photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.
I got a beat-up old 1 cam 50mm Summicron R for $40.00 once. The lenses had some sleeks and it was rough, but it worked well. When I compared it to a dozen other 50's I had, it didn't have the contrast of the best modern ones, but it was sharper. And had better bokeh than my Nokton 58mm.
RichRMA: In 10 years this Leica will sell for as much or more than it cost now. Your electronic Chinese 50mm? You'll be lucky if it still works or is compatible with anything and it'll sell for $40.00.
The Leica is like property in a desirable area, it appreciates. Most other lenses are like cars, they depreciate.
Think of a Leica lens like a medical grade sensor. It costs 10x as much as a commercial grade sensor because it is about 10% better in-terms of uniformity of pixel output. But that is what is required. The Leica is required by some people who value quality above everything, including price. But Leica is not alone. Nikon and Canon put a similar effort into the optics of their long, fast lenses, and they cost what it does for such optics. A Nikon 200mm f/2.0 is $5000 because it is a superior lens. No one whines about that. It is nice that those lenses are available for people who want that quality just as it is nice that Samyang primes can be had for $500 that have excellent optical quality for the price as well.
Well, a $5 t-shirt will also cover your torso, for what it's worth. Some people want something really nice, that'll last forever and not lose what value they have and more power to them.
ekaton: Why f1.4 for a wide lens? For light gathering ability? But sensor sensitivities take sufficiently care of this these days, at much lower cost. For dof control? This is limited with a wide lens anyway - get a longer lens for real dof control. Just because they can? So it seems.
Need to go smaller sensor for faster lenses
In 10 years this Leica will sell for as much or more than it cost now. Your electronic Chinese 50mm? You'll be lucky if it still works or is compatible with anything and it'll sell for $40.00.
RichRMA: Almost 1000 posts on what have to be the dullest DSLR (or any) camera offerings in the past few months. I get it though; people wanted to see if Canon had turned the sensor corner and caught-up to or surpassed Sony.
I wouldn't put the Canon in quite that bad a category! But as cameras go, it's more of the same old stuff. If camera phones have captured most people's imaginations, you'd think the major camera companies would try to come up with something a little more interesting. That status quo isn't working.
It looks a lot like those $50 video cameras sold a few years back.
They're still selling old Nikon 28mm f/1.4's for what, $2300-$3000 on Ebay so I don't think that price is too high.
Almost 1000 posts on what have to be the dullest DSLR (or any) camera offerings in the past few months. I get it though; people wanted to see if Canon had turned the sensor corner and caught-up to or surpassed Sony.
Companies are often loath to admit the real reasons for problems or say what that problem actually consists of. When something is fixed either under warranty or not, they won't even include the specifics on what went wrong, just that they did something.
Elliot H: Apple, buy Leica.
And turn them into $400 Swatches? Shudder.
Holger Drallmeyer: yeah those camera's are pretty rare so why care ;) What kind of name is Apple Photo anyway??? Couldn't you call it Snapple?
I've heard crapple.
Thoughts R Us: Why in the world would a customer who pays $7500 for a camera...that uses lenses costing thousands of dollars each...be using a consumer grade photos app that is given away for free?
That would be like someone buying a Rolls Royce but then buying seat covers at Walmart, only to complain that the seat covers don't look good in the Rolls.
Apple makes many marvelous products, and their computers are the best, IMHO. But their Photos app is meant for the basic consumer, the one who primarily takes photos with their iPhone. For that purpose it works well.
But I am still baffled as to why anyone with this camera would use the Photos app in real life.
Same reason they might use $50 tripods. Misplaced values.
Pentax did a good job with the Q with 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors so barring any lens issues, this should be pretty decent.
alexzn: It's a disaster on a crowded ski slope. I give ski resorts a year before they ban this thing. But it's awesome for junior extreme sports competitions where there is no one else on the run.
Should be am major revenue source for water rafting companies, shoot the video, sell customers a CD for $30, make a lot of money.
Youtube videos get old, fast. From a practical standpoint, as news devices they have a place, plus Amazon dropping things from the sky...
RichRMA: Kind of wish it would crash and take Apple with it.
The world got along fine without those toys for a long time.
RichRMA: The grotesque obsession with "self" continues in the current culture...
It is good, definitely.
RichRMA: Take a shot on a tripod, then take one by hand, both at around 1/25th of a second with the lens set at 24mm or so, with I.S. on and see if there is any resolution loss with the hand-held one.
Thanks, that's very decent of you.
That'll be paid for by the millions of $400 versions they sell. Just like cameras, things subsidize the existence of other things. But a watch that needs charging every day? Anyone who buys this joke will see it obsoleted in less than six months.