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.
I was working in a "high end", multi-million dollar agency back in the mid/late 80s when a salesman came by one day with Photoshop and a Mac. The agency people listened to his sales pitch and said, "thanks, we'll get back to you". For days after, around the office, he was at the butt end of jokes as if he was a vacuum salesman, or worse.
As I recall, even after the Mac was catching on with our competitors, our agency prided themselves in the "craftsmanship" of hand drawn and produced work. Talk about no foresight. Within a few years they were no more.
Why do no enthusiast cameras get marks of 80+%? I thought cameras were judged only to their piers but those high marks seemed to be reserved for mainly higher end DSLRs.
While Canon is playing games... take away swivel, give it back.... take away "large" sensor, give it back(?).... Sony is quickly taking the place of this old school name with superior products in the sub-pro categories.
Canon has opportunities to be hitting home runs, but instead, they are striking out.
Leica must be cringing. This probably spells the beginning of more FF cameras (and bodies) at a fraction the cost of the totally unjustifiable price of the M9 body.
A fixed lens, FF for $2800? This cannot be anything but a toy for the rich enthusiast. What can this camera deliver that the RX100 can't for 99% of people in this segment? Probably less, to be honest.
Very sexy, but over priced by $1,000. But what to expect being the only kid on the block?
A niche camera of mind numbing proportions. Obviously, aimed at a consumer base with much, much.... MUCH more money than me (and I ain't broke) and with fierce brand loyalty of the highest order.