I simply bought a K-5 with a couple of primes. It's seriously not that much bigger than an x100, true, in a dSLR format, but a small one. Everything I want is there, with fewer compromises, like AF, lens limitations, shutter speed limits, and so on. The X100 is a good performer, but rough around the edges. If some of these things were worked out, I'd likely have gotten one, but in the meantime, the K-5 leaves me wanting NOTHING. I wouldn't even sacrifice this performance for something smaller.
669 euros new with rebate, 359 for a used FA35 F2, 180 for a used F50 1.7, and I have just about everything I need.
So many great shots here. Makes for a difficult challenge, indeed.
sensibill: I think the world is finally waking up to how ridiculous and borderline offensive 'products' like this are, since they exist solely to titillate the very uppermost financial elite, who acquire them as status and fashion statements rather than put them to any practical or functional use.
Rather than spending who knows how many tens or hundreds of millions in corporate resources on 1%-er (or higher) masturbatory icons for old white banker/oil money men looking for that one additional glass case bauble, you'd think Leica would 'focus' on making accessible tools for actual photographers, or help a charity of some kind. They could have given away thousands of cameras to needy arts schools for the money it took to reinstate themselves as Panderers to the Rich.
You might have a point. From the hands of elites and aristocrats to the bank accounts of German aristocrats in Solms with "von" as a prefix.
Leica is a joke.
I await those in the Leica forum talking about the Leica experience, colors, and other aspects of these cameras, only to be shot down when informed they are Panasonics rebadged.
photo perzon: The X1 has many advantages over the Fuji X100:-better colors-Leica "pop" 3D effect-no distortion -much more accurate focus-30% lighter and 30% smaller-Steve Huff wrote 5 articles comparing the X100 and the X1.
It is a different camera. My only problem is the LCD resolution, it begs the question...how can they justify that?
Photo Person cited this just last week to me on the forums.
Every company has their people that say "[brand x] colors!", as if no one else has them, and more importantly, as if post processing didn't exist.
one of the funniest posts I've seen was the one where someone blind posted iPhone and Leica shots and few, if any, could tell.
There is no unique "Leica Pop 3D effect", whatever that is. If one means a combo of good, fast lenses and a large sensor, then everyone has one out there.
Focus has yet to be proven and I'm positive the X200 will have its chance, as will many others.
Stop early adopting, people.
Rachotilko: When asked, I advice people not to buy the cheap small sensored compacts from Olympus. They have lately been a leader in all the marketing-driven races (megapixel, zoom, scene modes, low price) at the expense of all reasonable measures of camera quality (distorion, sharpness, speed of optics, noise of the sensor, algorithmic image processing). Maybe they'll start to produce decent goods again and after some time, but it will take a long time to win my trust.
I've never had a good Oly compact. Even the expensive ones. I remember a fairly expensive one I had a few years ago that was unable to produce anything but blurry pictures.
jj74e: what's with so many companies marketing high ISO as some form of advanced image stabilization?
and honestly, i don't understand why getting RAW is such a big deal on point and shoots. point and shoots are for convenience- as long as the white balance is right, it's not like it's worth the time to pull every bit of shadow/highlight/noise detail you can. I guess it's slightly different for underwater pics since not many people can afford the underwater housings for DSLRs, but me personally, I'd rather not spend hours editing RAW files for a point and shoot file that's probably just used for quick social outings anyway
It's a Samsung forum thing. He and another on that forum are crusading against RAW as a feature.
Compact cameras, in general, are pretty depressing, actually.
Ever-slower lenses (maybe we'll finally get to f4 at full wide next year!), stuffed MP, noise at base ISO, and so on.
dgc4rter: Must admit, I was expecting to see a score more towards 90. Mine gets delivered today... woo hoo!
Who cares. It's only for the internet chestthumpers.
filmlaw: I am really torn and solicit everyone's opinion. I can't decide between a Sony NEX 7 and E-M5. Kit lens with both to start. I want a camera that delivers great images after enlargement and post-processing and is easy to travel with thus the reason the DSLR must stay home. I have now ordered both but will only purchase one. I like the idea of the size of the APS-C sensor over the 4/3. I have downloaded and thoroughly read both manuals and every review and I am still looking for the definitive reason to select one over the other. Conversely, the E-M5 image stabilization in the body seems superior to optical stabilization. Thank you for any help.
If you're willing to pay, the Zeiss 24 and 50 on the Sony will get the nod from me.
Focus peaking for the many high end manual lenses (not all are priced through the roof) is a huge plus.
IBIS in the Oly is a plus, certainly, but in the favor of the NEX7, one can run higher ISO levels for faster shutters. Not the same thing, but there are options.
Excellent. Good work, DPR.
Jefftan: f2 is the key
Almost 2 stop better than others
But it's still on a small sensor. Granted, it's not stuffed with MP and it's BSI, but we'll have to see how it does.
I wish they'd at least have gone with a prosumer-sized sensor. We'll still see massive DR limitations in this sensor if one tries to use f2.0 in many conditions.
Apparently, they knew they could sucker people because most look at noise and not the quality of the picture as a whole.
exifnotfound: I don't think it's the sensor that is way beyond DSLR, it's the lenses which are better.There's no way on earth they can justify that kind of price for a camera, it's just a fashion accessory for rich people.
So why isn't the Ricoh and Sony and Pentax on your list? They have focus assist features that are alternatives of the rangefinder technology from yesteryear.
That's all the rangefinder mech is- focus assist from decades ago when they had no such computing technology.
So basically you're admitting to being a dinosaur because you won't accept the modern forms of focus assisting?
Zachawry: People talk about how much fun it is to shoot with Leicas.
It MUST be fun, because the experience of shooting seems to blind people to the mediocrity of the results. There are of course masters who shoot with Leicas or other rangefinders, but the average quality of the rangefinder enthusiast seems to be far below that of the average (D)SLR enthusiast.
But it's just so much fun that they don't actually care what the photos look like. Many of the photos provided here prove my point. I'm looking at you, blue truck.
I save some of the horrid examples posted on the Leica forum quite regularly. Some examples of people thinking the camera will do everything for them, coupled with awful PP skills is worth endless laughter as internet memes.
I still remember the guy that shot a wedding with his M9 and I think a 10k lens. The results could have been made with a point and shoot and even beyond that, he used white vignetting that made the results beyond embarassing.
So it goes to show that some people who buy Leica and post there have more money than brains and photography skills.
wb2trf: Leica cameras are bad and, more importantly, irrelevant in the digital age. One may as well have a political conversation about the Russian nobility. Leica's significance if it has any remaining, is as a lens maker. If you want to enjoy Leica lenses, buy a Nex and put it on it.
A Ricoh with focus peaking and a Leica mount module seems to be quite a nice combo. Sony seems to be pretty good, too, though they need to make that focus assist a bit more of a readily-accessible feature.
Also, the K-01 might not win the hearts of people that look at cameras as an accessory, like a purse, but focus peaking, limited lenses (which also include AF), and so on will destroy an M9.
Jonathan F/2: After looking at all those samples, I see nothing that couldn't be shot with modern mirrorless cameras with fast glass. My OM-D looks sharper, produces nicer colors and works great with adapted fast lenses.
And there is nothing discreet about a Leica. They stick out like a sore thumb and puts a big "steal me" sign on anybody who has one around their neck.
So you're saying Leicas are bought with the intention of selling them, rather than shooting with them?
Uh huh. Some people want to just take pictures.
PS- nice turn towards making it a class struggle. Keep it classy.
Some of the funniest things I read from Leica purists include how Leica images are unique. Hell, it's not even that hard to PP and make anything look like anything else. I've seen people do this even on the Leica forum, fooling people by using other brands and stripping the EXIF.
BobYIL: What's a Rolex for?
Telling the time? Too expensive...
Telling the time precisely as it's inscribed on its bezel "Superlative Chronometer"? Hardly... Any quartz Casio sold on the corner for 50 bucks tells it more precisely..
So what's it for then? A Rolex seen on a wrist gives messages about the wearer 99.9% of the other watch brands fail to do.