Before you call this lens expensive I suggest anyone to think again. Yes 12.000$ is a lot of money but not much at all if you are investing in a business. And this lens is for business or for hobbyists with loads of spare cash. Put together 200mm, 300mm, 400mm f4 and 500mm, 600mm f5,6 high quality primes in your bag and think about "heavy" and "expensive" again. I'm not going on to practicality issues yet.
Lea5: What's all the whining about? This camera is not for the average Joe. It is targeting consumers who buy a pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes for $2000 and drive them home with an Aston Martin Zagato. For those people the price of the Leica is a bargain. The world is heading to a way of serving the upper 10% only, even Adobe is walking this way. It's becoming a big club and you ain't in it!(me too btw)
@Lea5...you're very optimistic with your percentage of the upper. I think it' s around 5%.
scrup: Just because you wouldn't buy this camera doesn't mean its bad. The camera is aimed at those that want to make a fashion statement and have extra disposable income.
You won't see these buyers hanging on forums to put down the vanilla cameras that other manufacturers produce.
It seems the people here only approve of gear they actually own and everything else is inferior. I feel sorry for you guys who look through life half empty.
@scrup...The issue here is not whether the camera is good or bad or if one can afford it. Rather It is a sad state of affairs that actually people pay for grossly overpriced piece of an equipment/brand product to stand out from the crowd and think their existence's been enriched by it.
What a waste of time marketing video. Obviously the target audience is people who's priority to have and to be seen with an expensive brand. They don't care what effort and craftsmanship have gone in to making this product or whether the camera is any better than the Panasonic version. It wouldn't make any difference if it was an "ugly" design. There is no need for portraying the product as something aesthetic blah blah. The target audience will want to know if it is an expensive product of an expensive brand. I'm sure more than half will have heard the Leica name for the first time. If someone said in this video that this is a very expensive compact camera of a very famous brand would've had the desired effect. They can't care less. So, cut the bull...
Csaba Farkas: Leica, read my lips and get down to making a usable camera, please please! Wish list:- APS-C or FF (sigh)- 16, 18, 21 MP, whatever- zillion dot, OLED, state of the art BUILT-IN EVF!- decent, articulating LCD (I know it's not sleek, but man, is it handy?!)- bouncable built-in flash- M exposure dial, aperture setting on lens (that corner dial was clumsy even on the Hexar, it can be knocked inadvertently) - proper HD vid, red button on back, manual settings available- mount: make a mini-M mount, much like an M-NEX-E adapter, allowing infinity focus extended AND macro range with tighter close focus when retracted with a lever, opening up a whole new world with M lenses, old and new- optional fast zoom lens in that mini-M mount, 28-70 or 35-90 equiv., 2.8-3.5 at least; or, if size matters, make it 35-75, or like a 35-50-75 tri-elmar, classic M focal lengths, who needs in-between zoom settings?- or make anything that cries 'Leica' instead of 'outdated status symbol rip-off'Please!
I think you are wasting your time. It's obvious Leica has given up on making cameras long time ago.
APSc sesor, 28-70(35mm eq.) f3.5-6.4 FIXED!!! zoom lens, £2250 price tag. This must be one of the best jokes of all times. But again there are people with more money and ego to satisfy than brain cells.
AZBlue: While it sucks for those who have been laid off, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. News consumers want immediacy, they don't want art or composition or high level of detail. Leave the art and composition to National Geographic. For news, immediacy is king and in that vein, so are smart phone photos and videos.
Technology moves on and sometimes it renders certain jobs less secure. I'm sure that moving to freelancers has cut costs tremendously for Sun Times. Why would you keep 28 people on staff, paying salaries and benefits, when you can dramatically cut costs by only paying for the photos and videos that you really need?
@AZblue...Laying off staff of course cuts costs and outsourcing may bring more competition and options to the business. But how did you conclude that the photographers were laid off because they cared only about art and composition? Are art and composition bad things for photography? A lot of photographers can see the art and the essential message instantly and get both. What you write here clearly shows your subconscious jealousy of talented/gifted photographers in my opinion. You sound almost happy that as if some art oriented, apathetic photographers have finally been eliminated.
oselimg: I know the headline says "for Canon DSLR's" but I'll have to ask. Is the software compatible with G15 if it isn't why not? since G15 is a very capable camera as compacts go.
Thanks for the reply but "why not" question was meant to be for Canon...ie; why not develop for the G series as well. Thanks anyway...
I know the headline says "for Canon DSLR's" but I'll have to ask. Is the software compatible with G15 if it isn't why not? since G15 is a very capable camera as compacts go.
KeithF: Now Photographers, we should follow Adobe and start renting out the photos, wedding photos and etc, as long as the client pay for monthly fee, they can see their photos. Starting from today, they can't buy the photo, they only can rent it. If they stop paying the monthly fee, we will take the photos back.
WE ARE STARTING THE SERVICES BUSINESS. How good is it? :-)
If you release your photos on subscription make sure they don't have any Adobe file extension ;-)
Adrian Joseph Roy: I don't mind paying for good software. I would say that Adobe Photoshop is the most powerful yet reasonably priced software ever made. I would also guess that most professionals (journalists, photographers, editors, etc.) who already pay for Photoshop will at least be less affected by the changes.
It's the casual users that buy/upgrade Photoshop once every few years and use it several times a week for personal, hobby, and super-small-business work who are going to suffer. Indeed, it's almost a punishment to those of us who have actually paid for what is considered to be one of the most pirated pieces of software in history.
Pirating sucks. I'll never use a hacked up copy of Photoshop. But I know I won't be able to afford it either. So, after all the fun and enjoyment they have given me over the years, all I can say is: *&^% you Adobe. May your greed be your ruin.
It will be Adobe Pirates stealing your money from now on. But I'm sure there will be alternatives soon for so called ''amateurs'' who do not use photography softwares everyday to make money from it. I'd say good luck to Adobe. If the subscription system doesn't work it'll be a very interesting corporate talk and maneuvers about ''re-structuring business'' claiming to cater for the customer needs.
AngryCorgi: If you've seen the gallery for the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, EOS M, 7D, or 60D, then this is just more of the same. Canon has become an extremely boring company, IMO.
I don't think any product will cure boredom of the gearheads.
oselimg: If people bothered to to be informed of cinema quality cameras they wouldn't make absurd comments like "why not micro 4/3 mount. It's almost like saying I want a Ferrari with a 1.6 Lada engine-sorry Lada-. Cinematic cameras need cinematic quality lenses to exploit it's potential. EF mount doesn't exist only for EF stills cameras and lenses. There are Canon cine-lenses with EF mount or PL mount. How many cinema-optimized micro 4/3 lenses exist? You don't want someone invest in manufacturing a high performing piece of equipment then watch it abandoned by the market do you?
Ok you stick with Micro 4/3 there may be a 0.0000001% chance in the future. Because it's not only about megapixels. Perhaps you'll have to wait for laws of physics to change.
If people bothered to to be informed of cinema quality cameras they wouldn't make absurd comments like "why not micro 4/3 mount. It's almost like saying I want a Ferrari with a 1.6 Lada engine-sorry Lada-. Cinematic cameras need cinematic quality lenses to exploit it's potential. EF mount doesn't exist only for EF stills cameras and lenses. There are Canon cine-lenses with EF mount or PL mount. How many cinema-optimized micro 4/3 lenses exist? You don't want someone invest in manufacturing a high performing piece of equipment then watch it abandoned by the market do you?
///M: WOW, Canon can spend all this R&D on matched cinema lenses (which will likely be only sold to rental houses) for this niche market, but can't come up with a viable mirrorless camera with compact lenses, really? 1/2 of the DSLR sales in Japan are mirrorless cameras, it does not matter how small the crop sensor bodies get, they are still big and bulky compared to the micro 4/3 and other systems.
@howardoark...If I may ad to your comments that the "bored photograpers" are excited by new gear specs, and new gear news only. They lack talent in such extend if a camera in all auto setting doesn't get the picture they imagine they move on to the next model and back to pixel peeping.
Puh!! why this wasn't a 17-350 f1.8 full frame lens!!! do they think this is interesting? yawn, Nikon suck...
Some of the comments here are insult to human intelligence. When someone talks about ''the good old days'' which period of photography do they refer to? The beginning? Glass slides etc...? or 40's, 50's. Every generation gear is generally better than previous one.If you just take landscapes you have as much time as you want and one can use the camera one wants including the ''Glass slides'' ''Catching action with manual focus cameras'' possible. But when the photographer next to you is continuously shooting action without being bothered with focus adjustments, pre-focusing etc. considering talent levels are similar the one with the faster gear will laugh all the way to the bank and you might have to wait for the next game to get a winning shot. Silly isn't it. Not to mention the slower guy's pictures will be scrutinized by gear heads like you for minute focus adjustments, focus points, misses etc. And you'll continue living as very bitter, unhappy and un-fulfilled gear heads
After all this is a fast zoom lens with inevitable compromises. But what it's capable of producing comfortably outweighs any complaints. There is no such a thing as perfect zoom design or it would be extremely expensive to produce, at least this day and age. What you get with this zoom lens is a collection of weather sealed f2.8 primes with performances close to good primes. I know it is expensive but I'm not a pro photographer and not in the position to judge it's price/function/value combination. To have a zoom lens of this quality can be priceless at times.
Marek07: From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.
I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...
Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.
@ Ken Johnes...You are wasting you time replying people like "shamhain" they have nothing to do with photography, or a function of a particular lens, are only interested in numbers, newest gear, and think in terms of few cliche they've picked up in gear reviews.
bossa: So where is this 'opinion'?
Marketing/Endorsing is the new opinion