What I find interesting is the stark contrast in the very open minded review of the new K1 and the extremely harsh review of the Leica SL.
Perhaps for comparison sake you might find the small person in whose hands you placed the SL and put the K1 there as well ;)
A Kolari A7r2 and one of these adapters would be pretty sweet :)
Please tell me you did not edit this image. Incredible camera, fantastic lens, not a terrible frame at all, but either it's untouched or very poor editing.
uhoh07: Why do you put the camera in the hands of a small person as a cover photo? You think that's clever? It's a disgusting bash, like one might expect on some low class political website.
Probably the most unprofessional image I've ever seen here, and that is saying something.
Yes the camera is bigger than the A7, you don't have to cram that down our throats. You insult the camera and the model. But I'm sure the author is just giggling since your misleading shot has gone viral.
The tactic of purposefully making a product appear worse than reality is unbelievable, from a place which purports to offer journalism. It's the opposite.
An accurate image. You would not believe it's the same camera.
Of course, accurate images are everywhere.
Why do you put the camera in the hands of a small person as a cover photo? You think that's clever? It's a disgusting bash, like one might expect on some low class political website.
uhoh07: Earth to Sony: really?
We've cried about the issue since 2010. Now you offer real RAWs in the A7SII?
Take responsibility, respect your customers, and give, at least, support to all A7 cameras. Already.
Then you have been living under a rock, sorry. I suggest you become a member at Fred Miranda. Sony Raws are awful to edit compared to M9, which has much bigger files than the A7 and shadows can be brought up with little noise. Touch a slider with a sony raw and get ready for some new noise.
Earth to Sony: really?
uhoh07: Also, why has the M9, MM or 240 have never, as far as I can tell, received a full review on this site? I did see an M8 review, and M9 preview, and a four page romp "shooting with the M9-P."
Love it or hate them, these are benchmark digital systems and can be easily rented, one has to wonder why such short shrift at DP?
Preferably such review would be done with the help of a working Leica pro, to avoid the all to common DP foible of "I can't get used to where they put such and such button".
The Leica takes practice to use effectively. I bought the M9 solely for the results with RF wide glass, and at first found the focus and framing method difficult real world. But 11 months later I far prefer the M9 to frame and focus over my A7 even at high speed.
Most hysterical is the DXO rating of the M9 sensor, which simply proves their numbers measure values which are irrelevant to many of us, and certainly have nothing at all to do with how sharp an image will be with a lens attached.
LOL A clueless critique backed by smug ignorance. Leica-bashing personified. :)
@RS The sony is the clearly inferior sensor, sorry. I have both cameras, do you? If not what on earth do you base such an opinion upon? A website? Somebody's numbers? No substitute for first hand experience, sorry, and no basis for informed opinion.
The final straw for me was a direct comparison of my own A7 and A7r files with M9 files at 28mm. I never even really considered the Leica seriously before I did that. The gap was so huge, I just gave in and found an M9 for 3500USD. Best photography decision I ever made. Took me quite a while to prefer the RF to EVF for comp, but the results were so stunning I really didn't care. Now I far prefer the RF, in any light, any aperture. No more EVF headaches. With fast glass the M9 can go in very very dim light. It's superb for landscapes with ZM18 or SEM21. Lens set for M9 is beyond belief. Many files require no editing at all. I ski with it. I take it into the backcountry on my motorbike. I would trade it for no camera on earth. The Leica name is on lots of gear I could care less about. I love the M9 for how it shoots and what it makes with so many unique and storied lenses. You must be blind to hate the Leica M9. But hatred is usually blind.
Also, why has the M9, MM or 240 have never, as far as I can tell, received a full review on this site? I did see an M8 review, and M9 preview, and a four page romp "shooting with the M9-P."
Mike FL: Have anyone asked the rough cost of " Should you be considering an upgrade from your camera to a Leica M or M-P (Typ 240), Customer Care would be pleased to make you an attractive offer following a check of your camera and under consideration of the model and its age"?
The 240 is a fine camera, but to me the results are like a Sony A7 without the smearing or lossy RAW issues. The M9 really does have a "look", and if you love it, the 240 is not optimal.
Of course I see superb shots taken with both the 240 and A7. :)
The M9 often requires very little post, which keeps the crispness. Sometime the blacks are too black and need to be pushed a bit, but the Leica Raws allow a lot of pushing before NR is needed.
The nasty comments in this thread belie belief. Clueless does not even begin to cover the gamut of Leica critique in so many of the "thoughts" below.
I have to wonder what depths are plumbed to dredge up this degree of mindless hatred.
In fact, for many shooters, the M9 today, with M glass, creates output second to none. Most of us who own the M9 are not rich. We forgo other expenses to afford the M9, which actually costs little more than a 5D today. I paid 3500 for an M9 with a fresh sensor.
No question it's a bummer the M9 sensor is susceptible to corrosion issues. It was the first FF sensor to allow strong edge performance with the superb M wides. Fantastic output, flawed design. Leica is not perfect.
For whatever reason, Leica's response has been to guarantee the sensor for life.
For those of us who love the camera this is a big relief. For those that don't, why do you care?
Why I like the camera:https://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/
Glen Barrington: When I was 20, I would have killed for a Leica, but now that I'll be turning 65 in a week, I find, oddly, I have absolutely zero interest in owning a Leica. I don't need a beautiful, well built, reasonably competent, digital camera that is obsolete within 2 months of its release.
I feel I can get by with an uglier, less well built, but still reasonably competent camera that is obsolete within 2 months of its release.
Besides, most of my friends who would likely be impressed with my owning a Leica are either dead or confused by my inability to give up the passions of my adolescence. A couple are just confused.
My new E-M10 will likely last until I'm dead. And after that, it won't matter much, will it?
Are you sure your not already dead? M8, M9, MM and M240 with Leica glass unassailed for image quality today.
EM10 a pale imitation of classic SLRs by comparison.
Can't speak to the "X" however.
yeah....but how they gonna look on my new 5K retina??????
ambercool: 5k... /drool
I broke down and ordered one.
Jon L: This country is going to hell! How in the world can somebody dictate that I can no longer photograph the forests that I love, without first getting permission? i'm 57 years old, first it was the cities and the buildings you can't photograph anymore, now they're talking about the rest of the planet. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled!I guess this is what happens when you destroy the currency of a nation. You have to tax and regulate citizens to death. Just another way for government to collect money from the already impoverished citizens.
Well If I take paid models to a trail head without a permit and actually see a FS person who cares, then I might be hassled.
But I'm taking pictures of the wild land. I do it very often for many years. Never hassled for taking pictures.
Make yourself a bother and you might get hassled.
Anyway the point is 90% of the commenters here don't understand the regulation does not restrict landscape photography one wit.
lucidmedias: another attack on capitalism and free market.
yes, we should just sell the forests.
Comments on this story are really beyond belief.
"commercial still photography" which hires models or treads outside the usual public access will require a permit.
Having a DSLR in a park has nothing to do with it.
So you can march around to your hearts content and shoot all the landscapes you want. And sell them. Just don't use paid models or props etc.
Yes I would like to be able to do whatever I want whereever I am.
Like any infant.
When you have employees who may be injured and even sue on anyone's land, it's nice to at least have permission.
The law sounds scary but applies to very few, like me, who shoot often on USFS land.