Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
In support of it being photoshop, to me the height of the top plate in this image looks greater than it does in the box-opening teaser image. Also, why does the zoom say ...-50-70, while those are not the real focal lengths.
bensyverson
Well-known
It says 18-46, which is the correct range. The specs say 28-70mm equivalent.
Matus
Well-known
+2 (and a few more)
Eric T
Well-known
Could it be based on the upcoming Panasonic GX2?
Monochrom
Well-known
Hahahaha...nice attempt....the little round sensor for brightness should induce you believe it´s a real and serious camera...hahahha...
Leica0Series
Well-known
I also hope it's a fake, mainly for the lens specs ... two things look fishy to me: The lettering on the front of the lens seems to go in a different direction than the lettering on the front of the X2 lens, but Leica has moved that around before on other lenses. And, the top plate seems thicker on the right side than it does on the left.
At first I also thought that the front lettering on the lens shows the actual focal lengths and the numbers on the top show the equivalents, but that's exactly what Leica did with the Digilux 2, so you can't read much into that.
At first I also thought that the front lettering on the lens shows the actual focal lengths and the numbers on the top show the equivalents, but that's exactly what Leica did with the Digilux 2, so you can't read much into that.
Archlich
Well-known
The first stage is denial..
Actually surprised to see the degree of disappointment here. Shouldn't we be already used to this long ago?
Who? We have plenty of D-Lux users here. And this is not even a rebranded one.
Actually surprised to see the degree of disappointment here. Shouldn't we be already used to this long ago?
Who? We have plenty of D-Lux users here. And this is not even a rebranded one.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It's maaagic! With a lens like that, I wonder what the "Mini" is meant to stand for? I hate to say (well, type) this, but if this "leak" is true, I'd go with the NEX-7.
Strawberry
Member
Well then the jewelry crowd finally has a zoom compact that is really expensive and luxurious. They probably don't care about anything else than that it looks expensive, is expensive and less people have it because it is expensive.
They probably sell a lot of these to people who just want it to have it.
Only problem for Leica could be when they make to much of these cameras that will quickly lose value and hurt their own brand. It are expensive "just take your money" cameras but they don't have any real value. Even with the Leica name it will be worthless in 10 years.
I don't see the fun in collecting vintage digital cameras?
I think they can be very successful as a luxury brand, but they will hurt themselves if they keep pushing crap products.
I don't think they care about anything else than being a luxury brand, it gives them no competition for the time being and they don't even have to do anything, just make special editions of crap compacts and keep the M (and S) system alive for the street credit.
They probably sell a lot of these to people who just want it to have it.
Only problem for Leica could be when they make to much of these cameras that will quickly lose value and hurt their own brand. It are expensive "just take your money" cameras but they don't have any real value. Even with the Leica name it will be worthless in 10 years.
I don't see the fun in collecting vintage digital cameras?
I think they can be very successful as a luxury brand, but they will hurt themselves if they keep pushing crap products.
I don't think they care about anything else than being a luxury brand, it gives them no competition for the time being and they don't even have to do anything, just make special editions of crap compacts and keep the M (and S) system alive for the street credit.
ShinX414
camera geek
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Yessssssssss!
jarski
Veteran
Guess so
that would be great cam not just for M-glass, but for almost any classic lens for full frame.Still wondering what would be the fate of current M-E, if this stopgap model materializes.
dave lackey
Veteran
Ummm...no. A mini based on the X bodies is not up to Leica quality of the past.
BTW, Nice PS work, Michiel...wish I had that kind of talent!
As much as I love the X1 and X2 and I love the results from those cameras and everything about them (almost), here is where they fail for me:
1. They are not durable as in M3/IIIF heavy duty durability. Sorry, they just aren't and it would not be difficult to make them so with better materials. But, the younger generation/designers/market seems to want lighter weight. Plastic fantastic and light metal with no weather sealing....grrrr.
2. No optical VF....this still sucks as even my IIIF manages just fine. EVFs are just not my cup of tea at all.
3. LCD...can't even see it, let alone compose in sunlight.
Even with these major flaws, the X1 is the digital of choice for now and I manage to do just fine with it, but I have no hope that the X1 will be around in 10 years.
So, any "Mini" whatever based on the same materials and faulty premises above are just not acceptable when compared to products like the M film bodies.
JMO...
BTW, Nice PS work, Michiel...wish I had that kind of talent!
As much as I love the X1 and X2 and I love the results from those cameras and everything about them (almost), here is where they fail for me:
1. They are not durable as in M3/IIIF heavy duty durability. Sorry, they just aren't and it would not be difficult to make them so with better materials. But, the younger generation/designers/market seems to want lighter weight. Plastic fantastic and light metal with no weather sealing....grrrr.
2. No optical VF....this still sucks as even my IIIF manages just fine. EVFs are just not my cup of tea at all.
3. LCD...can't even see it, let alone compose in sunlight.
Even with these major flaws, the X1 is the digital of choice for now and I manage to do just fine with it, but I have no hope that the X1 will be around in 10 years.
So, any "Mini" whatever based on the same materials and faulty premises above are just not acceptable when compared to products like the M film bodies.
JMO...
jubbaa
Established
Absolutely a fake , has to be.as there is simply no other explanation.
45tim
Member
Davidschumaker
Member
If the new mini-m is as shown today (short non-interchangeable zoom) why bother? I would like the mirror-less sans rangefinder interchangeable - aluminum.
rbelyell
Well-known
1. nothing remotely 'mini' about it. to the contrary, it looks huge.
2. 3.5-6.4??!! by any other company this fact alone would lead to automatic dismissal.
3. cost equal to fuji xpro+18-55 AND sony nex6+zeiss 18-55 together!! but seems to offer much less than either.
4. they are lost in a sea of arrogance.
tony
2. 3.5-6.4??!! by any other company this fact alone would lead to automatic dismissal.
3. cost equal to fuji xpro+18-55 AND sony nex6+zeiss 18-55 together!! but seems to offer much less than either.
4. they are lost in a sea of arrogance.
tony
fantasy vs. reality
morgan
Well-known
I would love a 50mm mated to a FF body at something less than M-E prices. That's my biggest gripe against the RX1 and the fuji x100 (which I have). I'm just more of a 50mm person...
NazgulKing
Established
That's because Fuji hasn't gotten around to get a sensor with high frame rate output.