beschizza — 2013-10-08T16:47:55-04:00 — #1
agies — 2013-10-08T17:02:25-04:00 — #2
Looks kinda like a cheap bluetooth speaker.
Now I can't un-see it.
jerwin — 2013-10-08T17:11:05-04:00 — #3
More pics and a description of what's missing here.
Apparently Ives and Newson decided that certain functional bits were superfluous. Considering that a Leica is meant to be used, the focusing tab might well be a serious oversight.
(Apparently, on Leicas, the focusing tab allows the photographer to quickly focus with the thumb)
kmccmack — 2013-10-08T17:16:08-04:00 — #4
An interesting piece of design. I am skeptical about it's usefulness as a tool.
flugfrei_jones — 2013-10-08T18:08:36-04:00 — #5
ish.. see, this is the problem with blender, (yeah, they're probably not using blender but...) ok, so, two cylinders, check.. one rectangular bit to stick them together, good, and a cylinder for the lens. done!
this type of design is what i hate about the "new" beetles, it's a bunch of reeeally basic polygons stuck together and hit with the "smooth edges" function. where are the compound curves? where are the ergonomics? where is the sexy?
leicas are not the most eye friendly cameras for sure, but cameras are freaking ugly by default (from a "design" standpoint, anyway) if they're made for taking photographs. this, this is just.. ehhhhhghhh... they need to get rid of the leica mark and just put "CAMERA" there in a big, generic font.
the list of what was left out of this camera is telling as well, but the look kills it for me instantly. (not that i could afford it anyway, heh)
gwailo_joe — 2013-10-08T19:07:16-04:00 — #6
A Rolex and a Timex both tell accurate time...but the finished products are of course quite different.
I don't (necessarily) want to scoff at another 'rich persons toy'; but is this (any) Leica noticeably better than that $700 Canon I see every time I go to Costco? If I took two pictures of the same flower or hawk in flight could the average person tell the difference...could a professional? Or is it all about the fit and feel?
The past many years my base amateur photography attempts have been through convenience and necessity taken with the cell phone camera: a poor substitute.
I've been having thoughts lately about 'moving up'...and I'm a simple man...but I do like nice things. What say you BB picture-takers...what kind of cameras do you use and recommend?
flugfrei_jones — 2013-10-08T19:17:51-04:00 — #7
i'm a semi-pro photographer and i carry a used nikon d-90. the bodies aren't super-duper cutting edge 50MP etc, and the video is far from the best, but the raw images are still ~2' wide at full res. frankly, that's way more information than i need for the average customer. the glass is as expensive as you want it to be, starting at less than a hundred bucks for stock gear. check out bhphotovideo.com, their used digital gear is where it's at. there's no reason to get suckered into buying something with hilariously expensive bells and whistles that you'll never use.
for "art" photography i carry two minolta srt's, a 101 and a 102. the bodies are DIRT cheap, bulk film is fairly cheap, MC mount lenses are dirt cheap, and actual-chemical-photography is fun.
lydi_rae — 2013-10-08T20:06:09-04:00 — #8
Their lenses are very high quality, but if your eyes are satisfied with what your smartphone can do, I doubt you'd find it worth the money. It's one of those things (like an art degree) where after you educate yourself enough about the subject it seems worth it to buy the most expensive equipment... but the rest of the population wants to show you photos of their kids on a 3.5" LCD that were taken through a 2mm lens.
I went to San Jose Camera and licked a Leica once. Astonishingly, they wouldn't let me keep it after that.
lydi_rae — 2013-10-08T20:08:02-04:00 — #9
I carry a D70 and it works with my older autofocus lenses. Does the D90 require a "digital" lens or is it good with equipment from before the digital era?
peregrinus_bis — 2013-10-08T20:08:13-04:00 — #10
Sony RX100 Mark ii. Top o' the class - got one in August and love it. Small enough to carry around easily.
flugfrei_jones — 2013-10-08T21:50:11-04:00 — #11
Does the D90 require a "digital" lens or is it good with equipment from before the digital era?
as far as i know the d90 will work with all the older nikon glass. i think the problem comes when you try to use the digital lenses on 35mm cameras, because they focus on a smaller area than the film cell. i'm not certain if the meters are going to work properly with manual lenses, but it would be pretty easy to figure it out manually.
i have yet to buy an adapter for my MC mounts, but that's definitely in the works.. the old rokkor lenses are awesome.
ed: i just fired up the googles.. here's some info.
The D90 works perfectly with all traditional AF, AF-I, AF-D and AF-S lenses.
No metering or EXIF data with manual focus lenses, you need at least a D300 to use these well. Then again, you always can guess exposure
and correct based on looking at the LCD on playback, or play with it
even faster in Live View, or you can buy a small light meter which
will slip into the hot shoe.
The D90 has the same lens compatibility as the D80, D70, D100 and D50,
which is better than the D40/D60, but worse than the D300.
hughstimson — 2013-10-08T22:06:02-04:00 — #12
That looks good relative to most digital cameras, but it isn't nearly as nice as a stock Leica M.
wearysky — 2013-10-10T14:16:55-04:00 — #13
Top of the class, but pricey (and justifiably so). For somebody who is currently happy with a cameraphone, and wants to take one step up, something like the Canon Powershot S110 might not be a bad step to take.
steampunkbanana — 2013-10-10T14:34:40-04:00 — #14
I rock the Canon 5Dii with bits of film gear for various artistic reasons (medium format, Polaroid, etc).
Any camera is going to be a compromise and based on what you consider important. I just met a guy who typically shoots with a Hasselblad digital camera but still takes out his Canon DSLR when he wants to carry less stuff. But the Hassy allows him to sell some shots that can be used on massive prints, so he usually uses that.
Other people I know care more about sports or birds, so they need FPS and fast focus. Other people shoot music clubs and need fast lenses with low noise in high ISOs. I shoot architecture and night photos, so I like sensor size and lens flexibility. Having a little person around also means I don't have time to wait for the autofocus.
The difference in your hawk photo example is what you do with the image after you take it. Putting it on a bus? You'll notice. Making a book? You'll notice. Putting it online with a matched resolution of 900x600? Not so much. So it's fit and feel AND what your goals with the image are.
So the real question you need to think about before moving up is WHY you want to move up and what that means. Going out and spending two grand on a camera that's too big for you to want to use daily is no good. Spending three hundred on a camera that can't take decent photos of your kid inside is no good either. So what do you want to shoot and what do you feel like your cell phone camera limits you to?
peregrinus_bis — 2013-10-10T14:54:48-04:00 — #15
Yep, I managed to pick one up in Singapore for a 25% saving
gwailo_joe — 2013-10-10T23:39:14-04:00 — #16
Thanks for your reply (thanks everyone); my goals are modest...the hawk in flight was more wishful thinking, as I enjoy bird watching but my primary subjects for photography are street art and architecture.
My greatest irritation with the cell camera has been the 1.5 second delay between pressing the button and the desired click. A few months back I came face to face with a coyote and as he paused to check me out I had the perfect shot: I framed and took....but the huge lag, and he turned away. Rats.
At best I might create a little project online or print up a few photos, so while I admire the super-duper cameras with big ol' lenses...such gear might be overkill.
The Sony peregrinus has looks quite nice, but there's so much out there it's kind of mind boggling: SonyCanonNikonOlympusKodakBrownie Aaaiiiieee! But it is comforting to think that whatever I do decide to get will undoubtably be a great improvement.
At any rate...I appreciate the input!
steampunkbanana — 2013-10-11T11:25:05-04:00 — #17
Oh, you're pretty lucky if you just want a decent point and shoot with short-ish shutter lag. Lag was Panasonic's big push a few years back was to minimize it as much as possible and a lot of manufacturers have followed.
Try the Panasonic LX7, Canon Powershot S110 (mentioned above by WearySky), or Fuji X10, all in the $300 range (my favorite is the Fuji here, I think they're doing great things these days). I also like the Canon G series, they're built like a damn tank with great features, but pricier and into the $500 range.
beschizza — 2013-10-13T16:48:04-04:00 — #18
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.