It's really very easy to make fun of Leica pricing and I do agree that the expense is rather a bit much for a camera and lenses, but two things come to mind...1 - I think pretty much ALL cameras are way over expensive to the point of being ridiculous. I mean come on now, thousands of dollars for camera bodies?2 - Even with the expense I have to admit that my M240 and the two lenses that I own to use on it (35 and 50 summilux) produce some of the finest looking files that I have gotten out of ANY of the digital cameras I have used in the past 20 years, and that's been quite a few. Yes, I worked hard to be able to afford what I have, but the Leica files actually have color, contrast, micro contrast, sharpness and a general look to them that make the expense worthwile as far as I am concerned.
So this question may have already been answered someplace but I haven't seen it...how did the photos get on the internet to begin with? If the camera owner put them there, I am sorry but I think he is naive for expecting that they would be taken down. They are probably all over the place by now.
Can't ANYTHING be brought into the marketplace anymore without SOME kind of issue?
Not sure I understand the arguments in this thread about these photos. Fact is, some will like them, some will not. What's that got to do with hate?Personally, I think they are very skillful, professional looking images, but at the same time they are probably the corniest, and most contrived collection of images I have ever seen. I hate nothing nor no one here, I am just giving an honest opinion based on over 50 years of doing, studying and teaching photography as an art form.Take my comments as you will...accept them or reject them. But take them at face value, as they are honest feelings that I have about these images.
Tried this in a store with a metabones lens adapter to try out some Canon AF lenses on it. Not sure if there was something wrong with the camera or adapter, but it took about 6 seconds for the combo to achieve auto focus.
Been doing photography for literally 50 years and I must say I am getting more disgusted with the industry every single day.
It's not just Nikon!
I've been wishing for a retro Nikon like an FM2 or F3 Nikon digital for years, but I too think this will flop. It looks more like a combination of both and frankly I think it looks ridiculous.
Good example of how Nikon just doesn't get it. I am sure people have been asking for a retro camera like an FM2 or F3 style but this looks more like a false front building like those used in western films out of Hollywood. It looks kind've ridiculous really.
Why exactly IS Adobe keeping customers credit cards on file if all the customers had done is purchase copies of software online? I can see if it's to periodically pay for the cloud crap, but if one just purchases something, isn't it illegal to actually hold onto a credit card number once the transaction has been completed?
The biggest thing Nikon has going against themselves is their own arrogance. They feel that just because they are Nikon that consumers will flock to their products when something new comes out. What essentially happens instead is that people stay away because a lot of these products (the 1 system, the Coolpix A are 2 great examples) are simply overpriced for what they are. Perception is that one can get as good as, if not better than by going with Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, or Ricoh than by spending a few hundred dollars more for essentially the same item from Nikon.Wake up Nikon...look what happened to Leica using similar practices.
Yes but can it do 3d?
>>>>>Every camera in this price range must answer this honest question is it better then the Sony RX100 for the same price ??? The answer on this one is a huge NO .. Another one bites the dust<<<<<
How exactly do you make this determination without ever having shot with the camera? Seriously....the RX100 is a nice point and shoot camera, but I would take ANY of the Fuji cameras over it.
The problem with this poll is that it asks you to choose one concern. If it were only one concern from those listed, I would have no problem responding and I would probably have no problem signing up. However it's all 4, having to repeatedly pay, the pricing, having to connect, and uncertainty. The combination of all those things will force me to move to another solution.
Hey Adobe, you really might want to take a look at this;
I downloaded a trial copy of Paintshop Pro last night. It looks pretty good.
And what happens 6 years from now when Adobe decides to stop supporting CS6 even to the extent that it will not allow you to register it on a new computer? Think this will never happen?
Or what happens down the road when Nikon decides to no longer supply batteries for the D800? Think THIS will never happen?
Hey Framer, your attitude is uncalled for. I have no interest whatsoever in renting software. Do you not get this?
One other comment to all of you who are resigned to using CS6 for the rest of your lives...what are you going to do when you purchase a new camera say 6 years from now only to find that Adobe does not support RAW files from that new camera in CS6? Upgrade to the cloud??
About a year ago I dumped several thousand dollars worth of Apple hardware and software due to similar policies. Tomorrow I start looking at alternative software to process my photos.
This is precisely what has scared me about digital photography for the past 15 years...that one day I will have a ton of photos that are totally useless to me because a software vendor decided to pull something like this.
Maybe it's time to dust off the film cameras.
So let me get this straight...we will be able to purchase a Sony NEX-7 for about $1000 or so, or purchase an unbearably ugly version of it with the Hasselblad name attached to it for about 5x more?