Biological_Viewfinder: Because of this website, I have purchased several Panasonic cameras over the years. But I've come to the conclusion that there has never been a top-notch Panasonic anything, ever.-The Sony isn't perfect, but I'd rather pay $1300 for the Sony Rx10 and have a camera that produces output that I can enjoy, than pay $800 for a Panasonic that I won't even use because the output is lacking.-Once again, let me remind you that I've purchased several cameras from Panasonic over the years. *NONE OF THEM* produced images that were useful to me. I've owned the Nikon D800e and others. I was *NEVER* happy with any Panasonic product. My biggest complaint is the ugly, chunky noise and horrible low-light capabilities.
Sorry your experience was poor. Mine has been the opposite. I have bought and been delighted with several of their M43 cameras. I use Canon 5DmIIIs for work and I find the IQ of the Panasonics excellent. For the P&S cameras creating JPGs I think almost all of them stink except the Fuji and Olympus ones. Shooting RAW or JPG gives me excellent results with Panasonic. Setting your JPG defaults well makes a big difference.
DoctorJerry: As far as I am concerned, they can skip all the video crap and then drop the price to something more affordable. I can enjoy photography without having to worry or even use video. Would that make the camera lighter, faster? Maybe Panasonic should have 2 models, one with and one without 4k video.
They will sell this to a lot of people who will never shoot video and also to a lot who will never shoot stills. Creating two models with the aim of being able to sell smaller quantities of each at lower prices makes poor sense.
Super useful for the commercial photographer needing the flexibility. Fair price for this quality and market.
mosc: RX10: $1300A77 with 18-135: $1100K5IIs with 18-135: $115070D with 18-135: $1300D7100 with 18-140: $13007D with 18-135: $1400K3 with 18-135: $1400
It's not that it's priced like an APS-C camera, it's that it's priced like a TOP END APS-C camera. I mean those lenses are all a LITTLE less of a zoom and their apertures favor wide to tele (which IMHO is an advantage) but this cam's got a lot of high end competition. Not like the RX10 fits in your pocket.
Pointless carping.If you cannot see the use or the difference buy something else. Trying to "prove" that something is better with apples to oranges comparisons wastes time.
webrunner5: Well, that certainly is a video worth watching. Some nice interesting tips and well produced.
Would be neat to be able to go all over the world, but sort of dangerous anymore and pretty expensive on top of it.
Not as dangerous as the media would have us believe but more expensive than they would have us believe.
photoreddi: Handing out free Fuji Instax photo souvenirs to the street people you're shooting is a great ZA tip, especially if Fuji supplies the cameras and the Instax film. Great stuff. Credit card size photos (2.4x1.8") using 20 exposure ISO 800 film packs at $13.40 per pack (B&H price).
I wonder if Zack ever owned or even used an Instax before doing this Fuji promotional video? Here's a tip for Zack. Next time he can look like a pro by getting a Lomography Diana Instant Back + for the Diana F+ Camera.
> This amazing accessory will now allow you to turn your Diana F+ camera into an instant camera, with some tasty twists. The Instant Back uses Fuji Instax Mini film, which is about the size of a business card.
Handing out instant images is what we did in the 60s. Instant crowd of admirers.
Jogger: How did they come up with the scores?? e.g. for portrait lenses, sharpness isnt really my top priority... most of the top contenders are sharp enough that i dont bother sharpening in post.
I agree but I notice that the obsession is for ultimate sharpness without any regard to actually going out in the real world where ultimate quality is indistinguishable from merely excellent or even good.
Andrej99: GoPro,IPO,hmmm...? I do not belive in GoPro anymore,Sony will eat them with new ActionCams! I saw a lot of comparison on youtube and I just ordered that camera (AS100V) and waiting for delivery. Much better sound recording,longer battery life,smaller...and the best feature:GPS! (and who really need 4K video on SPORT camera? Full HD is more then enough!) And I found no issues on Sony cameras...
Yeah, I always use Youtube for my critical purchasing decisions.
0MitchAG: $1 billion in revenue but only $60 million in profit? Is this considered normal?
They are selling a consumer electronic good. Very decent return. Just ask Samsung.
Ednaz: Now there's enough difference to get me thinking about upgrading from my "ancient" RX100. In my regular camera gear, I seldom shoot above 85mm, and shoot a lot below 35mm, so the focal length range on the III is a better match for me. I can certainly believe it won't be such a good match for others, but with 20mp to work with, you can crop to a 140mm equivalent and still have enough pixels for an 8x10 print.
Tilt screen is one thing I really missed on the original. The EVF I'm not so sure about. On a camera this small, won't it feel like you're putting your fist in your face? Even if, getting the camera up to your face leads to a much steadier holding geometry, so it is likely to improve low light shooting.
I never go anywhere - not even to the pharmacist - without my RX100. It's captured some lovely pictures for me. The II wasn't enough of a difference, but the III will tug cash out of my wallet.
The ancient Rollei 35 was smaller and had an OVF. I don't think too many were bothered by putting that up to their face.
Albert Silver: I like the red box for size, indicating it is worse presumably. Then you look closer and notice that it is exactly THREE MILLIMETERS bigger on only one side compared to the previous generation.
That said, the camera looks and sounds great except for the huge pricetag. $800? Yeesh.
In context, this camera is a reasonable stretch for most enthusiasts. Blister pack prices are for throw away junk from Target.
Brilliant camera. Genius EVF.
Mike99999: That watermark is infinitely tacky.
I suppose so but then you are a lot less likely to steal it then?
Lenses are going to look increasingly expensive as the manufacturers have to confront their declining volume while still spending R&D money for new products that will hopefully stem the slide.
The alternative for those complaining about the price is to buy third party or make the lens they say Canon and Nikon are too lazy/greedy to make.
57even: Fell asleep about 3mins in...
Actually the making of successful headshots does take a lot. He makes it look easy because he has a ton of experience and an ability to put his clients at ease. Successful commercial photographers at the top end are not the mediocre button pushers you and others here seem to think they are but represent a LOT of hard work that has resulted in what looks like good luck.Once you have your retrospective at MOMA you can preach to us a bit more about art.
cseiler: Reading this is like hearing that a very nice meal I just had was full of glutamate!- I guess sometimes its better not to know the recipe.
In contrast to many landscape images the post processing in this approaches the minimum that many photographers would do. A testament to his skill at getting it right in the camera.Moreover, if you had been a committed landscape photographer in the film days, a black and white print would have been the result of not only careful photographic technique but a specialized film developing routine followed by a series of prints that eventually resulted in the singular excellent result.
Madaboutpix: I actually followed the link to Sony's award site, and despite the many negative comments, I think the picked series do represent easily more than average photojournalism.
What some of the detractors seem to overlook is that the foremost duty of a photojournalist is to tell intersting visual stories - stories with a strong impact, both viscerally and rationally, because they are touching, revealing, uplifting, funny, redemptive, poignant, thought-provoking, or whatever. Stories that need to be told because they help us to understand our times.
Taking in and appreciating these stories may take a little more time and effort than some of the harsh critics seem to be willing to invest. On the whole, I'd say, the awarded photographers have succeeded in doing just that, in telling relevant stories, and some have done so admirably.
Little surprise major newspapers are substituting smartphone reporters for their photojournalists - many of their readers won't see the difference anyway!
Well Kim, get busy and show us real photography. The world is waiting...
For all the critics here I would challenge you to put your pictures where your mouth is and enter next year.I would also challenge you to enter contests elsewhere to see where you fall on the continuum of photographic excellence.
Congratulations to Fuji for another superb lens. On APS-C it adds just enough DOF wide open to ensure sharp focus on a tight portrait while still satisfying all but the most neurotic bokeh hounds.Excellent construction and a fair price makes it a very tough competitor to the established brands.
The best Fuji lenses are optically better than anything from Canikon.
Also drop the f/1.8 thing. For an APSC system this is f/1.2 lens.
"Also I dont see any use of 1.2 lens except for achieving shallow dof."Before the current fashion and preoccupation with zero DOF, we coveted fast lenses because of their light gathering ability. We were all aware of the isolating effects of a large aperture and felt it was a tradeoff for more speed. The fact was that most images made needed more DOF not less. That is true today the endless useless images of zero DOF notwithstanding.