kgreggain: I own one and paid pretty well full price when it came out. It actually creates decent images. I don't care about all that external crap people are bitching about, for me, it uses my Pentax lenses, and I use a Hoodman for the viewfinder when shooting video. At 895.00 with the 40mm 2.8xs it was not worth it, but at the current of about 400 or so, it's a decent little camera.
I'm not a Pentax fanboy by any means, I just like the camera. I also shoot Nikon and Olympus - I think Pentax got some pretty bad raps about this camera, but all in all it's not that bad.
Sure sensor produces nice imaged. But in order to produce them, the lens have to be focused efficiently, you know. And the whole package has to work in your hands well.How quickly does it focus your PDAF optimised lenses with CDAF ? And how do you use its focus-peeking optimised MF in bright sunlight without viewfinder ?Does really Pentax force you to use its great K-5-like sensor in such a uncomfortablr way ?
While I generally dislike following the herd in my judgements, this time I agree with crowd wisdom. This camera is simply wrongly conceived from the very start. Using PDAF-optimized lenses with CDAF results in poor AF, huge flange distange results in aesthetic/ergonomic disaster, lack of viewfinder makes the focus-peeking assisted MF difficult.Pentax got the concept of mirrorles completelly wrong
I hope at least somebody here has found this an opportunity to pay respect to this creative and industrious man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss
ogl: I'd like to see more faster lens.
Then go, buy Nikon V2 with bunch of excellent fast primes and you're all set !
Ben O Connor: God what specs! What a cam!
The most serious treathe to Olympus XZ-2. Come on olympus! Now give us the XZ-3 which has same sensor body & specs with ep-5, smilar amazing lens as XZ-2 which is 20mm on the wide, 120mm on tele end. And not above f2.8
Guys, you realize that you ask for impossible ?
Sony RX-100 is just on the border of the possible. It's small overall size was made possible on 1" format exactly by means of slow (f/4.9) lens @ tele.
Having 4/3 instead of 1" with f/2.8 would take you in a completely different territory size-wise. Look here:
That implies increased size - and most likely a substantial one. Would you accept that ?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
I'm curious, which camera's results did you compare ?
Because for example D5200 sensor matches DR of D700 throughout the ISO range, being 1 stop better @ ISO200.
And don't tell me people were unable to create stunning photography before D800 was launched.
Well, wide-apertured, reasonably priced pancake of great optical performance is a "cherry on the cake" of any mirrorless system.
Think of Samsung's 30 f/2.0 or Panasonic's 20/1.7. Fuji seriously hurt its X system by going the Sony's NEX way, rather than Samsung's NX or Panasonic's M43 way.
nicoboston: Poor review IMO.Almost everything has been described elsewhere for weeks or months.More importantly, there's not a single word about DYNAMIC RANGE, which was one of the most interesting aspect of X10, thanks to EXR.
In fact, review mentioned the that there is an option for expanding DR. However - due to the lack of EXR- the conventional method of underexposing & tonecurve manipulation is used. This method (used by other manufacturers as well) has drawback of amplifying the shadow noise and requires stronger NR.
EXR was invented to improve upon the situation by underesposing only the highlights, not the shadows. This allows the shadows to be much less affected by noise & NR.
This is how it traslated to real-world (X10 vs X20): http://www.dpreview.com/files/t/E~a0cacda465cd43d6a39dc7c5c3cdab71
Joerampi: The cons"Video quality not as good as other high-end compacts"
this camera has 60fps for video, which camera is high end that Dpreview mention?
also for me strength in "optics performance" x10 better then X20" (compare the result) both camera using same lens, but why X10 highest poin with x20
anyone can help to explain?
In my understanding X20 resolves more that X10 not because of X-Trans sensor, but because of getting rid of EXR. X20 resolving power is roughly equal to bayer sensors.
X-Trans provides better resolution than Bayer only in the of APS-C sensor (especially when coupled with prime lenses).
I don't agree with you that X20 is blurrier than XZ-2 in general. Look at JPEG results in DPR studio comparison. When it comes to RAW, it seems there is some noise-reduction applied in DPR studio shots, while there is none of it in XZ-2 shots.
Re: Jpeg engine regress ...
I guess the situation might be salvageable by FW update. These are the problems wrt noise reduction:
- chroma denoising induces excessive chroma (esp. red) bleeding. This may be caused either by insufficiently careful calibration of the algorithm or its general undersophistication.
- luma noise NR seems hard-treshholded. It either obliterates any noise together with any details, or keeps the details (& noise) intact. This trait of the NR algorithm leads to both excessive smearing and the artifacts (especially in the form of blackpepper-like dots).
Looking at RAWs, there seems to be nothing to prevent the X20 to utilize similar NR routines that were present in X10.
X20 is an exemplary case of manufacturer listening too carefully to their customers. X10 was often criticised for its limited resolving power, and since (in popular mind) Fuji owned the means to achieve the high resolution results - the X-Trans - people demanded X10's successor to be equiped with X-Trans.
While X-Trans worked for APS-C very well, in the (diffraction & noise limited) world of small sensors there are other contraints - besides OLP (AA) filter- in the way of achieving very high resolution results. And indeed, X20 yields no more lph than Bayers (such as G15 or XZ-2).
It is futile to hope for hi-res from small sensors. Here Fuji's EXR made much more sense, as it was quite successful in combating other small-sensor limitations: it extended DR considerably or provided somewhat better color separation in low-light situations.
Even if Fuji wanted to sacrifice the EXR benefits for resolution, why did it go the X-Trans instead of Bayer ?
GeorgeZ: Great, the last HX series delivered pics as mushy as I've not seen in a long time, even at base ISO. Now we have more MP, same size sensor and even longer lens. Reduced to 6MP, these pics will be ok for many ppl, but this market segment obviously isn't beyond the MP race yet.
The popular belief says images from old, low MP digicams, provided superior IQ compared to current, high MP sensors.
It just not true ! Images from HX20 downsampled to 6MP would destroy output from any of the old 6MP cameras at any ISO.
This is mostly due to the fact that cameras with 6 million native photosites have to be demosaiced to produce RGB output - a process that involves interpolation.
marike6: Making a DSLR smaller doesn't make it more usable. Chopping off the grip may appeal to m43 fans, who seem to believe that ALL cameras should be miniature because it's just too hard, too much effort to carry a normal sized camera, but it won't make the camera easier to shoot with, or balance better with telephoto lenses. It is much, much more tiring to shoot with a camera that has no grip. So I'm hoping this trend towards miniaturization ends soon.
As far as the sensor, it's strange that Nikon used the 16 mp Exmor in the D7000/D5100 for one release cycle and it was class leading for DR, color depth and ISO. Canon has this mediocre 18 mp sensor and they are using it over, and over, and over again. Go figure.
All that said, this camera actually looks pretty interesting, and at least it has a nice LCD and an OVF. If it had a slightly better sensor, it would be more compelling.
There *are* m43 cameras with a grip.
Well, I am not surprised at all ! The appearance of bizzare, halfcrippled, monstruous creatures like EOS M, 700D and 100D correlates well with general impression left by this interview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda
It all speaks a clear message that boils down to single word: cluelessness.
It's hard to believe it is the same company that designed the 10D-40D line of cameras.
facedodge: Some websites are speculating that this is a NEW 18MP SENSOR.... no change in number of pixels, but a change in ISO performance. ISO range is now 100-12800 native - expandable to 25600. That is a one stop increase.
Maybe it's more noise reduction. We won't know until we get to test it.
Well, Canon is actually quite good performer in terms of general (midtone) high-ISO noise levels.
Rather, it's a deep shadows noise (and implied DR) that is 2009-ish.
OvinceZ: Nothing exciting from Canon since the 5DII.
It seems the Canon pays their shills well.
Sdaniella: nothing wrong with padding filler models on the LOW END eco-budget lines, that's where the volume sales aimed at beginners predominate.
no need for 'lead innovations' whatsoever on these models, but the odd one now and then; so 'carry over' or 'trickle-down' features from higher models more likely than having 'exclusive innovations' in abundance on the lowest and thus cheapest models.
detractors should get over it; this isn't a new practice for any mfr; they all do it.
It's just that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sony, Olympus) have made enormous progress in sensor performance (in terms of DR mostly) since 2009; and this progress has transpired into their entry-level modellines as well.
Canon has made no such progress in 4 years now. Currently this technological lag translates to 14Ev (Sony, Nikon) versus 11Ev (Canon) of DR.
And it has serious implications even for JPEG shooters: the in-camera DR expansion modes (DRO, ADL) work much better with 14Ev sensors than with 11Ev sensor.
Rachotilko: Hopefully for Canon (but also for their vendor-locked-in customers) this performs much better in terms of noise floor - ie. the dynamic range - than 650D. In case is does not (and this seems likely), then their trailing behind the competition is truely woeful. But maybe Canon thinks we don't need shadow details @ low ISO.
well, RAW is not the whole story. Sensors with low noise floor give manufacturers more freedom when implementing the various tonecurve (aka "DR-expansion") tricks (such as Nikon's ADL, Canons HTP, Sony's DRO, etc) in JPEG engine.
Hopefully for Canon (but also for their vendor-locked-in customers) this performs much better in terms of noise floor - ie. the dynamic range - than 650D. In case is does not (and this seems likely), then their trailing behind the competition is truely woeful. But maybe Canon thinks we don't need shadow details @ low ISO.