kadardr: They could come with a FF X100. Would buy in a second.
And at 1/3 the price, I can already see the beads of sweat forming on Leica's forehead.
Graham Austin: it's going to cost a lot of money, they want to be competitive, but my guess is that they are competing with Leica - £4000 is my guess
Just saying [rightly or wrongly] that, I can't imagine any photo "aficionado" of the Leica variety would even consider a no-name competitive camera like this from a start up company unless it was half the price or better.
The Leica brand and price point is based on so much more than just numbers and specs. To its owners, the red dot symbolizes legendary quality, mystique and prestige built up over decades.
However, maybe this start up considers themselves new trailblazers to a certain extent, but I would think that when they say "competitively priced" they have something like Sony FFs in mind, not Leicas.
Competing with Leica? £4000? On what plant? If this comes in more than £1200 they've missed their opportunity.
VENTURE-STAR: Who are Konost? Do they have any kind of track record? Where are the company located? Can they seriously compete with the big players?
Even if this re-invented Leica is a good reliable product, you can bet it will be priced beyond the reach of most serious photographers who always prefer to stick with established brands.
I'm a little sceptical about all of this!
If you check out their website, they look like a few recent college grads heading this up. Not to discount them, though. This is the digital age where old school rules can die hard.
Okay, you've definitely piqued my interest with the concept of this camera, however, it needs a quality, classic, photographic instrument kind of look and feel to it. Otherwise a deal breaker for many.
Midwest: Two people actually gave this photo ONE HALF STAR? And three others gave it just one star? This is why I gave up these 'challenges', the voting is a joke and too many entrants sandbag the competition. They should call it the "DPReview Pearls Before Swine Photo Challenges".
Gorgeous photo - no mature adult could give this 1/2 or 1 star. I'm glad you won despite these juvenile voters.
I'm not one of the voters, but while I find content of this photo interesting, I can appreciate that some may not be overly keen about the composition and excessive post processing. Quite nice though...
They might have sold more cameras under the "Duck Commander" brand.
(unknown member): The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.
Whenever a new review comes out, before I even read the review, I take a guess at what the percentage will be based on the camera make and class. I'm almost always within 3%.
I also never understood the grades. Supposedly they are all pitted against cameras in their own class, but I have yet to see a consumer or enthusiast camera get graded as high as the top full frame cameras. Confused.
Canon (and Nikon) just can't quite seem to nail these compact cameras. I guess it's a bit of an art form which some of the non traditional camera makers like Sony have figured out.
I'm sure it's good camera regardless.
The conversation that SHOULD have taken place at Nikon Marketing....
"People let's think of the most gawd awful product we can produce, estimate how much damage in dollars it could do to our brand, then NOT produce it, but instead, use the money we just saved to donate to a worthy cause".
"How about a gold plated camera?"
JEROME NOLAS: Does it come with an armed bodyguard?
No need. It's disguised as a dollar store toy.
This is designed for the oil sheik with the gold plated Bugatti. Nothing more, nothing less. The outdoorsy lifestyle shot of the guy in jeans is laughable.
Feel like I should be taking pictures of pirate ships with that baby. Wide open the images look Photoshop filtered. Kind of novel, I suppose. For the photographer looking for the ultimate accessory for his M9. :D
I find it hilarious how these high end cameras come out with no video, citing philosophical reasons and the like. Why would any "serious" photographer would ever want to shoot a live action video clip with such an instrument, yuk! lol.
The vintage cameras of old they try to emulate didn't have video simply because the technology didn't exist, and now it does without making the camera 1 oz heavier.
CameraLabTester: That bird photo.
That single image just implodes all credibility of the whole article.
If the photographer is going to take artist license by placing a dead bird on the seat, at least do it right and not position it smack dab in the middle.
Agree with Wodheila.
I stopped wearing a watch 10 years ago when the battery died and never looked back. With the time displayed on every electronic gadget we own, watches have just become another piece of jewelry which I don't wear anyways.
Yes, a dedicated wrist-camera would be fine.
Luke Kaven: Hey, I just noticed that the leather case has a special notch cut out to be absolutely certain that the red dot shows through very clearly. Everyone must know what kind of camera you are carrying at all times.
That either tells you where Leica's priorities are, or where their Achilles heel is, or both.
They wouldn't have put the little notch in the case without knowing their customers wants. It actually looks quite ridiculous and a bit sad in that context, really.
Timmbits: UGH! almost $3k for an f3.5 on an apsc! WHAT are they thinking? Even with a Leica label, the sensor is still an APSC, and the lens is still an f3.5 (just like any cheap kit lens)... how does the Leica label change that? It's not worth $2K extra. To me, this is just an insult. It's kind of like buying a Smart and fooling yourself that you have a real Mercedes. I'm not saying that APSC is bad... what I am saying, is that at this price, you can get a FF Sony RX1... technology becomes more affordable, sensor sizes get bigger... on the scale of time, this is regression. As far as size is concerned, one expects fixed lenses to retract, and give you a very portable/pocketable package, which is the whole point of fixed lenses isn't it? I could live without an included viewfinder... when the included screen can at least be tilted. I wouldn't mist swapping the flash for a VF.Aside from an envious label, what does this offer that you can't have with a Samsung NX or Sony NEX?
What it gives you above a samsung or sony is a the Leica name. Leica is clearly not interested in complainers like us. Their audience likes the red dot almost as much as they like the bragging rights of how much it cost them.
Leica is simply bringing their version of the CMOS compact to market. It's overpriced (not unexpectedly) by double, but their target market also has double or more my disposable income and no doubt, doubly concerned about things like, well.... red dots.
fairfaxian: I was a beta test site in San Francisco for Photoshop 1.0 (so we were testing beta versions, pre-release) Foolishly, I later discarded my original diskettes AND the Photoshop 1.0 user manual !!!
I had 8Mb ram, 13" monitor. Macintosh II. I soon upgraded to the Mac FX, and got a special 128mb ram board that cost THOUSAND$. My first 19" monitor was probably over $2500. A 600mb HD was almost $3K.
Photoshop 1.0 only had ONE UNDO, and no layers. You could not view a CMYK file in color -and all my clients required CMYK as they were print ad agencies. You sent the file out for a proof and hoped for the best. I used to test hardware upgrades by converting a 10x10" 300ppi RGB file to CMYK. It takes a split second now. Back then - 3 mins, maybe more.
Photoshop changed my life. I think my studio was the first all photoshop retouching studio in SF -certainly in the downtown area. (I was there from 1990-2002) I have been a pro retoucher -Photoshop steadily since 1990. Thank you Adobe!
I hear you about the thousands$. Our production shop of the early 90's had 3 Macs for colour retouching, decked out with all kinds of upgrades and huge monitors for the tune of about 25K a piece... not to mention 2 scanners worth $300K/each. Makes me wonder how it was affordable.... mind you hourly rates were through the roof too.