LiOm Photography: so its bigger than a canon 70-200 f4 and has a bigger filter thread AND its more expensive??I remember how critical people were of the pana 35-100...theyre gonna have a field day with this one
Its an f2.8 lens. The Canon 70-200mm f4 is an f4 lens. Compare this lens with something like the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS
Should be a stellar lens but but $1599 for an APS-C lens seems rather steep. :P
Abbas Rafey: Another sony 24 mpIf there are people pay for what they don't know then leica don't bother about red dot, NFC, 4k and so on.With this price you can go to perfect cam with top glass too.
Look HowaboutRAW all your facts are figures are in your head and found no where else.
No where have I seen testing to show the D800 is inferior to the competition at higher ISO.
I would love to see a lot of 'testing' with your D800 and Leica cameras but you haven't posted anything here for me to see.
So all we have to go on is your hearsay and tests which contradict most other info out there.
If you have some proper links where we can see the problem for ourself we will be more convinced. Currently its your word against everyone else !
So in other words you are saying you have no proof whatsoever and I have to spend $15k+ to get a camera and lens combo that has no AF or possibly any better IQ than a 3k camera combination ?
Thank you for the offer but i will pass ! :D
@HowaboutRAW - You still haven't been able to show me any evidence whatsoever to show Leica lenses are superior. Lens color is highly subjective and while ill admit I like the lens color of Leica lenses some don't.
Also now with Photoshop and color profiles its a lot easier to match colors from different lens+ sensor combinations.
So if dxomark, ming thein, ken rockwell (I added him here even though he is biased but because he has done testing between Leica and Nikon) all say the M240 sensor is inferior to the D600 I tend to believe them rather than a user like yourself and me.
Regarding Leica lenses, I still have yet to see any real tests which show they are superior in sharpness to most lenses (not comparing color here which as I have stated before I do like).
Do you have any sources to show that decades old Leica lenses can out-resolve modern Nikon optics ?
While I agree DXOMark could be better, there is nothing currently available even remotely close.
And about the high ISO capability, Ming Thein, Ken Rockwell have seen differently. Ken Rockwell claims the D600 is much cleaner than the Leica at higher ISO and he found the D600+Nikon 35mm f2 combo to be as good or sharper than the Leica 35mm f2.
Ming Thein also finds that the DR of Nikon is better at higher ISOs too.
All these guys findings are contrary to your statements.
^^ While I would agree these tests are flawed calling them useless without having pointing to any better tool for comparing sensors is a not very helpful.
DXOMark testing is still reasonably valid in the absence of anything else as comprehensive.
You can see here than the M240 cannot compete with the D600 in high ISO just as DXOMark measured -
I cannot find any other reliable test for DR and color depth so I am going to rely on DXO Mark for that only.
JBurnett: I've always wondered what has prevented other companies from producing a full-frame M-mount camera, maybe with a built-in EVF where the rangefinder is. Body only. No auto-focus to worry about -- maybe focus-peaking with the EVF. No IBIS to worry about. Price it like the Sony A7 body. Maybe pair with a Voigtlander 35 or 50 to create a (relatively) inexpensive kit.
Would there be a market?
@HowaboutRAW - I agree with you about the curved lens array but seriously the compressed RAW issue I feel is a bit blown out of proportion. Its still better is almost every aspect than the current Leica sensor.
The Squire: No 4K video? At this price?
Why do people compare Leicas to Ferraris ? Leica uses sub par sensors that can't compete with even $1400 cameras much less the best FF sensors out there.
Their lenses are pretty good no doubt but don't expect them to really outperform any modern AF lens.
So the only real USP is compactness but you can get that with a Song A7r and using Leica lenses.
Exactly ! As Just a Photographer mentioned its not a Sony sensor.
DXO Mark clearly shows its inferior to the Sony sensor in all parameters too -
Fazal Majid: It's 2014. A camera's video features are not "impressive" if it's not 4K.
But really if you can afford a $700 recorder you should also be able to afford a GH4 or even a GH3 which would be a better bet than this $500 camera.
It was in your shopping list for video ? It lacks something as basic as a microphone port for video ! :P
onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.
I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.
You can use these Leica M lenses with a much cheaper Sony A7r camera which can also take cheap AF lenses if you so wish in addition to Leica M lenses with an adapter.
Exactly buy a Sony A7r. 36 megs full frame, no AA filter, EVF. no IBIS, focus peaking available (probably the best implementation in a mirrorless camera till date), and get a reasonably priced M mount adapter.
Why would anyone make a camera that can ONLY take M mount lenses ? Thats a poor business decision. Ricoh made something like that and it bombed. (APS-C sensor though).
photoshack: I enjoyed shooting several weeks with the M and some fabulous lenses (about $14k of camera). It was a joyful experience, like drinking someone's 40 year old scotch with no penalty. The images are beautiful...but not worth the $$. The durability and output is all that matters to me and my Canon package was equal and superior in many ways to the Leica gear.
So...dot or no dot...I don't go for jewelry, rolexes, gucci or any of that status stuff. I can probably afford to spend it on those things...but they are not valuable to me so I don't. If someone gave me this Leica, I'd probably sell it and buy something that I can really use or go on a vacation with the proceeds :-)
Not exactly the same comparison. A Sony A7r will probably outperform this Leica in every aspect - IQ, speed, viewfinder etc except maybe build quality but the A7r is also magnesium alloy and so no slouch in that area.
So basically this is a very expensive camera that can't match cheaper cameras in either specifications or performance but costs a hell lot more and has a slightly better build quality.
I don't know what's the appeal in that unfortunately.
I wouldn't mind spending on a Leica film camera cause lets face it they are beautifully put together and I loved shooting with them.
However I don't shoot film any-more and this digital camera will last maybe a fraction of the time a Leica M3 would last.
The AX100, RX10, RX100III are all 1 inch sensors. Its easier to do 4k on smaller sensors. Its the larger sensors where the problems occur.
I don't believe it to be as simple as that. The flagship Sony mirrorless camera - the A7s cannot do native 4k resolution on a 12 MP sensor to a SD card. If it was as easy as you say then surely Sony would have allowed 4k resolution shooting to a SD card on their flagship camera.
@Menneisyys - I agree with you somewhat but 4k support will increase the cost of the camera.
I and a lot of other people buy DSLRs, DSLTs for still photos only
While I don't mind the cameras having video capability it shouldn't add too much to the cost of the camera. Any large sensor DSLT/DSLR camera supporting 4k video is going to need additional processing power and other hardware support which is going to drive up costs. This IMO should be avoided especially at this price range.
Let those who need 4k spend the extra $$$ on a GH4 or A7s. Most people will buy this primarily for still photos and anything that can increase the cost of the camera will not be appreciate by most.
This camera is aimed for amateurs who need a few video clips. For them 50 Mbps will ensure smoother video.
This isn't a camera for videographers. They can buy the A7s or the GH4. Or better yet buy a dedicated video camera.
4k may be future proof but digital cameras are not. Buy and pay for what you need today.
Considering just 2 mirrorless cameras offer 4k and hardly any amateur needs even full HD much less 4k the A5100 offering a better full HD video codec is far more useful and cost effective and useful to people than a hardly required 4k video which consumes lots of space and has hardly any media to showcase its potential at present.