millsart wrote:
Ironically I've found I always ended up with more images just walking around with a camera like my X100 with its 35mm equiv than when I was carrying the kitchen sink worth of gear in a big Lowepro bag weighting 30+lbs. Sure I had 16-400mm plus a 15mm fisheye, couple of bodies, speedlight, tilt/shift you name it but usually what I wanted was in the bag and by the time I took it off, switched lens and was ready to shoot, the moment was gone, traffic changed and the scenic I wanted now had a truck parked right across the street etc....Show more →
Yeah. Having just one or two focal lengths available to you eliminates a lot of distractions, not to mention the energy-draining heavy backpack. I've always found that when carrying the heavy DSLR kit, every photo feels like a big production. With an X100 or any other mirrorless camera, I have more energy and generally can access the camera more quickly, if not immediately. It makes photography a lot more fun and accessible, and thus I not only carry the camera more but I also end up with better photographs.
I gather that these jpg hasn't been resized (He says "jpgs direct from the camera" ). Then, it's a 16Mpix. sensor -i.e. with 99.9% probabilities of being APS-C.
artur5 wrote:
I gather that these jpg hasn't been resized (He says "jpgs direct from the camera" ). Then, it's a 16Mpix. sensor -i.e. with 99.9% probabilities of being APS-C.
Yep. Personally, I think (and hope) that they're intentionally misleading. Though another source of mine suggests that it's rather similar to an X2... Which would back up the suggestion of 16MP.
On one hand I'm getting tips it's 24MP and on another 16MP. Same with the lens; that it's slower (3.5-6.4) or faster (2.8-4.0). There's also a bit of truth to both generally accepted photos "of the camera." So a few rather significant variables here!
I do believe, at this time - that nobody knows nuthin' - and those that do - aren't spilling. And honestly, I'm not sure I care either way to begin with.
Evry time I see your sister, Well she's got somebody new
Shes mean and she's evil, Like that old boll weevil
Guess I'll try my luck with you.
Little sister, don't you do what your big sister (Paula) done.
Leica look they are outbraking themselves, in racing parlance.
Guess assuming it is APS-C if it would be better being 16 or 24 megs. I remember going through the same thing when I bought a NEX7 and has the NEX5n. 16meg sensor was cleaner than the 24 by a decent margin, but the 7 did have some nice resolution and worked well with a faster lens
Caveat for this is that if we are dealing with a fixed slow zoom, say 3.5-6.5 or whatever it is, that might not work too great with a noisy 24meg APS-C sensor.
If it was something like f1.8-f2.8 (doubt even possible given the size) then sure, 24meg could work well, but slow zoom on high MP sensor ? Seems a bad idea for anything other than sunny day shooting
From the Online EXIF viewer, it's not showing the f-number (it's f0.0)...which leads me to believe that it's a mechanical lens mounted on a camera...so there's a possibility that it's an interchangeable lens mount.
Given that there is no mirror (technically one in the RF mechanism) in the optical path of the current M's (nor was there ever) I don't really see what the point of making a "mirrorless" M would be as it has already existed.
I could see one with an EVF only instead of the RF mechanism, and that would save some money perhaps, but then how do you focus ?
Zoomed in view on the LCD or EVF ?? Been there, done that, and its kind of a PITA because you then have to zoom back out to compose, not to mention it can be kind of hard to judge focus with a zoomed in view as it is shaking around, save for the OM-D which has a stabilized live view.
Dexter: The more logical explanation for me is Leica disabled EXIF reporting for certain parameters to maintain secrecy. To my eyes, the sample images look to be all shot at the same/similar focal length. It doesn't rule out a zoom lens since it could have been a conscious effort to only show images from a specific focal length. He also made some of these at somewhat marginal shutter speeds, while retaining good sharpness. I guess he could have used a tripod...
you're probably right, Ron. i'm just dreaming what i think the ideal mini M would be:
- a brand-new APS-C AF mount, bundled with an M-adapter...adapter for S-lenses on roadmap
- EVF only, no RF (as millsart suggests)
- X2 form factor
- will be manufactured by Panasonic (long shot)
- 3,000 USD
to me, this makes the most sense...and I personally would consider buying one. I hope Leica realizes that a lot of m43rds, NEX and Fuji X and especially GXR owners bought the camera to use with their Leica lenses.
if it's a fixed zoom lens like it's rumored to be...to say that i'd be sorely disappointed would be an understatement....in fact I would go out on a limb and say that it would be a bone-headed decision.
artur5 wrote:
Knowing Leica, either it's an uninteresting camera expensive but affordable or an interesting camera absurdly overpriced..
They are never overpriced Yes, they are expensive, but not overpriced.
dalegaspi wrote:
- will be manufactured by Panasonic (long shot)
I think the only thing that is pretty clear is that the camera will be made in Germany. The X2 is german made already. No sense in making a higher placed model by panasonic.
Bijltje wrote:
They are never overpriced Yes, they are expensive, but not overpriced.
.
Sales comes down to the judge of that question.
A $30k limited edition neon yellow isn't overpriced if it sells. A $3k product that doesn't move off dealer shelves would turn out to be overpriced. Heck, a $2k product that doesn't move would be overpriced.
On the other hand, if they do meet sales figures, whatever they hoped for, and its $3300 or whatever, then price seemingly was right for their target market.
Bijltje wrote:
They are never overpriced Yes, they are expensive, but not overpriced.
I think the only thing that is pretty clear is that the camera will be made in Germany. The X2 is german made already. No sense in making a higher placed model by panasonic.
I guess they are overpriced for those who want but do not buy and expensive for those who end up buying them.
"Made in Germany" is an oxymoron when it comes to Leica, moreso probably for an X2 (mostly made in Japan with either final quality control and/ or light assembly of pretty much complete assembled parts conducted in Germany just to the degree required to use "Made in Germany") and likely also for this forthcoming model. It's ironic that my Volkswagen which is made (really assembled) in Mexico probably has more German made parts in it than a Leica from a percentage standpoint.
