Don't know who took these photos, but they aren't sharp and are very noisy. Perhaps a good tripod might help! I have far better results from my Nikon D700.
Eleven. You forgot the toilet paper.....
disasterpiece: What is this, a camera or a space ship?
Jeez! I LOVE spaceships!
thx1138: After searching the trest chart high and low in jpeg and RAW it makes almost no difference, basically looks like the RX1 with a bit of sharpening applied with radius 0.3-0.4 say. It might be the lens holding it back, since the D600 results are much crisper. So to see the best from this sensor sans AA filter you would need better glass, so I'd say unless it's the same cost, get the RX1, and even then if the IQ is basically a wash I'd get the RX1 and have to deal with moire less often.
D800E on the other hand shows real improvement over D800, but you can select the best glass freely.
Obviously, the NEX 7 w/50-f1.8 is far superior and half the price, including an EVF.
Full frame sensors in compact cameras are long overdue. 1" and m4/3 are band aids. We had 35mm film in little cameras like my Chinon Bon Ami. Miniaturisation is not a problem. Having space for human sized controls is. 1" and m4/3 are just a way for the industry to gradually introduce larger sensors and milk as much money along the way.
Looks to me like the type is much smaller,like this here, not larger, and some of it with poor contrast. Why fix something that isn't 'broke'? How many of us wear glasses, d'you think? Perhaps you don't think!
garyknrd: Wow, what is the name of that martian bird in the first pic.
That's definitely an oozling bird, flies backwards to keep the sand out of its eyes. Very common on Mars.
What we do notice is that the site is frequently a mess, giving constant error messages. Obviously, some competent and EXPERIENCED IT people should be hired. It was much better in the old days. And, no, it isn't amusing at all. Perhaps you could do a pre-emptive strike at whoever is responsible.
Why do we have to click three times to get to this stupid review? A 150mm equivalent is NOT a portrait lens anyway, 85 is quite enough, any more and you're stopping down too far to get depth of focus, into the diffraction range.
Why no viewfinder built-in? The old Leicas had one, complete with full frame sensors called film.
We had apochromats decades ago. Leica lenses are superb, but $8,000? I don't think so. I'd say they're making money out of pros who can write these prices off.
I guess that the inference is that Leica cherry pick the best lenses. I certainly wouldn't buy either, due to no uncompressed files and no viewfinder.
Super sharp! I'd be interested in cutting back to two cameras, my D700 and this one, if I could afford it! Too bad the sample page is a little doddery and the shots need processing properly to improve shadow and highlight lighting and gradation. Ansel Adams would take issue with the blacks and washed out highlights in the samples, easily recoverable, I find.
As I said, the EXIF info shows they have been Photoshopped on a Mac. Let's have the real photos, not degraded ones.Skipper.
These are all Photoshopped and badly. I can do better in free FastStone. Let's see them out of the camera.Skipper.