Finally, an $800 camera that will allow me to take selfies.
pinnacle: If you need a "prestigious" name to brandish like a fine piece of jewelry, this is another piece of jewelry from Leica.
A brand new mount?No viewfinder option?
For those who feel inclined to use Leica lenses, why not use adapters on existing cameras with better offerings in ergonomics and more features?
When I see the rare Leica in public I am not impressed in the way the owner may hope to impress me. I am wondering for a few seconds if the user has a skill set to produce quality images with their camera. I am sure that some Leica owners are fine photographers as well as wealthy enough (or vain enough) to have purchased the brand in the first place. I do believe that the vast majority of Leica owners are a lot more driven by a potential badge of social status than the desire to produce compelling photographs.Dan
Yep, shooting with Leica doesn't impress anyone. If you want to look PRO shoot with a big dslr and big lenses. Then you will be the BOSS.
Richard Franiec: Nice design, attention to detail and use of quality materials in the manufacturing process of the camera body are all great attention grabbers, however the truth is that they don't always create a better tool to do the job, especially when electronics are involved.What we see with Leica is that they are desperately trying to market pride of craftsmanship and mysticism of the brand name at exuberant prices.The whole manufacturing process in today's broadly available technology (explained in pictures of the article) is nothing that cannot be achieved in China, Vietnam or Romania. Most likely with less manual labor involved if deburring process is carried out by the same machine tool which does the "carving" of solid block of aluminum, not by hand of highly paid worker.Obviously, limited production runs cost more per unit but justifying the final price by extraordinary skills and experience needed to do the job is just a plain hyperbole in my mind.
Yep, if they can create the piece as-is, they can certainly run some automated deburring tools on it.
Plastic body? I thought sony said metal when it was announced several months ago.
Interesting Canikon are not even making an attempt at competing in the US. I guess they know their mirrorless offerings are subpar.
Gesture: While the world's population grows and new areas become more of consumers, it still seems like there is just way too many really wonderful and interesting cameras (1" sensor, micro 4/3, APS-C, FF, DSLSR, ILC, etc.) chasing too few customers.
I agree. This ist a great time to be into digital photography.
Looks decent other than high price and too much bolt on stuff. Why not just integrate it?
GeorgeD200: After reading the comments here, I am amazed at all the "MILC are the future" posts. Take note, people: Canon, the company with the LEAST presence Iin the MILC market is the strongest in the industry. They continue to put out 18mp Rebels with incremental upgrades to speed and features (mainly video). I'm not saying that MILC aren't good, but the average consumer doesn't even know what that means. We, the photo gear heads, (and if you're reading this, you are one) represent 1% of the market. I think Sony and Fuji should be applauded for innovative new designs, but 99% of consumers don't realize or care that an A7 isn't an SLR. To them it's a dedicated camera that they have to decide to buy, and then decide to carry (an option) when a cellphone with a capable-for-90%-of-their-needs-camera is a passive decision that they won't leave home without. For the average consumer, carrying a seperate camera, wether compact, MILC, or SLR is a thing of the past. Even if you use the larest greatest MILC, you're still a dinosaur to the masses. Just like view camera users were when 35mm came out.
Take note, Canon reported its first sustained fall in ILC sales since 2003.
Matthewson: Would someone please tell Mr. Imano that sensor size is not just about image quality, or the perception of quality - it's about image control. It has less to do with megapixels, and more to do with the ability to control depth of field.
Use a long lens then... coupled with Oly's IBIS, it's a great combo for shallow DOF.
Nikon should make a Pure Photography phone. Bolt on some retro-y dials and watch the profits roll in.
munro harrap: Facts: I phoned Canon about 1Ds MkII life. They stop supporting it and supplying spares next January. A ten year life for an $8000 camera. Nikon reckon on "an 8 year cycle" for their pro products- yes, I phoned them too.So your D3X will soon be unsupported. Your Canon 1Ds MkI, 1D MkI, and II and IIn already ARE unsupported, and so it goes for the D200, D300,20D, 30D (£1k+ each). These ALL cost a lot of money. And the lenses also will only manage a ten year cycle as these ***** took the lead out of the solder, so they cannot guarantee bodies or lenses with lead-free solder (all makers have used since 2002) longer than 8-10 years, when they become unrepairable if faulty.New models? SAME- A D4 lasts 8-10 years- so it's better to buy a car? Check first if the solder is lead-free. This ploy to "save the environment" will create piles of thousands of tons of electrical waste (sorry-should say millions- I'm a bit out of touch) Military equipment to kill people is , of course, exempt.
It's unfortunate RoHS couldn't exempted products that were designed to last longterm (10+) years. I personally still use leaded solder in all my designs. The additional heat needed for lead free can't be good for the components, and it certainly produces more fumes.
Don't need 4k in a smart phone. I'd rather pay much less ($350) and get a nexus 5.
These are the guys that brought you "Pure Photography".
Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
They often delete his/her posts.
erichK: Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
(It is true that Fuji has come up with some really interesting new technologies in very attractive cameras, but the provenance of the design parameters for their new flagship is painfully obvious!)
How did they copy the EM-1? Be specific.
Tonio Loewald: Really good interview.
My key takeaway — Nikon and Canon actually benefit from not releasing viable mirrorless cameras because if they did so it would "legitimize" the mirrorless cameras.
I like that they view releasing too many bodies as having been a mistake.
Sorry, I am serious about photography and Canikon are the only ones that do *not* make a system that meets my needs.
Canon has already gone mirrorless. Most people may not have heard about it because it flopped.
Why no side view picture of it mounted?
Robert Garcia NYC: hmm, no image stabilization?
Personally, I need IS in the body so I can use my legacy lenses. IS in lens is 100% useless to me.
VGA resolution? Sorry, I know "many reviewers said the EVF is great", but that doesn't change the fact that it is significantly lower resolution. Less is not more. More is more. Personally, I'd like camera makers to spend more on the EVF than the rear screen. In fact, leave off the rear screen and spend it all on the EVF.