DenWil: In an America of clinical obesity the cameras get smaller and smaller. I have medium to smaller hands and I can't pick up one of these without wondering where my fingers go. What does a fat man or a man with large hands do? At 180#, 2 or 3 lbs of camera is just not a problem. I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography. Particularly ironic direction for camera makers since the phones get bigger and bigger.
"I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography."
Sickly? Or just healthy and fit?
If your hands are too fat to hold such a camera, I think you have bigger problems to be worried about, hehe.
The reality is that not all of us measure our masculinity by the size of our camera. I use heavy FF DSLR gear for work, and have logged countless hours lugging around such gear. But it doesn't mean I want to do so in my off time. My attitude these days is that I only carry around my big gear when I'm *paid* to. Otherwise, for personal, casual shooting, I use compact, smaller, lighter mirrorless gear. And my fingers know exactly where to go. We're not oafish mountain apes, for crying out loud. (At least some of us aren't. LOL)
thx1138: Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.
Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.
So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?
Maybe you ought to learn how to use these cameras, LOL. There is an entire generation of photographers that is doing perfectly fine taking pictures with a large LCD screen as their viewfinder. I think you're just a little out of touch with what people are perfectly capable of doing these days with non-VF cameras. People are also taking great pictures with their smart phones these days too. Is it really so difficult to frame a shot with a large LCD? No, it's not. Millions of people are doing it every day. Just go to Flickr and look up NEX 5N or EOS M or any other non-VF camera, and you'll see that a lot of very nice photography is being doing with such cameras. Heck, just look up iPhoneography, too.
I think it's a generational thing. The younger generation is a lot more used to looking at an LCD, framing the shot with it, and shooting. No big deal. To the older generation, it seems like an impossibility! LOL. Guess they can't do that while holding their cane. :0
Zvonimir Tosic: Fuji exhausting itself and users with utterly modern concept of dumbing down of the same device for market saturation, while selling us apparently 'a retro-looking appeal'? A contradiction in its best.
So I guess there's be an X-B1, made of recycled biscuit tins and with EVF, but no back LCD?
And an X-C1 too, made out of recycled cardboard and with EVF but with no flash, flash shoe, and no mode dial?
You're being insanely ridiculous. The fact is, there are usually compromises that have to be made in order to meet a certain price point. But apparently, certain camera snobs live in a world where there is no such room for any compromise whatsoever, even if it means being able to offer a less expensive model to broaden a particular brand's appeal to a wider market. And when such a camera appears, they throw tantrums, whining about cameras "made of recycled biscuit tins" or "made out of recycled cardboard." You sound like a small child crying hysterically, who claims he's going to die, or is going to run away from home, if he doesn't get the toy he wants! Grow up. Fuji makes several camera models to choose from. If this one doesn't appeal to you, then maybe there's another one in their line that does appeal to you. That is, after all, why they offer *several* different models, in case you didn't know.
Nuno Souto: The thing that baffles me is why don't the nay sayers and negative commenters go somewhere else? It's not like there is an obligation to use this camera, FFS!
Don't like it? Use something else, keep your idiotic uninformed opinions to yourself! Yes, that includes the diggloyds of this world!
And let those of us who derive a real advantage from using this system enjoy it, as we do.
Ah yes: we're all gonna give up on it because of your "opinions"?GMAB!...
There is a segment of society that is naturally intolerant of anything different than what they prefer. That's basically what's going on here: "I don't use it, I don't like it, I will be intolerant of it, I will think of terrible things to say about it."
The weird thing is that, in the automobile world, cars come in all shapes, sizes, prices, and capabilities...and yet car enthusiasts are quite accepting and tolerant of all this variety. Not so much amongst camera enthusiasts, apparently. Pathetic.
M Lammerse: Photoshop is for me a form of digital painting. So for me they are paintings, or better said digital images (very nice ones!) Photography is partly a chemical process, and differs from digital image making.
No, photography was once a chemical process, but no more. However, chemicals did not define what photography is. The word photography comes from the Greek words "phos" which means "light, and "graph" which means "to draw." As long as the image originated from photons of light being captured to form the base image, it's photography. Photography is about light, not chemicals. It's *pho*tography, not *chem*tography. Digital cameras no longer use a chemical process to capture the light to form an image...does that someone using a digital camera is no longer doing photography? Of course not.
Leandros S: In spite of everyone who has only half-read the descriptions, it is my belief that Barbara Cole's image ("I carefully manipulated the surface image to add dimension and introduce a painterly quality I loved.") is a painting done on top of a photograph. I don't think it qualifies for inclusion here. Many painters paint from photographs, are their paintings then photographs as well? I think not.
@Jen Yates - "... but this has been manipulated to achieve the other-worldly look."
Back in the film days, there used to be all kinds of filters that added a pastel look, or starry look, or gauzy look, or romantic look to photos that gave photos an "other-worldly look". Heck, some photographers would even smear Vaseline on a glass filter and shoot through that to give their images an "other-worldly look." Cole has simply applied this look manually, post-capture...but it's still a photo. I've seen photos printed on to tin, wood, stone, linen, etc. that also give photos an "other-worldly look"...but they are still photos. The notion that any time any photo deviates from actual reality (i.e. "pther-worldly") disqualifies it as being a photo is simply absurd. Photography is an art form, but its basis is simply the idea that you originally acquired the image by capturing light.
That's complete non-sense. Did Barbara Cole pull out a bunch of tubes of paint? Did she apply this paint "on top of a photograph"? Where is the "painting done on top of a photograph" that you claim? I really don't see how what she did with the surface texture of the image is any different than someone printing a photo onto canvas, or someone applying a digital texture filter to a photo, or even someone taking sandpaper to a photo! It's still a photo, originally created from *light* (which is what *photo* means) forming an image on film or a digital sensor or photo paper or some other photo- (i.e., light-) sensitive surface or substrate. If you used paint to create an image, that's painting. If you used light striking a light-sensitive surface to form your image, that's photography.
If you're going to make accusations of a photographer doing "painting done on top of a photograph", it would be helpful to show evidence that paint was actually used.
ljmac: IMHO, the amount of post processing on so many photos these days means they *are* more like paintings than photos. The only image I would consider to be a true photo here is the house one, and possibly the first one (if so this *is* a remarkable illusion). We need a new term for these sorts of images - they may be based on photos, but have been taken far from them.
They're still photos to me. I don't see anything wrong with simply saying that a particular image is "a photo with post-processing or artistic filter applied."
By the way, the fourth photo, Barbara Cole's, was done with Polaroid film, careful lighting, and careful manipulation of the film surface to give it that "painterly quality." I don't see how she shouldn't be able to call her image a photo, while Ansel Adams spent hours in a dark room manipulating the tones of his images from his negatives so that they appeared a certain way on the surface of photo paper.
millardmt: Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR? I read about the cheap, plastic, hollow SONY a3000 (for example) and I almost feel pity for the major camera manufacturers. The evidence of their marketing research must be inescapable. (The irony is that Yoshihisa Maitan, the original designer of the Olympus OM-1 and the PEN, was an innovator who followed his own instincts; now, decades later, Olympus slavishly follows his precedent with nary a step out of line.)
It frustrates me that American shoppers are so unsophisticated that they can be enthralled by form alone, without regard to function. (I will exempt those of us who follow DPR inasmuch as, ipso facto, we are concerned with substance.) Just as it shames me that I can see the evidence of American ignorance in a much broader context every time I pick up a newspaper.
Looks aside, I really, really want this camera, but there's no way I can afford it! It is quality!
Sadly, Americans in general are very large and overweight, and I guess they like their cameras that way too. LOL.
Neodp: OK, look guys(and gals). If you don't like my opinion, then stop right now.
Finally improvements, and these are G R E A T. So go ahead, and call me all negative; but things are rarely all, or nothing, and the devils in the details.
m43 is still lacking in sensor competitiveness. This is a great platform, for the future; when M43 sensors are better, and yes that's a high standard. Wake me when that day comes. Right now, APS size, offers a better photographic value. But alas, we are not seeing a total balance, in new mirror-less APS based cams yet, either.
I'm waiting. If the camera industry can not get its head, out of its collective rear; then I will stay, with my old gear, and take better pictures anyway, until it does.
In this day and age, people who are still anally pixel peeping and complaining that IQ still isn't good enough (for them)...well, I find these people are generally the kind of people who do the least photography.
As for "photographic value"...I use Canon APS-C and FF, but I also use m4/3, and I have to say that there is definitely "photographic value" in being able to take a trick with lighter, more compact camera gear. Frankly, I've never been out shooting and said to myself "I love carrying heavier camera gear! More weight and bulk, please!" On the other hand, there have been plenty of times in the past when I've wished for lighter, more compact gear that didn't weigh me down so much. I think m4/3, as a complete system, now allows us that. There is definitely value in that, to me.
T3: I remember there was a big discussion a while back where people were claiming that the key to lower noise was having more pixels, and of smaller size. Wonder where those people are now?
Well, I guess the "smaller pixels are better for less image noise" fanatics are still around. LOL. The proof is clearly in the pudding. But they still want to cling to theory that is unsubstantiated by product results.
Clearly, these people don't understand that, no matter how small or large a pixel is, there is still circuitry within each pixel that takes up space and limits the area within that pixel (or photosite) dedicated to capturing light. As the pixel gets smaller, this circuitry takes up a disproportionately larger percentage of space within that pixel. Thus, light capturing efficiency decreases. But all these nuts think about is the total "quantity of light hitting the sensor". Yeah, total light hitting the sensor remains the same, but pixel efficiency goes down because each pixel isn't simply an empty well whose entire area is dedicated to capturing light! Leave it to these armchair theorists to tell Canon that they're doing it all wrong by using larger pixels. LOL.
justmeMN: Some mirrorless enthusiasts complain about DSLRs being big, bulky, and heavy.
The EM-1 is 12% wider, 3% taller, and 22% heavier than the Canon SL1 / 100D, according to camerasizecom.
(Yes, they are in different price classes.)
1. Yes, they are in a different price class, and are in a completely different build class, too!
2. Uh...do you plan on mounting lenses on these bodies? Many of the m4/3 lenses are downright tiny. So when you consider size, you really can't just consider the size of the body. You have to consider the size of the body, and the system's lenses.
daqk: 1. Too Expensive!2. No Flash?
@white shadow - there are plenty of weather sealed bodies that have built-in flashes. Take a look at the Canon 7D:
Or the various Pentax bodies:
Yes, these cameras were frozen in a block of ice, buried in sand, rinsed off in a shower, etc. And yes, they do have built-in flashes.
I remember there was a big discussion a while back where people were claiming that the key to lower noise was having more pixels, and of smaller size. Wonder where those people are now?
Anastigmat: This camera is only about 1/2 an inch narrower than the full frame Nikon D600 and it is not much cheaper. The difference in image quality between a 4/3 sensor and a full frame is huge. The Olympus therefore sacrifices image quality without any benefit in compactness or a much lower price. Olympus fans may swoon over this new toy, but most other photographers will simply walk away.
I strongly suggest you put this camera next to a D600, and you'll see quite a considerable difference is camera body size. The E-M1 is *much* more compact than a D600. And even more compact when you add in the lenses. As for IQ, well, not everyone is an anal pixel peeper. It really all depends on what you're shooting, and how big you print. There will be plenty of people who will prefer the more compact size of this camera and the m4/3 system, relative to the D600 and full frame lenses.
jon404: I have a Sony RX100. Now, I don't know if I'm comparing apples with oranges, but why on earth would someone buy this Leica?
People who have money and care about style. Just open up the pages of Vogue, GQ, Marie Claire, or any other fashion magazine. Just walk into a Neiman Marcus or any other high end department store. I realize that these names may be unfamiliar to people here on this forum, and they represent a world apart from the existences of many people here, but there are fashionable people in the world who do have money to spend. Someone who spends hundreds of dollars on a single pair of sunglasses, or thousands of dollars on a handbag or watch, certainly would have no problem spending a couple hundred dollars more for a Leica-branded attractive camera like this. A product like this is as much a fashion accessory as it is a camera. I have female friends who buy purses that cost in the thousands of dollars. I know, crazy, right? But I'm a guy, and I could care less about purses. I could see any of them buying this Leica to put in their purse or handbag.
This is a camera that many affluent men will buy their wives for their birthday, or whatever. It's a lovely camera with lovely packaging and lovely accessories. Geek men on equipment forums will hate it, but this camera isn't for geek men on equipment forums. A woman who takes the care to dress impeccably from head to toe would certainly appreciate a camera like this. Most men here probably find it a chore just to match their socks. So I can easily see how many people on this forum wouldn't like this camera; it's just not aimed at you. Nothing wrong with a savvy company aiming at focused segments of the market. Just think of the car industry: you have rugged pickup trucks that can hall hay and carry toolboxes, and then you have sexy sporty luxury coup convertibles. Two very different markets, even though they are both cars.
iAPX: i am pretty sad that Leica could NOT differenciate it from competition with something else than a red dot or Luxury protections (featuring a big visible "Leica" logo).
I'd liked that Leica have taken the Panasonic DMC-LF1, simplified it's interface, removed wi-fi, adding a grip for the right hand. And I would even liked to have video modes removed too, to simplify the interface, and make it a pure photographer tool, something simple and more efficient.
"removed wi-fi, adding a grip for the right hand."
Not for this market. Wifi is a heck of a lot more valuable than a grip, when it comes to the target market for this camera. Buyers of this camera will want to be able to link with their smart phones or other devices to upload images. Besides, if Leica M rangefinders don't have grips, then why does this camera need one? A grip would merely ruin the classic Leica profile.
jhinkey: ugh! Do they really make any money doing this?
Of course they do. Probably a lot more than you think.
(unknown member): What's the point if Fujifilm is not going to use their better technology sensor?
@Basalite - no, you're just attaching your own narrow bias of what "X" means. An idealistic, narrow, exclusive idea of "X". The reality is that Fuji wants to sell cameras, needs to sell cameras, and in the "X" series of cameras they've established a certain look and style that many people find appealing, and many people even buy the "X" bodies specifically because they find this particular style, look, and aesthetic appealing in a camera body. So what's so wrong about offering a lower-priced camera body so that more people can afford it? Oh, because you *don't* want more people to be able to afford it! Is that why you feel so threatened and insecure about Fuji broadening the "X" cameras to a wider audience? Well, that's rather selfish of you, don't you think?