Photomonkey: Yes it is expensive. It is a Leica.
It is a testament to the brand that it has lasted these many years. Great brands selling at similar prices have exited the stage over the years. Zeiss, Alpa, Rollei etc. These are legendary brands as is Leica. Arguably, they expired because they did not charge enough to support their expensively produced excellence.
Leica have survived and thrived despite a few near death experiences because the quality is undisputed and their careful moves into digital have broadened the appeal of the line. They have also wisely refused to discount their brand.If you do want to spend less and get a Leica you can, but it won't be an M.
That's a somewhat different version of "luxury" brand since you're clear that Leica lenses do a good deal more.
Paul Verhoeven: Image quality comparison is useless, given that it is ISO3200 on CM1 and 640 or 800 on everything else. What? ISO should be 2 times higher at most (due to f/2.8 vs f/2 at some competitors), not 5 times higher.
The XZ10 has a 1/2.3 sensor, you look to have confused the XZ10 with the XZ1/2.
DPR did NOT review the XZ10.
Indeed the XZ10 does have a faster and better lens than the iPhone.
I don't know why you keep bringing up noise reduction. NR is only one reason for shooting raw, and I've not really mentioned NR.
I've concentrated on things like white balance control, and WB is much better with raw--that's no matter the sensor size.
Just to have good white balance adjustment possibilities is reason to shoot raw. Then there's exposure adjustment and the lack of jpeg artifacts. Both of which remain better with raw files--even from small sensors.
That's a somewhat different version of "luxury" brand since you're clear that Leica lenses more.
Unlike the year 1970, a Rolex doesn't really do any more or better than a nice $700 watch in 2015.
FantasticMrFox: $700 for a memory card ... oh my. Could buy a Sigma 30 f/1.4 'Art' for that and have $200 left to spend on a ton of other SD cards.
The problem remains what you are responding to, and the inclusion of "wild accusation" in the same paragraph.
You: What he says is always pure, unadulterated and unsupported BS.
You need to provide a link, and there's a big difference between me saying DPR could be wrong and DPR is.
I don't go with the DPR says the D5500 is and what DPR says the D5300 is, so I take the DPR comment a possible yes, but assured no.
I have now found my D5300 raws, and at ISO 10,000, I'd still pick the D5500 (and now 5300 too) over the NX1, since the Nikons are a little less noisy in deep shadows--but it is close between the NX1 and D5500/5300. And I'm going to stand by that conclusion since it's what my raws say.
As to any difference between the D5500 and 5300, I'll agree there's very little.
Remember, except for pointing to DPR's comments and samples, you've provided no evidence of your assertions. And as far as I know you may have just learnt that Sandisk and Toshiba are partners.
pdelux: Looks like a Panasonic Lens... who copied who?
This is a full framed M lens made in Germany. It's also a manual focus lens.
"LOL, I said that this product and the equivalent Sandisk are virtually identical. Once again, you make wild accusations that are easily disproved."
This statement you made was clearly in response to something I'd just posted regarding the partnership.
That makes the partnership a "wild accusation" in your terms. Perhaps if you'd done more explaining of your understanding, the "wild accusation" thing wouldn't have the link to the Toshiba/Sandisk partnership; you skipped something above.
Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples. I may have said DPR could be wrong, but that is a very different.
You need to stop making D5500 assertions based on the D5300.
No, I don't own any of these cameras, but I sure have tried two of them.
And here I remind you that you've not used the D5500 and I have. So you shouldn't toss around accusations about who hasn't used what camera.
Right this Panasonic has raw--yep I get that.
However smaller sensors like that in the iPhone also benefit from raw. See the under-remarked Olympus XZ10. Meaning an iPhone at the current sensor size could get some help with raw.
I really think you need to look at raws from a small sensored camera instead of going with what the "math" tells you should be.
Ather Mehboob: I have CM1 and have been using it for the last one month . If Photography is important for someone then there is no better choice . I don't feel it has aged specs , actually I find it very snappy and with a nice screen
I wish it had Xenon Flash and may be OIS than it would have been very close to perfect . Most of the people here probably have not used this excellent combination of a phone and a camera and I believe if/once they use it and mobile photography is important to them , probably will change there opinion in a very positive way
I am very impressed with the images developed from RAW as default jpeg processing is very mediocre . I currently own a Sony RX 100 MkIII , Sony RX 1 , Nikon D800 and a Sigma DP2M and I feel comfortable taking CM 1 out as my only camera on many day to day shooting opportunities . It is not just increased resolution but also much better dynamic range and less digital feel to the image when compared to other camera phones like iPhone 6+ etc
What kind of battery life are you getting?
Joed700: It would be nice if DP can do direct comparisons between these expensive Leica lenses against the Canikon equivalence. Let's see if the are really worth it....
One can tell.
Um, LVMH, really? Got any evidence for that? (Nothing on the Wikipedia webpage.)
Leica is making money, if owned by some investment fund.
It is way simplistic to call Leica a "luxury" brand. You appear to have confused Hasselblad, which never made lenses, and Leica.
No, it doesn't look like a Panasonic.
It looks like a Leica M lens, and PanaLeica lenses don't really look too much like M lenses.
Does that answer your question about the PanaLeica partnering?
Also: Does Panasonic make a 14mm f/1.4 lens?
steelhead3: I would like to see it matched up against the new Sony 28 f2...it doesn't even support a wide angle adapter, though I betcha the Leica is owned by prettier people. Does the "M" have in camera lens correction?
With the newer Leica made M lenses, there is some in camera compensation for the distortion of the particular M lens model mounted on the body.
There's that 3 bit binary coding on the lenses for the body to read. And Leica will put that code on older M lenses, if you send them into Leica.
Karroly: If the price of this lens was 5x lower, couldn't Leica sell 100x more and make much more profit ?
I believe I've read that Leica is in fact working on a new lens factory in Germany.
May make things more available.
ttran88: Nice lens, but the big question is how will it perform on the A7 series..
No curved microlens array in the sensor plane, so not real well, decent.
Better on an APSC mirrorless, or m4/3s body.
Yeah, you did make the Sandisk-Toshiba partnership into a "wild accusation" above. That you don't see that problem in your phrasing tells me that you're not real clear on language.
Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples.
Indeed, later I downloaded those raws and they are very close. Though the D5500 is still a somewhat better high ISO camera than the NX1 in my experience, and I can't really comment on the D5300, since I've not tried it myself.
Smeggypants: I'm not buying it!!! It's not expensive enough!!!!
Then lend me the 6000usd, I promise to sell you the lens for 12000usd by the end of 2015.
Yes you did make the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership into a "wild accusation", you can find the paragraph, yours, above.
I accept that indeed you understand they are partners.
You've NOT provided a link in these comments, that's a link to my comment saying DPR is often wrong.
Now, I remember you're the one who insisted that the D5300 and D5500 have to have exactly the same higher ISO performance since they have the same sensor. Could be true. But I don't have very many D5300 raws to look at, and none that I've shot.
meanwhile: The prices are ridiculous, but as a child of the 70's - 128GB of freakishly fast storage that big, this stuff is getting pretty amazing. I started on a VIC-20 ...
Why do you assume my NX1 test footage doesn't exist? Does that make you feel more secure and comfortable with your NX1.
My word will have to do since I'm not sharing my NX1 files. But it's not a "wild claim" to say I've tried the NX1 more than once.
Okay, now I remember the D5500 point, and I stand by it. I've looked into it further too. I don't think I've said that DPR is often wrong, I've said that DPR is sometimes wrong.
(Unless you can provide link, I'll just have to assume you've inserted "often" to make your case sort of stronger.)
I'm not pretending to have never thought the DPR test shots wrong.
You can provide a link to the shots I think wrong, and link to what I said, and I'll check my own raws. Or you can drop your vague claims--they're not strengthening your point.
No, you pretended the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership was a "wild accusation"--that's the only thing that term can refer to. Now if "wild accusations" hadn't shared the same paragraph you could have a point, sort of.
"virtually the same" can simply mean having the same performance.
It is misleading to think of Leica as a luxury brand.
A Rolex does NOT work any better than a watch costing a few hundred dollars. While a Leica M lens, when well executed, is optically better than pretty much any other camera lens.