Interesting that they compared it to the Ricoh GR, which has far, far better ergonomics and can fit in a shirt pocket. And then there's the delightful older GR Digital IV, with it's bright 1:1.9 28mm lens and built in flash... and the same killer ergonomics for street photography. Of course, the Leica is way better in vey low light. But $4,000 better?
Pentax pixel-shift is the real thing. But as a consumer, and a non-tripod guy, I think the regular K-3 is the sweet spot ... Pentax ergonomics, and also great quality images!
What if you took the photo and then ran it through a Photoshop-type 'pen and ink' or 'cartoon' filter?
Found myself buying a a new Ricoh GRD IV a week ago... after thinking very hard about moving 'up' from my RX100 to this RX100-4, or to the new GR II.
But I went with the much older (2012) GRD IV. Price, and excellent ergonomics... far better than the Sony. and the teeny sensor (plus RAW and Lightroom) gets me along OK in twilight... though the Sony is much better in very low light situations.
OTOH, if I were a journalist, I would buy the Sony in a heartbeat. What a perfect camera for a reporter, or a technical writer... and so much room to crop those sharp images!
The Ricoh GR has far better ergonomics, a decent grip, and fits in your shirt pocket...
Mssimo: Im going to be the first person to skin this to look like a shark and take it out to the beach.
Too real! Of course, someone will ... EVERYONE can make their own Jaws movie now!
Put it on a surfboard at Maverick's? Rocks, dude. Awesome!
I use an Pentax K-5 IIs, and can happily set it to show the scene in B/W on the LCD screen. Then RAW capture, then into Lightroom where I can 'develop' it in B/W... and get whatever look I want... film noir to high key... Clarity, Sharpness, etc, etc.
Am honestly curious what the Leica brings to the table, beyond the larger-light-gathering FF sensor... can anyone explain it to me? Not trying to start a debate, but is there an actual perceived difference between B/W images from the Leica and those from a 'normal' FF camera, like the Nikon 810 with the same sensor size?
Richard -- am I right in saying that, until you get into very high ISOs, there isn't much difference between large-or-small pixel counts, for equal size sensors -- BUT that the small-pixel variety, like the 36 MP Nikon, gives you more room to crop and also to deliver a good image through reducing it?
And so... that the small-pixel cameras, like my RX100 with its 20 MP on a 1" sensor ... might be the most useful, the most practical for professional photographers, mainly because of the extra cropping that their great MP count allows?
Good seeing great pix from Indy. So many drunks! Babes! Cars! This is the kind of field test DPReview should be known for. Way to go.
***** Five-Star Article!Thanks, Richard. Your writing is so clear and informative... VERY much appreciated.
I use an APS-C Pentax K-5 IIs. Take pictures for ads and brochures, for web pages, for e-mail newsletters. Nothing fancy -- the 75% of all commercial images that just don't need full pro photographer magic. Bread-and-butter work.
Far as I can tell, I don't need a full-frame camera. 16 MP gives me a lot of room to crop. I also shoot 'wide' to get even more space to crop or distort perspective in Lightroom. For lighting, PocketWizard Plus units and a couple of Yong-Nuo 560 II speedlights, and a white umbrella.
If I ever decided to drastically ramp up my skills and equipment, I'd skip past full-frame and get a Pentax 645Z... AND a full complement of studio lighting equipment, backdrops, etc. But that's a whole other time and money investment situation. You have to know yourself, and psychologically, I'm happiest with my simple jobs that I can do quickly without getting confused by highly-professional equipment...
My career was in high-tech. I can tell you for a fact, it takes a LOT of capital to bring a product to market. With the key being your 'burn rate', how fast the money is disappearing, a race against failure. This is not news to high-tech investors... hoping for that one super mega success. Business is risk. If you are risk averse, try short-term US Treasury bonds...
I use a Pentax K-5 IIs and a Sony RX100 to take pictures for ad clients... who use them on the internet and on small-quantity-run Xerox Docucolor-printed flyers and brochures. With RAW, Lightroom, and a simple PocketWizard Plus/YongNuo 560 II flash setup, I have all I need, actually overkill for the customer requirements. Next camera? A new Pentax, when the fully-articulating screen and wifi button make their way to the K-5-type platform, whatever its called in a year or so.
Full-frame? no need at all.
Why on earth would someone buy this new camera, when you can still get a K5 or K5 ii for less money? What am I missing here?
SEEMS to be aimed at women? No kidding!
Great product. Surprised that no-one thought of it sooner. wonder what else you could use it for?
John McMillin: I know what you mean about the strong reaction a camera such as this will draw from bystanders. About ten years ago, I pooled spare funds with a photographer friend to buy a used Pentax 645 film camera, just for grins. After I received it and shot a roll., I arranged to meet up with him at a convenient spot that happened to be my kid's elementary school, right at afternoon pickup time. The sight of two men handling such an apparatus in sight of children so alarmed one mom that she called the principal out to confront "the perverts." It was a good thing that I already had a friendly relationship with that principal, as a parent and volunteer. The mom still was convinced we were up to no good. "See-- it's a movie camera!" she accused. So I whipped out my big, long, uncut ... roll of developed E-6 and asked her, "Do you think we're an IMax crew?" Well, I wish I had said that! She's still sure I'm a perv, I bet.
I have an old Pentax 645N. Same size. You have to get past your own fear of being noticed. Because... in my case... I've found that nobody else really cares. OTOH, wandering around with a Hoodman loupe gaffer-taped on the back of a Pentax K-01, I've had all sorts of questions from admiring younger people about where can they get a video camera just like that...
I use a Ricoh GR. Fits in my shirt pocket, unlike the Leica. And MUCH better image quality, judging from the pix above... plus way better ergonomics. Best of all, since nobody knows what a Ricoh is, I don't get pestered by people... ever. The Leicas, I think, are like Ferraris... cameras and cars for people who need highly visible logos. Though to be fair, isn't there one Leica with no branding... and decent manual controls?
If you had one of these, might just be perfect for street photography -- I can't think of anything less threatening. And 20 MP ... plenty of room to crop out those subjects who broke out laughing when you took the picture...
Naive of me, but does the price include a lens?
And, can't tell from the photo, but isn't it too big to fit in a man's workshirt pocket? A la XZ-1, RX100, GR, etc...