Simply awful. It's the jpeg engine or the lens or both ?
In new M, Leica did not address the intrinsic alignment weakness of the rangefinder mechanism.With my M9 I struggled with the rangefinder for one year and a half, sending the camera to Solms at least three times, and in last August it was again out of sync.I find it a half hearted effort to overload a camera with any kind of electronic gadget, however useful it is, without definitely fixing one of the M system's drawbacks, i.e. the tendency of the rangefinder of getting out of alignmnt.Nice to have live view or peak focus as a backup, but they are just that: a backup.
Alizarine: All of a sudden Sony seems to be challenging Leica here :) Nice!
Clearly you never used a Leica, nor even got one in your hands.
Mauro.B: Such pricing seems a somewhat cold shower for the "Leica killer crowd". Difficult to justify that kind of pricing for an item very likely to be replaced in 12 months time with a much better performing successor.
This mirrorless craze of late looks like and endless release of "beta products", early adopters taking place of quality control departments...
Fuji X100, which I owned, was a beta. Olympus EP's are still micro-adjusting themselves. Pana GF's wildly swing from one iteration to the next, and with Gx1 they moved back to square one. Sony keeps churning Nex's, only 7 looks promising as opposed to crippled.Not any clear evolution path, just random jumps left, or right, or squarely in the same place.Nikon V1 is probably an evolved beta too, but it's the best of the bunch and delivers real advancements over competition - like fast phase detection AF.
I expect that also the Xpro1 will disappoint on Af speed since, from what I was privileged to see, it locks focus in half second average as all the other contrast detection crowd.
Such pricing seems a somewhat cold shower for the "Leica killer crowd". Difficult to justify that kind of pricing for an item very likely to be replaced in 12 months time with a much better performing successor.
IQ, in both raw and jpeg, is very "plastic" either on macro (portrait) or micro (foliage) details. For the 2x price, I would have expected an advancement over a Canon S95, or at least the same IQ, given same-ish aperture at 28mm equiv. Stellar ergonomics and lcd are a good addition but cannot justify "per se" an expensive package if there is an unsufficient IQ delivery.
Earlier this year I tested the III as a PJ backup camera. Snap focus and "single handed" ergonomics where the deal maker, sensor weaknesses the breaker. Lens was surprisingly good, but behind LX5 (even if the latter has little scope in fast PJ usage).
Since it looks like the IV has little or no advancement over III sensor wise, I will try it first hand to see if autofocus is really faster (III was snail-paced) and if I can live with snap focus buried in menus.
Otherwise, the III is fantastic value as a BW documentary photography tool.
I still have to decide which skin rendering is worse: jpeg or raw. It looks like this stuff cannot be printed above 4x6.
Is there any reason why most of micro-detailed scenes where shot in 6 megapixels mode ? This way it is impossible to evaluate lens performance. Actually, files dscf8378, dscf8254 and dscf8385, all shot at full 12 megapixel resolution, are not as pin sharp as I would expect from a "super premium" compact. As others already pointed out, as presented here the X10's performance looks squarely in S95 / LX5 territory (which I both own), but not any better than the latter cameras. Perhaps more micro-detailed 12 megapixels shots (foliage, landscape) would help in highlight X10's merits.
The M9-P rangefinder is probably off. Or the M9-P was misfocused. If the Summarit was not dropped or misused, I assume that is ok (Summarits are perfectly coupled to M9 / M9-P sensor-to-flange distance).
If the rangefinder is off, perfect focus cannot be achieved at any distance.
Nice article, nothing critically new though.
The Nik Software hype was a bit too evident to my taste (Color efex + Viveza + Hdr efex... c'mon guy).
And what about correcting skin tones under artificial light, or under any light other than "sun", sticky focus area size and timer settings, and maybe improving step zoom speed ?
I would also wish a noise reduction in low contrast captures at iso 80, but I believe that is beyond sensor baseline sensitivity / capabilities.
Borrowing, or at least mimicking, the jpeg color tables from cousin Leica dlux5, whose jpeg output is openly superior, could be easily done, though.
I finally hope that the lcd brightness will be addressed as to bring it more in line with the captured image, as as it is now there are up to 2 stops difference between lcd and actual capture brightness - i.e. the lcd is useless as to evaluate exposure.
Glad to see that Panasonic backs up its products.
So it seems that Fuji did not care to fix the "aperture dance before actual capture" issue. Nice touch ! That issue alone kills manual focus shooting by adding useless shutter lag.