NTONE: Looks really compact and great for bringing on holidays.
Is there something similar but with AF?
Yes, and it has been mentioned twice in the article ;-)
It would be interesting to see a comparison with Sigma's 12-24. To see how much better the Canon is and to see how much 1mm makes in field of view difference (assuming they are not cheating about the minimum focal length).
dtssound: Medium format mirrorless please.
I'd love a digital Mamiya 6 but I am not holding my breath.
If it ever appeared, it would not be cheap.
I find it looks a bit like a Pentax67. So maybe they meant full 6x7cm frame ? ;-)
straylightrun: Proof that high price =/= high quality
We're more talking about realibility and no, high price has never implied high reliability, especially if you're looking a relatively niche/lower volume/exotic products.
Mike FL: I have great respect to Leica's optical, but the FF sensor M9 is really noisy @ISO.1600 as seen from the DP sample. Again, do not forget it is from a FF sensor camera while you check the sample:
Any thought? Disagree?
Actually, base ISO is 160 ;-)
This is worrying - I have recently had very stubborn oïl spots on my M9 sensor and it is still not 100% clean after several wet cleaning cycles.
Last thing I'd want is corrosion now. I got a LNIB M9 at a great price two years ago (upgrading from a used M8 which was a good deal as well), but I fear I would be priced out of the Leica system if my M9 had to be replaced.
Good thing is that if I had to sell my Leica lenses, I would probably be able to buy a nice Sony A7 or Fuji X kit, but I would definitely miss the rangefinder.
The Squire: I thought, if there is a manufacturing defect, which this clearly is, that this is no limit on your statutory rights (in the UK) to return it for a refund or have it repaired. So I don't see how they can start charging for this after 3 years.
I am not sure corrosion could be qualified as manufacturing defect. By definition corrosion is a process, no a pre-existing defect. I think we need more information to really understand the issue. The filter in front of the M9 sensor is very thin and may be much more fragile than on other digital cameras...
bluevellet: I've considered the Pentax 645Z. I think Pentax did a great job making the price reasonable (for medium format) and coming up with a decent amount of lenses, particularly how niche this product is,
One major hurdle is (almost) no retailer presence. Even online, it's hard to find and I have to go abroad for it. I'm not comfortable buying something this expensive without even a test drive.
I mean, just look at DPR, no link to buy it anywhere.
It is listed as available and in stock on my retailer's website (in Belgium), as are numerous lenses.
tinternaut: But will Pentax sell enough of these to realise the economies of scale to bring the costs down? It's taken years to bring the 35mm full frame format down to a level many now consider affordable. In the UK at least, the cost of a modest Pentax 645Z system is about the same as that of a Ford Focus. There's nothing "consumer" about that.
As for the second opinion, above, I imagine if I picked up a D800, tomorrow (as a Four Thirds system owner), I'd start taking bad photos. That's just part of the process.
Given the volumes involved in MF, I doubt Pentax will ever sell enough 645Z to bring the costs down to "consumer FF" levels. But the prices are already very close to high-end 24x36 cameras. A 645Z doesn't cost much more than a D4s or Leica M, and you can get a 645D (previous generation) at much reduced prices. Trouble is, if you want high-quality latest-generation AF lenses, they will cost you a lot as well.
Would be tempting at a regular price, but there still a few settings I'd like to select on the go, like the lens type for uncoded ones.
b534202: Does it at least have a battery indicator?
It looks like there is in the viewfinder, activated by the repurposed movie button.
Sisung: Picture samples!
Skulls: When you decrease the number of pixels that increases their individual size and more light is received by the sensor, right? Why then the ISO range is still 12800?6.5 fps in FX mode means 7.5fps in DX mode... well, I have sony a6000 with the same amount of pixels and it can shoot 11fps, with about the same buffer size of 22 shots, 1/4000 max shutter speed, with the same ISO range, it weighs 344 grams and it costs 600 euro. It is APS-C but still... where the price difference comes from?Am I missing something?P.S. And the Sony has got a AEL button which can be programmed to be AF-ON!
For a lot of us, how good it will be at 1600-6400 ISO is more important than how far it will go before being unusable. And the two are not automatically linked: a Sony a7s is usable up to very high ISO but isn't particularly better than other FF cameras in the 1600-6400 range.
photo nuts: Wow... 109 comments within a short space of time...
I am seriously impressed with the D750 specs. Great release.
Only considerably slower than a D700 with an MB-D10 and pro EN-EL4 batteries.
Even though it is not really a D700-level camera in terms of build/ergonomics, this D750 looks like a well-balanced offer and I still might be tempted.
keeponkeepingon: Lars or Chris from interrealtime:
It would be really great to know how this differs from or compares to the alternatives.
For example cortex camera has been out for some time now and gets better reviews on the app store:
Cortex Camera seems to capture 100 video frames, then align and combine them to provide higher resolution (from the FULL HD capture) and lower noise. It seems to be mostly useful for low-light, static subjects. It does well what it does but, for daylight photography, I would expect the regular app to deliver much more detailed images.NightCap Pro seems to be much more versatile (and cheaper).
Fascinating content, but I agree that minimum 45$ for a print or download, restricted to personal use, is a bit steep. Especially coming from a public institution....
bawbaw: These will be useless on digital RF with the deep rear element design, even the modern voigt wideangles are really bad on the M9/240. I was pretty sad when I saw the voigt 21mm on my M9, that having been my goto lens on film.
For about the same price there is better and more sensible L39/M mount wides ,used zeiss zm 21mm for one.
Like the Petzval before. It's cheaper to buy an original used and leave the disappointments to the cool kids that have made the lomography guys snake oil well grow deeper and deeper. Keeping in mind pre lomography these were about £30 on ebay if that.
The Voigt 21mm Skopar is actually quite good on the M9 (corners not as sharp as on M8 but still lightyears ahead of a non-ASPH Elmarit, not to mention Super-Angulons and the likes).
But I agree a used ZM 21 2.8 is probably the best "budget" option on a digital M.
For those looking for a classical look, I'd rather buy a cheap classical Russar than this copy.
Joerg V: 98% Otus @ 25% price? Shut up and take my money!
Sigma should really be thankful to Zeiss: a couple of years ago, who would have qualified a Sigma 50 1.4 @ 1000$ a sensational deal? ;-)