adan Posted September 2, 2009 Share #81 Posted September 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Let's lighten up a bit on the "viet" thing - ngu'ò'i Viêt means the Viêt People (as close as my English-language Mac can handle the accents) collectively. It's adjectival. Calling an individual a Viet could be equated to "a Brit" - or "a French(y)" In one case probably innocuous - in the other, maybe not. Vietnamese people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Language is tricky. Let's let it lie. On the root question of how something gets leaked thousands of miles from the "source" - I dunno - how much about japanese camera makers' plans gets leaked on the British site dpreview? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 2, 2009 Posted September 2, 2009 Hi adan, Take a look here Leica M9 + X1: Fake or real?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted September 2, 2009 Share #82 Posted September 2, 2009 There's no racism in Bill's post.... Sounds obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted September 2, 2009 Share #83 Posted September 2, 2009 ... Bill: agreed as to copyright - you can't put a picture belonging to someone else up on flickr and claim that "creative commons" applies. If you don't own the rights, you don't have the right to give them away. Not to belabor the point, but as a point of fact, before they were pulled, were they listed as all rights reserved or CC? And if this guy scanned/received them from a Leica brochure they're not even his to post and put a particular license on. But frankly since we're talking about the relative artistic merit of his supposed photoshop skills (or someone else's -- he didn't take the images himself I imagine ??) and the veracity of the content itself posting them very well might fall under fair use/comment & criticism. (Maybe) Don't want to get into it but we're not talking about posting images other than to talk about them -- and they are clearly product images -- not taking his work and saying it's someone else's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 2, 2009 Share #84 Posted September 2, 2009 I could post any jpg I like and put a cc licence on it. Doesn't mean I have the right to share it with the world though. If I were a lawyer, I'd consider my option with the original Flickr poster. Being privileged with information carries responsibility with it. I'd love to be in a position to share discreet info with individuals and see where it ends up ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted September 2, 2009 Share #85 Posted September 2, 2009 Agree Andy. Really, if there's anyone to take issue with over copyright it'd be between Leica (I'm assuming they're genuine images) and the person from Flickr. From my experience dealing with writing about company's products, other than the fact that the images were released prior to the official launch -- a genuine PR issue -- no one's likely to complain about official images of their product being taken used to talk about that product. Especially in a place like this where sales are going to be generated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 2, 2009 Share #86 Posted September 2, 2009 ... -- no one's likely to complain about official images of their product being taken used to talk about that product. Especially in a place like this where sales are going to be generated. Just imagine you changed a little part of the "official imagine". For example a "9", which the "official image" does not show or shows in a different way. Would no one be likely to complain about this little changement? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted September 2, 2009 Share #87 Posted September 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh, that's a different issue -- modification of an image. I thought the original issue was not that, but that someone posted these maybe/maybe not M9 product shots directly to the forum instead of linking to them and who had copyright of them. Yes, I suppose Leica might get upset about that, but frankly I'm sure they have much bigger concerns than people around the world testing out their PS skills BTW, based on what's been uncovered on the Japanese Leica site, at least this M9 images is probably the real deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlmuck Posted September 2, 2009 Share #88 Posted September 2, 2009 Well lookie here a little bad industrial engineering and you could turn this into the earlier posted "X1", though I have to say this one's f1.7/20mm interests me more than the X1's 2.8/24mm. c. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted September 3, 2009 Share #89 Posted September 3, 2009 That 1.7 is likely compromised though. Not all lenses are created equal. The pancake lens on the EP-1 isn't exactly stellar and they weren't exactly trying to push the envelope there at f2.8 either. Besides, the X1 is a high-end point and shoot with a fixed lens. The lens is likely perfectly matched to the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jquimby Posted September 3, 2009 Share #90 Posted September 3, 2009 if the X1 is real, I am assuming the X1 is the internal code name for the project. Similarly the S2 was called AFRIKA. If there is anyone from Leica's product management team reading through this thread may I suggest that we name this new camera the Leica Fugly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Mitchum Posted September 3, 2009 Share #91 Posted September 3, 2009 I think it looks okay once you remove the optional handgrip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 3, 2009 Share #92 Posted September 3, 2009 I see a problem with the picture of the X1 that suggests to me that it's a mock-up at best of a fake at worst. Things about the lighting are wrong. There's a shadow cast by the lens onto the camera's front but the angle of the shadow looks to me like the part of the source would have had to have extended into shot. The highlight on top of the lens indicates to me that there's a light source higher than the lens yet the shadow is from a light source below the lens. To my eye this also doesn't correlate with the light sources (windows?) reflected in the lens. Judging by the shadow cast by the lens onto the white surface that the camera's sitting on, there's a light source high to the right of the camera and yet this light source doesn't cast shadows from the dials onto the top of the camera. For me, something's just not right here. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 3, 2009 Share #93 Posted September 3, 2009 Anyone remember this: ...? Note the inset dials. I had one for a short while - superb handling, and great results. The dials popped up if you pressed down on them. You could then turn them and press them down to lock in a setting. One was aperture, the other shutterspeed. I can see resemblances... Regards, Bill Ah yes - I had the Rollei QZ35 myself, complete with the flash and probably the single WORST designed lens cap in the known universe. Stare at it and it would drop off. Beautifully built and worked well too. I miss it, although it would still be languishing in it's box in the cupboard, just like it did before I sold mine years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsc Posted September 3, 2009 Share #94 Posted September 3, 2009 X1 Picture is a rendered CAD file. But Camera will look exactly like the picture. Flash pops out when pushing. Dials as smooth as M8 dials. A real Leica. Made in germany and nothing made by Panasonic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steich Posted September 3, 2009 Share #95 Posted September 3, 2009 Whatever the new camera will look like, Leica have recently registered the trademark "X1". Registerauskunft des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamtes (DPMA) ...past year, they registered "Correfot" (yes, that´s what their old autofocus system was called) Registerauskunft des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamtes (DPMA) Regards, Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbo68 Posted September 3, 2009 Share #96 Posted September 3, 2009 IF the "X1" will come, I assume, it is NOT a rebadged Panasonic GF1. Look closer to the hotshoe and the spare space on the top plate between hotshoe and front. The "X1" seems significantly thicker! I also think that the picture is a rendered CAD pic. and not a real product photo. BTW: Where is the unlock button for interchangeable lens? MFT have buttons on the LEFT, M cameras on the RIGHT....(looking in shooting direction) Cheers, Arndt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 3, 2009 Share #97 Posted September 3, 2009 It's a fixed lens, if you believe what you read on the internet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 3, 2009 Share #98 Posted September 3, 2009 Where are the rangefinder windows? If the X1 is real I'm very disappointed that it doesn't have an OVF. Unless that EVF runs at a gazillion frames per second, it's still going to lag, like every other EVF camera on the market. Also having to hold the camera out in front of you to take a shot, really limits how and what you can shoot. It's a Dlux-5, not a CL-D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 3, 2009 Share #99 Posted September 3, 2009 I can't see how this is any advantage over a D-Lux 4, to be honest. Or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 3, 2009 Share #100 Posted September 3, 2009 APS-C sensor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.