oopsibrokeit: It is a good looking camera but offers little you cannot already get in mFT GX8 etc for less money
Price is not the only thing. I love Panasonic but Olympus has charms that go beyond specs.
"In terms of design, the F is a gorgeous camera, both to gaze at longingly on a table or to physically hold and use. "
For many that is all we need. ;)
alextardif: Taking bets on how many warranty claims will be filed after people start busting LCDs when they ram their schnozes smack in the middle with that interesting EVF placement, LOL!
Cool tech nonetheless!
It will be a problem for anyone with a steel nose.I actually agree with Steven that it will be greater problem for left eyed photographers.
joe_leads: I'm wondering why they keep a DSLR mount for this camera. Why not make a new mirrorless mount with short flange distance and offer their existing DN lenses for Sony E, as well as future mirrorless lenses for both mounts? Their DSRL lenses could still be adapted.
People happily use adapters. However those who are picky about ultimate IQ fuss about them as they have seen the results of poor manufacture and iffy fit.This is not to say that it can't be done but any engineer will tell you that you have introduced a new set of tolerances that need to be accounted for.As for tele converters, they have the same issues but are masked by the magnification of the center part of the image circle thus minimizing lack of planarity.
kty: Come on Sigma, join the Micro 4/3 system and make these cameras with active MFT mount. They would be a totally unique offering to tons of people and undoubtedly very good sellers.
And add the anti µ43 trolls to the anti Sigma trolls?
So you will be inclined to buy their lenses in native mount and not adapted.Adapters, no matter how popular, introduce variables in the optical path that can affect IQ.As they are very proud of the resolution of their cameras and lenses they decided not to compromise.
Richard Franiec: Ultra wide zoom compact is a huge innovation on its own.If the lens performance is good, this camera will become a well deserved sales hit for Nikon.
The performance could be excellent.Both the Sony RX-100 and the Panasonic FZ-1000 have superb lenses in front of 1 inch sensors.
bluevellet: That 18-50 compact sounds intriguing. I would like the mechanical shutter to be faster, but I understand this is a common limitation with those cameras.
I think the 3 stop ND solves the problem for flash users.1/1600 is plenty fast for freezing action especially if you are at a max 50mm equivalent.
MikeF4Black: What exactly was the "look inside"? Some recycled images (of outsides, unless you count the inside - just a glimpse - of the hinging screen), with a not very illuminating narrative?
That's the fifth "news" item on this camera in 24 hrs. You should all take some rest.
The people I know that work on web publications have gigantic pressure to generate huge volumes of work. Not their fault if some of the content is going to be a bit thin. Just the requirements of the medium.As a card carrying camera obsessive, this does not make me sad.You will notice that I even read all the comments to get down here. ;)
Bravo Pentax!A very promising intro from a company with a superb track record of good cameras.
Lee Jay: If I wanted a camera that can only shoot at one focal length, I could use my cell phone and save the $3,300.
Really, I wouldn't give $300 for a fixed-lens fixed-focal-length camera no matter how good it was, as it would only cover perhaps 1% of my shooting.
If you are unacquainted with Helmut Newton you are missing an interesting photographer.
sportyaccordy: Seems that 42 MP is a bridge too far for the limited hardware real estate of the RX1's body. RX2 should be built around a ~16-20 MP sensor with a high burst rate, a tilting touch screen and the NW-FP50 battery out of the NEX/A7 bodies. Maybe even go down to 12 MP for max speed and sensitivity.
So... you're proposing an action/sports camera in this form factor and FL?
Frank_BR: Now that the new CMOS sensor allows liveview, and therefore makes feasible an electronic viewfinder, what is the point in keeping an optical viewfinder that demands a heavy and expensive prism, and a mirror system that vibrates the camera at each exposure? Isn't time for Hasselblad becomes a mirrorless camera?
I am sure someone is working on it but they save a lot of money by keeping legacy mechanics.
TL/DR: I presume the trolls have rubbished the lens and/or samples while a few have declared the arrival of the 85mm messiah.
This just what Sony needed to convince more people, and particularly pros, that their cameras can be credible pro tools. Size is a non-issue for me as fast lenses have to be largish to cover FF. Durability and reliability are key.
It would be nice to have thumping large battery too.
Gesture: The high-point, end-point of digital SLR with optical finder?
Actually the Nikon people would say that was the D5. ;)
Valiant Thor: All this talk regarding high cost and arm and a leg chatter seems quite bizarre to me. The average American will pay around one million dollars in interest (mortgage, credit card, car loans, etc.) in their lifetime to criminal bankers (banksters), yet whine about paying $350 to a great company for a beautifully designed and manufactured piece of equipment. Now that's weird.
My Polish immigrant family taught me to work and save my money and pay for everything I purchase and pay no interest which I have done my whole life, so $300 to $400 for a nice tripod is a piece of cake and I get to keep my arms and legs. Just my rant on usury.
You must be new here. Whining about price is more popular than taking pictures among this lot.
sneakyracer: These guys are cool. I like Fuji. It says a lot about a company when top execs. talk with such candor, passion and common sense. A lot of that is missing in today's world.
@Ed, Really? People knowing the basics? This and every other forum is filled with people who endlessly natter on about IQ while viewing at 100% and greater. That is a conceit of the "purists". The vast majority of people here and elsewhere are viewing their images on uncalibrated monitors ranging from 60" TVs to phones. Additionally, most look at a photo and say "That's nice" or "That sucks". They never concern themselves with the details. That is the global market and that is the volume that a manufacturer must satisfy. That is why we have "art" filters, video and JPG.
Don is correct. Almost no one prints anything of significant size.BUT they have to respond to all the cranks who view their cat photos at 400%
vladimir vanek: Kind of steep pricing, I'd say...
The real question is the consistency of the product. I have a number of panels form the same manufacturer (Cheap Chinese) and they are each a different color. One is already getting dimmer than the other. I note that the LED lights for cine are miles more expensive and they tout the color, and consistency,