Let me rephrase. There is nothing factual in that entire quoted statement from "24 MP seemed excessive". to "the company put priority on the images and the experience" as if one thing precludes the other. It is definitely outside your field of vision to spot Leica BS.

Hey, you are the one that wrote it is ignorant or dishonest that a company states it puts priority on images and experience over Mega Pixels.

I guess we will have to just disagree on what is important in photography. You pick Mega Pixels I'll pick image and experience.

No, I pick them all. Please try to comprehend my words.

Try to comprehend this: Priority.

I guess I either don't understand your point or I disagree.

A photographer may choose to pick a camera that delivers a certain experience. Another photographer may choose a camera that allows him to produce certain images (photographs). Another it may be important to have MegaPixels.

Leica, like all manufactures, produce a cameras that delivers a certain experience and image. Very good images from a technical stand point, and for some photographers they believe a distinct creative image (photograph). With certain Leica lenses the images may end up with more resolution than a higher MP camera with lesser lenses.

Your Leica rep simply stated that he believed Leica puts a priority on image and experience over simply Mega Pixels. One camera may deliver the most MegaPixels but not the best image in all ways. And, certainly not the same experience as every other camera.

You say you pick them all... I'd like to know what camera that is and I'll buy it.

having owned and sold d800e and 5dsr I can understand that the many megapixel make them actualy worse then d750 or 5dm3 in real world.

Ridiculous? I give up. Not much of a response to my posts. I guess you have been reduced to one caustic word. Goodbye.

Right.

Hardly outdated. Perhaps not the class leader in terms of noise, but close enough that I certainly wouldn't call it outdated. Very few companies use their own sensors in their bodies, including Leica, and they bought what they felt was the best model for their requirements. They would need a company that would work with them on micro lens design, thickness of cover glass, etc. in order to maintain 'M' lens compatibility, and that would limit their options somewhat.

Jared:

And I can confirm no vignetting with a 21mm Voightlander lens, so that's impressive.

jeremytan:

That's far from the only test of a camera, and it's far from the most important.

Start by trying to hit exposure within one stop, so much easier today than in the film era--especially 35 years ago.

HAR: I guess I oversimplified it, but in this case, that's what most of the reviewers try to touch on these days.

I would argue that goal is always to get it right in camera, but since that's highly reliant on the skill of the photographer and not something the cameras can always account for, they have to find ways to make up for it before people take a "bad" photo and complain about their camera.

Pushing underexposed files to keep highlight detail for high contrast scenes is a pretty standard procedure for advanced photographers, which work well with the best sensors. If a high modern end camera can't be used like this, I would fot sure go for something else.

Wow, that was incoherent. Apple does make laptops out of aluminum, for a premium (110-125% the price of competitors). Leica makes a camera out of aluminum and then sells it for 300-400% the price of competitors. Math is your friend. Comparing Apple to Leica is a complete logical fail. IT weighs as much as a Nikon D610 and has almost the same height and width as the D610! It's a monstrosity. And I say the image quality is horrible, because compared to its competition, the IMAGE QUALITY IR HORRIBLE! Of course I saw the sample gallery, and I also saw the controlled images in the test shots and neither are exceptional. The way it blows the reds is unattractive, IMO. And at first I thought it was just the JPEG engine, but the DNGs wind up looking the same. When you charge $8k for a $2k camera, you set yourself up for critical evaluation. This camera, at first glance, does not fair well in this category.

I've never held an A7 and thought "I really wish this was the size of a DSLR". Leica has totally gone off the rails of reality and misses why people are attracted to mirrorless cameras. If they wanted to make a huge camera, then they should have gone ahead and included a mirror/prism. This camera is a pointless excercise in combining weird excesses and unfortunate shortcomings into one entity.

AngryC:

The DNGs, non-studio, look excellent to me. And so do the DNGs I've shot with an SL.

I don't understand the objection to the size.

Aesthetics is a different story for different people.

Never commented on Apple's pricing, but I'll bet the Leica factory workers are paid an actual living wage.

Leica already has a DSLR, and this SL is thinner than say a D610, of course for obvious reasons.

I don't think you understand the entire appeal of mirrorless if you think it only about size.

A lot of what you post reads like attacks on the Samsung NX1.

Oh, ok. So to mill out ONE camera, Leica needs to pay the machine operators and QA checkers $4000? That's an "actual living wage"? I need to go work for Leica then. I'll work one day a month and still live in a mansion. Stop trying to use bad logic to support garbage pricing. All you do is make it clear you don't have a good grasp of supply-chain costs when you do that.

Please, tell us the appeal of mirrorless. Is it the viewfinder with latency and electronic gain/noise over a bright, natural optical prism viewfinder? Or is it the wonderful added issues of pairing compact optics with sensors that are three-dimensional and thus have optical errors at extreme angles? Because, according to you and Leica, the efficiency & portability (size AND weight) are of absolute no concern to anyone looking at mirrorless systems. Please cite ergonomics so we can discuss the "enhanced feel of hard painted metal against your hand versus textured polymer surfaces" when holding a camera.

Long conversation short: Leica makes overpriced crap because there are currently people stupid enough to buy it at those prices. As long as there is demand by a bunch of irrational "collectors" instead of working photographers, Leica will flourish.

Leica is a Veblen product price-driven by the "snob effect". They machine the product from a single chunk of aluminum to drive the "perceived value" of the item up without actually increasing the manufacturing cost by a lot.

Per Wikipedia (snob effect): "This situation is derived by the desire to own unusual, expensive or unique goods. These goods usually have a high economic value, but low practical value. The less of an item available, the higher its snob value. Ultimately, wealthy consumers can be lured by superficial factors such as rarity, celebrity representation and brand prestige."

AngryC:

Do you really think that the sum of digital camera is the outer body?

There are other parts of digital cameras, some Leica makes, and some Leica pays for, example the sensor.

Nobody disputes that Leica cameras are expensive, but they sell.

And M lenses, the good ones, really sell, and there's a reason.

If the SL camera body is not for you, don't buy it.

Many mirrorless cameras avoid really audible shutters, not the early Sony A7s.

Shooting in very dark lighting is easier with mirrorless bodies in most cases.

Video is easier to implement well with mirrorless.

You don't appear to know much about cameras.

Holy smokes AngryCorgi, did Leica slaughter your entire family in front of your eyes? Why all the emotion?

HowaboutRAW,

You are right, there is more to a camera, like the sensor...which in this case, appears to be lagging behind the competition by a fair amount. When I cited this you said "have you handled the camera?" and we shifted to the nonsensical ergonomics of the camera...now you want to switch back to the sensor to gain points? There were no points to be had before, and none have developed since, so...yeah, the sensor is not a plus, going by the early samples. I agree, this camera sells. It makes use of the snob effect quite expertly. Leica has you thinking its great because its expensive, even though the performance isn't there.

"Shooting in very dark lighting is easier with mirrorless bodies in most cases"

What the what...? I have had many mirrorless cameras & DSLRs and I can say that the mirrorless cameras did NOT outperform the DSLRs in "very dark lighting". If anything, the DSLRs have had more success AFing in extreme low light.

a bit better than the A7RII, my foot. Buy some new glasses, son. Better yet, hit the "comp" icon on the comparison tool. If you think the Leica looks less noisy with better color accuracy in RAW than the A7RII, then you are suffering from fanboyism, because its simply not an accurate claim. Compare ANYTHING red on the studio sample. The Leica looks awful. Don't bother even speaking about the RAW DR comparison tool: the Leica is so far behind EVERYTHING that its not worth using as an argument for why this technologically lagging camera is more than double the price of an A7RII.

The one plus of the SL is the added bonuses. I normally spend hours every day adding a special banding effect to all my photos in post...Leica puts that into the image straight out of the camera! Now that is time and effort saved. Thanks, Leica!!

Angry:

For higher ISOs, yes the Leica SL is bit better than the A7RII. The Leica avoids cyan and magenta blotching for longer.

Sorry, I have my own raws.

The DPR “tool” isn’t real helpful for higher ISO comparisons. And if you're using it, that doesn't count as looking at raws.

The Sony has greater dynamic range.

The banding thing is really rare. It shows up in perhaps 4 out of 50 raws I've seen, one is a DPR studio scene at ISO 50,000, the others have to be pushed--leaving the school bus.

My own raws show banding even less frequently--1 out of 100.

Not commenting on whether I think the Leica worth more, or less, than the A7RII.

DPR's Adobe-converted raw files don't count? Mkay. No use arguing with someone who has poor vision. You are the only person who sees less noise in the SL shots at equiv sensitivities than the A7RII. Continue with whatever mental gymnastics is required to defend your investment in your "toy".

Angry:

You have to get the raws yourself and convert them.

It's not so much a luminance noise thing, but the cyan and magenta blotching problems for the Sonys.

Hi Angry
In fact Ming Thein and Jono Slack and many other professional photographers are using the SL with this very same lens and getting great results - it is a simple search on Google to find it, you know?

But what do I know? I am going to give away my Breitling watch, sell my Leica M240 and all the lenses I bought, sell of all my expensive rifles and Zeiss and Swarovski telescopes and before I forget, get rid of my very expensive 4x4 and all because of your argument - only stupid but wealthy people, buy these things, for snob value only, and know nothing about the real stuff and of course, none of these people actually work for their money - it gets handed to them on a plate - LOL

You really are a bit of a joke you know?

Wow, got defensive about your wealth/status when it was never brought into question. What's that?? You have tons of "very expensive" things?? Wow, you must be really important!!! Can I have your autograph?? And what's that? The two biggest Leica apologists purchased an SL? Wow, that is really shocking!!!

Let's gander at an excerpt from Mr. Slack's review of the SL:

"This August Andreas Kaufmann posted a photograph on Facebook of Lenny Kravitz shooting with a Leicaflex SL, I thought this was delightfully oblique, and it prompted me to buy a Leicaflex SL2 secondhand at a very modest price, it’s wonderfully made and just lovely to use, and my 41 year old beauty is still working perfectly."

Wait, so he bought a camera because he saw an online association between the camera, a notorious leica shill, and lenny kravitz.

Ok, Robert. You obviously did not come by any of your wealth via a solid understanding of economics, so I'll pretend you didn't just dig a deep hole and jump in.

Angry, I think the point being made is that some people are interested in the bells and whistles, the technology and squeezing the last amount of DR from a sensor under fabricated conditions. Others however are interested in well made and well engineered equipment and use it to do a job it was made for, rather than measure its performance under unreal conditions. If you don't like that stuff, fine. But don't assume that everyone who does is a 'shill' (your term not mine). Its just a bit lame.

Why do care so much what others do? If you don't like it don't buy it. Simples.

Aren't Porsche and Audi high end as well?

as far as you know.

All german cars used to be considered as higher end, and Audi and Porsche used to be considered high end.
And they cheated... In so many ways they seem to acknowledge a new one each day...

Might have to wait a bit more before we learn from Mercedes and BMW too.

So by that analogy we all cheat by virtue of the nation were were born under. Very constructive to the discussion. Leica after all is a german company. ;-(

HowaboutRAW:

Actually, you're a dick, and your comments prove it over and over again.

It just means you are bad with handling jokes and probably aren't any fun at parties. :D

For example, while el-if-i-no is what you get when you cross an elephant and a rhino, cold hard logic shows that elephants don't mate with rhinos.

Its easy to poke a hole in a joke, but all that makes you is tedious to be around.

Sure man, already delt with.

I'm sorry, but I think a $7,500 camera (body) is a huge stretch for most people, IMO. Maybe not many people on here, but to the outside world, many won't even own a car worth $7,500.

@Beat. An extremem example, but both the new iPhones and the A7Ses are 12MP.

Beat T
You're right, resolution is an essential part of IQ. What would people think of a 1 pixel Leica camera, even with a great M lens ?
Capturing the world in its finest details is the essence of what IQ improvements aim at.
And, together with the body, the main purpose of great lenses is to allow to reach for these fine details.

Hence my point is: if Leica don't release a better IQ body, it's maybe because lots of their lenses are reaching their limits with 24Mpxls and Leica don't want to expose their flaws with a 40+ Mpxls sensor...

HowaboutRaw

Finest details including color rendition, details shape (aka lack of distortion), and other characteristics related to optical rendition, I am not wrong.
But you are very wrong in denying the very importance of resolution in IQ.

Don't get me wrong it's nice to buy new 'stuff' but I'm afraid with cameras there is only so much resolution needed in order to produce outstanding images. I suppose I have no right being on here because it is primarily a space for those who really enjoy and feel the need to 'pixel peep' and discuss findings.

I don't know. Several years ago, out of the blue came an email from Random House Publishing. They had seen an image on my site and wanted to use it on a book cover. I agreed a great fee and sent it. Was it shot with my Canon 1DS or Leica M8? No - it was shot with a crappy little Canon IXUS that I had with me in New York. The image was used on a range of marketing collateral and again it was printed with superb results at a size that technically should not have worked - but it did!

Sorry to be a bit 'anti gear' but this Leica thread pretty much made me realise that all it is a bloody camera and as such it's no different to any other decent camera that has emerged in recent years.

> If I'd not actually handled the camera, I'd have less to say.

How would you sum up your impressions? Would you use this camera yourself? And, if yes, for what kind of shooting?

vadims:

Setting aside the cost, or assuming I have the monies to buy the camera and lenses; and assuming more AF lenses get released on schedule--I'm not particularly fond of using zoom lenses:

Yes, I'd buy it and use it for both stills and video. I'd have preferred stronger high ISO performance.

In late 2015, it has by far the best EVF. It's not a strong sports camera but that's not what I'd shoot with it. It is NOT huge, it is very very quiet for a full framed mechanical shutter--I speculate here that Leica uses an electronic first curtain.

It is very easy to use with M lenses, and the results are reported to be significantly better than even the Sony A7RII with M lenses.

rev:

Just to be clear you can't walk around out side.

Yes, B+H will have most of the Zeiss F mount lenses for try out at the counter, with your own Nikon or a display Nikon. Same goes for Canon.

Leica not so much.

@HowaboutRAW, I wouldn't say that offers any excuse. It's not like Olympus was known for zoom lenses in "earlier days" (OM system) either.

A $5000 zoom lens should offer absolutely state-of-the-art performance, not look like a $200 plastic kit zoom in the corners at optimum aperture, like this Leica does.

High-end products should at least inspire and entice prospective buyers through their performance, and this thing does anything but, in the sample images...

I say this as a loving, loyal M-system user, BTW.

Your argument is strange. They *weren't* building excellent zooms, but their first zooms for digital cameras were truly excellent, right at the start.

However, if you have tried other samples of the SL zoom that were good, perhaps it's just unfortunate that dpreview got a dud, and perhaps we need to wait for more real-world samples.

Isn't it a bit stupid to say Sony's imaging division is losing money two days after they announced their 2015 Q2 results showing increase in profit of "Imaging Products & Solutions" by roughly 25% year-over-year!
The division was profitable in Q1 2015 as well, and also the whole of 2014.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/fr/15q2_sonypre.pdf

Page 3 Results by Segment.

Even better.
I always thought that the sensor business profit is included in the above profit, but apparently it comes under "Devices" segment which is also profitable and rose as well.

So basically:

Devices segment (sensors, batteries, recording media)
Operating profit increased 15% from 20 to 25.9 billion yen

Imaging Products & Solutions segment (stills & video cameras, lenses, broadcasting)
Operating profit increased 28% from 28 to 32.7 billion yen

"startledwolfy"

Can't I just troll in peace???
Your facts are useless on this website btw !

And you need to post that under an article that is about a product by a totally different manufacturer?

So you need a site for tech illiterate? We have enough photo 'blogs' that posts heavily processed low resolution images, and praising expensive equipment using a ton of buzzwords?

Leica loves you to Rob

Hello to Nerd and Utterlyotter and of course, my favourite, Trieze - your names tell all

I shall start a collection fund for the likes of you, so that you too can one day hold a Leica in your hands and finally stop pixel peeping - just go take pictures damnit - then you will pretty quickly understand why Leicas are superior

This DPR evaluation is out of focus and quite frankly, embarrassing!

Oh lighten up Robert and don´t get so emotional.

I´m honestly glad you´re enjoying your camera, that´s the only important thing - wether it´s about taking pics or fondling it.. ;-)

Happy hunting!

There's another thing you can do with that camera of yours Rob, shove it up where the sun don't shine to get the full Leica Experience!!

That others are capturing "brilliant and super sharp" images with this camera and lens is what makes me think that something is wrong with the one DPR has used for it's tests.

Personally I'd love to have a Leica M and SL as well as a 7R2 and D810. Different cameras with different strengths and weaknesses for different purposes. I recommend Ming Thein's introduction to the SL.

My work horse camera is Nikon.

What you don't know is that most camera and lenses nowadays can make 'brilliant and super sharp' 800 pixel wide images you see at blogs. That's why now we need scientific test to prove how they compare.

Hi Trieze

Are you getting a tad sensitive old chap?

Wait, let me caress my M240 and go out for a few shots, before I come back and read the crap you write (over and over for every Leica product launch I might add)

Just get original for a change and go and actually see & handle this camera - shoot with it and experience it - if you are still inclined to write your crap after that , then consider the frustration that your ignorance brings to others and by the way, DO NOT MENTION THE MONEY!

TriezeA72,
And have you ever owned a Leica, or are you just carping?

Just own Leica glass Jim, because it's a cut above the rest, but I'm quite satisfied with fuji's offerings at a fraction of the cost... As for Leica camera bodies, I've handled a few in the past, they're a truely well built solid camera, but not worth the outlay to own one, especially when I could get something else nearly as good for less.
Looking at some of the comparison tests, there's not a huge advantage if any with this new Leica SL, you can do just as good with any current full-framed camera for cheaper, some at 1/10th of the price of the Leica SL. It's marketed for people who lust for the over-hyped "Leica Experience" but don't have the cash for the real McCoy, same people who have a serious need to impress and pamper themselves
The only Leica I'd buy today would be a film body and as long as they keep making film, they'll keep clicking, but today's modern tech is almost obsolete as soon as you pull it out of the box, to be honest I'd rather blow 10K on quality glass

TriezeA72,
OK. I also own Fuji X-Pro1 and Fuji X glass. Wonderful products. Also I own Leica as well with an M9P and an X2. My primary lenses for the M are Zeiss ZM lenses plus wide and tele Elmarits. I frankly can't say which cameras produce the best images. All three are excellent.

The only reason I asked is that I suspect that many forum contributors are not necessarily users of the forum's brand of cameras and therefore many of those speak from ignorance or perhaps reverse snobbery. Obviously you are not one of those and your response to my question is a good one that applies to many but not all Leica owners.

Leica's are not for everyone. Professionals? Sure. People with a lot of disposable income? Definitely. Between those extremes are people like me who buy used pampered M's for less money and enjoy shooting pictures with a precision instrument. Leica's are devoid of extensive menus and have few buttons. They are simply straight forward uncluttered high quality cameras.

Hey Robert, it's not that I can't afford it, my initial posting is aimed at people that I know in the industry that flaunt their new Leicas as if it's some sort of trophy of acceptance, it's just a camera, you don't instantly become super hipster photographer of the year by owning one, I'm not going to envy them because of a little red dot, I only envy people who are masters of their tools not the other way around.....but what makes me really laugh is when these wannabe über sleek street photographers have to cheapskate on everyday necessities to pay off their credit card debt in order to maintain that image.

Jim you make a fair and great point, there are genuine photographers like yourself who really do appreciate the form and functionality of Leica, and Fujifilm also.
I know I go on a bit about Leica in a negative way, but this SL doesn't quite cut the mustard, it's got the red dot but not the charisma of Leica, and if they want to poach potential Sony A7 buyers, they either need to rethink it's price point or make a camera that's not marginally better than other cameras half the price or less, it's a bit of an oddball in my opinion.

Trieze:

Have you handled this new Leica SL?

Indeed Sony should be proud of the A7RII, now that an A7 has a quiet mechanical shutter and 14 bit raws. Only took Sony 2 years. Leica started out that way.

Trieze A72,
"...if they want to poach potential Sony A7 buyers..."

That is just the point. I don't think they care to poach from Sony or any other camera maker except for models that fit in their price point. Time will tell whether the SL will be a success or not. Neither the SL nor the S will not be volume products. I think they are aimed at the professional who wants a camera that will keep working long after the big three products have broken down from over-use.

Have you ever had a Nikon shutter go sproing? I have. And it didn't happen that far out of warranty. Don't get me wrong. I was a loyal Nikon shooter for over 20 years and I think they still make fine cameras except for the ill-fated D600.

Or to put it another way, a Mercedes will get you there no faster than a Buick, but will keep running long after the Buick is returned to raw material for the next production run. IMO, Leica is not interested in competing with Sony. They just want to sell the cameras they do make.

@HowaboutRaw
Yes the SL started out that way, but its 2 years newer than the original A7, so in theory (especially when you factor in it's price) it not only needs to be just as good but more so better than the current crop of A7's that sell for a lot lesser.

@HowaboutRaw
No I have not handled this particular Leica model, but since Leica is well renowned for its build quality I'd expect the SL to be well built, but a great camera is not all about having the best built body, at the end of the day most will judge the camera's IQ as its measure of worth, form is important, but then again most people will sacrifice some ergonomic comfort for stunning IQ, Good low light autofocus is a must and unless you're going to seriously do some rigorous work, then a camera built like a tank is not essential.
The Leica SL ticks all the boxes, but when you factor in the price, and compare it to the Sony A7's, it doesn't look so handsome anymore, the A7's might lack in build quality, but in every other way it offers roughly the same as a Leica SL for half the cost.
If the SL was priced around the 5K mark, I'd be full of praises

Its pretty easy to see even the A7II, which doesn't have 14-bit raw has better IQ. And it doesn't need a $4000 lens to demonstrate that.

The more players in the game is better for all. But nobody is buying this for top notch IQ.

HowaboutRAW. Could you explain your remark about Nikon lenses.

Neither me.
Not sure I could tell on a blind test it's Leica and not iPhone 6.

HowaboutRAW - The A7RII actually DOES HAVE the EVF !!!

HowaboutRAW ! You wrote : "But the A7RII isn't weather sealed, and doesn't have the EVF" - which is simply NOT TRUE !!! (The A7RII has a very good EVF). Better or not... rather debatable... (like would I pay $10 000 more for a "better" EVF ???....). On the other hand, even the Pentax K-50 (@$400) is "weather sealed"... go figure!

HowaboutRAW : the ultimate test for ANY camera (in my personal views) is its IQ. From this point of view (and many others) this SL is a failure, since its IQ is not only NOT BETTER (but in some cases WORST) than other FF cameras out there (including their own Q camera) - sold at a fraction of the SL's price. So, trying to justify the $12 000 price mark of this... thing, is pretty much ridiculous. And this is my last post on this matter...

PS : in my English, "But the A7RII isn't weather sealed, and doesn't have the EVF", means exactly what it means. If you really want to be more precise in your assumptions "doesn't have Leica's EVF" would've been more appropriate... (but, as I said, that's debatable...).

Cheers,
MC

HowaboutRAW: The only flaw with your theory is that the $400 Canon 85mm f/1.8 looks a lot better than the Leica zoom...

Both scenes are taken with the lenses stopped down to f/5.6, and the Leica zoom just doesn't measure up - it's obvious. I don't think it's good enough for a relatively expensive lens.

Go to the studio scene comparisons and compare this camera against Nikon D810, Sony a7r2, and even the Canon 5D3.

JackM:

The studio scene shots are out of focus.

And broadly the studio scene at DPR isn't real useful for much.

You are saying dpr is incompetent. That's a tall statement.

The studio scene shows center, midframe, and corner sharpness and detail. Also color differences. That's very useful.

JackM:

These DPR samples aren't particularly sharp in the middle of the frame.

The real world raws are much sharper. So are the ones I shot, and I made sure to shoot at full zoom for some examples.

The DPR studio scene isn't real useful for subtle colour. IR's is better.

@ HowaboutRAW : read the last paragraph of the reviewer !

«Note on Color and Lens Performance

Note the Leicas use .DNG files that have an embedded color profile, meaning that neither of the Leicas are using the 'Adobe Standard' profile, giving them different colors and contrast than the files that used the profile when processed. Also, while the center sharpness of the new 24-90mm zoom used on the SL at our standard focal length and aperture certainly isn't bad, primes still tend to be sharper and more consistent across the frame. The Leica zoom costs the SL some apparent sharpness compared to competitors in the center, and definitely struggles in the corners, much like the Samsung NX1 with the 16-50mm S lens. As the 24-90mm is the only lens available for the SL at this time, our options were constrained.» You got it ?

D750 -
OVF - silent mode - works amazingly well with all lenses...
- Same for Sony... At around $12 000 one can get 2-3 bodies + great lenses (Nikon, Canon or Sony - even the Pentax 645Z is going to cost you less for WAY better quality...)...

MC:

The D750 aint quiet like the SL.

The silent mode with the A7 series adds electronic noise.

The Pentax 645 lenses don't compete with Leica. And the good ones are plenty good.

But anyhow you'd set aside price.

The world is full of status symbols. Why do we have to engage in rhetorical gymnastics everytime a new one is revealed? It's a toy for the rich to differentiate themselves from the rest of us. And is it a good camera? Sure.

nathan:

What did you think when you tried it with an M lens?

This is meant to be a pro camera. It's meant to be used with big & heavy zoom lenses, not small & light legacy lenses.

Both Sony and Leica want to replace the Canon 1Dx as the pro's camera of choice http://camerasize.com/compact/#624,639,152,ha,f

Leica doesn't care about you, and your likes and dislikes, UNLESS you are a Canon 1Dx owner!

brendon:

The Nikon D7200 is probably a better high ISO body.