philber wrote:
I cannot understand why the zoom could not be faster, especially at the long end. Even a kit zoom is usually faster, and no larger. Fuji, for example, has a zoom which is 18-55mm, f:2.8-f:4.0. Thta is quite a bit faster, and no larger. So, why?
For Fuji, the package cost $1500. then Leica will cost $5000 to do the same. Again, not trying to justify this thing. For a given price, $2850 in this case, that is what you would expect from Leica. There is no wonder in economic scale. The price is not based on ration but demand and supply. They don't care what we or you think about the camera, as long as they know they can make it profit with reasonable sell number to meet their business model.
Obviously, there are people already show interesting in this camera, though not a lot, percentage wise, it might already meet Leica's expectation.
Argue with 'VALUE' with price/feature/performance set, just like ladies complain Hermes's price for a bag only function is carrying things. If you complain, it is not for you.
Let's put it other way, if the camera as you guys wanted, either FF with fixed 35cron, or FF with interchangeable M mount, or APS-C with f2 zoom at $3000 or even $4000, I bet 50% people here already think about how to allocate the budget for it. me included. they can make a lot more sell.
philber wrote:
I cannot understand why the zoom could not be faster, especially at the long end. Even a kit zoom is usually faster, and no larger. Fuji, for example, has a zoom which is 18-55mm, f:2.8-f:4.0. Thta is quite a bit faster, and no larger. So, why?
rattymouse wrote:
The Fuji is tack sharp in the corners.
uh huh. I've heard people say that about their CaNikon lenses too, until they compare with a better lens.
If we can't compare production samples its premature to say which is better, but my experience has been that when I try a value-priced lens that people swear is "tack sharp" or "just as good as Leica" it's a disappointment. It might (or might not) be sharp, but the bokeh will be ragged, or it flares badly or has weak color fidelity. With lenses I get what I pay for.
It is true that Leica know how to make lenses, so I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that if it's f/6.4, it's because it needs to be.
Now, I'm not going to necessarily do that, because I can't be confident that the people responsible for this camera are those people; things change, and I have no information about how this camera was actually developed.
So I guess I'd say I wouldn't be surprised if this lens outperforms any other similar APS-C setup in terms of sharpness, distortion, CA, etc.
In today's world of political correctness, calling BS BS is seen as "angry" for some reason...
The funniest thing is I'm never angry, I just call things what they truly are.
You could have called his "BS" without insulting him deeply. But you know, I think you are one of these angry people only behind a keyboard but in real life, they're pussies.
PS: I'm not angry, I'm just calling things as they truly are
edwardkaraa wrote:
You could have called his "BS" without insulting him deeply. But you know, I think you are one of these angry people only behind a keyboard but in real life, they're pussies.
edwardkaraa wrote:
You could have called his "BS" without insulting him deeply. But you know, I think you are one of these angry people only behind a keyboard but in real life, they're pussies.
PS: I'm not angry, I'm just calling things as they truly are
edwardkaraa wrote:
You could have called his "BS" without insulting him deeply. But you know, I think you are one of these angry people only behind a keyboard but in real life, they're pussies.
PS: I'm not angry, I'm just calling things as they truly are
Well said Edward. It has become so easy to insult people on the internet over the most trivial of matters. These sort of negative comments would rarely happen in a face-to-face discussions. It is typically cowards and insecure people who resort to these types of tactics on forums.
That's a bit of a specious argument, because people could be just the same in real life, or whatever. I've met plenty of people who would say things like that right to your face. It doesn't really matter. Behavior is behavior.
telyt wrote:
uh huh. I've heard people say that about their CaNikon lenses too, until they compare with a better lens.
If we can't compare production samples its premature to say which is better, but my experience has been that when I try a value-priced lens that people swear is "tack sharp" or "just as good as Leica" it's a disappointment. It might (or might not) be sharp, but the bokeh will be ragged, or it flares badly or has weak color fidelity. With lenses I get what I pay for.
Anyone who looks at images made with the Fuji zoom can see how sharp it is. Fuji's designers didnt need f/6.4 to get sharp corners.
rattymouse wrote:
Anyone who looks at images made with the Fuji zoom can see how sharp it is. Fuji's designers didnt need f/6.4 to get sharp corners.
really? i've heard a few people who own the lens say that it's way ahead of your typical kit lens but still weak in the corners and not up to competing with higher grade primes. hopefully the leica is better than that, but it's to soon to say for sure.
To me, the practical issue with the Leica Mini is that its lens is slow with no stabilization, and the body design seems unlikely that I can hold it very steady (no EVF nor grip). That means I might get blurry (shaky) pictures easily, often need to bump the ISO or I might need some form of support unless I'm shooting on a sunny day.
sebboh wrote:
really? i've heard a few people who own the lens say that it's way ahead of your typical kit lens but still weak in the corners and not up to competing with higher grade primes. hopefully the leica is better than that, but it's to soon to say for sure.
ROF
So we are comparing a $ 3.000 Leica with a $ 1.300 Fuji. Both with zooms, albeit the Leica one is really slow, without stabilization and yet seems almost the same size as the Fuji. Unfortunately http://camerasize.com/compare/#461,371 does not show the X-E1 lens.
And to add insult to injury now we are saying that that "cheap" Fuji zoom is "not up to competing with higher grade primes"?
Full disclosure: I own the X-E1 (and compared it to 5D2 plus ZE 35/2 and ZE 50MP2). Also, I don't have much love for Leica because my Minilux broke down just after the 1-year warranty period with the infamous E-02 shutter error. Leica would not do a product recall/free repair despite numerous cameras failings. Compare that to Fuji handling the X100 sticky blade problem ... (I also own an X100 and it was checked by Fuji).
So we are comparing a $ 3.000 Leica with a $ 1.300 Fuji. Both with zooms, albeit the Leica one is really slow, without stabilization and yet seems almost the same size as the Fuji. Unfortunately http://camerasize.com/compare/#461,371 does not show the X-E1 lens.
And to add insult to injury now we are saying that that "cheap" Fuji zoom is "not up to competing with higher grade primes"?
Full disclosure: I own the X-E1 (and compared it to 5D2 plus ZE 35/2 and ZE 50MP2). Also, I don't have much love for Leica because my Minilux broke down just after the 1-year warranty period with the infamous E-02 shutter error. Leica would not do a product recall/free repair despite numerous cameras failings. Compare that to Fuji handling the X100 sticky blade problem ... (I also own an X100 and it was checked by Fuji)....Show more →
i think you are reading too much in here. i'm just disagreeing with the statement that the fuji performs as good as anyone could want in the corners.
if you want to look for something of comparable price and spec to compare the leica to you won't find anything. leica doesn't bother targeting markets where there is already mass manufacturer producing similar products (with the exception of rebranded panasonics that don't require any real work on leica's part).
i would hope that for the added price and slower speed the leica performs better, but i have no idea nor do i care to look at any of the sample pictures to try to figure it out because i have absolutely zero interest in such a camera whether it is $3000 or $3. i also have zero interest in the fuji zoom for what it's worth.
sebboh wrote:
really? i've heard a few people who own the lens say that it's way ahead of your typical kit lens but still weak in the corners and not up to competing with higher grade primes. hopefully the leica is better than that, but it's to soon to say for sure.
Dont listen to "other people". Go to flickr and look for yourself. You will see how tack sharp such images are.
snowboarder wrote:
[You must be the most incredible "blogger" out there.
No, you didn't tell us anything. The leaks were out for a week or so
when you posted completely different "confirmed" specs (24MP etc).
You wrote something like "everyone is wrong, those are real..."
You wrote big "obviously fake" on a real pic of the camera.
Then when real samples were out, you changed your "confirmed" specs.
Revised your post several times. Now you're trying to get a credit for real leaks...
Your sorry a@@ blog must have two readers - you and your dog
because you're so desperate to push it everywhere...
You whine too much. Shoo. Go away.
Rumors are subject to change and can be wrong. That's how they work.
