He must think himself a handsome fello, they are so very close to us. This a good example to compel people to kindness to our fellow living things.
doctorbza: The only reason to shoot a rangefinder is because the rangefinder, as a tool, makes sense for your approach to photography.
Once you've established that a rangefinder is the right tool for you, you do not have to spend $10,000. You can head over to KEH and get a used M3 with a Zeiss 50 f/2 for about $1,600. HP5 is available for $6/roll, and a scanner will run you a couple hundred bucks. Chemistry is less than $100 for everything you need. (And for what it's worth, film M's are still nicer than digital ones.)
Should you want a digital body you'll have to pay more. Used M9's are around $3,000 used right now. M8's are about half that.
Even pixel peepers should be satisfied with the ZM lens lineup by Zeiss, and Voigtlander makes well made, reasonably priced rangefinder lenses. You do not have to spend $4,000 on a 50mm lens to use a rangefinder camera.
Rangefinders are expensive, but they can be an excellent tool if they fit your shooting style. Try one and see if it's worth it.
Do not laugh, I use an M7 with a Nikon LS 9000 ED. The image look great.
The lens is too slow, no EVF ( not even opinion ). No 4k. Yeasterdays camera, for the world of tomorrow.
The camera must have an apeochoromic lens. Maybe a Banana Cam was used.
Black and white or color. Images are fine for subject. I would image an eight year old would be able to shoot a nice photo with an easy as pie camera,or I mean phone or was that toaster. The pictures quality is very low. Some photographer in 1930 would get better looking images. Sensors the size of ant's eye are not going to make for great images. Have your fun with your toasters, I mean phones taking "pictures". It is just overload to point of million monkeys at million typewriters, I mean Laptops will sooner or later write War and Peace. Were so sorry uncle Ansal.
Combat By Design: Can someone tell me what the point of Hasselblad is?
Honesty. Can anyone tell me what purpose this company serves (other than catering to the Trumps of the world) by existing?
They do make stuip cameras like the Luna, but High fashion and studio pros thoughtout the world have used and do use these cameras. They are world class period. Your Nikon D7100 just would not cut it.
Just image there is a new 500CMD. Range of about 6-8 CZ lens. all up to date designs with this and perchance a 40MP ecomeny model. A lens shade or two, a prism or two, even some new film backs. Basic model with 80mm F2.8 Planar and 40MP for under 10k. people would by this product and it would have a useful place in photography. Not old used ones, with behind lens metering, all electronic sutters and f stops. Go hold and old 500CM with and 80mm lens, it is very light, electronic improvements would easily give a top speed of 1 or 2k. No hand cranking. T.he film back would have it's own motor. Hassi stop making Lunas, make this camera. People will love it MF and all. Bet'cha.Oooh, brain storm, a mirrorless model with the lCD where the old reflex focusing screen was, leave the one off the back to save money, no need for prism for backward left to right . AF would work with this system, it may kill their oth system , oh well I love fujions. It would be even lighter.
That 90mm is gooing to a very sallow DOF, it will be 135mm f/2.0. The lens I may want is 16mm f1.4. For me 24mm is wide enough, f/1.4 would be nice. What agreat combo, 16mm f1.4, 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 low light heaven.
I agree, a 23mm F/2 and/ or 35 f/2 would be nice lens. For a zoom, 16-48mm F4.0 IOS. would make for nice compact lens, they do have the 27mm f/2.8, not only small low cost, but a good general lens.
sixtiesphotographer: This camera seems to be a disaster from an ergonomic perspective: identical non-dedicated dials, controls buried in menus, non-intuitive or counter-intuitive operation.
I love my M3's and M6's, but those were created by a different (and much better) design team.
My Fuji X-Pro1 is a far better camera than this Leica T in all respects and is closer to what a "true Leica" should be in the digital era.
Yep! If only Leica would have made the X100 or the X-Pro 1. Leica can hold on to the Ms, but better choose a path toward the future.
What about the sickle? I saw an interview of the Russian who rased the flag. The thing I remember the most was, why did the American and English troop have nice clean uniforms, cartons of cigarets. And the Americans had rolls of money. Did we not also win the war? The peole of Russia leared how they were being taken.
Nikon, join the mirrorless club with a real camera, APS-C or FF. You still make MF lens! People who want small cameras want pocket cameras, they can careless about any of the mirrorless feachers. Nikon would be able to make an A7, with lens already-ready. Dump the V series.
DPJoe2: Please bear with me. I believe what we care about is IQ. IQ is determined by lens quality, sensor size, quality, and the sensors set sensitivity. The same is true for film. I'm treating sensor noise and film grain as equal problems. For each sensor or film sensitivity there is a built-in level of noise. How much is determined by the manufacturer. Unlike film, sensors can have there sensitivity increased electronically. But whether you use film or sensors, increasing the sensitivity increases noise. Noise and sensor size determine how much you can enlarge an image and get an acceptable result. The more you enlarge an image the more noise is visible. If you shoot with a high ISO you increase noise and lower how much you can enlarge the image to get an acceptable result. But if you shoot with a larger sensor, you don't have to enlarge the image as much, and as a result get better IQ. BTW, when I say larger sensor size, I mean the physical size of the sensor, not MegaPixels. Questions?
But, if you have 20MP image from an ISO, say 200, low. Even a "small" sensor will have little noise, what you are saying is basically true, but in the real world use not always. Back in the days of film, you may push Pan-X to ISO 80, get very low grain image that would easily be mistaken for medium format work.
Things will always improve, part of this game is to hold back just a bit, to make look like your always and improving. Therefore more money for them too. If this game is new to you, you should just take pictures and for get about new cameras.
Fuji is making some great zoom lens, 18-55mm zoom on a X200 with OIS would be great, even leave the leaf sutter. Eighter push to be a true F2.8 or leave at F/2.8-4.It may not replace the X100s, but if some want to travel light or have a simple system, two cameras like this may have some only wanting , later on a better sensor.
Why do they show what a photograph and 4k or HD video would look like under normal light. The black cat in coal mine society has had their moment, really beside looking for Al Qedia (sic) what Earthly good would these photos have.
The Canon does a good job of staying close to the Sony 7s, so does the 7R. The camera seems to have a very narrow use. I think Sony should have made a more conventional camera, used 16-18MP. Still a low light leader, with a more useful rate of MPs.
"PLease don't take my Kodachrome way", goodbye.
I my test, the 7s was the best by about 2 F stops to the Nikon D4s, the Nikon D4s was about 1.5 F stops over the Nikon Df and because I own one, A fuji X-T1. To be honest I like the Fuji X-T1 in Jpeg, better then the Df. Below ISO the Nikons and Fuji start to take over from the 7s, not in noise, but in resolution. 16MP can be considered low by some, just think were 12MP comes in. It must take fine movies. It is too bad Sony does not offer high speed lens that are native to the camera. An F/1.8 cuts near and F stop over the cameras performance.
Not every lens has the same curve.