icexe: A pretentious accessory for pretentious people. I guess it doesn't matter if it actually takes good pictures (which it obviously doesn't), so long as you can impress your hipster friends with it.
Good pictures is not equal to sharp pictures. There is an overlap between the two collections, statistically speaking, but they are not the same.
Nice review, pointing out how the tested object 'makes you feel'. Gear is not (only) about technical aspects, but in the end about 'personality'.
Beatiful landscape, boring pictures. To me they have the same problem I have with pictures from my compact. They look 'flat'.
Only the last one creates some feeling of depth, using nature (haze, rays of sunlight) and some composing tricks (ridge, person on edge).
Like the hand crank. Makes it work Rollei / Hasselblad style. Wind the crank and take a picture.
I see an on-of switch just above the dail which (on my DSLR) I use a lot while peeking through the viewfinder.
BerendZ: Great initiative BUT why is the Sony A-mount not supported?
Perhaps because Lomo is mostly targeting film shooters??? The ability to mount it on a D-SLR is a bonus. Would think M42 and pentax mount are better candidates.
I'll wait for the .1 update unless loads of people convince me 5.0 is good. 4.0 was totally not usable on my 2009 macbook and I learned a hard lesson with that.
I was suddenly struck by the fact that Fuji prints the 35mm equivalents of the focal length on the zoom ring. I was inclined to like the whole retro styling, but this suddenly made it all look very fake and 'willing to be something it is not'.
I was considering ordering a X20, but can't describe how stupid the camera looks to me now.
I think after a good 10 years of varying sensor sizes, every serious photographer is mentally capable of understanding the focal length / sensor size story. This makes it ever more appropriate to just print the actual physical focal length on the barrel of a zoom lens. One side is 'wide angle', other end is 'tele'.
Big (= fast?) lens ==> 1'' sensor? Extremely short flange-distance? Optical viewfinder? Sounds nice.
Oh, it is a digitally rendered mockup.
Doubt I will trade in my sx-70 for this...
I am very keen on the Fuji X-pro as possibly my next camera-system. But every new lens they announce has a higher price-tag. They better be very, very, extremely good, or else the system loses my interest.
sooo nice, but so out of reach.
I like using prime-lenses for my photography hobby, but I've got wife and children. Will dream tonight about putting this on a D600 and be a happy snapper.
Why are polls and forums like these filled with demands for 'manual' controls, manual focus abilities, and remarks about the wonderfull mechanic cameras of a few decades ago.I'm looking in the mirror now, as I was about to remark on my FM2 and Canonet.
At the same time, manufacturers make ever more complex electronic devices, marketing them with their ever more intelligent auto-focus features. In reviews they are judged by the speed and accuracy of their AF and their ability to do spot on measurements in every difficult light-situation.
Do we really want that FullFrame digiback for our beloved manual? Do we actually like all the automation but are affraid to admit it? Do manual camera's make us think about yesteryears, when we were young and life was good? I just wonder why, as putting a sensor in a Voightländer RF camera should not be utterly difficult seeing the abilities of small rural factories in China and seeing huge marketing prospectives in fora like these.
Might be just me, but I quite like the picture. At least it does not hide being gritty and not correctly colored. Quite fresh and artistic.
I bought a LX-2 in 2006 for it was one of the first digital compact camera with manual controls and a wide-angle lens.
I never liked it, and looking at this review and sample pictures they still have not fixed its biggest flaw:Flat pictures with ugly detail-rendering at anything above iso 200 and/or in less then optimal happy sunny weather.
peevee1: Why would anybody buy this?
I saw Medvedev taking some snapshots with a Leica S, apperently his own. I could be wrong, but judging the light-conditions, the possible subjects and his overall dedication in taking the pictures, lack of image quality is the least problem any picture taken there would suffer.
I think he bought the camera because he wanted the biggest and most expensive camera to show off he is the boss.
At last a Nikon candidate to replace my D200 with enough 'new-ness' and improvements to justify spending money.
(No pun to anyone else, but photography is purely a hobby for me so food and housing for the family prevails incremental improvements on IQ on most occasions).
WOW, have been waiting for this a very long time. At least if the price is Samyang-like.
Love to have a tilt/shift lens, but actually I have no justification to spend any money on one. So perhaps... if I find a reason, and a little cash???
And, FullFrame is the way to go. At least you can use those on your 35mm film cameras as well, when the hype of digital photography is over.
RadioGnome: Clear example of my statement, that cameraphones make excellent representations of the thing you point the lens at, but make totally uninteresting photographs.
I find a lot more interesting photography using home-brew analog processes, shoe-boxes with pinholes, toy-camera's and such, as I find interesting photography using smartphones.
How dull can you get. Press a button and some programmers deliver the thing they have thought up for you. Sometimes with some pseudo-random-lomo-effect which is just another program.
Any subject gets better when photographed with something else than a smartphone. Be it an M9 or a Hello Kitty cam. Only sometimes, a smartphone is your best cam. That is when the smartphone is the only camera with you, and the choise is smartphone or no picture.
Clear example of my statement, that cameraphones make excellent representations of the thing you point the lens at, but make totally uninteresting photographs.
RadioGnome: Pentax oozes nostalgia. Your dad / uncle / schoolteacher / you as your first camera used to have a Pentax.
Ricoh makes me think of a pallet with cheap copiers at the local office supply store.
It must be my poor ability to express myself in englisch. I wanted to express what the brands make me think off.
Ricoh just sounds too much like a famous brand of freeze-dried soup over here. And their cameras may be excellent, none of the local internet stores I frequent stock them.