Hey, I've got it on my screen saver and it cost me nothing!
boarderphreak: Always fun to watch the Leica bashers crawl out of the woodwork. Because you know, this has *never* happened to any other manufacturer. Sh*t happens. The real test is how the respective company deals with it. And deal with it they will (check back tomorrow).
I'm by no means a Leica basher, but I think their 3 year limitation and complex formula is merely a way of keeping their losses low. They need to learn from Nikon here and just suck it up and offer much longer protection for their products. It is reasonable to expect this given the prices they charge.
Calvin Chann: Guess I need to check my M9 and Monochrom.
I hope that Leica takes a responsible position on this matter. To replace the sensor with another one which is exactly the same is only deferring the problem for those replacements until a time where the time from purchase will be so long, it'll cost a lot.
The Leica brand is known for longevity of it's equipment. Could this be the death knell leading to questioning of its premium pricing. After all, if the body you buy now will cost a fortune to maintain over the years, why are we paying such a premium for it in the first place?
Is this why they've just released a new film body?
You raise the key point. If there is no quality advantage to Leica then a powerful justification for their prices is lost. I like their cameras and philosophy of photography a great deal, but that won't be of much use if the expense of using their products becomes too large.
Can't get enough of these types of stories. Wished others at the time and earlier had also documented the historical sites. Too bad the camera wasn't invented earlier!
jefenniejr: Thanks dpreview for publishing these reviews. Too many reviews on the interweb are thinly veiled fanboy regurgitation of extended lists of specifications. Real world use by real people gives a much needed perspective. I suspected this camera was a miss for Leica in reading the "spec-reviews" , but these gents really nailed it. Thanks for striving for more objective journalism.
I don't think that is a bad question, jefenniejr, but it is not the only question. "Do you enjoy using your camera?" is also a good question. Leicaphiles seem to value this question considerably. I don't own a Leica (can't afford one) but I do appreciate the simplicity and sometimes wish my 5Diii was less of a computer.
For those who care about such things, they indeed look beautiful. Lovely.
bigdaddave: The camera is genuine but I doubt the lens is, the black Planars didn't arrive until much later, they were all silver back then
AndreaV's link to the auction site settles the lens question, imho. The photo with the astronauts holding what looks like a straight-out-of-the-box camera pretty much settles the question.
Very informative. Thanks.
The caption on photo 9 reads, in part, "plus the original metal facing was repainted black to minimize reflections."
Perhaps this is a hint that black was specified.
Good question and I'd bet there is an interesting backstory here.
Very much enjoy these history stories featuring the artifacts of photography.
Love these history posts!
backayonder: You keep telling me my Olympus XZ1 is dying because you all have smartphones well thank god I still have my heavy cumbersome DSLR and 70-200mm lens
Thank you, Lee Jay. Very interesting -- and helpful.
Jefftan: unfortunate that tough camera is still stuck in 2009, is t it really that difficult to at least put in waterproof for all these premium compact?
even with no zoom or limited zoom will be popular I betI have been waiting literally for years
I agree, Jefftan, that tough cameras offer something that it is worth pursuing. I've got a Sony TX10 I put in my pocket whenever I anticipate getting wet. Let's hope these cameras get better, and IMHO, lose the weird styling.
The problem, though, is all the folks who try to use them for serious underwater photography and ruin them or are disappointed by the results. I think a bright line on true weather sealing versus waterproofing, would be useful. Yes, tkbslc, true waterproofing is very, very hard to do.
whtchocla7e: The point-and-shoots are alive and well.
The Nex 3/5, the small m4/3 cams from Oly and Panny, the Nikon 1, the Q from Pentax, the premium compacts from various manufacturers?
They're all point-and-shoots in disguise. They sell in mass quantities, the majority of the buyers never purchase an additional lenses or accessories.
Your casual photographer may now have a more capable camera with interchangeable lenses (and they may not even know it!) but the point-and-shoot mentality does not change.
The definition of a point-and-shoot should be more dynamic to reflect the current state of the (lower end) camera market.
Yes, DMiller hits the bright line here. A true P&S can only be used as a P&S and has minimal manual controls (just like a phone!). Because more sophisticated cameras have a P&S mode, doesn't make them a P&S.
peevee1: "Why the death of the point and shoot"
Rumors of their death are greatly exaggerated. Fixed-lens cameras still sell many times the number of ILCs. And excellent products like RX10, FZ1000, LX100 and G7X will only reinforce this advantage.
This is a good discussion. I think it also means that photography will be getting more expensive for enthusiasts, and/or the release of new models will slow. The profits of low end P&S funded many innovations.
As someone mentioned, Leica still makes money. But they are high priced, low volume sales. Could be the photography industry will be moving toward Leica, and we are currently living in a golden age of low cost, brilliant innovation.
I would truly like to see an in-depth comparison between phones and these P&S cameras. How, backayonder, does your YZ-1 compare to the latest phone, image quality-wise? Also, I'm surprised major manufacturer has marketed their P&S's against phones by comparing image quality. One gets the sense that phones are gradually getting better and knocking off lower quality P&S, but where does that leave the remaining P&S cameras?
Thanks much for this, Mr. Butler. You address evenhandedly a subject many of us are curious about. I do wish you had elaborated on your point here, though:
"The new lens I'm not mentioning here is the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro. This is because, although in one respect it's a very similar lens to the other ones I'm discussing, its effect on a Micro Four Thirds body is very different."
I'd like to hear your view on exactly what that effect is.
Dames01: This looks like the perfect replacement for my ageing S90.
Agree on the battery life. With no EVF to drain it, a bit of a mystery to me why its life is so short.
Well done! Thanks for this. I note that the soldier's load has gotten no lighter over the years.
Great review, thanks DPR. Question: I would find it useful to be able to add my tripod to my gear list. Is it too expensive to add these sorts of accessories?
David Hurt: $800.00 for a tripod??? You are kidding me. Never!
$600 is not too much to support $5,000 in camera gear, methinks. Key is that the tripod will last for years, unlike most of my other camera equipment. I figured, heck, I'll spend the money now, enjoy a first-class piece of equipment and never feel the need to update. I've had the Gitzo Traveler for more than a year and love it. Anyway, I see that it is an expensive piece of kit and others may not value it as I do. I do lots of travel and I do appreciate saving every ounce when I can.
Malikknows: Great and useful story, I just wish they had reviewed Gitzo. They've been leaders in the travel tripod segment for quite some time. I love mine.
Thanks, Mark! Yes, indeed, I have the Gitzo Series 1 in carbon fiber. Crazy expensive but I thought I'd buy a good one and then not have to upgrade. It hasn't let me down. In any event, appreciate the response!