Iconel: Although there are some improvements, I can't help think that the DSLR development opportunities are flatlining and all manufacturers make only incremental improvements in their product lines. What happened to really innovative stuff? I really appreciate manufacturers who listen to what photographers need and are doing with their equipment and try to make innovative products. D600, D700, D800..they are just different shades of the same thing. A disappointing effort.
New product launches always remind to just forget about the incremental hardware improvements and just take more pictures with my old camera to try to push my composition skills rather than chasing the banal technology comparisons.
The great advancements are happening. Over the past 5 years huge changes are coming in the digital world. 5 years ago Canon was the leading sensor manufacturer - and now we have cameras that can do so much more. Just look at the files from the D700 and D800 to realize how different they are, you will be able to manipulate the D800 files in ways you never could with the D700.
SLR controls and ergonomics haven't changed since the very late film days, and aren't likely to ever change again. What's left is so tried and tested that camera makers have little incentive to improve on it.
Pretty pointless article. E-mount mirrorless cameras have been having true ISO 100 since 2012, and Canon has offered a true ISO 50 on their high-end bodies since the early 2000s. ISO 64 is less than 2/3 stops of gain over ISO 100, so you save maybe one stop of neutral density filtration - not very useful.
And I seriously doubt how many people are going to use the D810 for video. This sensor cannot be used without line skipping, and the small photosites don't make for very good high iso performance in video. You'll be much better served by an A7S or GH4 or, if you absolutely need RAW video, a hacked 5d mk3.
Wow. Almost alien...Definitely a great set
bakhtyar kurdi: Okay, don't be very happy, it means our expensive corrected lenses will become useless on those sensors, also they start to make simple and easy lenses and brand it as (corrected and designed for curved sensors CDCS) and charge us twice as heavy and hard to design lenses that we already paid for,this is not my imagination, that is exactly what Olympus, and later m4/3 did without our attention, it was the same idea, making a 2.8 zoom for a full frame, is much more complicated and costs more as making the same lens for a half frame sensor, but Olympus didn't sell their fast zooms any cheaper than full frame zooms, and that was some kind of cheating, and this new technology will benefit only camera companies and harm our pockets more, the only profit probably is somehow smaller and lighter lenses to carry.
An 2.8 zoom is an 2.8 zoom regardless of sensor size. The light gathering ability is unchanged. An F0.95 standard lens designed for any respectable sensor size will therefore always be relatively big and heavy, and a f2.8 constant aperture zoom expensive to make.
Rooru S: Lens smaller, brighter than current RX1 with same price would be great! But I don't see this making into a interchangeable lens camera anytime soon.
It's pretty much impossible to make an ILC out of this design. The rear element of the lenses in the system must be at the same distance to the sensor plane, which isn't really possible for different focal lengths.
I think this technology will strictly be for fixed lens large sensor compacts. Maybe some day it'll be seen on a pocketable medium format camera.
saralecaire: Sony just stop all this "innovation" nonsense and learn the basics of at least maintaining a single lens mount which consumers don't have to worry about changing...
Please stop with this nonsense.
My late 80s Minolta 85mm f1.4 fits perfectly onto my 2013 A7 body. I get fast phase-detection AF, and if I had a stabilised lens I would also have IS. You can own an E-mount body and use EVERY SINGLE lens Sony/Minolta has ever made in the past three decades. Sony's backwards compatibility is no weaker than Nikon, and certainly better than Canon when they left FD users in the dust.
disraeli demon: It's a simple way for them to generate a small extra product line I guess, so fair enough.
A Monochrom sensor in a Typ-240 body though… that would be something.
I would rather they keep the high base ISO, unless the in-camera ND is a slide-in. External ND filters are pretty cheap these days, and I'd much appreciate the extra light when it gets dark.
DPJoe2: Apparently this model is intended for collectors. Serious photographers don't buy cameras that totally lock-out tonal control based on the colors in the scene. For instance, if two different colors have the same luminance and are adjacent to each other in the scene, there would be no way to separate these tones in print without using a filter on the camera when you took the shot. And you are unlikely to think of this since you are looking at the scene in color. I don't know about you, but I think it makes much more sense to have a color image to start with. Then you can adjust an individual color's luminance while looking at the image in black and white on screen. This lose of post processing control is unthinkable for anyone wishing to produce a fine black & white print.
And yet quite a few Leica photographers almost exclusively use the MM for their work.
Serious photographers have color filters ready, since they would already own the filters, for shooting with B&W film. Also, if you work with B&W enough, you intuitively look for contrast in terms of luminance instead of color.
samfan: I just calculated that if I'd shot a roll of Tri-X every day, and had it developed and scanned, even the mono Leica M would pay for itself in just 18 months (probably sooner if you factor in the cost of a decent film M body).
Buying bulk and developing and scanning yourself - and the M pays for itself much sooner in saved time.
I don't know why are so many people so confused. Film is bloody expensive.
The street photography greats shot a lot more than a roll a day. If you shot like Elliot Erwitt or HCB, this camera would pay for itself in film money in a matter of months - and that doesn't even include the chemicals and the cost of the darkroom.
I've seen better work from a number of undergraduate film projects on display around the university I'm in. There is no coherence in his portfolio at all, unless he explains the connection between each picture.
Thoughts: One way to cure your GAS is buy a Leica and 50mm like Henri Cartier-Bresson did.
Only that HCB shot with multiple 50s, and also occasionally used the 35mm and 90mm FOV...
GAS is here to stay :D
JEROME NOLAS: Will somebody make a 24mm (36mm eqv.) f 1.8 (2.8) for APS-C DSLR instead? This is insane, it seems that all people are shooting at night or caring about the "creamy bokeh."
What do you mean? Canon and Nikon have a 24mm F1.4, and Sony has the 24mm F2.
Stephan K: Confirmation of my opinion that Leica IQ is not the higher quality the price would imply, I checked the Leica 35mm M (full frame) on Photozone. Centre/edge lp/ph at best aperture is 3600/2400, and Canon 135mm f2 on full frame is 3600/3300. I'd rather pay 30% of the Leica price, and get IS thrown in.
Are you serious? Lens resolution has nothing to do with sensor resolution. The 35mm Summilux ASPH is still sharper in the corners, has better Bokeh and rendering, and at 1/3rd the weight and size.
The 55mm F1.8 is a fine lens, but you probably haven't tried the 50mm APO ASPH. The APO is so sharp that it's diffraction limited on the A7r at F2.8. at f11 pretty much all lenses turn to mush on the A7r, most of them are already limited at f8. So I don't know what you are talking about, and you clearly haven't used many Leica lenses.
Tom Caldwell: It just means that the new Leica lenses are tied to cameras that can add the software corrections and that the lenses will be less competent in non-oem situations. I guess we had all figured that anyway and no one in their right mind had any idea of taking these rather expensive lenses and slumming them on a NEX body - if only that would work.
One of the nice things about the old "perfect" Leica lenses is that once bought they could be used on a lot of different camera bodies and enhance what could otherwise be achieved. Leica lenses were justifiably revered. Not any more - Leica lenses have been shown to be just subject to the same market constraints as the rest of them.
The Tri-elmar 28-35-50 is NOT a zoom. It is a triple-prime, since no focusing can be achieved outside of the three focal lengths.
The wide angle Tri-elmar (16-18-21) is a zoom, though, just one with a click stop at 18mm.
ZhanMInG12: WTF is with no. 7?
I realized that the entire Israel gallery of the No.7 photographer is actually quite nice, certainly a balance and well-thought out project, and better than my own landscape work.
But why does DPreview have to put the SINGLE weakest image of the entire edit in the slideshow? Every single other piece is better.
WTF is with no. 7?
Are you seriously implying that you can compare a 35mm lens and 135mm in terms of Lppm?
If we are putting Apples against Apples, the Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH outperforms the EF 35mm F1.4L by a wide margin, and the APO-telyt also outperforms the 135mm F2L (at F3.4), and is a lighter and smaller lens.
Calvin Chann: An amazing amount of hate from people who would never buy Leica anyway, but wouldn't think twice about jumping on the hate Leica bandwagon. It's easy to run with the crowd.
Leica is being genuinely disappointing this time. Although they did not explicitly that T lenses do not rely on any software correction, the amount of correction here is unacceptable for a $2,000 lens.
And I am a genuine Leica fan - in fact almost all of my work is done with Leica equipment.
David H Dennis: I was at the Leica Store in West Palm Beach, and they had the T.
First, this is a real thing of beauty. It's gorgeous. If you appreciate pretty things, you will want one.
In an age when designer clothes can cost thousands of dollars, I'm not sure why people are so resentful about Leica's high prices. It's just like a designer handbag, but you use it every day. Why not pay a few extra bucks to have a more beautiful and sensuous experience in your photography?
I think a lot of people would love to own this, but can't afford it. That's just the nature of Leica's niche.
I will say that there is substance behind the pretty face. This is the best assembled camera I have ever seen, and I thought the software was beautifully crafted and very well thought out.
Then the Leica guy all but grabbed the camera away from me before I got to really know it. Sad, and poor salesmanship ... but if I was just a little closer to Leica's target demographic, I would have bought one on the spot.
My experience with Leica stores have been varied - but I've never experienced what you've described. I would suggest writing an email to Leica customer service about your experience.
Anyways I never buy anything from any of the physical Leica stores. I make it very clear to the reps that I am here only for trying equipment out, and will buy from reputable online dealers.
RichRMA: How good can Leica lenses, with their older designs be against modern lenses that use hybrid aspherics (would Leica use plastic in the lens?) and nano coatings? Even if a Summilux costs $3500, it does not mean they match the best from Japan anymore.
Leica's lens designs (at least the ones in production) are anything BUT old. Leica's 75mm is newer than both Canon 85mm primes, and they introduced TWO new 50mm primes and a new 35mm F1.4 since 2009, meanwhile both Canon and Nikon still produce much older designs.
Also, Leica does not use plastic elements in M lenses, but they do have machine-ground aspherical elements and regularly use glass that is much, much more expensive than those seen in Canikon lens.