but it's a great product to position Sony and will get tons of free publicity from sites that have little else to write about.
Not to mention the inevitable comments "Don't be hating on it cus u can't afford it." Honestly, if it said Leica, it would still be the same camera and a bargain.
You say, as with all EF-M lenses, the new 15-45 is image stabilized. The original 22mm lens does not have IS.
HakanL: It's aeternus if you want to show off your latin.
Where else can you read "Hater's gonna hate" and have your Latin corrected?
photomedium: Canon's definitely showing erratic behavior with the M10. First they launch the M3 but not in the US, then they change their mind, then a couple of months later they come up with a camera with a 2yo sensor and that does nothing new. You serious? I don't know what these guys are smoking up in the corner office. Canon: people get emotionally attached to their camera and buy new ones MAINLY when they are promised better images (read new-bigger- better sensor).
Maybe the G5X will work if the touchscreen turns out to be good would appeal to people wanting RX100III quality images but with a have-to-have canon stamp.
The key here is in the first comment. "People get emotionally attached to their camera...." Hopefully this isn't true but if it is, one has to ask why? We're not talking about somebody scraping the money together for a Leica M2R and using it for their entire career. Today's state of the art digital is tomorrow's KEH "Exc +"
dwill23: Gx5 looks like a Nikon, thus not getting it. haha
I think it looks like a Sony/Lego. Separate pieces that don't quite fit together.
Marty4650: The Canon EOS M series was NOT designed to compete in the MILC market.
It's sole function is to provide Canon brand loyalists with a MILC camera to prevent them from buying a competitive brand. And when you look at it that way, it has been a raging success.
If you want a better MILC camera and a better value, then Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Samsung, and Panasonic all have one for you. It just won't have a Canon name on it.
It worked for me. I had almost no interest in mirrorless except that it was small. Tried an EP2 and it wasn't great. But the EOS M1 was so cheap, I figured why not. Now I have the M3 and all four lenses. So, except that I didn't buy the stuff from Canon USA, I'd say things worked out pretty well for Canon.
And P.S. it all cost a lot less than the equivalent from Fuji or Sony.
Very nice videos. I think the resentment is just that that this woman gets to travel and take photos for a living. I say good for her, and if she has an endorsement deal with Sony, it appears mutually beneficial. In fact, if Sony isn't using the short video, they should.
j900: Funny discussion on the adobe blogs:
hogarty: I promise I will listen now!user: why did you remove the auto-eject after import?hogarty: because we have in-software analytics that told us so.
So basically they commit to listening, but not to users - to their in-software analytics. Way to go Adobe.
Now that personal computing has become mature in pretty much every respect, I sense a growing and general trend of software actually getting WORSE over time - google maps 7, keynote 6, and now even lightroom! Is that so difficult to keep old features in a sort of legacy mode?
You've just noticed that software gets worse over time? Not limited to Adobe by any means. But now that Adobe gets paid every month, they feel obligated to make upgrades even when they're downgrades. To fix what wasn't broken.
Must have been bad to warrant an apology. He's right about one thing; the reason everybody uses LR is because instead of having software engineers cook up a batch of unnecessary complexity, they asked photographers what was needed. They also priced LR fairly low which was smart too.
infosky: The cost of calibration between camera modules will be extremely high.
Having working on 3-panel projector, I know how difficult to align high resolution panels to achieve un-noticeable artifacts. That was 3 panels sharing with the same lens. L16 will fuse the images from 10 cameras each having its own lens. It is not possible to have exactly the same magnification between two cameras within the resolution of the pixel size, not to mention they are purposely focused at different focal distance. Each camera module has to have identical focal length, distortion, aberration, etc. From its website, L16 offers optical zoom. There is no way to get all 10 camera modules to change to identical optical zoom due to mechanical tolerances.
If they have to calibrate every L16 with software compensation for all conditions (all temperatures, all optical zoom, all colors, all intensity level), the cost will be way too high.
I would say the product will be extremely expensive.
Alignment of images has to be handled with software. To have 16 lenses mechanically aligned all the time, you'd need a to have a service technician with you at all times. I would assume the approach is similar to what HDR programs do.