Granted for a working pro in a studio situation (rare for most of us) the Pentax would be a good tool. But do you really need the IQ the Pentax has over a good FF camera? Do your customers actually see the difference?For years I've lusted over full frame to replace my Leica M3 of old. But now I've come to the conclusion that APS-C is more than enough. In fact my latest toy is the Sony RX1002 and I've gotten some amazing pictures.
ennemkay: This will be the perfect telephoto companion to my wide angle 5n once Samsung releases a tele lens.
I don't get it either. You have the same sensor and all the lenses built in with the RX100 series, and most of them are faster, cheaper and you have only one lens to deal with. So why would anyone want to buy, carry and swap mostly more expensive slower lenses?
five5pho: as a Canon user I always thought that if I ever switch systems would be a Nikon.I m not so sure anymore, Sony turns out to be a innovative player.
Long time Canon and Nikon user. About three years ago got the latest and greatest Nikon DSLR, only to have it sit in the closet due to size. I simply was reluctant to carry all that weight and bulk. Sold everything and got a Sony Nex 7 for my world travels. Used that much more. Lately bought an RX100M2 and using that even more. Realized that image content trumps IQ, so getting the picture is most important & a smaller camera is more likely to be with you.
Did I miss something but with touting all the manual controls, where is the PASM.. knob?
droid56: The fact that Canon has excellent image stabilization is very important to me. I'm getting old, and my hands are not as steady as they once were.
I have an S120, which is small enough to put in a jean's pocket, but I often have it in a belt pouch. This new Canon camera, along with the Sony, are a bit too big for jean pockets, but probably not too heavy for a belt pouch. You could probably buy a belt pouch big enough for the new Panasonic, but wouldn't it feel a bit cumbersome hanging from your belt? Having a camera always with me that I could forget about when I'm out and about doing things is what I want. Whereas, the Panasonic would be an excellent travel camera when getting once in a lifetime pictures is a big need.
At this point, I'm leaning in the direction of the Canon, and the fact that video is something I rarely do is the reason why I'm not worried about it's relatively weak video capabilities.
I had a Nikon P7700 on my belt for years and hardly noticed it was there. Then bought a RX100 2 and it's a feather! I suspect the this canon will be likewise. Just love belt cases... don't know why more people don't use them. Let you climb without a camera getting in the way and if it's the right case (velcro & not zippered) it comes out & goes in in a flash.
spzphoto: I just love this camera. Thank you Panasonic.I already have an RX100 which is great for the size but it's not that much fun to use.The small size is good for traveling but it makes the camera harder to handle during use.
Just to balance things out... I have a RX100 and would consider the LX100 too big for my traveling pocket camera. The small grip added makes the RX100 much easier to hold, which has been a complaint and for me it's a hoot to use. I got good pictures with previous even smalerl sensor cameras, so size alone is not going to guarantee better pictures.
I'm sure the LX1000 is a great camera, but it won't be for everyone.
Great camera that serves a niche market.
PudCat: I am not a professional, just someone who likes taking photographs and has a pretty good eye. I am not looking to travel with multiple lenses. I have used a Canon S90 for the past few years and have been very happy with it. I would like a camera with greater low light capabilities. I am also hoping that a 1.5 inch sensor would allow me to crop more of an image and still maintain good quality. I know this isn't a DSLR! And I know it won't fit in my pocket. My hope is it could be one piece of photographic equipment I can carry in my bag to get good photos under many conditions without ever having to change a lens. I'm just not going to carry one or more lenses because I'm not a pro. Am I right in thinking this camera fits my requirements as well as anything available?
Patsyk, I agree with you. For the 30 years I've been shooting, sometimes semi professionally, I've always hated to change lenses. Several problems: more to carry, chance of getting dust etc on the sensor, but mostly it takes time to change them, and by then the opportunity is often gone. My solution lately has been a Nex 7 with a 15-27, and a P7700 with a 28-200 on my belt out of the way. That way I'm only shouldering a light camera and have everything from 15 to 200 covered within easy reach. With the square panoramas, I sometimes wonder if I couldn't just get a G1X Mk 2 or Sony R10 and get rid of the wide angle. Just a thought. Of course if you just spend a day in one spot doing landscaping photography, then one camera and a bunch of lenses might be fine.
I enjoyed the photos. It portrays a sense of loneliness, isolation and abandonment in an austere environment. Shooting in B&W, at night, and without people enhances that feeling.
Am I missing something here?The Sony RX 100 ll doesn't have an interchangeable lens, but doesn't need it. It's 28 - 100 covers almost the same range. It's f/1.8 vs 1.7 is hardly a big difference. It has the same sensor. Is has the 'flippy' screen. Its actually smaller considering the two lenses. It's cheaper if you figure the extra lens cost, and it's user interface is better. So you want to pay more for a heavier camera (camera + two lenses), want to change lenses, and have a harder to use interface, then buy the new Samsung?
BTW, I've had Samsung cameras in the past and they've been great, so I'm not knocking the brand.
Am I missing something here?The Sony RX 100 ll doesn't have an interchangeable lens, but doesn't need it. It's 28 - 100 covers almost the same range. It's f/1.8 vs 1.7 is hardly a big difference. It has the same sensor. Is has the 'flippy' screen. Its actually smaller considering the two lenses. It's cheaper if you figure the extra lens cost. You don't have to change lenses, and it's user interface is better. So if you want to pay more for a heavier camera (camera + two lenses), want to change lenses, and have a harder to use interface, then get the new Samsung?
I think Adobe is the bellwether. If they succeed, it will open the floodgates and all companies will be asking for a subscription. It's basically apartment renting and car leasing on a smaller scale. Good for business and bad for the consumer.
raztec: Lack of a built in screen is an absolute deal breaker in the GoPros. Not so much for playback as for setting up the right point of view.
Too bad GoPro doesn't get that one simple fact.
I've found after mounting it, I take a few runs and then check the results (by taking off my helmet and pressing a replay). Without a screen, this is impossible.
tunitowen: Here's hoping LG can get close to Apple with this one. Not much is getting close to the iPhones for picture quality (Maybe Xperia / Lumia are getting there).
According to DXO, Nokia 880, Sony Experia, and LG G2 beat the iPhone on picture quality by a hair.
ponyman: 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.
So, what about Android as a balance?Personally I just carry a laptop. Only one pound more and does 10X as much.
thx1138: Lot of people are going to be disappointed when they see there results. They think a 36MP sensor sans AA filter will magically give them tack sharp results, yet fail to realise how such a camera will demand better technique, good glass and often a tripod to truly realise the potential. This thing will be brutal for showing up even the slightest motion blur. For landscape hands down you'll want a tripod, no more being lazy. Hand held you'll want faster shutter speeds or stick to IS lenses. I guess if you are going to be down sampling that'll help, but then you might as well get the A7.
Of the several full sized shots I looked at, none were tack sharp (yes I do realise these are huge images), and wouldn't be any better than say a D600/6D/5DIII if resized, for per pixel sharpness. I think for this type of happy snap walkabout in general you won't get full value of the 36MP. Of course their be plenty of exceptions and some people have steadier hands and some will have IS lenses.
I agree. A lot of these cameras will be sold to people expecting it to make them better photographers.
Sergey Borachev: I see a lot of reaction from DSLR users.
Especially for all those who keep pointing out the small M43 sensor, I wonder why they bother to read this review at all, and why they then feel the need to post what we all know - that M43 cameras have a smaller sensor, no good, blah blah.
Shouldn't they be happy about what they use, the bigger sensor and cameras etc, and not feel so threatened?
For years I had Nikon DSLR's and Canon G series. The Nikon stayed in the closet most of the time. Then I switched to the Sony Nex7. How nice that light weight was and I do a lot more with it. For years also, I entertained getting a FF. But on my last trip abroad I shot 1800 pictures, and with a 27" monitor couldn't tell my Nikon P7700 1.7 sensor from my APS-C. If I ever give up the Nex 7, it will probably be for a smaller sensor yet like the 4/3 or 1" R10. People often forget it's the light, subject matter and composition that make a picture. Not size of sensor. I have no desire to carry a 5 lb camera, print up a 4'X6' picture and look at it with a magnifying glass.
SergioMO: What a monster ! Phase one !
I agree the Phase One is amazing, but if you only shoot for the web, social networking, or max. of 12X18 prints, it is a waste.
Joe Ogiba: The Nokia 808 smartphone has a much larger sensor and cameras like this are dead meat.http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/8083837371/NokiaSensor.jpeghttp://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nokia+808&s=int
vroger1: Finally! Now all we need is a bigger sensor- and Canon will be number 2 in compacts. P.S. My stuff is Canon- This is what we need.
Bigger sensor = bigger camera. Are you sure this is what you want?