Considering that these devices and all their ilk are tossed as soon as the next shiny thing comes along, what incentive is there to engineer with repairability in mind ?
tonywong: Very interesting cam. Some reservations though.
SxS...memory standard created by Sony and Sandisk. Limited driver support (Mac and Windows only) to read cards.
No price announced.
No delivery date announced.
Canon and Red should be afraid of this camera, but any idea how much and when?
Edit: found the dates on the EOSHD site and estimated pricing...odd why dpr nor the Sony link had any of that info.
I would think that drivers could be easily written should the demand materialize.
liquidstone: 8.9 MP RAW at 60 fps? Looks like this will also be good for still images of action. :)
Also good for the vendors of storage.
Gregm61: Looks, based on the name and guide number, more like a re-badged Olympus FL36R with the FL600R-type assist lights.
There is a good chance that both Panasonic AND Olympus buy their flashes from a third party.
gl2k: Nice that Panny gives customers a feature that Canikon users already enjoy for many years now. LOL.
It took Canon a VERY long time to get where it is and we all listened to years of whining along the way. (Still do)
victorenglund: Holy **** that's an ugly camera...
If you are buying it as bling I suppose you are right.
I like the looks a whole lot compared to the previous version.
As a matter of fact, I recall several camera styling proposals in the seventies producing cameras that looked like this that met with great approval. I am glad we never got the circular cameras...
It invokes traditional camera SLR cues that make me feel that this a more serious camera than its predecessor. I realize that bothers some but I recognize that they are aware of people like me want a camera to look like.
I see the new spec fad is sensor size. Doesn't matter what real world performance is sensor size is everything.Let's see.... first it was megapixels, then noise, then hi ISO performance, then DR, then DOF and now sensor size.Yes, I understand the differences but at bottom the focus is on specs not real world enjoyment.
spencerberus: The market will decide if this is a camera that meets people's needs, not a small number of people who parade opinion as fact. I won't buy it because I was never going to buy it, I've invested in m43 for a while now and am happy with the combination of form factor and quality. Others aren't, and that's fine, because there are other choices out there. This is just another choice.
If you're going to express your negative opinion, don't demean people for expressing a positive one. Or is it that all opinions are ok, as long as they match your own?
And 'ugly' is always an opinion. I don't particularly care for the design aesthetics myself, but I'm not a huge fan of Picasso's paintings either.
A voice in the wilderness...;)
VivaLasVegas: This is my second day looking at it, this is the ugliest camera ever made.
Nah, the Olympus EVolt300 beats it with a stick.
I think there is very little historical memory on these boards for the forms of SLRs of the past. Think Exakta, Topcon, Contarex etc. This actually evokes the transformer toy idiom that their focus groups indicate appeal to the man/boy photographer looking for new toys.
phototrope: A pessimistic and bitter article that contains few real tips, if any. What this article is really about is summed up in the first three words: "My photographic career". Yes, the game has changed, and yes photographers entering the industry now need very different skills (other than the technical ones of how to use a camera, of course). The fact that the requisite skills have changed is clearly making the author bitter. This doesn't mean that young photographers should be cautioned away. In fact, I know some great "old-time" professionals who are aware of this and manage successfully to infuse their students with enthusiasm rather than fear and nostalgia.As for the pictures, if these are the best he could do over a thirty year career, well no wonder he's bitter.Sorry if that sounds harsh, but if an author lays out his opinions as "the Truth", he should be prepared to get a whole bunch of Truth thrown back at him.
Your particular bias seems to read more into the article than is there. I feel the tone is much more of a response to those (thousands) who declare I want to do X. What he reveals is that any field is far more than what the lay person perceives. Further he goes on to caution that hard work is the cornerstone of any success. And as far as his photography goes, your comments are profoundly shallow and reflect a view of near complete ignorance of the field and art.
jorepuusa: Every professional photographer who "shares" his or hers knowledge about photography to amateurs takes part in the killing of photography as profession. For some odd reason some pros do not understand that.That is probably cause they have a firm position in the business and cannot see the problems of those who do not and specially young pros who are just starting business.It is very sad that dpreview takes part in killing of profession by giving advice to amateurs how to shoot. The amateurs shoot for free or minimum prize. In Finland where I live professional photography is almost dead and amateurs have taken over cause those who buy pictures do not anymore see the difference of quality but consider only the money. This is why I see this kind of sharing knowledge extremely hazardous for the industry.
I assume you are in perfectly fit condition, your garden is flawless and your retirement investments are shining with top returns. I assume this because the information to achieve all this is out there.
ALL sorts of information is given away for free yet very few seem to actually use it. As I get older I realize that most people really do not have the desire/passion/interest to actually follow through on what is necessary to achieve the goal.
If one person becomes a successful fashion photographer from this article it will be because it helps guide someone who deserves to succeed because they will be doing more work than you can imagine.
Photomonkey: Think Nikonos IV on digital steroids.
@Old Arrow. I agree. Was typing faster than my memory.
Think Nikonos IV on digital steroids.
ageha: Wow, amazingly ugly. >.<
Reminds me of the Nikonos IV. A very rugged camera that had interchangeable lenses and was waterproof to 300 feet. In some ways the basis (unbeknownst to them) of many here advocating for a small, rugged IL, FF camera.
Vibrio: my ideal camera would record an image like my eyes see it.
Most of our favorite images look nothing like how our eyes see the scene but rather are representations of our emotional reactions to it. The Grand Canyon is never quite as brilliant as film or a processed digital image renders it and I have never seen a street scene in B&W. ;)
Lee Jay: Wake me when these things aren't like cell phones - stuck at a fixed focal length and without interchangeable lenses.
400mm strapped to your head? That would be special.;)
Joe Ogiba: So 15/12 fps is a new video standard ? I guess if you are making a Keystone Cops movie it's ok but I would stick with 1080p60 for any action shots.
They do a lot of time lapse imagery.
Robert P Miller: I do believe some smartphone users would not mind better quality in low light to help with blurs and noise, but otherwise most are not candidates for a second body camera. They will simply accept the better quality sensors when they arrive in the smart phone world.
The real advantage is that it accepts phone calls whereas cameras do not.
Camediadude: My dream is to see a new generation of prosumers (with Sony sending the first shot over the bow, I sure do admit to being impressed by their new RX series camera as it does indeed look like a fantastic beginning to this era I dream of) ... I yearn to see a new generation of friendly competition amongst the cameramakers, in the spirit of their legendary digicams of the last decade, like the Canon Pro1, Sony F828, Olympus C-8080, Nikon 8700, Minolta A2 and others, but now using this latest advance in sensor tech. Can you imagine one of those old beasts, but now modernized with the latest IS, glass, and sensors? (and dare I say, weather-proofing :P hey, I can dream, right!). Such cameras would stir up a lot of excitment, I feel ...
While by all accounts the RX-100 is a great camera I wonder why digicam designers have yet to surprise everyone by including an optical VF and a shutter button that fires the shutter in less than a quarter of a second of pressing it. One can praise the performance all day long but trying to compose an image from the back of an LCD from any camera in broad daylight(THE most common situation) and waiting for it to fire, is an exercise in frustration.