Tommygun45: Granted, since the A6000 there were limitations to what mirrorless could do. Now there are no more excuses. Whatever comes after the A6000 will officially be a superior camera in almost all regards to any non-FF DSLR that Nikon, Canon, or Pentax has to offer. Oh, and alot cheaper. It will have better IQ, likely better AF, better tracking, better FPS, and probably a better buffer than all but the 7d2 which has crap IQ. Weather sealing, build quality, and battery life will be about the only things that high end DSLRs will still have an advantage in, and the majority of people, (about 95% of non pros) don't really care about those things. With lenses, what's needed is basically already covered for most.
Before you know it the pro who uses a dslr is going to be like the journalist who still uses a typewriter. People sort of respect him, but most just think he's crazy.
What makes you think Sony will build a better A6000 that will be as good as you describe?
If they did they would be competing with themselves and could impact sales of the A7 series.
There is always plenty of speculation Sony will release an A7000 as a successor to the twin-dialed Nex 7 but I can't see it.
I think deliberate market differentiation will mean the A6000 is as good as it gets in the Sony APS-C world for quite some time.
They may update it in a year or so but I doubt they will introduce a camera as capable as you suggest.
veroman: Until one actually owns a Leica digital, one is really in no position to judge its worth or its capabilities. It's so very easy to denigrate the brand based on price alone and even easier to conclude that other cameras are just as good at a fraction of the price. One poster here says, "Is it better built? Probably." Probably? There's no probably about it. The precision that goes into the design and manufacture of Leica products is unequalled. You need only hold one in your hands and give it one click. Look at the seams, i.e. where a latch door meets the body. The seam is practically invisible. Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.
I have no reason to doubt your assertions as regards the build quality of the Leica and the fact it won't need servicing for years but I have two observation about that.
1. The build quality won't prevent the camera becoming obsolete any less quickly any more than it does any other digital camera as sensor technology progresses. So it is a moot point if you need the thing to be built that well.
2. These days there are a lot less moving parts to any camera with no need to handle film. The cameras are effectively computers not mechanical devices and so I don't see why a Leica's circuit board is necessarily going to be any more immune to wear and tear any more then any other high-end camera that is built to be robust (Canikon pro cameras).
That said there is nothing like owning a nice bit of precision engineering for its own sake and in my view that us best justification of the lot.
From a longevity point of view interchangeable sensors would justify building to last more.
Dave Oddie: "For the majority of people who shoot film and who like to process it themselves, working in black and white will be the norm. And while all film cameras have the potential to shoot in color as well as in black and white it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority of those still in use are employed almost solely in the business of recording the world in shades of grey."
That is a ridiculous statement to make. I used to process my own colour slide film (E4 and E6 films) and it was easier than B&W because you didn't need an enlarger!
All you did was transfer the film onto a development tank spiral inside a light-proof bag. Put that in the tank, close the lid, remove it from the bag and then pour in the chemicals in a set order at the right temperature.
For me and for many others shooting colour film whether processing it ourselves or not was the norm and B&W the exception.
If color film had been invented first I doubt B&W film would have ever existed.
It was pretty easy with E4 solutions. E6 was more temperature critical and required higher temperatures but you could buy development tanks that handled that side of it.
It was really very easy.
I used to by slide film in bulk on 30 meter rolls and use a film loader to load 35mm film cassettes.
If you did that and did your own developing it made for a dramatic reduction in cost.
Don051348: Leica products are targeted for the uber rich, much like Rolex, Ferrari, etc. Are they well made? Probably. Will they take better photos than most any other modern digital camera? Probably not (certainly not $9000 better). Will a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Will a Ferrari really perform that much better than an American Corvette or even a Shelby Mustang? Certainly not that much better to justify the 4 to five times price difference. The uber rich need to spend thier money on something. That's why these companies exist. You are buying mystique, tradition, cachet at these price levels.
"Will they take better photos than most any other modern digital camera? Probably not (certainly not $9000 better)."
Well the argument for the 246 is it will take better photos than ALL other modern digital cameras when the other cameras are taking B&W photos. It is the only logical reason for it to exist.
The question is, is that true? Will one of the new 50mp Canon's not do just as well despite having the drawbacks of not being optimised for B&W like the 246? Will you be able to tell the difference in a large print when viewed at the correct distance?
I don't know but the theory is the 246 will be better.
As to the $9000 price well I am absolutely certain if the theory is proved and a monochrome sensor really is better for B&W another manufacturer could do the same and equal or better it for possibly even just a fifth of the price.
Monochrome Sony A7 anyone?
"For the majority of people who shoot film and who like to process it themselves, working in black and white will be the norm. And while all film cameras have the potential to shoot in color as well as in black and white it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority of those still in use are employed almost solely in the business of recording the world in shades of grey."
km25: Sorry DP not much of a preview. If the camera came in about 2/3 to 1/2 this cost. I may buy it. It is just over priced. Prehaps Leica should make this camera in an other country. they did with their 35mm SLR. Just too much $$$.
"Perhaps Leica is doing everything right as evidenced by their popularity, reputation and number of people who will buy this camera at exactly this price."
This seems very strange logic to me. It is bound to be the case they sell fewer units given the price and you have no idea how many more they would shift if they could lower the price.
I'm not into phones that much a photographic tool just using my Nexus 5 when I have forgotten the camera.
The one thing that would tempt me to charge my phone is one with a higher capacity battery. My phone is fine for day to day use when I am in work where I can plug it into the laptop to charge but i'ts not much use if I can't find a power source at some point if I have been using GPS etc.
So whenever I see a phone with a larger battery that grabs my attention. The trouble is they all seen to be phablet sized.
Why can't manufacturers put a top spec phone together that isn't a phablet more often?
sunjester: How utterly sad. Not sure what's worse. Olympus one of the bottom feeders of the camera world striking out like a petulant child. Or dpreview helping with the poop throwing again.
You clearly have no sense of humour.
Prairie Pal: It was a good try 'cept the acting was ho-hum and they dragged it out too long.I think the main point was that the film was shot on an E-M5.
I agree that it went on too long. A bit of humour but they didn't know when to stop.
Less is more when you adopt this type of humour.
Cheezr: Barney, since I see you used the 16-55F2.8, how did that lens feel on the camera? does it hang over the bottom? E.g., on my e-m10 a few of the bigger lenses hang over the bottom edge of the camera.
"How is it annoying - Photographers have done for over hundred years without autofocus, not to say its not in any Nikon or Canon camera either."
I think he meant there is no stabilisation on the 16-55 zoom. Fuji brought out a standard zoom without OIS recently so I presume he is referring to this lens.
These days doesn't every Canikon standard zoom have OIS?
And just because photographers have managed without AF for 100 years doesn't mean they want camera without it and the same applies to lenses without OIS and camera without IBIS.
It's a modern innovation that helps you take better photos. I really don't know why when people regret it not being present we get comments like the above. OIS in lenses or IBIS (in Oly, Sony and Pentax land) is expected these days and why not?
Canon are evening putting OIS in wide angle primes like the 35mm F2.
forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".
You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.
It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.
"Please refrain from the silly f2.8 is f2.8 comments. It's good to know the subject before commenting and embarrassing oneself."
I am afraid forpetessake the only one "embarrassing oneself" here is you.
The aperture of a lens is the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. And that is it.
What the implications are of sticking an F2.8 lens on a small sensors v a full frame one are what they are but they do not alter the lenses aperture.
Always liked Pentax cameras but they have "done a Sony" here. Added some new stuff which is good and removed some old stuff which is useful.
As a Sony A77 shooter I was annoyed Sony removed the GPS from the A77II so was interested to see it added to this new Pentax. GPS is a feature I find genuinely useful.
Then I noticed they removed the built in flash. While no one ought to use those as the main flash they are very useful for providing fill-in on a sunny day even if only for holiday snapshots.
I also have Metz ring flash which uses the built in flash as a controller in wireless mode that that would not work with this camera.
Why do Japanese camera manufacturers give with one hand and take with the other?
Why can't improved models be just that? All the good stuff in the old one with additional features/improvements without removing other features?
Dave Oddie: I don't get the cloning accusations.
If DPR hadn't mentioned it looked like a Canon lens would anyone have thought it wasn't just yet another independent maker producing a lens?
Many lens designs have been around for decades and Nikon and Canon in the early days used Zeiss and Schneider designs such as the Planar and Xenotar optical formulas to build their own lenses. Were they clones?
Well you totally missed the point.
It's not a knock off.
A third party lens maker has made a 35mm F2 lens that fits a Canon camera. Wow.
It doesn't even look like the Canon lens which has its focusing ring in the middle of the lens barrel whereas this one has it on the front. And it has a different number of aperture blades
If Sigma made a 35mm F2 lens with 7 elements in five groups is that going to be classed as a knock off as well?
I don't get the cloning accusations.
codethought: Thank you for FINALLY doing a review, DP...
Well I recall DPR posting something at some point about they were having to give a lot of consideration to the new AF features of the A77II and this was given as a reason for the delay.
However, whatever the reason, the review took too long.
"Bottom line here is that people are too critical of DPR here in general without knowing or considering the facts."
There have been numerous other in-depth reviews of several other DSRL's since the A77II came out. How is that for a fact? Why work on those non-trivial reviews and put the A77II one aside (as they most certainly did)?
It is obvious DPR chose to devote their resources to these reviews rather than complete the A77II review.
Well not unless you think some poor sole on the DPR staff has been reviewing it every week for over a year 40 hours a week.
QuarryCat: very expensive - even for Zeiss "Made in Asia".OLED is a clue - but why so boring focal length?1,8/22 mm Bastia1,8/95 mm Bastia
Boring focal length?
Zeiss have always made 25mm lenses and its a lot less boring than Sony with 28mm and those daft converter lenses.
85mm is a classic short portrait lens and if you want longer then 105mm is the next real step up.
No idea where your idea of 22mm came from. 21mm or 20mm yes but 22mm? never heard of such a focal length.
GRUBERND: does the oled DOF adjust to the intended print size? and how do we enter that? maybe some back-and-forth dialing on the focuswheel..
in my unhumble opinion DOF-scales - and also DOF buttons on D/SLRs with optical viewfinder - are pretty much a useless and totally overrated pseudofeature with effectively no reallife application. and i still have to find a single AF-lens where at least the focus-distance is displayed correct and can be used for focussing without any optical check.
Well I suppose if you are lazy and rely on automation all the time you won't have any use of such scales.
However with full frame lenses having less d.o.f using the hyperfocal distance technique to ensure maximum depth of field when you want it is still useful even on a wide lens like a 25mm.
Trying to judge it wit the lens stopped down is hard and EVF's which is the only VF you have on cameras this lens works with it is even harder (and I own a SOny camera with EVF so speak from experience).
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
"At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon."
And that is its value over and above the Nikon.
We all know FF sensors are less noisy then 4/3 or aps-c. However if its low light and you are at 1/8 sec wide open on the Nikon you'd be at 1/30 on a 4/3 camera and given the focal length far more likely to get a sharp shot on 4/3.
And this is ignoring the IBIS of the Oly 4/3 cameras.
The equivalency thing for d.o.f works for me but for speed? No. There you are comparing sensors when you talk about that not lenses and this lens lets you shoot faster shutter speeds on 4/3 than on with the Nikon 1.8.
Jostian: no EVF........
"The casual shooter that wants a small convenient camera to take with them is not interested at all in an EVF."
And just how do you know that?
You can have a small convenient camera with an EVF you know.
"Why would it have an EVF?"
Because it's supposed to be a camera?
When digital cameras first came out you could just about excuse the lack of a viewfinder. Optical VF's didn't work very well with zooms and EVF's were poor or nonexistent.
Now we have excellent EVF's I just do not get why anyone wants to buy a camera you have to wave about in front of your face to operate.
Nikon are not the only culprits. Oly's PEN line is crying out for a built in evf like panasonic has on a lot of its cameras.