Vetteran: Some observations about DPR. It's a valuable site to gain insight into camera specific capabilities and features, but there's always lots of text juxtaposing and comparing camera A vs. camera B. Never understood that.
Unfortunately, the images posted that are taken with the tested cameras never seem to emphasize what the camera and photographer are capable of producing as far as aesthetically pleasing, well composed killer photographs with the camera. Just repetitive images of things many if not most photographers would ever consider in their decision to spend any serious money. I guess the so-called test or post images attempt to remove the photographer from the analysis and just focus on the technical.
In my mind, I would like to see results that challenge the photographer and camera to produce those great photos and not just technical photos examining esoteric features of the camera and the image. After all, the camera is just a tool.
It's pretty easy to use PhotoShop CS5 (or 6) to recover the shadowed bumper of the Saab jpeg--and not blow the sky.
(unknown member): First article, final paragraph: "by" -> "buy".
Last paragraph of second article: "It costs $2,800," has been in error for days now.
Retail price in the USA, $2300, and it's shipping at that price. Also not announced at $2800 and then reduced.
Seems more serious than a skipped "u".
Ron A 19: At this price you could buy a sony a600 and adapt a leica M lens, or a fancy zeiss ZM lens and be way better off for images and build quality.
I can't help what DPR posts, or whom it chooses to engage in this project.
My DNG samples, which I won't share, are more than adequate. And you can look at Ming Thein's blog for very good photos shot with this Leica.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Anyhow, no one who is really broke is going to buy a Nikon D750 or Canon 6D, or Fuji XT1, either.
Yes, some people will buy for the name, and some will buy for the name and the lens, and others will buy for the lens sensor combination alone.
BadScience: "pro" filters are to photography what monster cables are to hifi.
Compared to good cables, ones that actually do improve sound, Monster Cables are cheap.
PhotoKhan: One thing must be handed to Leica.When they turned digital, they gave an all new meaning to the phrase:"There's a sucker born every minute".
Wrong, it's pretty easy to spot the use of better lenses and that means Leica and Zeiss.
Now it is a little hard to see the difference between something shot with the best Olympuses and Leica, but Olympus lacks something. (Leaving only the better Samsungs.) Fuji is easy.
Now this won't work with any and every lens.
vroger1: The reviews mirror what other sites have stated. It never ceases to amaze me that a company such as Leica could turn out a product which is so esoteric. I don't believe I have ever seen one in use. This problem is not strictly Leica's. Canon has for years striven to produce digicams with wide appeal but always leave something out- be it a viewfinder (Optical or EVF) or a fast lens. The only company in solely my opinion, which has time and again succeeded in bringing out digicams with the widest possible appeal is Panasonic.
I think it unlikely.
I like what that D750 can do.
The build quality of this Leica is pretty high. (I assume you mean the A6000.)
The Leica M lens for this hypothetical would cost a bit more than this X.
The 24mm SonyZeiss is neither cheap nor small.
maxnimo: What ever happened to the trusty, wonderful 50mm "normal" lens? The 50mm focal length used to be my most useful lens by far. It was great for most of my shooting situations and gave me the best quality images. Why is it being ignored these days? Why has it fallen out of favor? It just gets no respect.
The fact remains that many photographers shot Leica Ms with 35mm lenses, almost exclusively.
I also suspect different people concentrate their vision differently, I'm not implying an active choice here. But more like some people see/focus on a wider field than others.
If Canon and Nikon could ship lenses that are optically close to good Leicas, you sort of could have a point, but you don't. Since you have to use Zeiss manual focus lenses (or one Sigma) on your Canon and Nikon DSLRs to come close to Leica--albeit Zeiss has different look. (The regular, non-shift, Schneider mf lenses seem to have disappeared and the one I tried wasn't up to Zeiss or Leica.)
Olympus and Panasonic make really good lenses for the m4/3s system. And Fuji, not as good as Leica and Zeiss, still betters Canikon by a good bit for optical performance.
nboyer: Wow, this write-up has certainly brought all of the Leica haters out of the woodwork. I'm still scratching my head wondering why DPR would loan this camera to professional dSLR shooters. I'm betting, if they had put the camera into the hands of a professional photographer who is used to shooting a rangefinder, or familiar with Leica products, the results would have been quite different. Seems anyone can be called a professional these days. I've seen amateurs produce better results than some of the so-called professionals.
Ming Thein got very good results.
And I didn't have any real trouble with the 5 or 6 sample DNGs I shot.
What's camera B in this example?
And Ming Thein's blog has much better samples of what this Leica X can do.
I wouldn't take real seriously what these "photographers" have to say about this Leica.
It's pretty easy to use PhotoShop CS5 to recover the shadowed bumper of the Saab jpeg--and blow the sky. (A different feature Paint.Net and GIMP will pretty much do the same thing.)
Sirandar: If Pana and Oly want to make "Pro" lenses they need to know what kind of pros they are targetting and realize they are competing against their own 40-150mm lenses which usually can do the job. I love my OMD-E5 to death but if I was really making my living with it I probably would be forced to used FF, if only because my customers would expect it. Thankfully I am free of the bondage of actually trying to sell photography.
Take home message .... there is not much point making 1000$ plus pro lenses for M4/3. The rich want more prestige cameras and the middle that loves and supports M4/3 cant justify the price when the 40-150 is only 149$
If the Oly primes I wanted dipped below the 400$ mark I would buy them tomorrow (12mm and 75mm). That is the price these primes should be.
Only for depth of field purposes not for exposing the sensor to illumination. Th
You've made a tired mistake--or misdirection, and this is the second time in this thread.
The fact remains that the Olympus EM1 is easily useable at ISO 3200, couple that with an f/2.8 lens for exposure purposes and that allows for a lot.
Right, a Nikon D4s can shoot at higher ISOs with the Nikon 300mm f/2.8--oh wait.
There are things like Audience Power filters for equipment protection, and people who own that kind of power filtration/conditioner/protection pay attention to audio/video/computer cables.
Audience also makes significant cables--unlike say Monster.
Montana Floozie: As I await the arrival of my LX100 today, I thought I'd list my top three reasons for choosing this camera:1) Brand loyalty. My current camera is a Lumix FZ20, which I purchased 10 years ago this month. The camera has served me well through a decade of heavy use and still produces very good images despite its outdated technology.2) The LX100 has manual shutter and aperture controls, which, as a dinosaur film guy, I have sorely missed with the FZ20. I shot the Nikon F for decades doing newspaper work, so those controls are second nature to me. Scrolling through scene menus is just no fun and it's time-consuming. The LX100's lack of tilt and touch on its screen doesn't bother me because I'm not accustomed to those features. Same with the flash.3) Cost. Though it seems high today, I factor in inflation and what I used to pay for a good camera. By that measure, the LX100 is a bargain, considering its capabilities.
No, the Canon doesn't have a very good lens, it's pretty easy to see with raw samples.
The PanaLeica LX100, well it remains to be seen, since there isn't serious raw extraction software available yet. But most PanaLeica lenses are good to astounding.
Sony got itself in trouble with the first 2 RX100s by going for zoom range.
Gollan: This will get a new line of filters into the same distribution channels as other Manfrotto products. In Canada, Henry's doesn't carry B+W but they do carry Manfrotto. I would have appreciated information about the materials for the rings and glass. As far as a tripod maker getting into optics, this is standard business in the modern world. Companies don't have to spend money on R&D, they just partner with or buy a firm with the relevant expertise.
Could they be new to Henry's? Since not one seems to have a customer review.
Karl Summers: Country of origin?
tom1234567: There are better cameras on the market and a lot cheaper tooI hate these rip of companies. and Leica is the biggest rip of goingrebadging cameras then double the price plus.some people need to be educated!!!!!!!
Okay the X100T, but the lens isn't as good, and is f/2.0, though f/2.0 at all focusing ranges. Right the Fuji has a good VF built in.
Been a while since I've used a cheap filter, since I no longer use cheap lenses. So I don't have a point of comparison anymore. And next time I get a new lens I'm not going to waste time with a Tiffen filter.
It's pretty easy to hear the improvement with better cables, not from Monster. Now, I have no idea if cables costing 1000usd sound better than cables which cost 100usd.
Right: "That the AF of the RX2 improves upon the not great AF in the RX1."
The Leica X (117) has AF a good bit better than the Sony. I've played with it and others agree that the Leica's AF is decent. No one thinks that of the RX1.
Then there are the RX1's colour problems.