Flickr has royally screwed up. Their landing page is unwieldy, can't be customized at all by the users and frankly, I'm not posting anything more until that is fixed.
Mind boggling and very creative. I hope both see the light of day.
If the sensor is in the lens and given that th lens controls could be incorporated right into the lens, why design such a retro ugly body? They could have broken all design paradigms.
Too little, too late. Where the industry needs to go is improving the current SLR-look-alike design and evolve it into something 21st century. The new Sony/Hasselblad design, for example, is very innovative.
As a professional photographer I'm astounded that anyone would consider that camera seriously; no viewfinder, no interchangeable lenses... just an over-priced P&S
As a lifetime advertising and marketing expert, I'm glad the X-2 exists; it validats the triumph of branding over objective metrics; it is the greatest case history in the world (maybe the 2nd, the 1st one are the little leicas that are rebranded Lumixes). I absolutely love the existence of the X2
An expensive P&S; no interchangeable lens in today's market? Not for a pro, that's for sure
Dean Baird: ACD is the company that bought Canvas (from Deneba), then discontinued it on the Mac platform. I would never trust them with anything ever again. I can only presume that they will--on a whim--decide to discontinue a product.
With Canvas X, they wouldn't support it and they wouldn't sell it to anyone who would. They've made enemies of everyone on the Mac OS Canvas-using community.
If you choose to throw in with this company, you've been warned. If you're a Mac user, you're begging for trouble. That's the one thing ACD can be counted on to deliver.
apart from sounding "precious" as they say in England. So what? You buy a program, especially something as cheap as ACDSee, work with it now and improve now. If they discontinue it, so what?
I love it.
What a non-event. One would think that, today, you could easily develop an interchangeable lens body. Who wants to be limited to the lens that a manufacturer chooses for you?
What is "real" photography anyway?
1. When they switched from plates to film... was plates real or film?2. When they switched to digital... was film real or what?3. Was Polaroid... which wasn't really film OR plates... real? Or not?
So now it's digital vs digital?
Seems like a bunch of whiners to me. Sorry, but it is a completely irrelevant and idiotic discussion. In art, the moment you discuss whether something is "real" it is dead
When photographs, especially photographs that have been trashed by just about every photographer around, need volumes of explanations, they do not pass the "smell test". They are awful pix.
Spending $1000 for a 30mm fixed non-interchangeable F1:2.8 lens which is also slow seems pointless.
Game changer for sure
I really don't want the camera to think or choose for me.
This is converter, for pete's sake, same as a point & shoot
I honestly don't see the point. Anyone with enough money (and photo education) to be able to spend $7k on a monochrome camera could easily replicate these pictures using photoshop
thewhitehawk: How this camera performs in actual tests remains to be seen. I'm not sure if Leica did enough to remain competitive with Fuji, then again, I'm not sure if they're trying to be...
I have to say though, this is one of the prettiest camera bodies being sold right now. I think now I know where that Canon Mirrorless Camera concept design that made it's way around the web got inspiration from.
Forget about Fuji... another upgraded P&S... think Nex7
It is sad that someone would be stupid enough to drop $2k on this point & shoot
Most stupid idea so far. Beats the X-1 in stupidity.
All things being equal, it's the new Fuji X10 or the Sony NEX7; I think Nikon didn't hit it on the mark on this one. AND, it's an ugly camera.