I appreciate that I seem to be in the minority here, but I never understood what is interesting about 'street photography'. Perhaps Fuji doesn't either?
ponyman: Fractionally larger sensor aside, is there any particular reason why someone would choose this over the smaller, less expensive and better specified Panasonic GM1 with its interchangeable lens mount?
.... assuming of course that this lens fits your one and only need. Personally I'll swap the flexibility of an interchangeable lens mount on a smaller camera for the limitations of a fixed if (possibly) slightly brighter lens any day.
Fractionally larger sensor aside, is there any particular reason why someone would choose this over the smaller, less expensive and better specified Panasonic GM1 with its interchangeable lens mount?
I do wish DPReview (and others) would stop promoting this Apple stuff. There are plenty of other places where iSheep can go for their fix. Can we please get back to the topic of serious photography. Sorry but I've just been getting so frustrated about this. DPReview is still arguable the best photography site, but it's becoming increasingly diluted. Whilst I appreciate that tablets can have a use in digital photography the constant biased promotion of Apple products is really grinding. I have no intention what so ever of buying any Apple products.
Can't wait for a Hasselblad version ...
ponyman: Just been reading this review from someone who has actually spent some time using this camera http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Xvario.html - I will be interested to see further reviews before passing judgement.
Well for what it's worth I am simply curious to find out more about a product that has been so heavily criticised. A Google search will bring up this review. Like I say it would be well out of my price bracket and I am no more convinced by it's on paper value to spec ration than anyone else. I do appreciate that you are always going to be paying a premium for the Leica brand name, just as you do for Apple products which similarly offer inferior specs and excessive prices.
CFnn - yes the guy states this openly. Companies are unlikely to continue to supply products to reviewers who regularly slate their wares, thus potentially reducing sales, so I find his explanation reasonable. I doubt if he is unique in that matter and I respect his honesty. I'm not going to pass judgement based purely on his review, but I thought it might be of interest to others - it is the most thorough review by someone with first hand experience with the camera that I have seen so far. It's totally out of my price range regardless regardless of it's merits or otherwise.
Just been reading this review from someone who has actually spent some time using this camera http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Xvario.html - I will be interested to see further reviews before passing judgement.
I've never seen a camera launch met with so much derision. There must be something good about it?
RichRMA: Just from experiencing both the D7000 and D300, if a D300 update with that sensor was released, very few who compared them would buy the D7100 unless the price was substantially better (like $500+). When the D300 was released, it was something like $1800, but some months later, it settled in at around $1599. That would make it just $400 more than the D7100 body. I know there is a kind of trend toward smaller bodies now that mirror-less have become a normal market item, but when you'd got big lenses (e.g., 70-300mm f/2.8) it is much more comfortable balancing them with a larger body. Supporting a lens's weight by its focusing ring rather than simply using it to focus while you leverage back on the camera body (because it has a good grip, not a cramped one like the D7000/D7100) does not make for comfortable shooting. If these are still truly enthusiast cameras, and not pure consumer models, then someone will be waiting to buy a D400. If one ever appears.
I can't remember any time when I was wishing that I was I was carrying something bigger and heavier
That one ugly mother......
Alejandro del Pielago: After reading the GH3 review, and checking the PROS/CONS, I realize this:1. DPR is very, very kind with Panasonic. 2. The kindness is in the way the humble IQ is buried under tons of bla-bla about... the nice body. 3. Micro 4/3 is surpassing 4/3 no doubt...
'Micro 4/3 is surpassing 4/3 no doubt...'
... at least in camera size!
ponyman: I don't understand the reason for this camera. I thought the idea behind smaller sensors was smaller cameras? This one is even worst than the GH2 which seemed ridiculously oversized.
Platek - modern sensors don't suffer from the overheating problems of old. The CPU will be of much lower power than most smart phones. The idea that you need a big camera for cooling is just er hot air! Check out the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema as mentioned by Nukunukooif you need further evidence that you don't need a brick to produce 'Professional' quality results.
Andy please enlighten me as to why a 'pro-grade' camera has to be big. Wouldn't most real pros would rather have something small and light? I suspect this isn't really intended for pros. This is for pro wannabes who will be able to impress themselves and their 'pro' mates and help Panasonic to flog these consumer-in-a-big-case cameras at inflated prices to the gullible. Just as they do with cars these days ...
I agree with what agentul says. I like his car simile - bigger must mean better. I seem to remember cars being much more fun in the days of the Mk1 - why did everything have to get so big and serious?
I don't understand the reason for this camera. I thought the idea behind smaller sensors was smaller cameras? This one is even worst than the GH2 which seemed ridiculously oversized.
I hope for Polaroid's sake that I'm wrong, but I fear that this product is doomed to failure.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. With all due respect to Mr Edison's affliction, he should find more realistic ways of amusing himself.
The pictures from the iThingys look better than the D3, which I find hard to accept.
DPR never bothered to do a full review of the original Q for some unknown reason, so I suppose they will choose to ignore the Q10 as well.