Might suit a “light” RAW user with access to fast broadband but not suitable for heavy RAW user with slower broadband. I much prefer storing my images on my own multiple RAID drives, stored in different locations, than on some third party cloud system. I also agree with ZAnton, a typical photo trip for me would result in around 30 to 40 GB of images from various Leica M cameras, so storage in the cloud would work out expensive.
Many thanks for posting yet another lovely nostalgic set of photos.
gmke: Does anybody remember Kodachrome 25? It was a very slow film that, given a decent camera, produced smooth, sharp slides, with great dynamic range. That's ISO 25 folks. The reason we all craved fast lenses was so we could use un-speckled films with greater freedom. That's the point, wide latitude to shoot. It's why we badmouth the odd camera--it takes away our freedom. On an entry level SLR, f1.8 was not thought special on the primes that were more popular than zooms. f1.4 was where cool began. So here we are, electronic sensors that take us out to ISO 1600 without much noise, and a step more with heavier noise reduction that steals a bit of detail. Typical kit zooms nowadays all start at f3.5. Yeesh. That is two stops slower than f1.8 but compensated for by the depth of the ISO on the sensor. Have it all. Get a PEN with a zoom AND that 17mm f1.8 prime. (The standard primes used to be quite inexpensive. The marketing department sticking it to us is what happened...)
On the other hand it is great fun shooting in candle light with my M240 at 3200ISO or above and f0.95 Noctilux. I still use Kodak T-Max 3200 in my M4 but film grain is somehow much more acceptable than digital noise. The reduction in the noise of sensors over the last few years increases possibilities of imaging by a lot. Wilson
New firmware a definite improvement, particularly with the 75-300 lens, which always seemed to settle at the critical 1/160 second. However Olympus could have made the menu implementation of the anti-shock simpler and lamentable documentation of the feature much better. Thank goodness for various reviews which documented and illustrated how to implement. The menu system for this camera must be the most convoluted and obscure ever. Wilson
The car is a Morris 8 but all the pictures are great. Very nostalgic. I wish I had some of my dad’s colour photos from 1938 to 66 of Scotland and his various trips to Europe but my mother threw them all away when she moved house in 1971. Wilson
The thing that impresses me is the heat resistance of the landing legs. I assume they must be covered in some sort of ablative material, such as tantalum hafnium carbide, but even so, to retain their structural rigidity after that extreme cooking, is amazing. They may be actively cooled by circulation of some of the rocket fuel through them.
Whereas I accept there has been a bit of technical fudging to make the sensor look even more impressive, it is still a bit of a technical tour de force. This will be a very useful camera for wildlife photographers. If it can perform this well with a regular Sony zoom lens, think of the sort of low light video you could take by mounting a Leica f0.95 Noctilux on it or one of the specialist full frame movie ultra fast lenses. The Noctilux being three stops faster than the Sony zoom, would give an effective ISO equivalent to 3,276,800. This would mean being able to take video in conditions that previously would have required night vision equipment, taking green and black images. Wilson
For a film camera I understand going for an M6. Using an M (I have M4, M8, M9 and M240, all from new) is a great pleasure. However if I were a working street photographer, I might opt instead for a Zeiss Ikon. The viewfinder is just a little better than the M6 and the metal shutter, with its higher speeds allows more flexibility to use fast lenses wide open for shallow DOF in good light. It is still M mount.
However the Voigtlander 35/2.5 I would not even consider. My experience of CV lenses has been very poor with only one decent one out of 4 bought, including a very soft 35/2.5. As a working photographer, you need to be as close to 100% as possible, sure of your equipment. My choice every time therefore, would be the 35/2 ASPH Summicron. I don't have one, as I have a 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux but if I were a street photographer I would change. My chrome/brass 35/1.4 is too heavy for quick shots and the Summicron is easier to use and very compact. Nobody has a bad word for it.
40daystogo: I don't agree with this. I realise many brands are trying to modernize, but the "Carl Zeiss" name has a cachet of quality. I'd not pleased to see it go.
I totally agree. As the owner of 11 Carl Zeiss lenses from the 1930's through to 2012, I am sad that they decided to kill off poor old Carl. History should not be binned. Wilson
All money in the pockets of the PR industry and the printers for new headed paper.
It never fails to amaze me that the PR gonks still manage to persuade presumably clever and experienced board directors, that a small change in logo/name makes any real difference whatsoever, other than to the balance in the PR company's bank account.
You really want to go and shout at those directors "its the product that matters stupid!"
I guess some looney wunder-kid came up with that one. What an exceptionally stupid idea that is. Commercial suicide as well I would guess.
Surprised to see the lower resolution VF-3 on this camera rather than the VF-2. The P series normally uses the VF-2. Given that Epson have already announced the successor LCD from the VF-2, I would have expected to see a VF-4 on the EP-5.
Interesting that it should have a Sonnar lens, when Zeiss' own full frame 35mm f2 ZM (Leica fit) lens is a Biogon. Could it be that Sony only have the rights to make Sonnar and Tessar lenses, not Planar, Biogon and Distagon.
The whole thing sounds a bit like the Minox digital spy camera, which being a Minox enthusiast I bought. They are both silly toys and totally useless for taking photographs. 128 x 128 display - give me a break. Another few million dollars and a couple of years development and then introduce it to the market would have been more sensible. I am afraid they may have blown it by releasing prematurely.
I just hope the lenses are better than the rubbish fitted on the front of recent Kodak digital cameras, to which they put their name. Given their reputation for wonderful large format lenses, I was amazed they were prepared to risk their reputation on these awful plastic blobs.
This could have been a perfect replacement for my ageing small pocketable back up camera, a Ricoh GX200, except for one glaring omission. It does not have a mountable eye level viewfinder for use in bright sunlight or for stick in the muds like me, who hate using a camera at arms length. That means I will probably go for either the Nikon V1 or Canon G1-X, even though they are a bit on the large side.
I am a Leica enthusiast. I have used Leicas since the 1950's and currently a IIF, an M4 owned from new and M8 and M9 cameras. Will I buy the monochrome - no not interested. The images have the plasticy look of chromogenic film, which I don't like.
If I want B&W, I have more than enough film cameras to use or I can use my M9, where I can post process the colour RAW/DNG in CS6 to get the effect of filters. Having to screw filters on and off is IMHO one of the things that most gets in the way of creative RF style photography. I quite enjoy creative filters with DSLR and have a set of Cokin P filters but that is a different activity, usually on a tripod.
On the assumption that the M10 will have a lower noise CMOS sensor with maybe 28MP or more, I would guess that it will be difficult to tell a converted B&W from that camera from that made by an M9M.......and guess what guys - it takes colour as well.
This printer is going to have to be massively better than the Pixma Pro 9500 to be any good. I have the PP 9500. Nearly every time I come to use it and wake it up from sleep, after spending 10 minutes cleaning the heads and p***ing away expensive ink from the tiny cartridges, it then demands for at least one cartridge to be replaced.
I reckon my ink costs on the PP9500 are close to GBP10 per A3+ print averaged out. Compared with the rather unreliable but very economical HP B9180 A3+ printer I have in France, the PP9500 is a waste of space and money.
I would need to be very convinced that Canon are not continuing to con their buyers into buying a machine that wastes 80%+ of its ink, before I considered that against the slightly more expensive to buy, Epson Stylus Pro 3880. I suspect that over say a 3 year period, the Epson would be cheaper. I have spent hundreds of pounds on PP9500 cartridges, most of which has not ever hit paper.
carpediem007: Still no Ricoh GXR support... :-(
And no DNG either... :-( :-( :-(
Still no Leica M9 support in DxO. Just as well that we have Capture One V6 Pro and LR3 to do everything DxO can do. I am not a big fan of trying to do everything in my RAW converter. I prefer to convert and then do post production in CS5.
It will need to be a huge improvement on the Pixma Pro 9500 I have. This printer wastes most of its expensive ink from the tiny carts in head cleaning. Virtually every time I come to use it, it needs one or more new carts. At least it does not go wrong all the time like my HP B9180, which I am now going to give up having it mended.
I am not sure it would not be worth paying the extra for the A2 size Epson Stylus Pro 3880, which is a very known quantity and many exhibitions now want 17" wide prints. Wilson