maxnimo: Unfortunately that 28mm lens is way too limiting for me. If it was 50mm I'd maybe consider it.
My memory goes back to the likes of the Olympus 35 RC and the Yashica Partner. The 35 RC was introduced in 1970 and had a 42 mm lens, the Yashica started service in 1983 and had a 38 mm lens. Searching further back, I find the Yashica YK from 1959 which did have a 45 mm lens.
But I am hard pressed to find any more recent fixed lens film camera with a 45 or 50 mm lens. From the 1980s onwards, most seemed to have standardised to 35 mm with some wider showing like the Nikon 28 Ti, numerous Ricoh GR-ish models with equally 28 mm and even a 21 mm lens.
InTheMist: Well said Barney!
Pretty much my feelings put in words. You should be an editor or something.
Anyway, I'm still not sure how I feel about that 28mm lens. I actually like how they implemented it* but I'm a bit mixed on having only 14 MP at a 35mm crop.
*if I understood right, frame lines only, cropped in Lightroom, where you can adjust it later. It's consistent with the Leica philosophy of seeing what's entering the frame through the viewfinder. Have I understood right?
A diagonal that is half as large means an area that is only 25% as large.
happycyclist: Huh....I rather like the Leica T. I thought it was great when I had it for a week. I really like the X2 and the X too. Oh well.
This camera looks good to me and has all the external controls that are important. Design wise, I think it is a winner. Not sure on the fixed 28mm though...I do like to shoot using one wide, 28mm will do, and one short tele...like in the 75-80mm range. That's my ideal "kit."
But frankly, I tend to think all digital cameras coming from Leica are just too expensive. If I were to think about purchasing one today I would have a hard time plunking down the scratch for their digital cameras. For the price of this camera, I can get a lot of different things that I would much rather have, like a killer mountain bike...so, I won't be a customer of such. I'm not really their market though, because I'm not a rich person.
Leica is a boutique manufacturer, somewhat like Aston Martin. Their prices are high because they sell so few of them. The M models sells in the 20'000 combined units per year range.
You might argue that their prices are so high because they are able to charge such high prices. But the flip side of this is that are still in business because they are able to charge such high prices.
How many fixed-lens cameras with a 50 mm (or 50 mm equivalent) have ever existed? I can only think of the Sigma DP line (and even there is wasn't a 50 mm version instead of WA version but a 50 mm version in addition and after a WA version.
I think this reflects what kind of (relative) demand exists for fixed lens 50 mm cameras.
InTheMist: If it were a 35mm, I would buy it instantly.
28mm, despite crop mode - not so much.
Maybe the 28 vs 35 mm is split 2:1 in favour of 35 mm, maybe it is split 1:1. Ricoh and Nikon have chosen 28 mm. Fuji, Sony and Leica each had a 35 mm line. Now Leica added an 28 mm product. So on the offer side, it is 3 vs 3.
However in FF arena there was only a 35 mm line so far, most people interested in a 35 mm FF fixed lens camera probably got the Sony already. Thus offering a slightly different product seems a good product market decision.
DenWil: Wish it came with the 90 f2 installed. Wide is useless to me.
The big question is how would Leica price an interchangeable version of the Q? Right know, the M plus a 28 mm f/2 (ie, half a stop slower) costs $10'000. Would it be possible to price an interchangeable version of the Q (with a 28 mm f/2-ish lens) at $10'000 as well? And if the interchangeable version (plus similar lens) did cost only $5000, how could they keep selling the M bodies and lenses at twice the cost of such a potential 'Q' system?
nikkornikon: Wow...DP is going to review a Leica? What's Wrong with DP.
It's the first Leica that is only 30% more expensive than the most direct competition.
Jim Evidon: Leica is steadily breaking away from Panasonic for their small camera line. They are going for very high quality cameras to satisfy every need; from completely manual M's to automatic fixed prime lens Q's. I'll stick with my M9P with a Fuji X100 backup for now, but the Q looks like an ideal small street shooter/travelcamera as long as price is no object. This camera is getting back to the original Barnack concept; a small carry around camera with few complications. Keep it up!
You can see it as a breaking away from Panasonic or as merely filling something in between the small(ish) sensor Panasonic rebrands and the M and S lines. It all started with the X1 six years ago.
Pandimonium: Stacked means like foveon I suppose? and a new BSI cmos for FF. I'd like to see the studio shots for these instead of a Leica ;). Suppose we'l see a RX2 soon too.
As much as I remember, this 'stacking' makes the image sensing part flatter and increases acceptance angles which helps with optical performance wide open and off-centre.
Petrogel: Das ist eine teure nutzlos roten Punkt !!!
WoodWorks: Oh for God's sake...Güt?! Do you think umlauts are cute or something? Stüpid!
Or rather: Hop Wallis!
Das ist EIN teureR nutzloseR roteR Punkt.
Boissez: It has only one competitor: the Sony RX1R and that one costs 1000$ less but has a slower lens without IS. The price isn't as crazy as some people here suggest.
And you have to pay extra for the EVF with the RX1R (though you might have already factored that in to arrive at the $1000 difference). Moreover, the EVF being built-in makes the package easier to handle. The Q's EVF also has a higher resolution.
I'd say right know, the Q might be the most competitive Leica camera.
Valiant Thor: I'll wait for the Panasonic version.
Hope you haven't been waiting for the Panasonic versions of the X1, X2, X3, X Vario and the T.
Is the display also B&W only, ie, are the menus also B&W?
FantasticMrFox: "Before the firmware update for the X-T1, it could focus down to 2.5EV. After the update, it can focus all the way down to 0.5EV."
Am I being confused here, is this a mistake by DPR or does the X-T1 really just focus down to 0.5EV? Considering that the Pentax K3 focuses down to -3EV and the Panasonic GX7 even goes down to -4EV, that's just laughable.
It's behind the competition in regard to PDAF if we include DSLRs.
Tord S Eriksson: @Smiler,
I think it a bit like cars: very many use the same engine, but you can hardly say that any Volvo have been the same as a VW, even if they shared the engine, or that a Saab is a Triumph, even if the engine they used sometimes was exactly the same.
A modern camera has four basic parts: the body, the sensor, the firmware, and, finally, the processor (which we customers have even less knowledge of, it can't be so that every camera maker has its own processor-making plant),
Slight variations of these basic parts affects the end result a lot!
Pentax seem to use the same sensor for years, and still the end results differ a lot, and I think Olympus has done the same.
Pretty sure DPReview jumps a lot of models till they find something they find interesting, although some model series get a lot of coverage, like the A7 series, the 5D, and the RX100, variations!
Ericsson now mainly make telecommunications equipment as in the equipment the mobile phone and internet providers need to build their network.
nawknai: Really? I always figured their share to be well over 50%. :O
Canon takes a bite, Panasonic takes a small bite, Samsung takes an even smaller bite, and then there are companies like Aptina.
They are talking about the whole imaging sensor market, from automotive over industrial, smartphones to digital cameras. What is not clear is which metric they are using. It could be units (as in number of sensors) or revenue. I think it is more likely 40.2% of all sensor revenue as comparing unit sales is less meaningful. Another interesting metric would be combined sensor surface.
upuaut: This image was taken 7 months from now! Cool
Yes, the exposure is still on-going and is planned to be finished by then.
rrccad: okay. so if I'm shooting static scenes. why do I need pixel shifting, since I can usually keep the ISO low, and increase the shutter speed anyways, since you're a) already using tripod (have to for pixel shifting) b) taking images of static scenes.
at least with Olympus - you can see the benefit for product photography, this though outside of reviews .. I'm at a loss to when I'd actually use it and need it.
should be interesting to see all the people in here SCREAMING in mortal agony over the lack of a flash, wifi, articulating screen,etc,etc... especially after all the ranting over the 7DII not having it ;)
It gives you image stacking in the camera resulting in a single file that can go right into your raw converter (and not requiring the raw converter to group and merge multiple images, or even requiring exports to separate stacking software). The single file also means you only need the storage space for 1 file instead of 4.
And while this only provides 2x the exposure on the green channel (than a standard 4-image stack which in theory requires the same total capture time), it eliminates the (color) noise that's created when interpolating color from signals that already are noisy (as every signal is). And this 'interpolating-noise' is something nobody really has a good handle on as it depends on the specific raw converter. Whether that results in overall less noise than a conventional 4-image stack is something I don't know, but I'd assume it results in differently structured noise.
And this is added to the increased color resolution (including the massive reduction in color moire).