d2f: Why buy a digital Leica rangefinder in the first place? Just get a used M6 and load either B&W or color film as the need arises, scan the film and enjoy the best of both worlds.
Because film has a lot of downsides. No image review, no one-the-fly ISO changes, grainy high ISO quality, having to change your roll of film every 36 shots (btw, loading film on a Leica rangefinder is a bit of an ordeal-- not as easy as simply popping open the film back), having to wait to get the film processed, having to scan the film, having to properly archive the films in addition to the digital files, etc. Plus, just having to store and carry film is an inconvenience. If you go out shooting, it's not just a case of carrying a spare battery-- you're carrying several rolls of film instead, probably of different ISO speeds. Depending on how much you shoot, the more film you have to carry! If you can afford it, I think a digital Leica is the way to go over a film Leica.
It's certainly not an anachronism, any more than a Rolex watch is.
5andi: Am I missing something or are these lenses only for people who can't use Photoshop?
Well, I did say that even outside of Photoshop, I'd prefer it to be a less expensive effect to achieve. The least expensive of these lenses is $299. That's a lot to spend to add a novelty look to your images. But clearly, for some people, it's worth every penny. More power to them.
@ Martinka - I don't think I'd want get that effect in or out of Photoshop. And if I did want it, I don't think I'd want to pay more than $99 for it. Maybe not even $49 for it. But that's just me.
CameraLabTester: Canon has the market pulse under it's thumb.
It knows how to churn out a product with the right level of features and price point to hit the bulls eye for maximum sales numbers.
It doesn't have to be the best camera, it doesn't have to be well featured, it doesn't have to have all the train whistles and fog horn leghorns blazing left and right.
"It just has to be the camera that the buyers are willing to part with their money, from their affordability level."
It's not about technical excellence, folks... it's about the Mob."
"They know too well how to manipulate The Mob." ---Proximo
Is is really about Canon having "the market pulse under its thumb"? Or is it really about having the Canon name stamped on the camera?
bigdaddave: I could never be seen with a bag that is worth more than the gear inside it.
What an utter waste of money
The cumulative value of your camera gear costs less than $399? Wow, that's a pretty cheap set of gear. Then you certainly shouldn't be getting this back. Just get a cheapo camera bag from Walmart.
Peter62: Just used the image comparison tool. Set to ISO 12800 I compared the
Fuji X-E2Nikon D7200Canon EOS 760DCanon EOS 750D
Even with it's "smaller" 16 MP-sensor, the X-E2 has a higher resolution than ALL(!) APS-C Nikons and ALL APS-C Canons!
Just look at the small coloured concentric circles.
@M Jesper - People used to say the same thing about ISO 1600 and 3200. But as quality increased at these ISO levels, it has become more common for people to use these ISOs. The same goes for an ISO such as 12,800. If it becomes more usable, it becomes more used!
The size of the viewfinder is disappointing. It's even smaller than the poor viewfinder in the SL1. Canon basically upgraded the features of the T6 to be more of a mid-level camera, but then downgraded the viewfinder to below that of an entry-level camera. Canon giveth and taketh away!
This camera gets more attractive every day. But i'm holding out for an update to the NX30. I'm hoping it will be a mini NX1.
HowaboutRAW: The much less expensive Nikon D5500 has better high ISO performance, very good AF, good HD video in normal format and many more lens options.
And Samsung has very good lenses.
But can the D5500 do 15fps burst? No, it tops out at a slow 5fps. It also doesn't have a WYSIWYG viewfinder like the NX1. You also can't get lenses like a 16-50mm f/2.0-2.8 lens like you can with the NX1. NX system also offers a nice selection of compact pancake lenses that don't exist with Nikon. The short backfocus distance of mirrorless allows a lot more flexibility with lens design.
justmeMN: Judging by the retro styling, Fujifilm doesn't want young people buying their cameras.
I think a lot of young people would actually like this styling. It's got a lot more character than the bland, melted, smoothed-over styles of most cameras.
Eugene232: don't understand why mirrorless cameras getting bigger and bigger..The mirrorless idea is -to have a DSLR IQ in a smaller body/
The G7 is still tiny compared to your average DSLR.
philippe luyckx: Well...i don't know what's so special here...the Sony A6000 is a year old...has the build in flash....is smaller and lighter....has much better AF...ergonomics are fantastic because very customisable buttons..and and probably way way cheaper.
I don't find Sony's lens selection to be as interesting as Fuji's. I think that's been the main weakness of Sony's mirrorless system. Plus, I really like the JPEG output from Fuji's cameras. I shoot exclusive in RAW when I'm using my Canon DSLR, but with Fuji I am quite happy to shoot JPEG.
BTW, the X-T10 also has a built-in flash.
Fogsprig: I don't think X-T10 would be a huge hit among Fuji lovers.If I'm not wrong, those guys yearn X-Pro2. They asked for it for almost two years.
UPD Well, my E-M10 gets in OMD lineup as a strong entry-level one but it's not a specs-giant like E-P5 (X-E2 or X-Pro1 in Fuji world) from more awkward PEN series. That being said I may be wrong.
X-T10 appeals to a lot of us who liked the X-T1, but thought it was a little money more than we wanted to spend. The X-T10 is $400-500 less. I also like that it's smaller than an X-T1. I think it'll be quite popular.
Peiasdf: Confusing lineup. This is a X-E series with the EVF at the center instead of the corner so is it a step up from X-E or runs alongside it? It seems Fiji is running two lines of APS-C mirrorless/EVIL cameras: X-Pro, X-E, X-M and X-T1, X-T10, X-A
There's always the possibility that they may kill off the X-E series. Personally, I like the X-E series because I like the side-positioned viewfinder and I like the "rangefinder" look of a camera that is flat across the top.
qwertyasdf: Looks properly retro, except for the typical Fuji cheapish fake leatherette.
When I look back at the likes of Canon A-1, Nikon F series and Pentax ME, I always wonder why the heck modern SLR / DSLR grew so much in size...
It's because manual cameras don't have any electronics inside them. Or at least very minimal electronics. Modern cameras are packed with electronics.
Handsome little camera. I'm particularly surprised that it has a pop-up flash. When the flash is down, it looks like a classic non-flash viewfinder dome-- ie, it doesn't look like the camera has a pop-up flash at all. The camera doesn't look great with the flash up, but it looks great with the flash down.
Um, what's so great about the A7 except that it's smaller than this Canon?
It has washed out colour in raw, and a very very audible mechanical shutter. And with its 24MPs, it has about the high ISO performance of this 50MP Canon. It's good for video though.
And I like using EVFs in lowlight shooting, but the A7S is better for that than the A7.
I don't shoot with an A7, but I've seen plenty of great photos shot with the A7. I don't see "washed out colors." Travel photographer Trey Ratcliff shoots with A7's. There aren't any "washed out color" in his photos.
Tim Gander: My understanding is real titanium is quite a nasty metal in terms of environmental costs of extraction and manufacture, so I'm glad to see they're only using the word titanium to refer to a paint finish. My knowledge on this matter isn't detailed, so perhaps someone else knows more about the effects of metal and mineral extraction for manufacturing. Or maybe nobody cares, it's just a thought.
The amount of titanium used for these limited edition cameras would have been miniscule and trivial compared to the amount of titanium used worldwide in various industries, such as aerospace (aircrafts, etc.), medical (surgical implants, etc.), sporting goods (golf clubs, bicycles, etc.).
Photomonkey: Bargain. Pure and simple.No IS means lower price, weight and simpler optical design.
This is what people have been asking for.
@Adrien S - The problem is that Canon is now going up against mirrorless cameras with in-body stabilization where every lens, including fast primes, are getting the benefit of IS. Sony's A7 II has IBIS. Eventually, IBIS will make its way into all of Sony's mirrorless bodies. m4/3 bodies have IBIS. Other mirrorless manufacturers may eventually add IBIS to their mirrorless bodies, too. This is the future that Canon is going up against. So adding IS to prime lenses is a way Canon can protect themselves from this future threat...which is why they've added IS to their latest 35mm and 28mm primes. The problem is that it's just difficult to add IS to faster apertures. The floating IS element would make faster lenses very large.