mosc: I hate that Lecia cameras get compared to nothing. They are talked about like photographic experiences rather that what they are: a camera almost identical in use and results to dozens of other products. If you talk about what they actually are, you start comparing this thing to the A5100 and complaining it's focus system is junk, the lens selection is pathetic, manual mode is completely unintuitive, the sensor is inferior, and it's not particularly small.
It does have a different UI and I'm not saying pointing out looks and ergonomics aren't important but there's very important things that need to be said. This thing has much more in common with a $500 Sony mirrorless than a Lecia 35mm film camera and stop pretending otherwise.
"I hate that Leica cameras get compared to nothing. They are talked about like photographic experiences rather that what they are: a camera almost identical in use and results to dozens of other products."
As far as the Leica X is concerned, I agree. It offers nothing that other cameras don't except a ludicrous high price.
However I disagree when it comes to Leica M rangefinder cameras. There is nothing like them from any other manufacturer - unless of course you use film.
Two excellent, objective reviews. Very refreshing.
I have been a Leica M user since the 1970s and am definitely a fan of the M Series. I currently use an M9.
I don't see the X as a true Leica.
It doesn't compete strongly on image quality because the Sony-made 16 MP sensor it uses means it lags behind (for example) the 24 MP APS-C competition from the Nikon D3300, which costs a fraction of the price.
The true competition for the X is the Fujifilm X100T which is, ironically, more like a true Leica than the Leica X. The X100T has the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor and a superb f/2 lens that actually delivers the aperture engraved on it at all focusing distances. Image quality is outstanding and the hybrid viewfinder is nigh on unbeatable.
If you want a true Leica experience, forget the overpriced Leica X. Buy the X100T. It really is a no-brainer.
Alternatively, the Nikon D3300 and D5300 are fine DSLRs with outstanding 24 MP Sony sensors. It is great to have these choices.
BaldCol: It appears I am in a minority but I have read these for years in Amateur Photographer and don't find them at all funny.
BaldCol, I agree 100%. This must be one of the most unfunny cartoon strips ever produced. What failed to amuse in "Amateur Photographer" is now failing to amuse on a worldwide basis.
Not entirely coincidentally, DPReview's Barney Britton used to work for that august publication. I wonder when DPReview will start featuring a weekly column written by Amateur Photographer's resident terminal bore Roger Hicks?
RichRMA: The only thing is, not enough new customers, so go after your current customers with numerous lens upgrades that feature huge price increases over the old lenses. 85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8 and now the 80-400mm comes in at over $800.00 more than the old one. I'm sure it's better than the old one, but camera bodies seem to keep improving without the huge price increases over the previous models.
The reasons for the much higher prices are several: the new lenses need to be much better because they are being used on 24MP to 36MP DSLR bodies rather than 12 MP; the anti-reflection coatings need to be better; finally, the Japanese yen has gained hugely in value compared to the US dollar, Euro and Pound Sterling. The initially very high prices of the new lenses will drop as the upfront R&D costs are paid off. Early adopters always pay more.
In the case of the 80-400mm Nikkor, a new design was needed as soon as the old one was introduced. It was unsharp at all focal lengths, apertures and subject distances. The autofocus was slow and hesitant. There was nothing to like about it apart from its useful focal length range. The new one is being made for Nikon by a different contractor and, with more ED elements, the silent wave motor (AF-S) and Nano coating, should be better in every department. It needs to be.
raoulsam: A bit wishy washy this editor's opinion...
A bit? Only a bit?
David Bourke: I have a roll of Kodachrome that I shot 5 or 6 six years ago. I sent it to Kodak in an old mailer, but it was sent back. Is there anyplace that I can still get this processed?
There is a photo store in England that offers processing of Kodachrome but only as black and white slides. There is nowhere that Kodachrome can be processed in colour.
Lightpath48: I would love to be able to afford something like the RX1. But it's really priced beyond my sanity.
Lamborghinis and mansions in Beverley Hills are financially beyond my reach but I don't see any need to criticise them for being "beyond my sanity" or, for that matter, anyone else's.
No-one needs a Sony RX1 to be able to take fine images. There are plenty of other, far cheaper cameras that fit the bill. Besides, who has the talent to get the most out of the best cameras and lenses? Only a very small fraction of the large numbers who buy them.
Great images come from people who have talent, ability and training, not from people who bought expensive gear. A much smaller amount of money spent on tuition will achieve far better results than spending a much larger amount of money on equipment.
But buying equipment is easy and it offers bragging rights. If only people bragged about what they have learnt rather than what they have bought.
smileblog: Wow.. Look at that picture of the lens with a body.
This guy is so BIG... Oh my.
Thank you, Anastasia Steele.
Danel: Optically, this is likely the best super zoom on the market. The questions about the stabilization and focus issues mentioned in the review could be deal killers though. Two things I love about my Nikon 18-200 are how well it focuses and how well the stabilization works.
All superzoom lenses are junk. To describe this one as the best of them is hardly a compliment.
steven_k: I just ordered one from Sony store, amazon, and B&HI hope they ship in October for fall colors in Telluride.I also hope that at base ISO, IQ will surpass the A850/A900Will seeNow,I wonder if any Nikon D800 users will jump,ship?
Intence wrote:>Why? What does this do that the D800 doesn't?
This has a fabulous 24 MP whereas the D800 has 'only' 36 MP.
graphikal: The illustration of negative space is not a compelling one. Nor is the model and horse picture a good example of use of the rule of thirds, a rule that tends to turn out boring photos anyway when slavishly applied by newbies.
I have to agree. The so-called "rule" of thirds is in any case an extremely poor approximation of the Golden Section, which was researched many centuries ago (long before photography) by landscape artists. The Golden Section has its place but the "rule" of thirds must be the most grossly over-used of the simplistic "rules" that newbies mistakenly believe will make them into good photographers.
Imposing arbitrary rules is not the best way to teach composition.
Plastek: Woh, it looks like this will be one of very few cameras you can recommend someone while being sure he will make best possible purchase from the market right now. IMO the K30 is what Sony should release as A65 - lower MPx, watersealed with WR lens (I wouldn't mind even 18-55 re-made to WR), higher buffer and mirror flip-up mode (this goes for A77 too obviously).Well... they didn't... so it looks like I'll be recommending other brand for this price-point than.(ps. it's funny how poorly Canon and Nikon equivalents look comparing to K30 or A65 in terms of bang for the buck.)
The fact that Sony sells so few SLT cameras, even at what appear to be very low price points, speaks volumes about the (un)desirability of that brand. I work in retail and Sony SLTs are the most difficult cameras to sell. There is almost no demand for cameras with a mirror (and the resulting bulk and weight) but no optical reflex finder. NEX bodies sell very well but the lens range is pitiful.
armanius: Any idea on price point?
A Spanish review site suggests Euro 1100.00.
dmanthree: Well, this article and the replies prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the M9 is both a lightning rod and the most polarizing camera on the market. Seems to be no middle ground on this one. I get the appeal, but photographically there's nothing special, really. I'll put my money elsewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly that people who don't understand Leica rangefinders probably shouldn't waste their money on one.
jkokich: I look at the pictures and think, they simply are not better than those produced by cameras costing thousands less.
It would be surprising if the M9-P produced great images in the hands of four inexperienced users. Getting the best out of any rangefinder camera - from the cheapest Zorki or Fed to the expensive Leica M9-P - requires skills that need to be learned. Skills that the four inexperienced users patently did not have. All they proved was that, in the wrong hands, the Leica M9-P is capable of making some truly mediocre images.
iAPX: Nice textes, by photographers that really likes the Leica M system.Sadly, the out-of-focus photos (by a slight margin but enough to have me drop them), and UGLY jpeg make that a discours without foundations!
Maybe if they could take IN-FOCUS pictures, with beautiful jpeg, and go up to 800 ISO without having extreme noise present, it would have been interesting.
I like M series tools, but clearly at this point with such a resolution, we could see that their manual focus system doesn't work as expected (see the eyes!), or that Leica doesn't master JPEG generation.
The point is, with 18MP, focus is an incredible problem for M series Leica, that wasn't with low-res film (sorry I have to write it! Compare!). If they "improve" resolution, with 24MP or 36MP sony sensor, it will be worse, not anything better. I'd died for a 12MP D700-sony full-frame sensor on a M9: low noise, resolution adapted to the limit of the system!
Take four people who have never shot with a rangefinder camera before, give them a Leica M9-P to shoot with and they get some out-of-focus results. Why be surprised? It takes skill and practice to get the best out of a rangefinder camera. Contrast that with a DSLR - any DSLR - where everything, including focusing, is done for you and no-one has to think about what they are doing. The Leica is a camera for an entirely different type of person.
Tom Goodman: Fuji can save all potential buyers a considerable amount of anxiety by simply stamping the manufacturing date on the bottom of each X10. This assumes they will only use the new sensors in newly manufactured cameras. At some point we have to trust Fuji, but more to the point, at some point they have to earn our trust.
The only way to guarantee that you get the new sensor is to buy a camera with the old sensor and have Fujifilm upgrade it. Otherwise you can never know ...
Demonsquirell: Some of you totally miss the point: it's the best compact camera! See what Luminous-landscape says: "image quality that really does challenge any of its competitors - the quality of fit, finish and materials is first rate - the Fujifilm X-10 will bring a smile to your lips when you handle one." The UK magazine What Digital Camera says: "The build quality can't be faulted. The controls falls easy to hand and the inclusion of a usable viewfinder make the X10 a pleasure to shoot with - the image quality is very good - This pocket beauty is the perfect companion to have with you all the time - the X10 has to be the pick of the bunch. It's a class act - 91%". Stuff Magazine says: "Pin-sharp lens and super fast autofocus and you have incredible image quality in any given situation - a compelling package!" I am the lucky owner of one and absolutely love it!
It wouldn't be the first time that Ludicrous Landscape missed a glaring, major fault when "reviewing" a digital camera. The infra red problem with the Leica M8 needed to be pointed out to them!
marike6: Seems that only Panasonic, Fujifilm, Samsung, SLR Magic and Voigtlander, and only since recently, Olympus with the 12 f2 and 45 1.8, seem to understand that photographers want large aperture lenses. Especially on m43, and ASP-C where DOF is not as great as FF, it is essential to start with as fast a lens as possible.
If Sigma or Tamron make a constant f2.8 zoom like their excellent 17-50s, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But for primes that are not wide-angles or macro lenses, there really is no reason but economics to produce lenses with f2.8 max apertures. Not complaining, just saying.
>Especially on m43, and ASP-C where DOF is not as great as FF
Surely you meant to say "where DOF is greater than with FF" ???
richard cohen: did they announce a price for this beauty?
Another site suggested $6000.