tkbslc: Man, I want this with a 40mm (equiv.) f2.0 lens.
X100s is close enough, but I want a real compact where the lens folds flat. X100 is kind of a brick you wouldn't put in your pocket.
A matching, 40mm Ricoh would be sweet and probably cheaper. If they could pull off a digital GR21, that would be impressive.
Gesture: Can't be judged yet, but really interested in reliability, warranty service on these new cameras.
Having owned 4 GRs, I would wager that reliability will be equal to Nikon. I never had to have any of my GRs serviced but it wouldn't be hard to surpass Nikon USA service, either.
As expected, since the only thing wrong with previous GRs was the too small sensor. Obviously, it's no good for people who prefer a normal lens (which is really what 35mm is). But for those of us who like a true wide angle this looks great.
P.S. Check out the link to the Raw Ferry in Amsterdam. Now there's some excitement!
And I thought the Jesse Owens Leica was as far as the limited edition concept could be pushed (on account of the less than warm reception Jesse Owens received in Germany). I do think a parody is in order.
"It's not the type of phone you have; it's the eye, heart and mind of the photographer." Besides, having the phone with you at all times increases the number of photos you take so you're bound to get something good. If you buy enough lottery tickets, you'll win, and these tickets are free.
Kiwiboy: I'm guessing that no one here has a mobile phone subscription, watches sky TV or rents a house. Adobe aren't making you "rent" their software, if you don't want to don't do it. I don't have sky TV as I don't see the value, I'm a photographer and spending money on new technology is the new way of life. When I started you'd buy a Hasselblad and it would last you 25 years, now you need to update your camera every few years. I downloaded Photoshop CC this morning from my Adobe subscription and have played with some of the new stuff and it's great!
howardroark's comment above made my entire day. As my late father would have said about this pay every month scheme "You're only fooling yourself."
Kiwiboy: Where did I say that I'd used the camera shake function??Regarding my car, yes I do lease it as it make financial sense in my situation. So nobody subscribes to sky or any other pay TV? Why's that OK?
Check out the cars they drive in Cuba. Pre-1959 and absolutely no new parts available. No money, either. Just ingenuity.
Rob: 1. It will not stay at $20/month.2. You will become a victim of perpetual payments. If you stop paying them everymonth, you won't be able to open that pdf image you took of your kids 2 years ago.3. Not everyone wants to be a renter, making their landlords rich. Some prefer to own.
I think this is a generational concept. Younger people have no problem with buying each new iPhone and paying hundreds of dollars per year in data plan fees. Older people think of monthly fees being for items they could never afford to buy outright, like a house or a car.
Raincheck: It's been pointed out repeatedly that Photoshop is not the only option. Those who don't like Adobe's market plan should go to another option. Freedom of choice and free market always makes that possible.
I personally enjoy the Creative Cloud method; it keeps my investment into these miraculous programs at a manageable price instead of forking out a fistful of dollars when I want to upgrade or buy something new.
But getting back to looking at this as a market and funding strategy, I think Adobe probably knows very well what it needs to do to continue to bring mind-blowing magic wands and put them into Photographers hands. The useful and miraculous tools that this Corporation have created were fantasies just 15 years ago, and each release brings something new of the same caliber. $19 a month is a bargain for magic wands. And if anyone cannot find a way to earn back $19 a month given the use of magic, perhaps they don't really need Photoshop.
Yours Sincerely, Scott Kelby. If Adobe's subscription plan makes it easier for you to spread out your payments, you could put $30 a month in the bank and you'd be able to buy each incredibly wonderful update as they are released.
Sometimes a company does something in the best interests of both the company and the consumer. Great when it happens. But when the company is short on new features & ideas and the product already does what people need there are two choices: do something that benefits the customer at the company's expense or do something that benefits the company at the customer's expense.
Adobe is not in business to be liked and they are banking on enough people buying whatever they offer without giving it much thought. Seeing the way people line up to be the first to give Apple their money, this strategy may work.
Cameron R Hood: Wonder if THIS front element is held on with double-sided tape? I will NEVER buy anything from this company, and I won't let the photographic community forget the foundation on which they built this company.
As someone who had the misfortune of selling Sigma lenses not once but twice, it's hard to get past their mechanical (and in many cases, optical) history. But all indications are that they have turned over a new leaf. Never thought I'd say this but if they made a lens I really wanted, I'd probably take the gamble. Of course, I'd prefer Tokina or even Tamron but that's not an option here.
I can see why they invited Roger and loaned the lenses. These lenses could have been made more cheaply and perform the same but it's nice to see what you get for the money. It also follows that quality control is likely to be very good.
JakeB: The fun is seeing Leica nuts trying to DEFEND this disappointing camera.
For example, a God, I'm sorry, Mod, over on the Leica forum, when confronted with the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 - f4 with image stabilization, made the following attempt at defense:
"I never said Leica couldn't make one. Just that it would be much larger and heavier. The Fuji lens weighs 300g+ and is 65 x 70mm in size. The X Vario weighs 679g (in total, w/lens) and measures 133 x 73 x 95mm. That IS also consumes power, requiring a bigger (and therefore heavier) battery.
So everyone bitching about the lens speed on the X Vario now would be bitching about the size and weight of it instead."
Several people, myself included, pointed out to the poor man that the Fuji X-E1 (a closer point of comparison than the Fuji X-Pro since like the Vario it doesn't have an optical viewfinder) PLUS the above lens, PLUS the supposedly "bigger, heavier battery") weighs a total of 660 grams, 29g LESS than the Vario.
People who buy Leica don't make these comparisons. If they did, the brand would have disappeared when the Canon 7s and Nikon SP were introduced.
600+ comments; spectacular for a company with limited resources to do their own promotion.
Docno: Most of you people don't get it because you don't understand the mindset of the target market. I'm sure this ugly thing is not aimed at the US or Western Europe. It's target markets are the Middle East, Russia, and Asia where bling is king. And it may very well do fine enough in those places ... just as Nokia had some success selling over-priced old-tech blinged-up phones in its Vertu line. [Imagine a US$80K mobile phone with ruby encrusted keys... people bought it!] If you're putting fancy stuff on existing technology, you don't need to sell a whole lot of units to come out ahead, especially if you add some crazy-big margins.
BTW, I'm a NEX7 owner, and anyone whose ever picked one up will know it's a damn fine camera for an APS-C. That said, I would never buy this monstrosity even if I had that amount of change knocking about in my pockets
Exactly. And given that there are so many other examples of ostentation it's surprising this concept is so difficult to grasp.
I don't know what "richer support" is but I assume it's something like powerful software or"brighter" lenses. Or maybe it means enhanced troubleshooting capabilities.
marike6: Canon should update the build quality of the EF 50 1.8 to match this lens. The EF 50 1.8 is a great lens optically, but mechanically it's absurdly non-robust. I'm sure Canon users would be happy to see a metal mount EF 50 1.8, with a bayonet lens hood, and the addition of a stepping motor like the 40 2.8 STM.
Canon has already made a 50/1.8 with a metal mount--and they go for more used than the embarrassing all-plastic 50/1.8. Counting the user reviews at B&H and Amazon, Canon sells so many 50/1.8 that even shaving a couple bucks for the mount must add up. Still, it's an embarrassment.
Obviously, for most people the 40mm is the better deal even if it has a "much higher" price of a whopping $150.
Cameron R Hood: Wow...yeah Pentax invented the pancake 40mm like 50 years ago, and they've had a modern autofocus one out for 8-9 years that is stunning, plus they reintroduced it with the K01, redesigned by Marc Newsome, but by all means review the Canon copy...
You haven't reviewed a Pentax lens in 4 years, and you completely missed the mark on the last one you DID review (the legendary 15mm Limited).
Could it be that more people will benefit from a review of a Canon lens? Not that there is anything wrong with Pentax lenses.
They may not be state of the art with bodies but they know how to make lenses. If this was from Nikon it would be considered important and historic, like a reincarnated GN. Canon owners will have to settle for a cheap, sharp lens. By the way, the lenshood is ridiculous. If you buy one, make sure you have the option to return it.