Dimit: I can hardly find something bad or even mediocre in this little thing.Bet it will be the Photokina spot of attention,more than anything else.I am not a Pana fan but this camera will eventually be a huge success,better in every respect than the rx100 m3 which I own.
npires, I'm glad that your ownership of a competing product has not biased your ability to see the virtues and improvements this product has over the one you purchased.
It appears that Canon does not understand their customer base very well. There are simply too many great choices and as an ex-Canon shooter, they just don't have the lead they used to have.
No EVF, no IBIS, no competitive small body shooter... it's as though Canon is expecting to get by on the Canon name.
Pity. They once were a force of photography innovation. Now, they're a 'me too' company that is falling behind others.
This deflates my interest in m43. Pricing isn't sensible for non-pro's here, so I'm wondering with this lens at $900 and the Panasonic 12-35mm priced at $1200, does the m43 system lose it's luster?
For me, it is, and I really like the OM-D.
Sure, I can still buy the 45mm prime for a decent price and the Pana 20mm, but comparing these lenses to their CaNikon equivalents, I'm trying to see the value proposition.
Maybe there isn't one. Glad I didn't sell some of the Canon glass I kept.
The hatred being thrown at Leica on this thread is profound. They are a for profit company. They apparently know who their customer is. They are a small but profitable company competing with much larger companies, and have found a niche that works for them.
Those who quip that this story should not be posted on DPR, kindly note that DP stands for 'digital photography' and that this is a digital camera.
Those who complain that it's too expensive will simply not buy it, but saying Leica is bad or evil or hates poor people or whatever else you're saying.... well, you're not thinking. This is a supply/demand thing and if your customer will pay $40k or $50k for a camera, you'd be a fool to not sell it to them.
Leica is not a mass producer. You ought not think of them that way. They are Tiffany, Ferrari, Gucci, etc.
brujo74: This is a clear victory of design over common sense
If they do not sell them, you will be correct. If they sell everyone of them they make, that is called, "Knowing who your customer is".
riknash: Lipstick on a pig!
How long before this company goes out of business?
I'll bet you they sell everyone of these they make!
Marty4650: Hey... lets be honest.
A camera optimized for black and white photography is news.A "special commemorative designer edition" for $25,000 isn't news at all.
Leica is famous for grinding out special editions that only differ in two ways from their regular editions... "they cost a lot more" and are "very exclusive."
Dpreview needs to get off their Leica worship kick. These are just repackaged cameras, offering nothing new or innovative. This website should be about cameras, not about marketing methods of squeezing more money out of people who have too much money for their own good.
The only "news" here is that a few fools will order these overpriced kits.
Stop whining. Who cares if rich people buy these. Mind your own business and go take some pictures you find interesting and compelling. You'll feel better.
n1zr: I'm a Canon shooter and necessarily have to stick with their bodies because of my investment in their glass. These pics confirm (when compared to the D800 samples especially) what I believed all along. They're both great tools, and it's the eye (and brain) behind the lens that matter most. There's megapixels-a-plenty to go around people. Enjoy the next generation of cameras! (and long-live the healthy rivalry)... Now drop the prices of those 1Ds3's!!!
You can always sell your glass on eBay or other sites. As has often been discussed, the value of glass holds up well. The bodies take a more substantive decrease in value, but still hold well for a few yrs.
Lucas_: A non-stabilized version for the Sony mount would be great ( f4 is reasonably fast and keeps the lens size small/light, w/o stabilizer cost goes down )! Unfortunatelly Tokina seems to have stated they won't support any Sony mount anymore ( A or E )...!
Sony does make a 70-200mm 2.8..... for nearly 2k. They are dreaming.
olddigiman1: Surprising how much griping about the price there is. Obviously, many poster are too young to remember what the Fuji and Mamiya MF RFs were going for back in the day. Assuming the camera has "pro" level build quality, and all indicatiions are that it does, the price is not out of line at all. And the prices on the lenses are not out of line either, you want a Canon or Nikon 35mm f1.4, it's going to set you back well over twice as much as the Fuji. If you want to pay less, you can get a plastic body camera like the Panny/Oly m4/3, it's a free country. Fuji could make a plastic version for less, maybe they will, maybe they won't, but that's not what this particular camera is about..
Exactly. For those whining about price, do the rest of us a favor. Figure out a way to make more money and quit yer whining!!
Jimmy jang Boo: Ridiculously overpriced, especially for niche brand in a niche market. Major FAIL!
So, you're saying a product that has not yet hit the market has failed. Facepalm.
canon6188: 5D mark II with with F1.4 lens is much better value for money despite slightly bigger in size. In term of picture quality, 5D mark II is way better.
Really? Tell me... what pictures have you compared? You're just making stuff up because you haven't compared them.
AngryCorgi: $400 and NO AF?? Yeah, uh, no...
Exactlly! I love the new Sony cameras, as they're a big leap above what CaNikon is offering, but $400 for a lens coverter with no AF?
Go pound sand. I bought a Konica lens converter for m4/3 for $25.
Where is the technology leadership from Canon? CaNikon are Sony's whipping boys right now because, at least with regard to consumer level DSLR's, the latest ILC/DSLR models from Sony cream the equivalent Nikon and Canon offerings.
Canon, where art thou? I say this as a Canon shooter. If they don't update those DSLR's in the next 6 months, they're going to cede ground that they likely won't recover... including me.
f/5.8 at 112mm?? I guess you won't be zooming in much.
I've read many posts expressing sadness that this company will soon be no more. I feel no sadness for Kodak, as their fate was their own making, but I question those who don't understand that Kodak is going teets up because they were no longer an excellent company with excellent products. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Geoff Brown: A very sad event if we lose one of the iconic American company's of the 20th Century
No, it's sad that they chose not to innovate. George Eastman has likely been rolling in his grave for decades.
This is what happens in the free market. Kodak leadership at first chose to go with digital then got outflanked by competitors who had more innovative ideas and better marketing.
While it is sad to see the 15k or so employees impacted by this, this is what happens as a result of a company not aiming for excellence.