pdelux: Another nail in the coffin of the M4/3 format. Not long now before this Format dies as the experts have predicted. How can anyone survive with so many brands using it, too many lenses to choose from, too much competition.
Whats next Kodak back from the dead with M4/3 mount?
Thanks ljmac, i was being sarcastic, as you can see if you click on my name i have several m/43 products!
String: Outdated, obsolete, discontinued, whatever it is I will say that the E-M5 is the only digital camera that I don't think I'll ever sell. It's just too damn good looking and handling; a true modern classic. Its the one that made photography fun again (for me). I will eventually replace it (E-M1 successor?) but the E-M5 will always be mine.
I cant say that about any other digital camera I've owned.
I feel the same about my Hasselblad Lunar. Its one piece of work that I will never sell, because no one will actually want it.
How about Multi Aspect Ratio Sensor - similar to what the GH2 did, though not sure if its exactly the same.
Another nail in the coffin of the M4/3 format. Not long now before this Format dies as the experts have predicted. How can anyone survive with so many brands using it, too many lenses to choose from, too much competition.
pdelux: Pretty average images. I dont mean to be disrespectful, but those images could've come from any camera released in the last 5 years. Where is this "leica" look Leicaphiles are always raving about?
So basically they're saying this camera doesnt give you the feel of a real leica (PS and not RF), nor is its IQ on par with the real Leica (no true summilux for "Leica look").
Well at least youll look good.
Pretty average images. I dont mean to be disrespectful, but those images could've come from any camera released in the last 5 years. Where is this "leica" look Leicaphiles are always raving about?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so lets hope Mitakon (or Zhongyi) get this one right.
Dont mind that its MF only, most new mirrorless cameras have focus peaking these days.
thecameraeye: Very promising. I'd love to see a good review of this lens.
I'd prefer to see an honest, thorough review. Hopefully it is good, I will definitely Buy one!
ABM Barry: I,m answering the shallow minded "Laslen." He quotes:
" you absolutely do not need to spend $1,700 on a camera to take pictures of your children. A smaller, cheaper camera will work just as well"
That depends on your family values, .... Obviously, Children are not worthy enough in your small self-centered mind!
hahaha Same, just a hypothetical situation for the purpose of the argument. The value of such images is much much more than the cost of the camera!
If I didnt have my camera, to take great images of my baby boy, and some years down the track some stranger came up to me to sell me beautiful photos of my baby boy for $1000 each...
I think I would buy them.... So spending $1700 on a camera to capture moments of your family is a no brainer for me.
Some Pro Photographers charge much more, or cheesy photos with staged backgrounds. They will never get to capture the true famiily moments.
Way to go Panasonic. 85% is a respectable score!
1500+ comments mostly negative.
Theres no such thing as bad publicity!
Got nothing good to sell, just sell the sizzle, not the steak.
pdelux: Only Leica could remove essential features (LCD) and have people applaud their Bravery. Whats next, lets remove the shutter button and just have a monocular.
Take your current leicas and turn off the LCD, and you simulate the same experience of being very annoyed that you cant review your images, just like in the film days.
Your point is valid it is not essential, but there is a reason why every single digital camera ever made (im probably wrong but mostly right) comes with an LCD. The ability to instantly see your image is what drove the invention of Digital photography more or less and that directly relates to the LCD.
Only Leica could remove essential features (LCD) and have people applaud their Bravery. Whats next, lets remove the shutter button and just have a monocular.
Skulls: Can't save in RAW? All the smoke and mirrors and a crappy jpg?
Because at JPEG you've already compressed the image to 8bit and lost some potentially valuable information. That is of course if the sensor was able to capture anything more meaningful that 8 bits.
Thats Innovation! More Ram and remove the red dot. *Throw Bags of money* at leica.
The red DOT will come on the Limited Edition Version for an extra $2000 to be released later this year.
Jogger: Is the HTC actually allowing selective focus?
It seems like its just capturing depth info at the pixel level and applying fake digital blur based on that how far that pixel is from what is in focus. In this case, its not refocusing at all... its more like digital blurring based on depth information.
I've got the M8 it sometimes works well, and sometimes it doesnt and looks very fake. I find the best results are to reduce the amount of blurring to whats appropriate for the FL and scene. This examples seems to empoly max blurring and doesnt look like what a real life lense would produce in such a scene. No lense goes from in Focus to Max blur in such a basic 3 dimensional scene. Reducing the blur will assist in hiding the fall off between In focus and OOF that doesnt exist here.
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Oscar Wilde
So its basically a tripod except 1 leg is larger than the other 2?
RichRMA: Why do people, who either can't afford it, or have no intention of buying it, get so upset about a camera? Or did I answer my own question?
Who said these people cand or cannot afford it? If you can afford a D800 or A7r you can afford this..
Maybe they just think their money is better spent elsewhere.