kierenlon: I wish companies would step away from this rush to release flawed products on the expectations the users are beta testers and they can patch it later.
Fuji is probably the most obvious example but can't be singles out. All the brands are doing it - nikon, canon, olympus, adobe etc.
Test, test some more, then have an alpha, beta, release candidate, release. Sick of release often, fix later attitude
I think you are losing sight of the fact that a digital camera is quite a complex instrument requiring lots of computer code to work. Are you really expecting the products to be released that have all of the potential for flaws to have been detected and eradicated? Maybe you are, but I doubt any manufacturer can guarantee that their product is 100% perfect on release. What is important is that when such problems come to light the manufacturers push out fixes asap. And don't forget, the upside of this is the manufacturers are able in many cases to upgrade a camera's functions over what was envisaged originally, months, even years after sale.
Name any piece of software, or an OS, that is perfect the day it is launched. Whilst you may decry the fact, users are actually a very good way for manufacturers to find out what is actually wrong with their products. So long as they have done the best they can before inflicting a product onto the public. W10, anybody?
nerd2: So only 5 times more expensive than Fuji 35mm 1.4. Not bad for a Leica.
I'm waiting for the first quality review that does a shoot out between the Leica and Fuji lenses. The Fuji is a superb lens in its own right, but if the Leica bests it, then many happy Leica T owners will be able to justify its purchase. After all, it is only they that have to justify it to themselves. It matters not what non-Leica users think.
Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.
Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?
Actually, I wasn't referring to tilt at all, and as an experienced 5x4 user I do know the difference. dbm305 spotted my error in misinterpreting the shift function as being lateral shift and which could be applied in the vertical and horizontal plane, which it can't do. With 5x4 cameras shift is a horizontal deflection of the front standard, and the equivalent function in the vertical deflection is referred to a rising, or falling front standard.
The tilt function is as you describe and combined with the Scheimpflug principle is designed to give optimum depth of field, whether this be in your example front to back (near and far) such as is often seen with railways tracks, or in commercial product photography, for example, to give sharpness along the length of an inclined plane such as will obtain with a subject at an angle to the camera. In this case, DoF is actually quite narrow along the length of the subject, but can't be obtained by any other means.
I'm surprised at the comparisons with the Sigma and Tamron lenses, where the reviewer states they have an effectively brighter aperture. Wide open, they are both f3.5 and this compares to the Panny's f2.8, and when zoomed they drop to a very lowly f6.3 compared to the f4 of the Panny.
I am anticipating getting into "equivalence" arguments here, but brightness as determined by the aperture isn't subject to the equivalence argument.
Under The Sun: I love Leica cameras. Borrowed my friend's M9 during a trip to Kyoto and really enjoyed shooting with it, it evoked the same feeling as driving a beautiful vintage car. Impractical, manual, but so much fun. Last week, I just got my hands on a loaner Q and will be purchasing that camera soon. I'm definitely a fan.
However I scratch my head at the concept of the SL. The camera and its lenses are huge, heavy, and loaded with so much unnecessary tech. It seems completely the opposite of the Leica philosophy of "das Wesentliche" or focus on the essentials. Price notwithstanding the SL seems like a high end pro camera that a company like Samsung or Sony would produce not Leica. Just my two cents.
I agree about the reported quality of the NX1, but the reason I questioned your choice of Samsung was because you said "like Samsung or Sony would produce". Regrettably, Samsung can't, as it is widely rumoured that they appear to have pulled camera production. Amidst these rumours they cancelled their stand at CES 2016. Despite the NX1 being a super camera, Samsung as a major camera brand has never really caught on.
I'm not interested in them, but I still wish they would continue if only to keep other manufacturers honest.
tom1234567: The Leica APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm F2.8-4 is set to cost £4650/$6395
I will order two right away???were do they did up these prices from do they live in the real world?
I see you use the saltire. So, if you are anything like the stereotype, the answer will be no. :D) Sorry about the Rugby result. But I have to hope that France doesn't spoil the party!
Hmm, with all the issues surrounding how our use of the web is tracked to target us with ads, has anyone even considered how this monitors your private actions to enable it to sort what it thinks you like?
I now I am a bit of a Neanderthal, but this is the reason why I don't use social media.
40daystogo: It'd be interesting if someone could tell us the street price of the early Leica M3, M2 and M4 in today's money, to see if Leica's back then were rich people's toys. Without seeing the data, I assume they were working-men's cameras, although maybe slightly more expensive? What if? What if Leica had pitched their prices at the Nikon and Canon price range, or just kept at the same market tier they were decades ago? Could Leica have survived?
@Arkienkeli. The latest current offerings are indeed superb. What is interesting is even Leica says that their modern M lenses render differently to their forebears, and this would be interesting for me, assuming I could afford the latest lenses, in that I would have to learn afresh.
If you are interested, here is a link to Irwing Puts' publication on Leica M lenses. You may find it a useful insight into the Leica philosophy.
It is very unlikely. :D(
The Panasonic Leica badged lenses are Leica designs, but are not made with the same expensive optical glass that Leica uses in its own lenses. Part of the expense of a Leica lens is the high quality, and cost, of its glass. Given the cost of Panasonic Leica lenses compared to the real thing, it is clear they don't use this expensive glass. As far as I am aware, Leica still makes its own specialised glass in-house.
Having given you the bad news, there is denying that the designs used in Panasonic cameras are up there with the best of consumer/pro-sumer cameras. And I speak with years of using Panasonic cameras, ranging from a number of FZ super zooms, the dslr LC10, and the little Lumix compacts (LX1,3 and 7). I do like how these cameras image, particularly the LC10, but it's not possible to say how much of this is the lens or sensor/processing engine.
guyfawkes: I've not liked the new studio test image, despite what dpr claims are advantages over the 3D studio; it simply can't replicate the plasticity of a lens when viewing a proper 3D scene. However, this aside, I've compared it with the Fuji X-Pro 2 only, as I am interested in comparing how the Fuji fares to similarly specified cameras. In this case 24MP APS-C.
At first, I thought the Sony was showing a fraction more sharpness, but in doing so it introduces odd artefacts, especially in the b/w image of the young girl in the family setting. At first, the wallpaper in the background looks clearer in the Sony, but then looking at the jumper of the woman, there appears this odd artefact, rather like a maze pattern, which can also be seen in the wood panel just behind the little girl and in the hair of the dog. Also looking at the bodice of the young girl there are colour artefacts introduced, and moire can clearly be seen in the man's jacket. The same artefact in 3 different sections?
I understand moire and how it arises and can give rise to false colours. But what about that mosaicing effect in the dogs hair, the woman's jumper and the wood panel behind the child. This isn't producing false colours, but neither does it resemble traditional moire. So what is it? Any thoughts?
Pt. 2.And it explains why I decided to ditch my Nikon F outfit to buy into Leica slr. It was for the lenses.
I'd been perfectly happy with Nikon until I saw a professional nature photographer's images on K25. They opened my eyes, literally. It was though a veil had been lifted, or the images had been to the cleaners, they simply looked so natural. It wasn't down to out and out sharpness, but how the lenses rendered. At that time he also had a very sharp Pentax macro lens and he showed me samples taken with it and his Leitz glass of the same subject. I looked at the Pentax and thought, wow, how sharp. But then he pointed out it was less smooth going from out of focus foreground to subject and then out of focus background. It simply wasn't subtle.
He also showed me some late evening shots he'd taken in Nepal and pointed out how the Leica lenses more clearly showed the general suble transition in colour layering in the mountains. From then I never looked back. Leica it had to be.
@ Dr. Gal,Pentax had a very good reputation for its Takumar and Super Takumar optics. I did once consider buying a new LX, but at that time I was using my M3 for my 35mm work and couldn't really see a need for an slr. That was to come later, but already being a Leica user I opted for the R3, missed out on later models until the R7. Pentax and Minolta had some lovely slrs, and when I realised that the Leica R4 was basically a Minolta XD 7 (European designation) and that historically it was the first slr to incorporate both shutter and aperture priority metering modes, I bought a mint used outfit comprising of the body, f1.4, motor winder and matching flashgun. It is indeed a lovely camera to use, as no doubt were the little Pentaxes of the same era.
One thing that trolls get wrong about Leica optics, because I doubt the vast majority have never used them, is they claim this or that lens is sharper than the Leica. Now this may be, and I will give you an example. But this isn't all.
Yes, I spotted the £ sign when I had a quick view before posting to you. There is a lot to take in, but it will be worth it as this price argument crops up again and again.
PhotoKhan: Now that they are dwelling into zoom territory, let's see how that famous optical quality holds its stand, how people are willing to fork out 6300EUR for a FF zoom typical proposal that other brands make brilliantly for 2000EUR.
If the APS-C dedicated Leica APO-Vario-Elmar-T 55-135mm F3.5-4.5 is anything to go by, Leica users are finally wising up. There's not a single "review" down at B&H by anyone who might have bought that 1500EUR "pearl".
Waiting for reviews with my popcorn already on the microwave...
There were two "ranges" of zooms used by Leica for their R system. What I will call the low cost option featured rebadged 4 Minolta designs, 1 Sigma and 1 Angenieux, although this latter wasn't rebadged, nor cheap. The second, top tier, are those Leica designed in Solms and produced in the last few years up to the cessation of R production. Now these lenses are truly excellent, judging by their MTF curves, and superior in every way to the early zooms. I've never owned any zoom for use with my R cameras, preferring primes, so I have to admit I don't have first hand accounts. These top lenses are invariably in ROM mount for R8 and R9 and command suitably high prices.
I've not liked the new studio test image, despite what dpr claims are advantages over the 3D studio; it simply can't replicate the plasticity of a lens when viewing a proper 3D scene. However, this aside, I've compared it with the Fuji X-Pro 2 only, as I am interested in comparing how the Fuji fares to similarly specified cameras. In this case 24MP APS-C.
Thanks for this very useful link. I will read and inwardly digest! I believe I need to work backwards. With a UK average earnings today + current Leica costs, I need to establish the average earnings in 1960 and see what percentage of that figure the then price of £159 was. I'm only guessing, but I feel that earnings power has increased today so even though we know Leica prices have outstripped price inflation, is the price v earnings gap the same, or close to it? But as this article points out, if one doesn't have the identical products to compare, the exercise is pretty meaningless.The M7 exists, as does a present day Summicron, but both are superior to their forebears, and we mustn't lose sight of the fact that film camera manufacture today is a pale imitation of what it once was, so cost overheads to produce on a much smaller scale have to be taken into account.
@ Dr. Gal. (continued)
But my Canon 7, whilst not reaching the build quality of my M3, it is still nevertheless well built, and has the advantage of a built-in coupled selenium meter and better application of the viewfinder masks. Unfortunately, it is limited to Leica screw mount lenses. But my screw Cosina/Voigtlanders (f1.5 Nokton, f1.7 Ultron, and 15mm Heliar) come to the rescue here!
At Dr Gal.
Yes, HCB was indeed from a wealthy family, the clue is in "Cartier". Why did he choose Leica? Well, the III series he started with were considerably lighter and smaller than the bulky Contax 1 and later III.
I understand your comment about Leica being overpriced, but in a comparison with, say, Contax IIa and IIIa, I'd say more expensive as to use "overpriced" carries with it the connotation that it is more expensive than it needs to be. But handling a Zeiss Contax IIa or IIIa (I own both) there is no way the bodies come anywhere near the build quality and feature set of my M3. I like my Contaxes but I am not blind to their shortcomings either. But when it comes to optics well, prices are more evenly matched, and I'd choose Zeiss over the contemporary Leitz any day. Ignoring the somewhat lacklustre f2 Sonnar, the f1.5 version is simply outstanding and by far the best film 50mm lens I have ever used, although it is true I can't speak for current Leica lenses.
So, pricing is interesting and as rangefinders go, the M3 body was expensive. However, to compare with today, it isn't simply a matter of doing a price inflation correction on its own, it needs to be coupled with the equivalent wage inflation figures for true purchasing power. Then a comparison could be made of Leica prices as percentages of average earnings, then and now. Clearly on a price only inflation calculation, Leica prices have seriously outstripped. On this calculation alone, and using UK stats, that £159 M3 + lens combo would be around £3,300 using the Bank of England calculator. One can already see that a new M7 + f2 Summicron costs seriously more, I'd guess by 40% to 50%, but then one does get a more complex camera and better lens. But if spending power has gone up since 1961, which it clearly has, then how much does the Leica increase mean in real terms compared to 1960?