photoaddict: And I remember how people said that there's no way a digital camera can outperform film in just a decade. If it was shot with a digital SLR camera, it would be sharp, clear, and more saturated. Low light? No problem, just boost the EV in RAW processor (especially the Nikon/Sony types).
I am sure glad film is over.
Good for you. But film is not over. Some people still like the craft of photography and the "feel" of film. It is similar to how some people enjoy the control of driving and prefer manual transmission.
zakk9: Why is dpreview showing mediocre images of this war criminal and mass murderer?
These pictures are history in the making, so they are a legitimate photographic subject. On the surface, they show bureaucrats looking very banal - but we know how frightening these people were.
PieterB: I don't see the point of a B/W camera.
@ Roland, don't bother, he will not understand.
JakeB: Buy a black Fujifilm X100t.
Set the jpegs to black and white.
Done. NO ONE will be able to tell the difference.
Decide what you'll do with the other $9,000 you've just saved.
As expected, Dpreview's standard gang of black and white haters are out in force voting up this comment.
MikeF4Black: OVF or EVF; that's really all there is to it. I hope someone continues making top leverl full frame sub 1 kg dslr's for as long as my eyesight lasts.
There are also no viewfinder cameras, meaning 4x5 or 8x10" sheet film bellows cameras.
watson076: Hey let's not forget about Canon as they really have done the impossible by managing to sell the same sensor for over a decade. Now if only someone would come up with a camera that only shoots black and white and sell it for several grand ;)
Watch it! The B&W haters here in Dpreview will castgate you mercilessly and say all sorts of profound things like, "I don't see the point of a monochrome sensor."
jkokich: Mirrors will go the way of film.
Where has film gone? Oh, you mean it is gone from Walmart?
Marty CL: I think real convergence won't take place until electronic viewfinders reach full operational and capability parity with optical view finders. Owning both multiple DSLRs and multiple mirrorless cameras--each has it's pros and cons--but its clear (no pun intended) that electronic viewfinders---at present-- cannot operate effectively in low light situations.
I don't think any camera, in this day and age, is really an all purpose camera.
Wrong. Go into a dark room in an abandoned building, and with an optical finder or even a Leica M viewfinder, you can barely see anything. Even framing is a challenge. But the electronic finder amplifies the view. It is fabulous.
Gasman66: Personally, I don't really care whether there's a mirror or not. But I have no intention of re-learning photography to accommodate the micro 4/3 format. If Canon make a 5D mirrorless that has a full frame sensor and accepts full frame lenses, I'd certainly consider it.
I don't understand. Do you mean 24×36mm is the only format you will use? Did you ever use 4×5 film?
oselimg: I don't think that Sony hopes to sell this camera with bucketloads. This to me is more like a PR exercise by the company saying that "we can do it" therefore establishing themselves in the mirrorless market while the others will try to catch-up. I don't think full frame mirrorless is ready to take over the pro market yet though we mustn't overlook the advantages of being there before everybody else and stealing the headlines. Being there first never paid off for the mighty Kodak but Sony in my opinion have established formidable technological base to challenge Canon and Nikon. It will be interesting to see how the established brands will react to mirrorless advance. This is just my humble observation neither an effort to bash or hype any brand. If you must please respond with your opinions and/or your observations even speculations rather than adolescent trolls.
Give poor old Kodak some credit. For much of the 20th century, they were first in many film- and camera-related technologies and it did pay off for the world-wide industrial giant. Even in the postwar era, their Ektar lenses were considered foremost for large format cameras, and their last film emulsions were the finest ever made. Some photographers still consider Panatomic-X one of the finest thin film black and white emulsions. But you are right about their stumbling in digital era. Somehow, they just could not make enough profit in the non-film era.
Rizl: "good luck finding a compatible battery for that M8 in sixty years' time":Good luck finding film for that M3 in sixty years' time.
It is highly likely that companies will still be making film decades from now. There are still plenty of serious photographers who use film and new users who like the media.
deano7000: I may be displaying my ignorance here, but... why? Monochrome? Completely baffles me.
What is baffling about a monochrome digital camera? It is a tool for photographers who photograph that way.
magneto shot: it would be easier if dprreview's comment allows posting images. i have many 1.4 and f1.0 images taken on a leica lens to show. that would probably cut down whiners and complains by 50%.
You see, the real leica, as in the M system, is made for shooting...people, whether on the street or on portrait. 1.4 is a much needed aperture to provide significant subject isolation and 28 wideness will preserve some background drama.
Are you sure about the street and people? What good is that if the only criteria of importance is target photographs? And how can you take portraits or candids without auto-focus?
ironcam: How can Leica make a dslr with such a minimalist design, while Japanese dslr's have more buttons than an 80's stereo tower?
And if a manufacturer removes a couple of those buttons and/or functions, the "photographers" come out of the woodwork complaining that they would never buy it because it does not have IS or 25,600 ISO, or party mode jpeg, or wifi, or any number of other glaring omissions.
The upcoming 16mm will likely be a spectacular lens. But I wish Fuji would make primes in several ranges of maximum aperture, similar to how Leica often has f/2.8, f/2, and f/1.4 lenses in the same focal length. I would be willing to use a much smaller and lighter 16mm f/2.8 for travel use. The Samyang 16mm is also a big bruiser.
The new M 60 is really cool, but I do not understand how it works. With no screen, how do you check the capacity of the memory card, or check battery capacity, or format the card? And will there be a way to change parameters like metering points? I agree with the previous writer that it is refreshing to have a camera without the rubbish that often looks like some programmer added just because he could. As for the critics that this is a status symbol: maybe it is in Europe of Hong Kong. But in Middle America, it means nothing because almost no ordinary suburban photographers have any connection with Leica whatsoever. They just do not know what it is.
Gesture: Cue the Harry Lime music.
Oops, wrong city. "The Third Man" was set in Vienna.
"Longest lens in the world?" Maybe the longest physical lens for 35mm format, but Nikon made a 2000mm lens years ago for manual focus Nikon F mount. The Leica R (or M) 800mm f/6.3 APO-Telyt-S may have been almost as long physically because the Leica was not a telephoto lens, it was a long focal length lens.
Dan Tong: An excellent review far more detailed and professional than the usual DPreview job.
I had purchased a heavy duty aluminum Gitzo tripod and the concentric leg locks took more time and effort to set than the lever locks that I kept seeing.
I envied the Manfrotto lever leg locks, until the plastic leg locks on a cheaper Manfrotto tripod broke and the tripod became totally useless and pretty much un-repairable. It got very little use and I'm guessing age was the primary cause. I had another cheap no name tripod fail the same way, although it lasted a much much longer than the Manfrotto. Now I understand why the concentric locking mechanism (almost always metal) is far superior even though, without fast screwing feature, it takes longer to tighten and loosen.
I would personally always stay away from any lever locking tripods and I now fully appreciate the Gitzo concentric metal leg locking mechanism.
The Cullmann Titan lever locks were durable, but the Titans were robust, high-end tripods. And they were heavy, not travel units.
This announcement sure generated a lot of excitement. What about the RX1? It seems to have dropped off - I rarely see any comments about it now. Is it from the Sigma DP merrills achieving similar quality results for a lot lower price?