RStyga: To complete the joke we need the price:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083146-REG/leica_10779_m_typ_240_edition.html
To be fair, I have to admit that it is a beautiful choice of design and materials, though, for a collectible.
You'll be surprised how rich idiots treat them...
To complete the joke we need the price:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083146-REG/leica_10779_m_typ_240_edition.html
Pritzl: So how much do we pay for the pleasure of advertising the red dot?
And HOW do you know how much I have paid for the gear I own? And WHO told you that I justify paying too much for any photo gear irrespective of brand? Your simplistic -if not downright brainless- assumptions would amuse me if they were not so full of self-rightouness and fashion-victim attitude.Yes, Leica offers this with this model and that compensates the rip off. I guess there is "something" in the bag of "victims" to be pulled out and displayed to justify other Leica purchases, like the "unique colour" pointed out by another Leica fan for the mediocre M8/M9. If/when the price is right I will own a Leica as much any other gear, if it make sense to me. However, Leica is a prime example of consumer exploitation, my friend, and I have fun pointing it out. What is YOUR problem, I wonder.
(clap clap clap) Only that Panasonic branding is cheaper and the camera itself is ergonomically better but, hey, the Leica version is "cleaner" and cleanliness is next to godliness!! I wonder, how many minutes do they polish this body for? I won't settle for anything less than 30 minutes; it's a matter of principle!
RStyga: I think an RX1 is cheaper...
In Australia, there have been recurrent offers in the last few months. Check Paxton's eBay dept. I think they currently sell them for $2099 (US $1905).
$2K in my book is cheaper than $2.3K. Assuming that I hadn't checked is pretty insulting and aggressive, Mr. Know-it-all...
I think an RX1 is cheaper...
"The expected recommended retail price is $ 2,290.00 (excl. VAT)."
Damn... if it was inclusive of VAT I would have ordered it...
RStyga: Have a look here:http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,382.409,491.397,ha,tThis thing is a 400g brick and a bit larger than a PL5 with a 14-42 EZ lens.
And priced as high with a mere 12.7MP sensor??? Sincerely yours, from the marketing dept...
Agreed, mosc, but this is not a compact camera. Compact cameras are not compact "in relation to"; it's either they're small or they're not. Let's wait and see its performance, anyway.
qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
I am not using heavy and large lenses. But that is besides the point. My objection is to people that insist propagating incorrect information. If I'm not mistaken, this is a discussion forum... "troll" is a good term for a person with a troll-affiliated mentality and "field of view"; are you one, wolfie?
Yeah, no clue. You clue, lens F2.8. Well done.
A conspiracy theory??? Are you on anything? People ARE dragged by marketeers every day and twice on the weekends by their nose rings. Do you think companies spent millions on TV commercials and internet ads just to inform the consumers? Wake up...
Maybe, just maybe, some of these "many" will prefer to spend much less on a DSLM. This is neither compact nor large sensor, anymore. Like I said, the marketing dept worked overtime on this one.
Have a look here:http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,382.409,491.397,ha,tThis thing is a 400g brick and a bit larger than a PL5 with a 14-42 EZ lens.
You can jump up and down all day long but it won't change the fact that this lens (M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm F2.8 Pro) does NOT have the DoF of an F2.8 lens. So, it is NOT a true F2.8 lens because if it were then it would offer an F2.8 DoF. Continue jumping now..
@WACONimages Canon/Nikon might not have a 300 F2.8 lens (I doubt it, but I'll agree for the sake of the argument) but neither has Olympus! Light gathering is technically important for the small 4/3 sensor that cannot go at very high ISOs but the DoF control is important in photography, in general. 880g is not light for this lens, because it is NOT a F2.8 lens; would you say that Pentax Q lenses are such and such in F-stops and only such and such in weight? Please... You are comparing apples and oranges here to support your view. FL & DoF are VERY relevant aspects of a lens specs, that's why.
We have an 80-300mm F5.6 (35mm equiv.) at 880gr at $1500 (yes, yes, it still has the brightness of F2.8 but *not* that DoF)
I'm not sure that the point made here is very strong. The FF Tamron VC USD 70-300 F4-5.6, 765g, for instance, costs $450. Not WR but at 1/3 of the price one can afford to water damage at least couple before equating the cost. Different system, yes, but exactly because m4/3 is compact, the lens should reflect that.
Sigma, your move...
phazelag: All these criticisms from people who havent used a sigma DP or held this one in their hand used it. I know several people I trust that say after an hour they love the camera ergonomics. Usually a radical design like this has some smart thinking behind it, but very few are open to even trying to understand it.
I think you don't know what you are typing here. Chris Niccols reviewed this "thing" and could not find a way of being positive about the ergonomics of Quattro:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ktvDUyTyUI have to take his word for it (and what my eyes register!)
As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...