mononk: I certainly do not appreciate the type of pictures you post on these so called "real world sample gallery". Would you publish any of these shots in your SHOW CASE. Come on guys, work a little harder, you are supposed to be pros.
I'll tell you one thing: If I were Barney, I'd keep my best photos, rather than giving them to DPR to feed to the sharks.
Besides the technical ones, he still throws a few of the best ones out there for you guys to munch on. You should be grateful.
DStudio: Since some here are raving about the Sony A7R II in comparison, I went back and reviewed the gallery again. I remember I especially liked the photos of the girl looking out the window.
Too bad, they would have been even better with this camera.
The Sony is good, but it's not even in the same class as this camera. Not a single one of those photos compares to the better photos here. These simply have better dimensionality. The photos look and feel more like the actual items, rather than just photos of the objects. These are the nicest quality photos I've seen in a DPR gallery in a while.
There's really no trick to seeing the difference. Just take your analytical, rational glasses off for a moment. Instead observe and feel the photos as you go through them. Don't try *too* hard; just notice that most photos don't have quite the qualities these do. Perhaps some purists will prefer other Leica models, but this Leica glass is still capturing something special that most others miss!
Well I guess it works out OK, because those who don't appreciate it need not spend money on it, and they won't. There are plenty of those "average" cameras you mentioned to go around.
Yet it's a shame some don't appreciate it when a genuine feat is accomplished. I admire what Leica does (when they do it right), and this impresses me very much.
I *do* appreciate it. Not just the feat, but the results themselves - some of which are posted here. I probably won't buy one. But if I had a genuine need or application I'd find a way to get one. Either way I'll still admire and appreciate it.
cheetah43: What 28mm sees is not what the eye sees looking straight ahead. Why do people rave about a 28mm lens with all its distortions? Yes, you can do this, that and the other post-processing. It should be click, post to the printers, and no faffing around with the image.
We are illusionists; we create a reality that looks even better than real life. And in doing so, hopefully we make people notice beauty in real life more often too.
What about this requires removing the distortions of a 28mm lens? If the illusions are good, it's good. Do as little or as much post processing as you want. Or do none.
Make photos that look fairly realistic, or not so realistic. Just make sure they communicate.
Richard Schumer: I am very disappointed with the IQ of the images posted in the gallery. I dl'd the DNG files, converted them to tiffs and messed around with one (the fisherperson) according to my preferences. The shadows can be pulled up quite a lot, and there's much information in the highlights, too, but the shadows are noisy with chrominance artifacts. Overall noise at ISO 800 seems like my old Pentax 10d -- not up to current standards, IMHO based on my Olympus E-PM2 at the same ISO.
But, there is objectionable IMO vignetting at f:2.2, made worse by my usual processing. See the conversion in my gallery -- js_ISO800_f_2.2_L1010969(I do not know how to post the photo in this forum -- sorry. If someone would like to enlighten me....)
AND -- if one looks at the waterline, there appears to be a huge amount of barrel distortion, as well, considering how high up in the frame the horizon is here.
Richard, that K10D CCD sensor yielded some of the nicest colors of any DSLR camera. I see similar colors from this camera (I think Leica strove to maintain more of a "CCD look" when going with this CMOS sensor).
Perhaps it's no coincidence that you also saw similarities in noise. We know film had grain, just as digital cameras have noise. I find noise to be one of the most pardonable sins, so that wouldn't have bothered me much. Someone else here pointed out that the Leica noise looked more like film grain, though I didn't examine it carefully.
Nevertheless, it's obviously not working well or meeting your standards. You have plenty of experience, and you know what you want.
FWIW, I found it interesting that you, NarrBL, and I had this in common: Pentax DSLRs but Olympus compacts (XZ-1 in my case). Perhaps we have some similar standards and tastes. Even the Olympus XA (my first "real" camera) had a great little lens in it.
Gazeomon: The images of my Samsung NX 500 with the 30mm f/2 are looking sharper, clearer with accurate colours on a BenQ pro series monitor. The Leica images displayed here are not bad but not outstanding and certainly not good enough to justify that Leica price tag, at least not for me. Nice camera though.
Don't ever get into a discussion about RAW files with him. He thinks he's a RAW file master and he could squeeze blood from a raw file of a turnip. :)
moranjr: See the Leica Q in the hands of a master http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/06/13/more-images-from-the-leica-q-116/
He's got some very nice photos - especially in his portfolio. But I wouldn't characterize many of those Leica Q images as "the work of a master."
Perhaps a half-dozen were worthwhile, although I think a few of them were made better by the special qualities of the camera. "Sorry, we're full" shows off classic golden Leica lighting, for example.
rkny: This place is hilarious. They post real world examples of cats and barns and people complain the pictures suck. They post professional post processed photos and people "well of course it looks great; it was shot by a pro and post processed".
News flash. Cat and barn pictures ALL suck. From EVERY camera. And if you spend $4K on a camera and don't spend time processing your RAWs, you just blew $4K.
If you can't look at unprocessed RAWs and see a camera's potential, or can't look at processed RAWs and see a camera's potential, you can't see, period. So stop slagging cameras that are over your budget, and way over your head.
I had trouble with the "cats and barns" comment too. There may be too many of them out there, but I've definitely seen excellent photos of both.
I hoping it was just a colorful comment, and the real meaning is that every gallery on DPR contains some not-so-good photos, and you shouldn't judge a camera or lens by them. Pick out the nice ones instead.
But I wholeheartedly agree that you should be able to see a camera's potential (and judge most of its actual performance) whether or not the samples are from processed RAWs.
Also, just because a camera is over someone's budget doesn't mean it's over his head. He can still make good judgements about it - as long as he's not prejudiced by the price or name.
sh10453: Just thinking loud, and asking myself "What if I make a smart purchase by ordering one of these but without a 25 years old German bride, would the price be cut by 50%?"
I think only Leica can answer that question.
Talking to myself again: Great camera. $2,000 for the camera, and $4,000 for the Leica name! Not a bad deal!
In fact, even if it's a little overpriced, perhaps that's the only pragmatic way to get past the bean counters (which is why everyone who prices their lenses ~right never seems to quite achieve these higher quality results).
And while I keep talking about the lens, it appears they did an excellent job on the rest of the camera too.
Fortunately Leica engineers realize a great lens can't be designed solely on a computer, or with parts that satisfy bean counters.
dkov70: HELP! Is anything wrong with the new 100% viewing widget on dpreview or with my iPad screen? All images, also at 100 ISO look at 100% magnification soft and blurry.
No, mcshan, you actually can't distinguish the better quality of these photos on an iPad - at least not on mine.
I realize you were making a joke, but you need to view the photos on a good desktop (or possibly laptop) monitor, or else you genuinely *won't* see the difference.
Greynerd: Is it just me but is it difficult to see any real difference between any of these cameras in daylight regardless of price or sensor size?Probably I have got the wrong electron microscope.I am sure you could get pictures similar to this from a Canon Ixus (other brands are available).
Right now I'm trying to think of anyone (based on photos I've seen) who's made better lenses than Leica.
Anything I can think of is medium format or larger. And I'm still not sure they're actually "better," although they produce some outstanding results.
So while you may laugh, you still won't be able to do it (get equivalent photos from an RX1). Maybe you should stop laughing and gain a serious appreciation of the fine characteristics Leica has managed to imbue in many of their lenses.
Greynerd, you know that old saying about how "teenagers think they know everything?" Well, they almost do - at least in the broad sense.
But what we realize as we grow a bit older is there are many subtleties in life that you weren't aware of as a teen. In the areas that become most important to us we continue to learn these subtleties.
I think that's the case here. If the artistic side of photography becomes really important to you you'll start to notice these differences. But they are more subtle - they won't be obvious through casual observation.
The good news for most photographers is that many viewers will notice these differences without being consciously aware of it. But the photos will still capture their attention or "connect" with them more readily. So a good camera - just like good composition - still works in your favor.
Lou P Dargent: Gallery widget appears broken on iOS 9 if anyone cares...
I realize that iOS 9 and Safari are having a problem (mine exhibits the same issue).
Nevertheless, I find it humorous for someone who runs a mature 6-year-old laptop OS to comment on how easy it is to "just change the browser."
Since some here are raving about the Sony A7R II in comparison, I went back and reviewed the gallery again. I remember I especially liked the photos of the girl looking out the window.
paqman: if anyone else launched a camera with these specs for $6K they'd be laughed out of town.
I'm sorry you think specs are the way to choose a camera.
Jim Evidon: I really cannot understand the carping of those who claim that the IQ is no better than an NEX-5N (which I used to own and loved) or as someone claimed, a Canon Nexus. Give me and the other readers a break. Alert: I own both the Leica M9P as well as the Leica X2, but have no intention of ever purchasing the Leica Q since what I already have produces excellent 13X19's; as large as I ever intend to print.
However, if those readers would reexamine the gallery images at normal expanded size and then apply the 100% loupe of images @ ISO 800 and 1000, they should see that the noise closely resembles fine grain film with a very tight pattern. Is it noiseless at these ISO settings? No. My Fuji XPro-1 is noiseless well beyond that point. But noise is not the the main issue. It is how the noise is dealt with.
These images take digital to a whole new level. From the noiseless ISO 100 to the well controlled fine noise @ ISO 1000, bright colors in RAW and great contrast, I am very impressed.
You don't even need to look that closely. Just look at the photos in the near-full-screen "bottom-filmstip" view. The girl, the dog, the blackberries, the rose, the broken window in the gas station. Everything is more culpable - like you are there or want to be there. I can almost feel the powdery texture of the rose as I look at it.
If others can't see the difference, then too bad. Because unlike many (most?) cameras, this camera/lens definitely has "it."
For those who can't notice (or refuse to learn to see) these characteristics, you're missing out on the artistic side of photography.
antares103: If the Nikon D5500 won consumer DSLR, how did Canon "sweep" the DSLR categories.
3 of the top 4 major league professional team sports in America feature multiple best-of-seven series during the championship playoffs. To be called a 'sweep,' it must be a clean sweep. Loosing one game doesn't qualify.
So while there may be some latitude in our minds when it entails, say, 8 of 10 Oscars, when there are four or fewer items it certainly means it's a *clean* sweep.
Even here I'm being generous, because if you follow your own suggestion, the *very first result* is an article where the author changed the title from 'Sweeps' to 'Dominates,' simply because too many readers complained it wasn't a true sweep!
Pandimonium: I also used to get bored when I was a teenager.
LOL and as you get older it's called "becoming an artist." ;)
Retzius: this is a first world problem
Some people find it quite entertaining to post this comment on forums these days.
It musts do something for you personally - I just can't figure out what it is.
It's confusing since DPR is now published out of Seattle. 'Sweep' is indeed a synonym for 'clean sweep' to most Americans.
These facts here make DPR appear biased to its "home crowd."