Errm...it´s secret LOL
Lupti: Ok, I say take an ordinary DSLR, set it to B/W and take the same shots. I doubt that most people can distinguish them from the Leica shots if not told from what camera they are. Really. I also would go as far as taking an ordinary P&S with B/W mode and compare them with these.I don´t see the point of this camera aside from being a new toy for people with too much money. I also never understood what´s so great about the Leica system, the cameras and lenses cost megabucks for what reason? Handmade in Germany, a red dot? But the parts are so expensive there isn´t money anmyore for a higher resolution display? Okay...there are still too much people with too much money.And no, there is no envy at all.Now I think some people will tell me I´m trolling(I´m not) or that I don´t understand the special art of photographing with a Leica, but really, I couldn´t care less.
"Well then, why on earth are you wasting time – yours and others – commenting on something you have no idea about?"
Then why are you wasting time with replying? Own goal?I think everyone can share their opinion about this camera, no matter if they have hold a Leica or not.Just to sacrifice colour for more DR don´t seems to be sensible for most people. Maybe Leica should have bought(or co-worked) Foveon to avoid typical Bayer problems...
Well, it seems to be the mic is in a slightly better position than on the Panny where it easily can be covered by fingers. Also I like the shape better, more edgy, not with silly "curves".But without any doubt nothing that justifies this price premium...
Ok, I say take an ordinary DSLR, set it to B/W and take the same shots. I doubt that most people can distinguish them from the Leica shots if not told from what camera they are. Really. I also would go as far as taking an ordinary P&S with B/W mode and compare them with these.I don´t see the point of this camera aside from being a new toy for people with too much money. I also never understood what´s so great about the Leica system, the cameras and lenses cost megabucks for what reason? Handmade in Germany, a red dot? But the parts are so expensive there isn´t money anmyore for a higher resolution display? Okay...there are still too much people with too much money.And no, there is no envy at all.Now I think some people will tell me I´m trolling(I´m not) or that I don´t understand the special art of photographing with a Leica, but really, I couldn´t care less.
Well, sad that a traditional name will go but to be honest, Kodak only produced crap in the last years. Some pedestrian P&S cameras, low quality pocket camcorders and nothing real exciting. They failed to match with the competition and now they get their comeuppance.
Seriously, Canon must be kidding. Still no 1080p50/60, even last year P&S cameras feauture this, but not Canons new camcorders, they have instead silly gimmickry like WiFi. And again rip-off for just a little internal memory.If Canon continues it´s way on the video market there will be a rude awakening one day. They are already behind competition, nearly all reviews critizised the lack of true FullHD in their last years camcorder line up, but it seems that Canon does not bother.
That´s totally normal, for some reasons(I think because their eyes are more in a round shape than these of other cats) British Shorthair and Persian cats have eyes like this on photos.I know this because I also have an tomcat looking similar like this one here and I´ve taken some pics of Persian cats with the same problem.
From my past experience with Sigma on four different mouns I can say: Shove your lenses up your a**, Sigma!Quality control don´t exists. Decentered lenses are the rule rather than the exception.I would rather stick a K-mount adapter to a old jam glass than using a Sigma lens.
Looks good for ISO800 and handsome model ;-) .
Ashley Pomeroy: That's melancholic news. I can remember the old DCS digital SLRs - I still have a couple, and DPReview's very first SLR review was a Kodak DCS 520 - and they were super for the time. But the company seemed to hang onto its sensor designs too long, and never worked out how to survive once Nikon and Canon raised their own game, and so their professional range died like a stone.
Check out DPReview's coverage of the 2001 PMA - with its huge Kodak stand:http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021406pma02.asp#kodak
In the compact market the only camera they seemed to put any effort into was the V705, the twin-lens design. The rest was just a bust. It's as if the professional sensor business and the camera department never spoke to each other after 2001.
I agree that the V705 was a fine camera(I have it and it is still ok). Unfortunately beside these ones Kodak and their older P models with RAW and wideangle like the P880 Kodak failed to impress and their low-budget cameras weren´t such a big success.And their Pocket camcorder line is just a joke. What a waste of the good name.
Ugh, that looks fugly to be honest. Who in the world would go out with such a camera?
Lupti: 1080p24? The old SX1 IS had 1080p30. Geez, shove 24p up your ar*e, Canon. FZ150 offers 50/60p and you come up with 24p? Fail.
24fps isn´t good for smooth motion. Some people brag about "film look", but I don´t see the point. So what do you find exciting about the SX40 IS? It is nothing special at all and there are better alternatives for the price. If you want to buy it, well, its your mony, no one will stop you.
1080p24? The old SX1 IS had 1080p30. Geez, shove 24p up your ar*e, Canon. FZ150 offers 50/60p and you come up with 24p? Fail.
Ok, nice, but this firmware still doesn´t make the lenses zoom smother. Zooming with 14-42mm is choppy because it doesn´t zoom smoth. The only lens with real smooth zooming for filming is the 14-140mm. So don´t expect too much, the only thing they can improve is the AF for filming.Hope the 14-42mm PZ lens will zoom smoth.
jaykumarr: the videos taken by dpreview are frustrating. none of the videos are intended to show how the camera handles when pointed to light from shadow or from short focus to tele focus or heavy zoom.
It would be interesting to see how it performs in low light or twilight. It´s often a weak point in P&S movie mode and the FZ100 delivered quite dismal vids when the light was a little bit dimmer than a clean sky with only a few clouds.
JCM_GDL: This is an advice for Canon to produce a Camcorder with the capabilities of the new DSRLs and the APS-C sensor, with all the manual controls and the camcorder formfactor, compatible with all the Canon lens lineup.
No, Sonys nightshot works with infrared illumination. Infrared filter in front of the sensor is removed and IR illuminator at the front makes something visible. Sure only B/W, but you see something. It´s more a gimmick but nice to have.
I hate it that Sony places the mics on the top and not on the front. I don´t want to pick up background noises. Thanks, but I think I will stick to my TX9.
Sorry but I wonder what a Ricoh PX you tested. I´ve got mine a while ago and to be honest, this camera sucks. Well, it is waterproof, but the pics are dull and NR destroys details even at ISO100. Also it tends to chose absurd high ISO values even in good light. Everything over ISO200 is just unusable.Movie mode - sorry, but "sharp" isn´t a word I would use for this. It is soft as an old VHS cam, sound is hissing and digital zoom makes it worse. But the files are eating card space.Overall both stills and video are pretty bad. Worse than my old Pentax W10.
She´s an east-european beauty ;-) .
AVCHD standard is useful as a 2nd hole in the butt. Really. Who needs it? Manufacturers should integrate video-modes regardless of standards like AVCHD.Canon don´t has DSLR with AVCHD. Nikon, too. Both can make good videos.Sanyo already had a camcorder with 1080p60 recording capability before the first AVCHD cams with 1080p50/60 came out.
Panasonic crippled their GH2 just for the standard.