Mattias Burling

One thing is that it costs way less than Ive ever seen an A7Rii go for. But like you say, its a personal thing. Some will buy the Q over the Sony just for the leafshutter.

Thats the one I have been eying before. Ive heard very good things.

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome. Looking forward to see what you make of it. I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine. Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

Ive seen it, its great. Ive seen all his films many times. But imho, Scientology, catholic church, tomato, tomato. Like I said, I never understood it. A person believing in that alien scientology BS isn't any less trustworthy on cameras to me than one that believe in Jesus "The Spaghetti Monster" Christ. I look at the images in this life and forget about the photographers after life beliefs Speaking of religious believes, cults and Leica Colors... This guy was spreading the lords word (JW) when I past him holding my Leica X1 today. Didn't have a fast enough shutter for him to be sharp, but the colors are there. (And it is a helluva sharp lens.) Its from the Kodak era when all digital camera manufacturers where still trying to match and look like film. Good times

Still don't see what it has to do with anything but ok.

I printed 2m prints from a Fuji X-T2 + $1K 56mm and the cheap SD-Quattro. The Sigma print has more detail, better contrast and nicer colors at a third of the price. Thats the last test I ever needed to make for myself on the subject

Ok then, how about that. I never understood religion and never will. Aliens, jesus, santa, same thing. Back to my initial question. How does it affect image quality?

There is absolutely nothing in that article that says he is a scientologist. I just posted a question how it affects images because I thought maybe he is. But now I'm taking it back. Show some proof please. That article was just some bitter and jealous communist.

I cant see how that affects his images or the contrast of Leica lenses.

There is a cheaper Q on a classified in Sweden as we speak. Go get it I bought mine from Scandinavian Photo, biggest chain we have. So its not like it was hard to find

I have to be honest here. There is always alot of talk about how these cameras are way better than that camera etc. But never any footage. Never any reviews. Never any first hand experience. Where is this certainty that its so good coming from? Who is the source? I remember some BS argument when they missed the release date with a year or so. The lack of cameras was said to be because that they couldn't fill orders and all cameras went to the high end Chinese production houses and they didn't have internet or something... give me a break. I guess Im confused because on this forum their cameras have been brought up in "which camera should I buy threads" as if they've always existed. When in fact they have rarely been for sale at all. I don't know how many times I've seen the recommendation to buy a "battle tested" camera from them. Well Ive been on that waiting list for almost two years... lol. I just dont see how this borderline vaporware can be so easy to recommend and compared with so little to no info about using them. I see about 50 videos on YouTube from recently. On three different models. One or two reviews. And thats from several years. Personally I wouldn't take my chanses on this and instead go save with a bigger brand. But that's just me.

Thats because I spend way to much time scouting classifieds, etc. Usually every time Im on the John The lens has the Leica look. Here is an excellent video explaining for those that never used a Leica lens. And I love that after recommending it in my videos. One of the biggest Leica bashers online that came there to troll also started promoting people to see it.

The video should be equal. Apparently the touch screen is snappier.

It is also a great camera I will probably get one again in a year or so when they are cheaper. The EVF/OVF is excellent, better than on the X-Pro2. My Q cost a few dollars less than two used x100f. So there definitely is some money to be saved as well.

It is silly because you didnt understand my post. And you added extra information to it that I never said. I dont see images with my eyes. Nether do you. No one sees images. Our brain tricks us into seeing light reflection, thats all. So yes. We have variable DR, interpolation, monochrome and color. Minimum 20 stops DR. Super fast AF. Sharpness corrections. Content aware masking. You name it. Our brain fixes it for us. Ive seen how lengthy these "science" discussions get so Im backing out. And no 5D for me at this point. I love shooting ML Raw but I have no use for it at this time and I already have a nice still shooter. Good luck with the debate. /M

Lovely camera and thanks for sharing my video Sadly I couldn't keep it long enough^(investing in some telephoto lenses) which is why the images in my video aren't exactly to my full potential. Therefor I'm looking forward to your review instead Here are two shots if anyone wants to pixel peep.

What the eye can do doesn't really matter. Because the brain can modify it any way it pleases. Our eye has variable dynamic range and HDR. We can expose for highlights, mids, and shadows all at one and the brain shows us a perfect 20 stop image. The brain is super fast and adaptable. If I remove one of my contacts I never have the chance to see the decrease in resolution and sharpness. My brain is way to fast in applying the proper corrections. So trying to mix DR from a camera with that of screens is already a bit weird. I know some say that 13 stops isn't needed if a screen is only 10.. just wrong. With the 13 in the camera I can adjust more info into the 10 for the screen. Simple as that. To add the eye into the mix is just silly imo.

Totally worth it

Actually...

Time to decide on a 35mm. (It took me about 1min to decide on the f1.4 over the f2.0. Which I didn't expect. But I will give both a good run for their money before selling one.)

Exactly this. A very select few. (Regarding focus without peaking and such crap. Practice makes perfect.)

Im willing to wager that the reason is because its all manual. Out there, away from video forums you will have a really hard time finding people that would settle for a full manual lens. Even for f0.95. Almost no one would buy such an expensive lens in the first place. And hardly anybody would buy any lens no matter the cost. So the little niche thats gonna go full manual... where talking a very select few.

We cant always get what we want. Because it would make others angry. There are enough people that dont want a flip screen on it to make you a minority. I think there current users wouldn't like it. And they are a loyal bunch. Also, they probably think fullframe is lame when they already make MF

Yeah December was a bummer. Not that I "need" it before that. But you know.. we know.. its how it is with G.A.S

The year when the X-T20 already had a flash and tilt screen. The year of Choice It has a focus ring. It also has constant aperture... if you are willing to pay for it. This is a cheap kit zoom. What constant aperture kitzooms are we comparing to? Its a smaller and mid range option to the X-Pro2. Im thinking in the same direction. I would use it as my small backup until the X80 or GRiii finally sees the light of day.