andarioa: LX200, please.
I'm holding out for LX400 mod II
I would be just as good as HCB if panny made it
Under The Sun: I love Leica cameras. Borrowed my friend's M9 during a trip to Kyoto and really enjoyed shooting with it, it evoked the same feeling as driving a beautiful vintage car. Impractical, manual, but so much fun. Last week, I just got my hands on a loaner Q and will be purchasing that camera soon. I'm definitely a fan.
However I scratch my head at the concept of the SL. The camera and its lenses are huge, heavy, and loaded with so much unnecessary tech. It seems completely the opposite of the Leica philosophy of "das Wesentliche" or focus on the essentials. Price notwithstanding the SL seems like a high end pro camera that a company like Samsung or Sony would produce not Leica. Just my two cents.
If it didn't have the whiz bangs all the armchair pundits would be singing foul play. On the other hand, the pundits will poo poo anything depending on their mood on the day based on their vast experience with their dad's transistor radio
Robert Schroeder: 1. Dull and lacklustre imagery as one is used to from dpreview. dpreview should hire a photographer for their sample images. The inclination to click on an image gets even lower as opening takes nearly half a minute. Nevertheless I've looked at a few...
2. I'm sorry to say (I mean it, I was really hoping to buy this lens) that until now I have not seen just one really sharp image out of the 100-400. What's especially astounding is that I haven't even seen a sharp image at 100mm, let alone at 400mm. And no, the conditions were in no such way as bad as to make sharp images impossible.
3. Everything I've seen until now including the few images I clicked on here would have looked not much worse if shot with my stopgap solution for the focal length range, the ZD 50-200 plus EC-20; better actually for lower focal lenghts. Images I saw which were shot with a cheap Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L plus Metabones smart adapter on the E-M1 did look significantly better.
Will probably save me some money.
"... Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L plus Metabones smart adapter on the E-M1 did look significantly better..."
You should definitely use your above setup to take pictures of LIVE animals.
You can count the sharp barbs in the lions tongue, were you looking for the nerve cells under the skin??
That's because DPR sucks!!! and the product is not SONY.
Take a look at other sites for review and samples.
Daneil Cox had a very telling samples out there....
tassosDA: Sooo,no smart comments about Pentax LED's this time? Anybody?? :-)
I hate it! My cameras don't have it
Based on the specs, it is an excellent contender in that space. It puts pentax where it used to be in the good old days
kpaddler: The concept is not new. Nikon had a converter that did this, and it sucked. This idea provides neither AF nor MF properly. But it is excellent for entertaining your 6yr old in the backyard
Not sure if you were replying to me or someone else. Yes, what you say is correct.
I was pointing out that you can't grab the lens barrel that the AF is trying to move, given that the whole thing has to move.
"What does any of that you said mean ? So if it didn't work before it couldn't work now ? .. Do you ever get tired of talking S .."
This mechanism functions exactly based on the same trial and error combination principal of MF-AF effort.
Also, has it crossed your brain yet where you are going to hold that lens given the whole lens mass has to needs to move freely??
The concept is not new. Nikon had a converter that did this, and it sucked. This idea provides neither AF nor MF properly. But it is excellent for entertaining your 6yr old in the backyard
tex: So, um, it would be kinda cool if DPR finally did reviews of the current crop of digital medium format cameras, starting with the Pentax 645Z....the one that is the most "affordable" (actually, after just recently dropping the price down to $6,999.00, getting even closer...). It's pretty pertinent now especially, with the current crop of high mp FF cameras , with more undoubtedly coming. I hope DPR doesn't wait until it's all irrelevant...
" Shooting nearly wide open with a client in front of a huge glass pane at a cafe'?- 1/800 doesn't always cut it; ND filters can be a drag. 1/800 is slow for stoping action (action portraits) with or without flash on location; 1/2000, or as close as you can get to it, is the sweet spot."
So you are looking for flash sync speed of 1/2000 in MF. I guess the mechanics is not your strongest suit.
Back in the day, when competence was built into people not cameras, people used Linhof Technika's for action shots. How do you think the posters and billboard shots were made in 60-70s?
But of course, you may wish for your tool of choice, but that is a personal wish not universal necessity.
NickyB66: I'm new to photography, so this might be a stupid question. Are these light meters really needed in the age of modern DLSRs etc with all the advance metering the claim to have, i.e the new Nikon D5 etc?
Sorry, but have to ask.
The point of a handheld lightmeter is to be deliberate in what you do with the light. You can do that with any spot metering technique, on or off camera. It has nothing to do with how modern you gear is.
What's the point of such a review? DP is gonna give it to some digi reviewer whose skills barely match those who these cameras are intended for.
i.e this reviewer here doesn't understand that a camera like this is used 99.9% of the time with flash, whether inside or outside. And a 1/800sec is all is needed. Now, what is the fast shutter speed of Sony, your very beloved camera for flash photography???
kpaddler: And of course no one has any problem with that radio active orange sweater
" much more advanced understanding of colour than is generally known"
well, Iguess I just use lenses that let me take photographs then. To everyone his own
C1, ever since it colour editing module have had this function. You pick the given colour and it gives you a colour wheel for it, and you can do whatever you like with it. Silkpix does it too. You can pretty much do this anywhere if you can turn all other colours off.
But regardless, I don't want to have the problem in the first place. A lens must be balanced. I'm old school and don't care about whiz bangs, and their problems that I have to have to put up with.
" Photoshop--specifically Selective Colour is really only available"
Capture One does it too, as well as gimp
I shoot with about 10-15 lenses. If I allow each one of them its own tricks that I have to track and correct that is a lot of extra overhead. I expose the shot to perfection with spotmeter, raw conversion may include some dodging/burning, cropping, and nearly every other setting uses a template.
So, on a good day, I don't do anything other than importing raw, and export right out to jpg as doom's day back up and slide shows. I don't spend a lot of time in front of computer. I primarily print my stuff. Watching things just on the screen doesn't need a camera more than $300 these days.
No, I exclusively shoot raw. But that is not a license to have lousy performance from the lens. Now, I don't know what condition these were shot but they are over the top as far as contrast and saturation goes. There was another time when manufacturers paid attention to balanced contrast and colour.
I kind of expect not having to "solve" problems if I spend that kind of money.
And of course no one has any problem with that radio active orange sweater