tkbslc: 45mm seems like an odd choice for APS-C. Did they just try and copy m4/3?
copy? are into some weird substance?
viking79: I see this comment a lot: 45mm focal length on APS-C is weird. It is not at all. It is a 70mm equivalent. A 24-70mm or 70-200mm are not weird focal lengths, 70mm is the stopping/starting point of each of those, and you spend a lot of time at either end on a zoom, so it should be fairly natural. Actually, take the 16mm f/2.4, 30mm f/2, and 45mm f/1.8 and you basically have your 24-70mm zoom in a fraction the size.
45mm on APS_C sensor? definitely not weird.
why would anyone post their bigger size photos just for FB to make money out of them and don't give you a share of what you really own.
Ariston: oh my. this is getting ridiculous. a lot of pointless brand bashing just because the camera got a gold star.you people should be more concerned shooting with your equipment rather than cry about a camera for getting an honor. are people here that pathetic?
@sgoldswo, I completely agree. not to mention pointlessly shallow.
oh my. this is getting ridiculous. a lot of pointless brand bashing just because the camera got a gold star.you people should be more concerned shooting with your equipment rather than cry about a camera for getting an honor. are people here that pathetic?
Greg Gebhardt: The biggest advantage the X100S has is it is cheaper. As far as image quality and detail the RX1 will always win. Those who do not agree are in denial and likely are regretful Fuji owners. Lol.
this has to be the biggest BS post I have read.
Ariston: this looks to shame the overhyped Sony RX1.
it's fullframe but the lens equivalent pretty much cancels that out. I mean if that is the only justification for the steep price, I don't think the RX1 is worth than what it is actually being sold at especially with the caveats that comes with the X100s. 36MP might give you something to consider but how much cropping or printing does one actually need?
the X100s shames the RX1 by a mile.
this looks to shame the overhyped Sony RX1.
Kokeen4231: This is the closest competitor to leicas and the sony RX1. If the price is right, I would rather have this.
the sensor size is something to consider, but who would use that for such an occasion if you have the D800? not to mention the setup needed for those shots.
photobeans: This is such a beautiful camera. I want to hold it, admire it, and use it.
looks delicious compared to the RX1.
Jimmy jang Boo: Looks like a nice camera on the outside, but nowhere near enough inside to compete with Sony's juggernaut. Fuji will be lucky to move these things at $400.
Sony juggernaut? oh my, the fanboyism always brings out the stupidity in people. lol
Kokeen4231: I wonder how this sensor can compete with 1" sensor found in the rx100.
I wonder how the NEX-7 couldn't compete against the XP1.
veato: I'm loving the hilarious "it will fail because it doesn't have a 1" sensor" comments. So any compact that doesn't feature a larger sensor is now destined to fail (regardless of other features), right?
Presumably all photos taken on the X20 will be crap because, you know, sensor.
the 1" sensor will fail because of m4/3.
Chris Tofalos: No EVF - again! Amazing and very disappointing omission...
buy an NX20. problem solved.
zoranT: Samsung copy everything, first Sony's NEX series, and now they go a bit towards the retro concept of Fuji. And IQ-wise they have been always a bit behind, no surprise. They could bring it on however, if they wanted to be more serious about leading the market.
what a stupid comment. the NX system came out first than the NEX. get your facts straight before commenting something like this.
fmian: Regarding price point:People pointed out the high price of the Fuji X100 when that came out as well, and it led to a success for them.I think there are plenty of people who are more than willing to pay this much for the camera, although at the same time I feel the accessories are a rip off.For that kind of money (on the viewfinder) i would expect at least simple hybrid viewfinder with etchings and led lights to show basic exposure and parameters.As it stands it costs as much as a decent SLR lens.
the X100 was priced at around $1,000-$1,200. I don't believe that to be expensive at all unless you are referring to the jacked up pricing of the X100 caused by flooding that has disrupted the supply and increased the demand of the X100.
KeeChiuPeng: How can a cheaper D600 body trounce a premium D800 by that much? The iso noise performance is significantly better than D800 in all ranges.
the High ISO noise performance is basically the same with the D800 when downsized to D600 pixel level.
KonstantinosK: For the existing K5 users, the new duo doesn't look much of a temptation for an upgrade, unless of course money is no object. For those that are new to the DSLR and want the best in the APS-C class, they are serious candidates among its peers. The 7D after all these years received only a good firmware upgrade recently and the D7000 until now remains practically the same as ever.
the improved autofocus would be a big consideration.
RC: I do not understand why so many people here criticize the price tag. Some claim that the specs are bad but I actually have the feeling that many who criticize the specs are actually outraged by the price tag and vice versa. They seem actually upset because they probably won't be able to afford one or it would be just too costly for them. Is this Sony's problem? This has nothing to do with insanity and who can afford this camera or not, this has something to do with supply and demand. I'm pretty sure that the RX1 will be hard to get over the first couple of months but many here won't probably agree with me. If the RX1 is performing like a real DSRL, I'm not necessarily talking about picture quality only but also about operational speed, focus speed, shutter speed, etc., then I'm sold. I need a very fast camera but cannot carry around a big and heavy DSRL.I can easily afford the RX1 but spending that much money for a "compact" doesn't come easy. Let's hope we get what we pay for.
it cannot function as a real dslr because it's limited to only one focal length specific lens. I would buy one at $1,500 or $1,800 but cannot justify paying an additional $1,000-$1,300 for it. and besides, it's not even a Leica for crying out loud.