Mike FL: LX100 looks just like 10 years old Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1, but LC1 has Build in flash + VF + Hot shoe, and Jeff Keller liked the "Super-cool two-stage flash" as seen in his review as following:
LC1 or digilux 2 has iso only up to 400, and with a lot of noises.And, LX100 is with Summilux lense.
abortabort: Hmmm an interesting and funny wrap up :)
It would have been nice if you mentioned that that ridiculous (though 'some' might think 'pretty', like an X30 apparently) perfume bottle selfie camera thing is the first camera ever to have a curved sensor - that makes it one of those 'weird cameras that started it all' and not just for the explosion of dedicated 'female friendly' selfie cameras that are going to hit the market.
There are 1-D curved screen on the market while the screen will not rorate.
After going through all the readers' comments, I found that #6 was only mentioned once by mayurgogoi as 'ok'. The major element of #6 was the railroad track on which I spent four years of commuting during my six high school years. In my eye, the image was so dynamic that the train was only 'survived' by a few white lines and yet it was so static and calm as the lights and trees shown at distance.
Aendie: To compare this with the RX10, I would like to know the maximum aperture for stills at 200mm focal length. Is it also F2.8? Stating F2.8-4.0 25-400mm LEICA DC Lens nicely hides the performance in between! At what point can the lens no longer maintain F2.8?
1. Use Aperture mode and set the aperture to its max., 2.82. Start from 25mm and turn gradually toward 400mm. The variation of aperture is shown on the LCD.
I did the above to see how my FZ50 varies from 2.8 to 3.7 and it should work for FZ1000 or others.
PC Wheeler: I ran across a table of max aperture vs focal length last night while using my computer and bookmarked it. Now I'm away and using my iPad. Later I'll see if I can post the link here.
Ben Herrmann: Pentax seems several years behind the times with regards to their super zoom offerings. These small pin-head sensors are on the way out, IMO. Now if Pentax can get into the mix with a 2/3" or 1" sensor - and add RAW capabilities - then I think that would turn on heads.
Pentax has the only 1/2.3" DSLR camera around the world. They don't hate small sensors, I guess.
SteB: I'm trying to work out the close-up capabilities of this camera. But I can't find any info yet on the close-up distances at relative focal lengths. Also does the macro function work on the whole focal length range, or just a portion, such as the wide-angle end?
Any info would be much appreciated.
The shortest focus distance of FZ50 (at 35mm) is 5cm and covers about 4cm horizontaly. FZ1000's close-up distance is 3cm at 25mm and I would expect the image is significantly less than 4cm horizontaly. With its 1" sensor, one can get a same IQ as FZ50 does with much greater macro capability.
jsandjs: I carry both the FZ50 and G1X most of the time and glad to see this FZ1000 coming. The only thing bothers me a little is the extending zoom while FZ50 stays unchanged for its 35~420mm. This do make a difference for street shooting. I hope that the one step drop is OK since I used to the FZ50's drop to f3.7 at 350mm.
I like the "color" from FZ50 as well as other Leica glass.
People may feel being spotted or even offended. I prefer a camera staying 'calm'.
I carry both the FZ50 and G1X most of the time and glad to see this FZ1000 coming. The only thing bothers me a little is the extending zoom while FZ50 stays unchanged for its 35~420mm. This do make a difference for street shooting. I hope that the one step drop is OK since I used to the FZ50's drop to f3.7 at 350mm.
Sad Joe: So the D4s is slighly better than a 3 year old Canon 5d3 which sells for well under 1/2 price - wow - must change all my kit - NOT. Guys don't be suckered - BOTH Canon & Nikon could bring out VASTLY better cameras for the same or less money - but won't as they wish to DRIP FEED us improvements and get us to keep updating our kit. Only fools with money to burn follow their lead - and don't give me the 'pros update all the time to stay ahead'. Rubbish - real - I have to make money - pro's are VERY careful about spending money….
It should be the other way around: One finds a use for iso 30,000, then he buys a D4s.
nicoboston: The purpose was also to send a big "ENOUGH" following recurrent racism issues in France lately (as the country is more or less falling appart, it's very tempting to blame others).Good photographers and photojournalists are not in danger. Talented people will always exist. They have to adapt. It won't be easy, but they have to! Everybody loves nice images. Now everyone can capture decent images with good cameras and phones... If everyone had access to good violins and pianos, it would be more difficult to become a recognized musician. It's competition... Don't give up, photographers ! Newspapers will disappear, you won't ;-)
Yes! It is market, it is just what people want.
I like your final words: Don't give up, photographers! Newspapers will disappear, you won't.
Only experienced photographer got good shot when he put his camera above his head.
This reminds me the old Panasonic FZ50, 1/1.8", 35~420mm, f2.8~3.7.And of course, Stylus 1 should have a much better high iso performance than the FZ50 does.
Roland Karlsson: Interesting.
I wonder how it performs if it is applied to a rather good lens, like an average zoom kit lens?
No, it is against the idea at the very beginning of their research. That is the reason why they started with a typical simple single piece of glass. Image from an average zoom kit lens mixed with all kinds of distortion (although improved) may fool the software.
Jogger: the old adage.. garbage in, garbage out .. seems to apply here
The key point here is that it is not garbage if one can figure out what is in it.
RichRMA: When they tried this with the Hubble Space Telescope (correction of optical defects via computer) they got only marginal results. It took a new set of corrective optics to do the job. You can't "create" results in resolution using software, you can only approximate.
The key point is that they don't treat the final 'resolution' directly. They try to figure out why the final resolution is no good when using a certain type of single glass element.
PowerG9atBlackForest: My English is not very good but I would like to say it like this: It won't work because by laws of nature, chaos (a blurred point is chaos, literally spoken) once it has been created can not be completely reconstituted to it's former organized origin due to the lack of single-valued information.
No, it cannot be completely....., and no one expects so. Even in designing lens, while you add one element to do its job, the element itself creates other problems. The whole idea here is that a cheaper and much lighter software has a chance to replace an expensive and heavy lens while both of them will never be perfect.
km25: I can see these programs improving and correcting. But remember garbage in garbage. Any sharpness or correction is a guess by the program to what maybe correct. If you take a picture of Pung, a program can only go so far to make it look like Nicole Kidman. If the info is not there it just will not be. Lens IQ is there or not, some correction yes, clean up yes. It is still better if you have a fine lens.
All those laws in physics are 'guess' too. Analysis is nothing but a better word for guess. Anyway, there are different levels of guessing, some based on some ideas and some totally grab from the air. We cannot get something from nothing but we do get something from something. Let's keep on finding those precious something.
Did Gaylord sue GOD since HE dumped snow on his work and thus made Alli's photo distorted as well as the stamp?
Zanearn: Earlier this year (2013), Fujifilm announced FinePix HS50EXR, which also has a DSLR-like body with similar size and weight than this a3000, and... a 1/2' sensor, at $549.95. About the same time, Nikon announced COOLPIX P520 with a 1/2.3' sensor, for $449.
I think the editor should compare a3000 with these cameras, since they are all DSLR-like and have similar prices, targeting the same group of customers.
Anyone can try this A3000 (at 55mm) and crop to get the same FOV (or frame, picture, ...) taking with one of those superzooms (at 800 or 1000mm) from a same position. Then he will have a solid idea about which one gets a better IQ.