More than an alternative

Since early 2011, I think of this camera (at that time still without S), 35mm, "my" focal length, small, to take good pictures; On the other hand: did the combination with my 5D and 35 / 1.4 already ........

So disappeared from sight until David Hobby ("Strobist") and Zack Arias written about it and gave me according to your mouth water.

So now I've got it, exactly 1895 trips or for 16 days.

Conclusion: The concept of a classic rangefinder camera has a lie, as I know the older semester or from the analog time, my Olympus 35RD sees this camera externally very similar.

So what is so special that this type viewfinder camera is so successful?

The viewfinder:

1. Classic visually, a frame is displayed, it should represent what will eventually photographed.
Nearby bissl inaccurate (parallax), from 3m quite accurately.
Advantages: I see what else is out of the picture that provides a broader view.
Furthermore, the optical viewfinder is still my favorite in bright light; the electronic reacts as somewhat sluggish ..

2. electronically: I see what comes into the picture, close and even if it is darker a great option.
Also, I can only take so assess the effect of my polarizing filter.

A small lever forward switches from optical to electronic and retour a mode always fits.

The sensor: incredibly clean images, even at ISO 3200 or 6400.
I have a Canon 5D and a mkIII 1D MK4 as comparability the files are at least as good in terms of resolution, the noise is low!
How did it .......
And the jpegs without editing from the camera: very good!
Also, the auto white balance is very good.

The Lens: fixed focal length, 23mm, point. Good or bad, a personal thing.
Edge blurring: at delicate motifs from aperture 4 just for bean counters (neudeutsch: Pixelpeeper) recognizable.
(I already had lenses that were more expensive than the whole camera, and who were much worse!)
So I finds from the beginning of aperture very well, from 2.8 Excellent.

3 or 6 images in continuous shooting mode: fast enough for snapshots.

Weight and size: it is much more here than a system camera, but not in each jacket pocket so effortlessly stow as a Sony RX100.
Weight: felt lighter than I expected with + 400g.

Autofocus: fast, accurate. Very accurate. A joy afterwards to see the sharp details.
(I do not understand the problems some reviewers: the concept of a rangefinder camera is just fundamentally different than that of an SLR with a mirror.)

Things that are not quite so pleased me well: Sorry, no face detection is programmable.
This feature I've learned on my Sony RX100 love; what should be focusing on? Almost without exception the / faces.
I would be in a corresponding update is not in my creativity feel-impaired operates the camera from the hip and a sharp image? Yes please! If indeed hailed as a tool for street photography!

The RAWs are 32MB large well, storage is no longer so expensive, yet the biggest debris that have ever produced one of my cameras.
Wherein: the files are on a UHS- enabled card very fast is being stored no disturbing delays.

The battery is small and thus not so persistent, so 300 to 400 trips, then the wars, and the notice is legendary. I've even seen the display, as she went from 3 to 2 bar, for 5 more pictures wars past.
So carry spare batteries ..... are cheap at alternative providers.

About the central lock and lightning: Yes, I can do at f 2 1 / 1000s (thousandths) and have no bar.
(What does that mean please David nachzusehen- hobby or you know it;) P)

Conclusion: a camera that delivers excellent JPEGs fully automatically, and which is at the request gradually to a purely manual-to-use, reputable camera.

Recommendation.