I don't know what to say. Leica invented 35mm and made some glorious cameras, but products like this only bring them ridicule and accelerate the erosion of their prestige. I wonder whether Leica really need this kind of product and the rebadged Panasonics. Sometimes it looks like they walked into a deadend: they need to get rid of all that OEM stuff, but they just can't because they need the money.Of course, it's lamentable that a camera this expensive produces such average results. Especially the blown highlights, but the less-than-average sharpness worries me even more. (Weren't Leica lenses the sharpest ones back in the days of the M6?) And no viewfinder but a clip-on electronic one. That's the kind of experience I don't miss from my mirrorless times.It's all too easy to criticise Leica for their ridiculous price tags, but cameras like this one don't help their case. At that price no less than excellence is to be expected.
AbrasiveReducer: "The Year in Dystopia, Sports and Fashion!"
And, Lars, let's not forget cat photographies...
papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.
Papa natas: the Earth IS the centre of the universe!
Yeah right. And there ought to be an Intelligence Inquisition to burn people who do not *get* satire at the stake.
0MitchAG: I can't believe out of all submissions, let alone finalists, that image 1, won. Why does photojournalism always have to consist of tragedy? It probably would have been easier to photograph any of the disabled or dying children in the cancer ward - or would the 'emotional impact' not be the same because those children are 'privileged'?
Mitch, that would depend on what success means to you. I don't think pictures of CEOs celebrating their obscene profits would raise much awareness of the problems of the real world.
Because tragedy exists.
This is getting silly.
And I shot Lee Harvey Oswald. How cool is that?
MayaTlab0: Has Panasonic finally enabled exposure compensation in manual mode with auto-ISO ? This could alleviate the issue to a limited extent, and would make sense because of the exposure compensation dial. Well, at least to me, but not to Fuji since recently.
Maya, leaving the camera to its own devices by choosing auto ISO can be detrimental to image quality. Hence what you interpret as manufacturers not realizing the full extent of exposure. I can accept it if you tell me manufacturers could be bolder in this respect, but they're just using common sense. I know all about micro 4/3 sensors and I can tell you that you don't want to shoot at ISO 1600 with one such camera - unless, of course, you want your photographs to look like Seurat's paintings. And don't argue that image edition can fix it. It can't. It just makes things look waxy. (Which is no worse than the crappy job the processor does when you shoot JPEG.)Also, being in 2014 is not that different from being in 1914 when it comes to the basics of photography. It is still about gathering light. There have been lots of welcome innovations, but it still takes a camera, a lens and a light-sensitive surface. And exposure settings. Some things never change.
Of course Earth is flat! Otherwise australians would fall into space...
Richard: not "conventionally": the procedure I described is the one we use in photography. It may be different with video, but then this is a photography site... I think.(You know, one day the concept of photography will disappear and pictures as we know them will be replaced by "stills" from videos taken at 4K resolution or greater. Until then I'll just cling to the sane principles of "conventional" photography.)
Exposure compensation is not meant to be used in manual mode. To get the effect you want, you either change aperture or exposure time settings.
Androole: Wow, I'm astonished at how much flak this lens that no one has used is getting.
At least take the time to look at the samples that ZY has posted before spouting off.
Yes, it's fairly soft and has CA . But at the same time, it's a compact F1.2 lens for $350 in a lightweight metal shell. Is it better than my Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 in real world results? Maybe not. But maybe so, depending on your needs.
There's a lot of people with high horses around here who seem to hate choice in the market place. And while it does have a somewhat Leica-esque aesthetic, that's about as generic as it gets for a metal lens shell.
Thank you for the link. OOF areas look interesting, while sharpness, colour accuracy and contrast are quite good for wide open shots. However, the pictures are severely hampered by noise reduction algorythms, which turn subtle detail into a mess. This is not a lens' fault, of course, but could be misleading.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Still not funny, Plastek. Try harder.
Even admitting that someone posted a comment while I was writing mine, thus pipping me at the post, why did you feel such urge to spoil all the fun? You've got the sense of humour as a funeral director. On duty. Whose wife passed away the day before.Tell you what: get a daily dose of Monty Python. They have a channel on Youtube. That'll cure you. (Eventually.) https://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
No, you're wrong. The count was at 1999, so...
Just came here to post the 2000th comment. I really don't care about the article. Sorry...
Marty4650: This is really no different than what Nikon did with the Df.
Nikon just used styling to appeal to a different demographic (hipsters with too much money) than Pentax did (people who want bright bold colored cameras).
Karl, we're wrong. It turns out what defines a good camera is "AF, frame rate, frame buffer, build strength, and video." How could we be so naïf?
Oh, I see. You're just wasting my time. Ciao.
Albert, what is the relevance of all those features in terms of image quality? Is frame rate more important than the sensor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but image quality is determined by the sensor, right?