tje1964: Lots of people have a lot to say about these two cameras, and I suspect a lot of the negative comments come from people who don't use cameras like these. I have a PowerShot SX150 IS, and I can tell you that even though it has a CCD sensor, the image quality is EXCELLENT. Yes, there are limitations, but overall these SX series PowerShots are GREAT picture takers.
I'm surprised they didn't up the resolution on the SX160's LCD screen, but other than that these look like nice cameras. They wouldn't make them if they didn't sell a lot of them.
It's not always a race to see who can have the latest features. Sometimes it's just about selling cameras.
I agree. I produced a superb 16x20 from our trip to Hawaii at iso 80....great optics, decent sensor.
Considering how awful the 5D2 AF was, anything is an improvement
No EVF/OVF? No thanks!
Ugly camera. No EVF. No OVF.
I've produced decent 16x20 prints from our vacations with this camera. Ya, it's not my 7D or D700, but for 200 bucks, it's great!
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that 95%+ of the moaners in these comments have a) Never even held a Leica, and b) Never even used a rangefinder from any company, and c) If they ever won the lottery, would go and buy one because they've secretly wanted one for years.
Good lord. A bunch of posts by a bunch of whiners who are just bitter they can't afford this new camera.
Fatality: The photos are gorgeous from this camera, but for the price they are asking I don't think it's worth it.
If I'm not mistaken the camera and the lens add up to $16000.00. You can buy and develop a lot of B&W film for that amount, plus have a great amount of control over the look/grain.
Anyway, in a couple of years Olympus and Fuji will release their B&W toys possessing the same quality image for a fraction of Leica's price. I didn't bother mentioning Canon, for obvious reasons..
Really? Do any of them have a rangefinder?
Digitall: In fact I would like to hear or read a good and consistent justification to have this camera.Does not come with the excuses of if has money can buy.
B&W with superior tonality, no artifacts from an AA filter nor Bayer filter. What's so hard to understand? Can't you read?
Paul Farace: Now I think I have proof that Leica and those that buy them might be certifiably nuts... a BW only image sensor? For this pricepoint? Why not just shoot Tri-x in an M-4?
Because the Tri-x will be grainy, offer lower resolution, need to be processed and scanned by a good scanner to even begin to compete. The M4 has a lower max shutter speed which casues problems shooting wide open. It has a slow flash sync. Anything else you missed? Just let me know.
rocklobster: I don't see the point to this camera. At that cost and especially when some of those samples exhibit clipping.
Would any of you enthusiasts with spare case really want a camera like this?
Why? Because the detail is incredible. And because we get the character of the Leica glass. Worried about clipping? Set your meter at -1/3. Problem solved.
Very slight difference in sharpness....not that it would appear in any print. Color seems a tad more vibrant. An no orbs. Best little camera goin!
Fantastic. I only had minor orbs in a half dozen or so shots out of nearly 3000 shots. I look forward to the sensor upgrade.
3200 looks great. But a way better lens is needed.
Edmond Leung: An expensive and ineffective way to discover the sky.
Edmund, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The spectral response of the 60Da, like the 20Da, is known. The important part is the extended sensitivity to the Hydrogen Alpha part of the spectrum...which is where a lot of the light from emission nebula is emitted. You don't need billions of dollars for this. With a small 8" or 12" scope, and a 60Da, you can easily get deeper than 20th magnitude. Please stop posting on this...you're making a complete fool of yourself by trying to sound like an authority on the topic....when you obviously don't understand the first thing about astrophotography.
Faintandfuzzy: It's 3x15mp....no 15x3mp
Linguistically speaking, it doesn't work. The MP refers to the pixels, which are then multiplied by the layers. As layers are not megapixels, when you write 15x3mp, it is wrong. Brackets would help, but as you didn't use them, it still wrong. Stick with it if you like....that doesn't make it correct. By the way...my buddy who's an English prof says you're wrong as well.....so linguistically, it should be changed.
No. it's not. It is 3 layers of a 15mp sensor....not 15 layers of a 3mp sensor. The mp goes after the 15...not the 3.
It's 3x15mp....no 15x3mp
(unknown member): What an ugly camera. And way too expensive for what you get. I think $133 is a fair price. And why aren't there any sample pictures of hot blonde girls dancing in dark night clubs? I mean, without that particular shot how in the world can we tell how good this mid-20th century radio....I mean camera really is? It looks like the upper left corner is 1/8th stop darker than the bottom right corner. :) LOL Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Looks like a fascinating camera. I wonder if people will insist the AF speed of this camera match other $1,700 cameras.
I agree...there's no helping you.