This camera does not appeal to me and seems like a waste especially when you can get an R8. Just my opinion.
Upvote
0
It depends who you are and what you do with your cameras. As a photo person, give me the simple and "retro" ergonomics of Leica's SL & Q cameras over anything Canon, Nikon or Sony currently make.
I would suggest - very occasionally - given that there has been only 3 bodies in ~20 years (20Da in 2005, 60Da in 2012, Ra in 2018) with modified filter to allow more Ha transmission to my knowledge released and significant times where no astro body was available eg today.Not that they don't go after those occasionally (e.g. the astro-focused bodies, but the development resources needed for those cameras are not significant).
I wouldn't confuse "retro" with "simplicity". Nikon proofs again with its ZF that "retro" can mean a totally confusing dial orgy on a camera top plate. What a design disaster!It depends who you are and what you do with your cameras. As a photo person, give me the simple and "retro" ergonomics of Leica's SL & Q cameras over anything Canon, Nikon or Sony currently make.
Ergonomics would be subjective but appeal to a significant majority based on cost to produce similar to garment sizing vs a bespoke item.I believe to make a distinction between good ergonomics, meaning recent cameras, and bad ergonomics, meaning so-called retro-designed cameras, is, no offense meant, absurd.
We all know that recent cameras, like Sony, Fuji or OM models have partly horrible ergonomics. While , on the other hand, Leica Ms or SLs have superb ergonomics, at least in my opinion. So, the simplistic assertion "retro = bad, newer = good is subjective and flawed.
My 2 Euro-cents...
maybe buyers like twiddling knobsI wouldn't confuse "retro" with "simplicity". Nikon proofs again with its ZF that "retro" can mean a totally confusing dial orgy on a camera top plate. What a design disaster! View attachment 215484
Yeah, it’s a tool. I have made my living with tools for 45 years and there’s nothing in any of my toolboxes because it looks cool.This camera does not appeal to me and seems like a waste especially when you can get an R8. Just my opinion.
Walrus wrote:
My source just told me that the 35mm L has been put on hold and postponed to 2026, and all resources were steered to the retro camera.
Camera will have the 24mpx sensor from current R100/50/10, and the fixed focal lens will be a 21mm f7.1 (33mm FF equivalent) without IS; someone argued that a 6.3 lens would have been better, but the project manager responded that user can just raise iso, as modern sensors allow for it.
--- -- ---
I'd be deeply disappointed with an f7.1 lens -- in fact, my suspicion would be it's a fixed-focus lens. True, a slow lens would help undercut the price of a Fuji X100. A fixed-focus lens would do the same. What I want is a light camera for street photography. I use a Canon SL1 with either the 18-55 or an old EF24mm F2.8) and set at F8. So an F7.1 lens would be acceptable. But limited to f7.1 indoors? For me it might be a deal breaker.
Separately, we shouldn't be talking about whether such a camera is "retro" or not. Whatever the shape the goal should be a pocketable camera with a viewfinder that's faster and more flexible to use than a smartphone for those who find an R50 isn't small enough/pocketable.
I don't know if they still believe it, but years ago Canon execs used the phrase "full lineup strategy", meaning something for everyone.The question is, absolutely clean up what? A decade ago, there were 45 million fixed-lens cameras sold, about three times the number of ILCs. Last year, there were 1.7 million fixed-lens cameras, less than 30% of the number of ILCs. I don't know what fraction of Fuji's sales the X100 line represents, but given that Fuji's entire market share is a small fraction of Canon's, this would represent a very niche segment for Canon. Not that they don't go after those occasionally (e.g. the astro-focused bodies, but the development resources needed for those cameras are not significant).
I didn't say better than Canon. The body concepts are totally different. The Eos R3 and 5 DIV have brillant ergonomics. Yet, as a rangefinder camera, the M's ergonomics too are almost perfect. Hard to explain, if you have no or little experience of Leica M.To put it in a nutshell, all the controls are instinctively found, handholding it for a few hours is no pain at all. And if you haven't used it for a few months (covid), you are at home with it immediately. And the menus are logical.Can you help me understand why a Leica M has better ergonomics that current (reasonably sized) Canon bodies which are all relatively similar in design?
Surely if that is the case, why then wouldn't Canon offer this option on a permanent basis?
Camera will have the 24mpx sensor from current R100/50/10, and the fixed focal lens will be a 21mm f7.1 (33mm FF equivalent) without IS; someone argued that a 6.3 lens would have been better, but the project manager responded that user can just raise iso, as modern sensors allow for it.
I mean, not quite as tiny, but my Bessa II has a leaf shutter and an aperture equivalent to f/0.9 on the X100V's crop sensor. And without that lens jutting out all the time I find it much easier to slip into a jacket pocket.It's the leaf shutter combined with a fast lens which is able to create a look that cannot easily be achieved with any camera. Or at least not with this tiny setup.
Powershots are not dead.I'm sad that the Powershots are dead