ManuelVilardeMacedo: Dear Ricoh people: please give the Pentax brand the mercy shot. The brand formerly known as Asahi Pentax, which gave us spot metering, does not deserve being subjected to so much ridicule. Just call every camera "Ricoh". It's OK. Ricoh has a nice reputation for great cameras too. I'd rather never see a Pentax-branded camera again than see gold point and shoots (and DSLRs with LED lights on the handgrip) with an once prestigious name on it.
Oh, latin... I'm so impressed!Did you expect me to enter a serious debate with someone like you? What would it be like? Something childish like "I know more about cameras than you do?" "My sensor is bigger than yours?" Sorry if I disappoint you, but I'm not going to waste of time with someone like you. You're grotesque.
Dear person who hides under the D1N0 nickname: your reply is just a foolish remark from a bitter, ill-bred person. I can't understand why people like you allow themselves to delve that low. It's certainly a matter of education.
Dear Ricoh people: please give the Pentax brand the mercy shot. The brand formerly known as Asahi Pentax, which gave us spot metering, does not deserve being subjected to so much ridicule. Just call every camera "Ricoh". It's OK. Ricoh has a nice reputation for great cameras too. I'd rather never see a Pentax-branded camera again than see gold point and shoots (and DSLRs with LED lights on the handgrip) with an once prestigious name on it.
ThatCamFan: I will NEVER understand why people buy a film camera for 3800$ nor why they will buy a full frame camera for 8000$ when they can get far better camera's for far less a price, let us not kid our self's, you are paying ONLY for the name, not the image quality that comes third, second place being build quality.(guess Leica doesn't care so much about image quality huh?)
ThatCamFan, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe one day you'll see a print of a Henri Cartier-Bresson's picture. That will enlighten you. Chances are you'll feel sorry you've made such hasty statements (both about film and Leica's image quality).
Kudos to DPR for having posted those M-A pictures. This may be a digital photography website, and the industry has certainly moved on, but film is still pretty much alive and is where photography roots are.
audijam: no more LCD peeping....awesome.
part of the beauty of shooting film is you don't really know how it turns out and this camera captures this feature. awesome! but i still can't afford a leica so will continue with my EOS3.
to me, an new innovation should separate CMOS module from the body itself so users can always upgrade the module but keep the same body. just like we could use films from different manufactures.
You can always get a Ricoh GXR if you want interchangeable sensors (g) There were people who tried to mount sensors on a structure that would fit into the roll compartment and cover the film plane of a film camera, but as far as I know, all those experiences failed. As for me, there's nothing like the real thing. Want a different look for your pictures? Get a film camera and try different films. And there are so many: Ilford, Kodak, Ferrania, Fujifilm, Agfa, Foma, Lomography... then there are negatives, reversal films, infrared, orthochromatic. The choices are endless.
Treeshade: E-M1+40-150mm F2.8 ProTotal cost: $2800Total weight: 1377g
6D+EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6LTotal cost: $3350Total weight: 1820g
E-M1@150mm F2.8 ISO400 would have the same DoF, FoV and SS as 6D@300mm F5.6 ISO100. It is just trade-off between IQ and cost/weight (or other features that you like). Nothing wrong with choosing either lens (and system).
Sorry if I'm blunt, but claiming there is shutter speed, aperture and ISO equivalent is just crazy. "Crazy" as in "being taken to the madhouse in a straitjacket".
ManuelVilardeMacedo: You nay-sayers are tiresome. Want 4K? Buy a dedicated video camera, or the Panasonic GH4. Olympus makes photographic cameras with video as an afterthought to satisfy people who want to make a clip every now and then. And rightly so. Besides, what part of "photography" did you miss in "Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review?"
Man, who cares about that? This camera is clearly not aimed at videographers.
I only came here to see how many people would write this is actually an f/5.6 lens. There are so many... oh well.
You nay-sayers are tiresome. Want 4K? Buy a dedicated video camera, or the Panasonic GH4. Olympus makes photographic cameras with video as an afterthought to satisfy people who want to make a clip every now and then. And rightly so. Besides, what part of "photography" did you miss in "Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review?"
When is Nikon going to make a serious stab at ditching the antiquated porro prism and mirror box?
Luckily, until they get their act together, I can adapt and use all my Nikon lenses elsewhere.
The D750 doesn't use a porro prism! Porro prisms have triangular end faces. SLR prisms are pentagonal. You need to review your physics.
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!! This news was actually a decoy. What Nikon is really going to launch is an FX camera with 36 MP, no aniti-aliasing filter, shutter speed of 1/16000, 80 fps, 16K video and 1/1000 sync. It will be sold as the D610 OTT and will cost USD $200 with a new 14-50 f/0.9-1.8 G VR XPTO Varilux kit zoom lens, with optional, cost-free provision for tea and toast. Shame it doesn't include a lens hood, which will be available for USD $400.
A tad overkill for selfies, isn't it?
"Phablet"! What a disgusting neologism.
Johannes Zander: The video doesn't show anything you can't do with native 4/3 lenses.Adapters are always a crutch.
Richard:So I mount an f/1.4 lens and end up with an f/2 lens. I repeat Metabones fail to keep their rather misleading promise of increasing aperture. That was my point all the time.
MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!
Leica invented 35mm and the rangefinder. No doubt which influenced which.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Not the stupid "increases maximum aperture" BS again!As DPR stated earlier, "since we’re then going to mount it on an APS-C camera, we have to multiply these numbers [focal length and the supposed maximum aperture given by the speed booster] by the camera's 'crop factor' if we want to compare this lens-plus-adapter combination to a full frame camera." So if you have an f/1.4 lens on APS-C with the Mentalbones,your purported f/1 lens-adapter combo is actually f/1.5 - slightly worse than the original. And that is if you are Yabokkie and accept that there is an 'aperture equivalence' (there isn't). Snake oil, that's what I call it. And why does everybody go field of view this and aperture that and nobody seems to spare a thought about image quality? Shouldn't that matter? This thing induces horrible amounts of chromatic aberration and vignetting.The price? Don't even get me started...
Badi, I based my comment on a rather long quotation from DPR. If that's not enough for you - and you seem to be a bit at a loss to grasp sarcasms -, let me say this: There is no equivalent focal length or equivalent aperture. There is, however, what some people call "crop factor". When you mount a lens with a given focal length on a body with a sensor smaller in area than the one the lens is meant to work with, the latter doesn't increase focal length or transmit less light. What happens is akin to cropping the image by the borders (hence "crop factor") in image edition, which means the picture will appear as if it were taken closer than with the camera said lens was designed to be mounted on. That's all there is to it.And aperture is not as important in terms of depth of field as most people seem to think. Focal length and distance from subject are much more important. Still, if this "equivalent aperture" nonsense helps Mentalbones sell more adapters, who am I to get in the way...
Badi: you're right, I'm such an ignorant. I should spend less time with frivolities like, you know, photographing, and concentrate on reading all these beautiful theories that will make me photograph much better. As a matter of fact, if I know the equivalent aperture equations by heart, I'll be able to find more interesting subjects and push my quest for originality and content. Thank you so much for your kind words of advice. I promise I'll read the literature you've linked to; it will be much more entertaining and instructive than, you know, photographing, or any other futilities.
Just Another Canon Shooter: let's both stop. Why should we try to get in the way of people spending money senselessly and believing absurd theories? It's their money and their brains. It's not our business.
Badi, I don't need to try snake oil. I know 'prima facie' it is a scam. If I see a trap on my way, I don't go like "what happens if I put my foot on it?" because I know it's a trap. The only advantage of this Speed Buster thing is field of view, and even that can be compromised by vignetting, so why bother?