rscheffler wrote:
Considering that most are constantly on backorder, it would appear that there isn't a shortage of buyers and the market could bear even higher prices, as crazy as that sounds.
I agree about the Fuji. Everyone who wants to play will have to buy the body, but many will be coming with their own set of lenses.
As far as Leica is concerned with their digital M bodies, I think it's partly like that, but also keep in mind they have a much, much smaller group of potential buyers. IIRC, it was recently announced that they surpassed 30K M9s, which was more than they originally projected. Therefore the price of the M9 was probably partially set based on their originally anticipated sales volume relative to R&D costs, etc.. and what the market will bear....Show more →
Before the M9, Leica had been making losses for 10 years straight, and the shareholders kept covering those losses out of their pockets for some reason. Personally I had started to believe that they dont give 2 shits about money, and sometimes I still believe it
Fuji never made too much sense financially either, they keep reinventing the wheel with huge R&D costs for the sake of some tiny niche market. Seriously there are easier ways to turn a profit...
Strange that those two companies keep churning out very interesting gear, maybe not a coincidence
pingflood wrote:
It really does look like the corner sharpness is there on the shots I've seen so far. Saw a lot of people complain about how "soft" some shots looked (like the flower one) but I think they have never used a 1.4 lens before... the contrast is pretty low but the sharpness is definitely there.
I don't imagine it's difficult to achieve good corner sharpness at nearer focusing distances and f/11 (referring to the 18mm image above). It's the night shot that is more worrisome with poor rendering of distant details... however, there could be additional variables such as slight camera shake during the long exposure, or some wind that caused the trees to move slightly.. We need to see more.
My first thought about the flower photo was that it's going to be slammed in the forums. But what do you expect from an f/1.4 lens shot wide open at near minimum focusing distance? I get similar results with the 50L due to the under corrected spherical aberration at such working distances.
Before the M9, Leica had been making losses for 10 years straight, and the shareholders kept covering those losses out of their pockets for some reason. Personally I had started to believe that they dont give 2 shits about money, and sometimes I still believe it
Fuji never made too much sense financially either, they keep reinventing the wheel with huge R&D costs for the sake of some tiny niche market. Seriously there are easier ways to turn a profit...
Strange that those two companies keep churning out very interesting gear, maybe not a coincidence
Fully agreed. Leica, Fuji and add to that Kodak are companies that really care about photography. The fact that Kodak has filed for bankruptcy and Leica didn't make money for 10 years is a proof of their uncompromising stance. For that only they should be commended and supported. Maybe I will get a Xpro1 for this reason alone.
If Leica and Kodak are unprofitable, it means they are selling cameras for less than it costs to make them. Therefore, every camera you buy puts them further into the red. Support the company by not buying their products!
dnhkng wrote:
Hmmm, by that logic, DONT BUY ONE!!!
If Leica and Kodak are unprofitable, it means they are selling cameras for less than it costs to make them. Therefore, every camera you buy puts them further into the red. Support the company by not buying their products!
You need to sell before you can have a break even.
Camera's are not inventing theirselves.
it's not really an argument for or against buying a camera... its more a case that not all things photographic can be explained in traditional accounting terms.
dnhkng wrote:
Hmmm, by that logic, DONT BUY ONE!!!
If Leica and Kodak are unprofitable, it means they are selling cameras for less than it costs to make them. Therefore, every camera you buy puts them further into the red. Support the company by not buying their products!
I like smartass replies, especially coming from someone with barely 15 posts. I would recommend that you start building your reputation with meaningful posts if you want people to take you seriously.
It's my fault I guess. Personally, I think Leica glass is about the best you can buy. My remark was partly in gest but also has to do with the notion of a "bargain" or a good deal. Most would say that has to do in relation to what else is available in the market. Since Leica is basically the ultra benchmark with regard to price and lens quality, it's sort of difficult to consider it "a bargain" compared to anything else available. What's it a bargain in comparison too? That's all.
Also, cost is most certainly a major factor in pricing. It's pretty obvious that if the price is higher than the market is willing to pay and that price does not cover all costs, well that product or company will not be around forever.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Also, cost is most certainly a major factor in pricing. It's pretty obvious that if the price is higher than the market is willing to pay and that price does not cover all costs, well that product or company will not be around forever.
Makes me wonder how Sigma SD1 sales are going.
FWIW, got an email from Expansys saying their preorder price was not guaranteed and that their purchasing dept was "negotiating pricing" with Fuji, so would not put much stock in that price being anywhere near reality. Sounded good though!
pingflood wrote:
How "bad" is the X100 focus truly, though? I know one guy who has one and uses it exclusively for all his shooting, and asked him about it the other day. Said he had no issues with it whatsoever.
Put it this way; it's a hell of a lot better than the $7000 Leica M9...
Seriously though - I've used my x100 to take shots of moving kids, dogs, no problem. You don't buy these types of cameras for their amazing focus abilities. That's what the D3's are for.
I think the claims of poor X100 AF is way overblown. Either a result of some defective cameras, older firmware (1.11 was a huge improvement for a lot of folks) or people expecting TTL DSLR type performance out of a contrast based AF system. Having owned the NEX5 previously, I really don't see much difference between the two in use. Both become better with user experience and realistic expectations of the underlying, inherent technology of CAF.
Vern Dewit wrote:
Seriously though - I've used my x100 to take shots of moving kids, dogs, no problem. You don't buy these types of cameras for their amazing focus abilities. That's what the D3's are for.
--------
I respectfully disagree. The X100 was made specifically with the form factor of a smaller and more pocketable camera will nice IQ that we would want to carry around. D3s is great for everything except for its size. The AF on the X100 is really poor for some type of photography, specifically for street photography/candid scenes or for manual focus zone focusing. Simply too slow and inconsistent. Fuji clearly targeted the rangefinder and street shooter crowd with the X100 and I still applaud them bringing that camera to the market but poor AF was the reason I and many others passed on the X100. I'm really hoping that the X Pro has a much improved AF.
Anyone knows when the camera will be available for sale?
Vern Dewit wrote:
Put it this way; it's a hell of a lot better than the $7000 Leica M9...
Seriously though - I've used my x100 to take shots of moving kids, dogs, no problem. You don't buy these types of cameras for their amazing focus abilities. That's what the D3's are for.
Someone I know was complaining about the AF of the Nex5 being way behind that of his old Canon 450D. CDAF has a long way to go in terms of speed, even if accuracy may be superior, so I too don't think it's specific to the X100.
Mft is miles ahead..ep3 and gx1 are as close or faster than dslr iirc..
Regarding the x100 af, here was my issue with it.
It's a take everywhere camera, but people are waiting and posing at parties because it's too slow...particularly in dim situations. Forget kids and pets, Candid shots were difficult. That's not to say it couldn't be mitigated, but the idea of the camera was a take everywhere...I shouldn't have to mitigate for that sort of money.
I don't care about af on the new fuji, so long as manual focusing isn't broken like on the x100. That said, I loved the x100 output and would be happy with it for travel...I was looking for something specifically for social gatherings.
I don't think fast autofocus can be done. With Phase contrast, you know how far in front or back the object is away from the focus plane. You can then immediately move the drive motors the correct distance.
With contrast detection, thats not possible, it will always be an iterative process, although the final image might be sharper.
If you wanted to really add $$$ to the price of a camera, a designer could add a time-of-flight sensor to the camera. That would allow the initial focus to be fast at phase contrast, at the cost of several thousand dollars and half a kilo A laser projecting a grid would work too, by detecting parallax, but shining lasers into people faces every time you take a picture might be a bit offensive.
