JakeB: Buy a black Fujifilm X100t.
Set the jpegs to black and white.
Done. NO ONE will be able to tell the difference.
Decide what you'll do with the other $9,000 you've just saved.
I agree the X100T will produce nice tones in B&W and cost a tiny fraction of the Leica, but there's no denying the fact that the M is a dedicated mono sensor and its results will indeed have a pop lacking in the Fuji.
alexisgreat: I love my sensors bare, no filters allowed. That means no Bayer, no AA, no IR/UV cut filter. I add filters as I please, whether they be for narrowband imaging for light polluted areas or broadband color imaging or even UV or IR imaging.
I hate how manufacturers decide whats good for us and they add the filters "built-in" and cater to the lowly masses. I like building my own computers, telescopes, and cameras. It's how you LEARN. No wonder society is being dumbed down- no one likes to innovate anymore.
Yeah, a computer is just like a camera.
fad: My wife kindly offered to buy me a Leica for Xmas, and I turned her down. I feel the romance of the Leica, but I don't see its practical benefits for street photography over my various FX Nikons. For fine MF glass, I have an Otus 55mm.
Except for smaller size, and better MF after about a year of adjustment, what does any of the newer Leicas offer me as a photographic instrument that is superior to the better sensors, DR, low light, AF, color in the D810, D750, D4s (and perhaps soon a D5) in the best Nikons?
I don't care about hand feel and so forth. My cameras are invisible to me.
Not a big Leica guy myself, but try checking out even casual snapshots with the Leica M M and you might see character and range not easily reproduced with FX Nikons. I don't even think my IBIS-equipped A7II can achieve that kind of evocative street photography, frankly.
I hate how manufacturers decide what we want to do with stuff. How dare Leica or Nikon or Sony decide 'you must use this to record images'... Maybe I want to fry some bacon? Maybe I need a rugged carabiner to repel down the side of a building? Psssh.
Soul-killing technocrat jerks, I say.
Cane: Looks like she's grabbing her you know what and her you know what. If that's what you are going for, very hot picture.
Lovely image with a beautiful glow from all elements involved. Unfortunate that our society still cannot deal with the human body and a demure pose without indulging in puerile schoolboy commentary.
Apparently, some of us have never seen The Birth of Venus by Botticelli. How little we've matured in the ensuing 500+ years, eh?
Michael Ma: I never once thought, "I wish I just had 4 more megapixels on a MFT sensor". Quite the other way around actually. I love what the A7S is trying to do.
More MP is better for cropping yourself out of bad framing, getting macro and zoom without paying thousands for expensive bright specialized lenses. The age when 'lower MP = better' is mostly gone. The A7S does what it does at very, very high ISO, but for most daylight or well lit scenes its IQ is notably inferior to its 24 and 32MP A7 siblings.
16MP is why I have yet to own a M43 model again, despite having had several in the past. It was great when it was the same as the leading APS-C models, not so great when those models have 8MP+ more.
bzanchet: Looks a huge evolution on skin tone. I have the mkI and returned the mkIII for the horribble greeny yellowish skin tones. Put the 4 Sony RX100 on comparison mode and check the skin tones: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_dscrx100&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m2&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=sony_dscrx100m4&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=80&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=125&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8561918837997943&y=0.17838178758974127Still the mkI is the winner, but the mk4 looks pretty close.
RAW skin tones are nearly identical. I think you should be able to fix JPEG tones by adjusting in camera settings or PP.
Marty4650: Would you buy a lens from a company that can't get their website to work?
Just sayin'.... this is pretty basic marketing. You issue a press release with a website listed. Then the website doesn't work. This doesn't bode well.
They don't need a website to make a product. 'Chinese hacking' has nothing to do with anything. Take a nap, have a beer and relax, man. Just because we omniscient 'Muricans don't know where their website is doesn't mean the parent company doesn't have one, somewhere.
kty: A: We don't have enough native lenses
B: Then, we make theirs, ours
Do you just like the look of a string of your own posts all in a row, or what?
How many A7 folks do you hang out with, that you 'don't see them buying Canon lenses'..? The point is that people can convert and use what they already have, or fill in the blank spots in the still-new FE library with Canon (and soon Nikon with the new AF adapters coming).
Babka08: Still not sold on EVFs. That's the deal breaker.
And Sony/Zeiss are clueless on small lens design. Spend some time with Pentax limiteds and learn how to make small form factor lenses too. The body size advantage is totally erased by the huge, long lenses. Adding an adapter further mitigates any size advantage, cool as it is.
OVF is the dealbreaker. It's 2015, not 1975.
Sony/Zeiss are 'clueless' yet they're producing some of the best FF lenses ever seen and slowly building a formidable FE library. Or were you thinking the 28/2 and 35/2.8 were trash and huge? The 55/1.8 isn't very large, either - one of the best lenses out there.
These aren't crop lenses and plastic cheap 'nifty fifty' and other cheap-o lenses are not Sony/Zeiss' plan for the A7. Just because that doesn't fit your budget or your bag doesn't mean they're clueless.
venkat reddy: Exactly. This isn't a pro camera. It's still a variant of the a7 series.
Except that pros do use the A7 series. So all the vapid blathering about hipster coffee and income status symbols can be reserved for Leica.
JJLMD: Steve Huff says the A7II's JPEGs are some of the best JPEGs he's seen. Why is there such a LARGE disparity between what he's seeing and what you're seeing?
FWIW Bluevellet is an anti-Sony fanboy, regular troll (among many other non-Sony folks) in the Sony forums. Steve is a fanboy for anything he gets his hands on, so he's equal opportunity that way, at least.
jensenn22: I am looking at trading my Sony A7 Mk2 for a Pentax K3. I find the Pentax fits perfectly in the hand and seems very straightforward with all its controls and dials. Sony feels like a square black brick and many of its usefulness is buried in the menus. Am I doing the right thing or should I hang on to the Sony. Sony's lens for the A7 are more expensive than the Pentax lens too.
Pretty much a step back in every respect (especially image quality) except how it feels in your hand. Larger, more expensive lenses = full frame and Sony's take on the A7 market.
If you don't like menu digging, learn how to assign the buttons. There's custom ones in addition to reprogrammable others. The only things I wish I could do on my A7II without menu diving are turning off picture effect preview (brightens LCD/EVF for manual flash work, etc.) and a toggle for LCD info only. Just about everything else can be put on a button or the quick Fn menu.
Cultured Woman: Yea, that shutter noise... wtf? My 5D iii is quieter.. how's that even possible?
Have you really compared the two? I seriously doubt the 5D3 is quieter. The shutter noise of the A7II is somewhat less than the A7, keep in mind.
Gene Naftulyev: Compressed RAW, 12 bit processing, horrible ergonomics on body for non-hobbyist use (8 hr per day), crappy battery life, paid 'apps' for camera wifi control, and only 1 good native mount lens requiring use of Canon metabones adapter for everything else.
No thank you... Let Sony do R&D to make cameras that technogeeks tinker with, which gets Canon and Nikon off their asses to compete, but for work use, I'm happy with my 5D3/5DSR pair. Getting focus just right on the 5DSR is definitely more of a pain than on the Sony a7r (yes I also own one) but the resulting raw studio image from the Canon is as good as I get from a rented Pentax 645z. Way above the IQ of the a7r.
What mirrorless native live view FF camera has better battery life and ergonomics? Battery capacity is where it is. The camera draws power for IBIS, EVF/LCD constantly, unlike an old-fashioned DSLR.
Some of us have arthritic hands (even middle aged guys) and a D810 or 5D of any stripe is not an option, anymore. Nor is a dim, shadowy OVF and molasses slow Live View.
Compressed RAW (11+7) doesn't affect anyone but fanboys and haters. In the real world, we see no actual photography professionals complaining, just measure-bators.
Market XP: how you update a camera .
My A7II has had two firmware updates since I got it.
'Just a' bunch of Canikon elitist Sony haters, more like.
arndsan: I hope Sony will fully understand what photographer on this level need and clear up the ridiculous menu and make the camera more intuitive to use. I for example don't need a 3 level smile detection.
Because Rockwell is a professional photographer and we care about what he says. The RX1 is utterly non-functional due to 'all this baloney on the LCD'. Yeah.
Meanwhile, there's NO settings to change what you see on the Sony screen and a D800 is far simpler and easier to use. Uh huh.
Couscousdelight: The best sensor coupled to the worst image compression.This is stupid, this is Sony.
Says the Pentax user with a camera that produces smoothed-over RAW at low resolution.
Anadrol: The RX1 does enter a large jacket pocket, the RX2 should even be smaller...
The Leica Q is too big to enter a pocket, what's the advantage then to have a fixed lens ???
Cameras with fixed lenses still get particles on the sensor, sadly.
Shouldn't the 'Compared to RX1R' also list that substantial price difference..?