lacikuss: Looking at these extra large lenses compared to FF equvalents I believe at this point only the Nikon 1 system has held to the original promise of a portable system
I agree Vadims. Have been carefully looking at the 4/3 equipment and it's great. But I'd be a fool to let my similar size Nex 7 + 10-18 go for a smaller sensor.
Paul B Jones: 15 feet doesn't cut it if you want to record police behaviour from inside your car after they have pulled you over.
Good Point Paul, and I agree. But how do you keep people from getting in the face of cops when they're trying to do their job?
WACONimages: EVF's are overrated! Yes of course there are many photographic situations an EVF could make a difference(maybe).
But actually it is more a mindset in my opinion. I'm a long time photographer and for over a decade I make a full-time living with photography. I always try to use the camera gear what is best for the job at that moment. Also love to improvise and think out of the box.
The last two years I found myself from being a 95% EVF shooter going to maybe 50/50% EVF or live view screen. Especially if you have a non fixed screen it gives you amazing opportunities to shoot at more creative angles.
At press events where it is crowed with photographers shoulder to shoulder with their big dslr N or C gear I just use a different angle and my screen. They look funny at me at these moments. Seems not be 'pro...' But I got the pics I want in a different way of photographing.
So no doubt an EVF will keep its place. But without an EVF you have another kind of 'freedom' while shooting...
I agree. In my case I never shoot action outdoors so it's a moot point. But I still would like an EVF if I can get one. So often what photographers want in a camera depends on how or what they shoot. I think this triggers hot debates about features when it shouldn't.
dgeugene1: I know this comment will provoke howls from the Sony RX100 fans but my experience is that a very good 1/1.7" sensor, in this case the Nikon P7800, is an excellent performer and only begins to diverge from all the 1" sensors at very high ISO's. The smaller sensor, of course, has the benefits of better lenses, lighter cameras, etc.
Where the 'jump' in quality occurs, in my opinion of course, is at 4/3. My LX100 resembles the IQ of my Canon 70D and is a huge 'jump' over the 1" sensors I have tried.
This will now provoke howls from Canon owners but my technical interests do not extend beyond making good pictures.
dgeugene1, Have a P7700 and Sony RX100 and completely agree. I also have a Nex 7 and have taken all three cameras on extensive travels. I can never be absolutely sure of which camera has taken what until I look at the Exif. I notice the Nikon is a little flat or down on contrast though. But it takes some looking and can easily be picked up in post processing. That Nikon is a great little under appreciated camera as long as there is enough light.
fairfaxian: This camera is potentially inching towards the feature set I have been waiting for for years. For nature & wildlife in the backcountry, it is often impractical to carry even the most compact SLR. And I like to carry a real camera at all times (in addition to smartphone). I always have my S100, which has produced many excellent images within its limitations. I still have a G10 which also delivered the goods.But I often observe wildlife at a distance, beyond the reach of a short telephoto. I even purchased what was once considered an ultra zoom -hated the tiny sensor.I have some excellent SLRs's, But they are often just too bulky -or fragile to carry.I know that every camera is a compromise, but technology reduces many tradeoffs over time.Wide range telephoto, with a fairly large sensor, in a compact, with an articulating screen that will let me peer under a large mushroom on the forest floor? Yes, I would go for that. Throw in a fast lens (or a low light sensor) and I WILL buy it.
fairfaxian, had a G10 and one of the best cameras I've owned. Replaced it with a Nikon P7700 as Canon stopped making theirs with swivel LCD's. The P7800 has a good zoom (27-200) and an EVF if interested.
Wacon, I too mostly use the LCD and have found if you tilt it to another angle, almost impossible to see screens due to glare become quite clear. I would always get an EVF if possible, but find they are often unusable, like when holding a camera over head. I also disagree with a lot of critics about amateurs holding the LCD at arm's length. It's like looking at a painting in a museum with both eyes, far more natural than looking through a monocular.
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.