pdelux: Thats Innovation! More Ram and remove the red dot. *Throw Bags of money* at leica.
The red DOT will come on the Limited Edition Version for an extra $2000 to be released later this year.
HowaboutRAW: I don't think so. The lens is excellent but the sensor is inferior to all modern full frame sensors, e.g. RX1, A7x, 6D, D810 etc.
Aaron801: I look at it this way: a large part of the appeal of this camera is the level of quality, right? That extra quality is presumably something that's attractive because it means that the camera will outlast an ordinary digital camera. But... since it's digital (and not film camera) and since the tech for these things is evolving so quickly that rather than being some sort of heirloom that your kids and grand kids are likely to keep and use, it's much more likely that this thing will be a doorstop in 8 years time (and probably less than that). The extra level of quality that this thing is made with is then really not all that useful, no? I'm not advocating buying cheap, disposable level gear, but it makes more sense to me to buy digital cameras that are well made enough to last just past the point where you might upgrade them but not decades into the future. As an investment, it seems about as smart as it would have been to buy some sort of diamond encrusted, platinum cased LED watch...
@JDThomasAny camera at the hands of a good photographer will take good photos. That's irrelevant to whether a camera produces a certain level of image quality. You missed my point.As for your point re how you obtained a Leica, you could have done the same, get a different camera, produce, technically, much better photos, and end up with several thousand dollars more in your bank account.
M9 files are outstanding?? Since when?
Abbas Rafey: Another sony 24 mpIf there are people pay for what they don't know then leica don't bother about red dot, NFC, 4k and so on.With this price you can go to perfect cam with top glass too.
@TosicDo you think a Ricoh GXR Leica M camera needs a logo to get value? Its technology, design, performance, and style is value enough that Leica M cannot reach. I'd really like to play with an M-E but at 1/6 of its price, and only as a secondary camera.
lucinio: Maybe it was rational to invest a such amount of money to buy a camera n the old time of films.. Even to day you could use a 20-30 years old mechanic film camera without problems. But in digital age, when a camera became obsolete in 2 - 3 years ?
Yes, if you want to take a photo, surely a modern, well designed, well performing camera will help you do it. A Leica will do it, too, sometimes, with a lot of heartache and financial bleeding. It's a matter of choice..
I agree that luxury fashion products are sold all the time without practical justification. But Leica sell cameras, not fashion statements. And my opinion does matter and it is shared by many photographers worldwide who can afford a Leica but choose not to buy it.
What I resent is not my financial inability to buy a Leica, I can certainly afford one, but the fact that Leica and its followers promote the idea that Leica cameras are superior not as a luxury item for the selected few but for the art of photography. A ferrari costs too much but it performs! Digital Leicas cost like a Ferrari but perform like a Fiat Panda. That's ridiculous.
iAPX: So, to fix Typ 240, Leica created a new 240-typ camera, with enough RAM and maybe a firmware that don't bug when you shoot fast?
I wonder why it's not available as a free fix for actual owner of typ-240 that have a buggy camera?I also ask myself why it costs $1000 to remove a Leica logo and add a little RAM?
Is it a joke?
It is a joke, iAPX. Leica, clearly, unless you are ignorant or in denial, sells a name (well deserved in the past, I admit) and tries to back it up with high build quality and idiotic "member" privileges. However, build quality is not Leica's monopoly and it is not sufficient to sustain a camera company a good name. Photographers need PERFORMANCE, that is, TECHNICAL SUPERIORITY. Leica until very recently was selling cameras with extremely low resolution LCDs and mediocre sensors, to name only a few ridiculous "features". They STILL sell large and heavy cameras (yes, LARGE and HEAVY for what they are, i.e., mirrorless) with a price tag that makes you wonder of the utter stupidity of their somehow existing target group. I have never heard from any serious digital Leica user that they "shoot Leica" because of its image quality. What image quality? My GXR has better IQ than almost all digital Leicas ever made. i WOULD buy a digital Leica, **IF** the price was right.
That's very true; it's like asking a company to find a legitimate way to convince buyers about the value of the company's products... I love it how Leica finds new ways to insult our financial intelligence.
According to reliable sources, the bright spots on the D810's sensor is an oil-withdrawal symptom. Also, the lack of oil on the sensor surface used to protect it from harmful sun rays causes the sensor to produce white spots, similar to sun spots. To fix the problem you can reapply a thin film of SPF +50 sunscreen oil; for details how to do it seek advice from D600 users.
Nice design but still mediocre IQ and below average lenses. There was nothing wrong with the original Q design, by the way; all subsequent ones were much inferior in built quality. An updated sensor and a few high quality, pancake, very bright primes might do the trick.
RStyga: It looks like this "new" Hasselblad has 1.5X price factor compared to the Pentax 645Z without even having a camera yet (just a back). I know, this is targeted for photographers who already own legacy V system with lenses etc. Good for them.. For the rest who must spend on Hasselblad there is the "inexpensive" H5D-50c...
One might argue that due to the nature of digital imaging technology, a MF body will become superseded much faster than what was the case in the film era. Still, one can keep using the same MF digital body, provided it was good enough at the time of purchase, without any apparent or essential urge to upgrade. For example, Pentax 645Z is superior to 645D in many respects; however, this does not affect existing 645D owners. The tech progress argument is mute unless it applies to users who suffer from GAS.
It looks like this "new" Hasselblad has 1.5X price factor compared to the Pentax 645Z without even having a camera yet (just a back). I know, this is targeted for photographers who already own legacy V system with lenses etc. Good for them.. For the rest who must spend on Hasselblad there is the "inexpensive" H5D-50c...
Loquacious: Does the Prestige Edition produce better images than the Standard K-3?
Absolutely, not. :-)
RStyga: Why do we prefer this system over MFT, Fuijifilm X, or Samsung NX, again?
I thought image quality was somewhat important too... and MFT seems to have fast AF to say the least. My question was almost rhetoric.
Why do we prefer this system over MFT, Fuijifilm X, or Samsung NX, again?
RStyga: If there were no IQ issues due to the small sensor size, now with the "significant boost in resolution" will surely have. Nikon, Nikon, what on earth...
I'd prefer improvements in noise control.
If there were no IQ issues due to the small sensor size, now with the "significant boost in resolution" will surely have. Nikon, Nikon, what on earth...
I'd like to see the D810 OF version (Oil-Free).
Nikon, is this oil-free? It's a rhetoric question.