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 have you seen a picture made by, say, the 21mm Summilux or the Noctilux ASPH? Or from the S system?
If you want to criticize Leica, at least make sure you know what Leica can offer.
HowaboutRAW: "But it also made the camera seem a little delicate, and fragile."
Seemed plenty solid when I handled it.
NB: Magnesium can feel a lot like plastic.
"However, it does seem a bit blasphemous to put the revered 'Summilux' name on a lens that isn't an f/1.4, and sometimes is closer to the brightness of an Elmarit than anything else."
The above quotation is preposterous. I suggest that the author use the newish 50mm M f/2.0 APO Summilux (8,000usd) and not get lost in the names, but concentrate on results.
Ummm...the F2.0 is a summicron, not a summilux.
Leica has never used the summilux designation on its own cameras for any lens other than F1.4. So yes, it is a bit blasphemous.
Is the EVF really only 1.23 MP? This is a 5 grand camera...the least Canon can do is get a decent 2MP EVF.
What? Only three new colors? When I saw the title I clicked with the expectation of 200 new finishes including one with every color of the rainbow.
mpgxsvcd: I can't believe they allowed comments and ratings on this video.
Alvarez himself actually commented under the video, stating that he shot Panic Attack with Sony equipment...How embarrassing.
Kabe Luna: "My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine."
I translate this as: "Our priority is higher average specification across the operating range, rather than maximum results at any point in the operating range."
Mediocrity. Which is a good descriptor for the real-world performance of Canon sensors. So, it's actually heartening to know Canon aren't totally clueless, they just have a different outlook on what defines a great sensor than I do. Meaning I'll probably never have a Canon that can compete on image quality at low ISO with my D800. It'll be interesting to see if they apply a different concept to the design of whatever high-MP sensor they eventually field or if it'll simply have the same (if not worse at the pixel level) IQ of their current APS-C cameras.
The issue is that Canon sensors aren't better at ANY iso level. The D4 sensor matches or exceed the 1dX at every iso level.
When it comes to APS-C the difference is night and day.
Amazing! In seriousness Canon managed to create the mess that is the EOS M, then proceeded to sell an upgrade the equivalent of new firmware!
I shudder when I think about what they would have done if they weren't serious...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Hmm, what have we got here? A manufacturer that makes the best lenses south of Leica and Zeiss, with a wonderful tradition of quality throughout its history. They make no less than six full-frame models, all of them highly respected by their image quality; they are at the forefront of their industry in terms of effective, useful innovation and, despite relying almost exclusively on their cameras and lenses, they are still the second largest photography manufacturer. Professionals all over the world use Nikon for the most demanding jobs. I'd say they deserve some respect for all this, but how do people react to a simple interview? - We want 4K; - We want cropped sensors; - We want crappy mirrorless; - We don't care for wonderfully bright viewfinders, we just want dumb electronic ones;- We want E-mount;- And X- mount;- We want useless features that add nothing to image quality.The photography community has gone insane.
"Crappy" Mirrorless? LOL
Do you only think this way because Nikon's mirrorless system is absolutely worthless?
InTheMist: I guess if it keeps camera makers busy innovating on the enthusiast level and up, that's a good thing for everybody.
I'm a bit confused by the premise of the article, though.
I think you're trying to say that the point-and-shoot is dead as a class of camera (because everyone has phones now) and that this new focus towards the higher end of the marketplace is good for us who are most interested in this level of camera?
Yes. Because camera makers have to make a living somehow. And we are the only people left still willing to pay for quality cameras.
The shift from ordinary consumers to equipment-demand prosumers is what has caused the recent tide of high-end small form cameras, as well as innovation across brands.
Serious Sam: I am sure it is worth 2,290.00 but SERIOUSLY!!!!
This cost more than my whole X-Mount set put together. I really admired you Zeiss and Leica boys(and girls) has that much money to throw into a camera/lens.The CV is about 1.2K, this one is double its price and the SUMMILUX again 2.5 times the price of the zeiss. I am certain you will not see the image quality increase proportion to the money you spent even I don't own a single one of these......
Because people value other things than just what you get out of camera. On another note, the Canon 35mm F1.4 is close to $2000 and so is the Nikon. I don't expect any of them to perform as well as the Zeiss.
You could pay $6,000 for a nice used car and get way, way more than 80% of the functionality of a nice BMW sedan. But people still drive nice cars for their income - most people, I would argue. Same with optics. It's always the last bit of edge that is the most expensive to get.
And you just said it, you haven't used a single one of them.
I own a current version Summilux ASPH, which is twice the price of this lens. It is a stellar piece of optics that performs beyond the Canikon 35mm lenses. Is it *that much better? Of course not! But the size, build and extraordinary performance makes it a compelling choice to me, something worth $5k.
The same could be said for the Zeiss. I don't expect it to be anything less stellar, but it is bigger and heavier than the Leica, and distagons often have issues with flare control because of the complex design. But for some people the price will make sense, and for some other it won't. Just because you won't buy a lens like this one doesn't mean it's worthless...
People here complaining about the F4 should note that no other major mirrorless system has a UW zoom faster than F4 in equivalent DOF. The Fuji 10-24mm is F4 and also rather big and heavy.
If you absolutely need F2.8 there is the much revered Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM. True German optics at the lowly price of $4600...
Just a Photographer: I really don't get it. Why is Sony releasing only 'slow' lenses for their E-mount.Makes no sense using the A7's with any of the proprietary lenses this way.
No nice shor DOF and only limited bokeh.
Is it because they want to keep the A7 series 'light' as fast lenses will make the total system as heavy as any current DSLR.
This way it makes currently still more sense to buy 4/3 or even better an APS-C mirrorless system.
Haha please. I use a 15mm F2.8 on the Sony A7. Bokeh is essentially nonexistent unless I focus down to 30-50cm, and have a sufficiently far background. That is not how normal people use a 15mm lens. When I use a 15mm I stop down and put the camera on a tripod.
Same applies to any wide lens at f2.8. There is little to no bokeh to speak of. If you want bokeh at anything below 28mm, you need an F1.4 lens - and Fuji does not have a wide F1.4.
Fuji has a stronger lens line up because the X mount is, well, 3 1/2 years old.The FE mount is barely a year old - if I remember correctly as of late 2012 Fuji only had 5 XF lenses. Now Sony has 6.
Also, if you consider that FE lenses can be used on the regular E-mount, Sony's E-mount lineup is in fact stronger than XF. You have cheap primes all the way up to premium Zeiss glass.
How much Bokeh do you expect at 16mm and F2.8? And since when has a F4 UW zoom been "slow"?
The A7s' high iso capability is more than enough to cover a stop of difference. I would much rather have a lighter lens than get a pretty useless stop at this FOV.
People here posting about autofocus are completely missing the point. This is a lens that must be shot in a controlled environment, i.e. lighting, setups, for its superiority to show. In such an environment the photographer won't care about autofocus one way or another.
But I seriously doubt how much an improvement the lens will be over the excellent Nikon 85mm F1.4 G and the even better (and cheaper!) Leica 75mm APO-summicron. And in-studio shots are rarely made at maximum aperture, so I wonder how much of an advantage the lens has at F2 or F2.8...
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.