Rachotilko: I want this ! This device utilizes the advantages of small sensor digicam in the best possible way.
It makes one wonder why devices like this one have been so rare ? Why the myriads of f/3.1-f/6 point&shoots and none of f/1.8-f/2.7 ?
I should have been more specific: I meant the 'sub-1/2" sensored, pocketable in the strict sense of the word' category.
I want this ! This device utilizes the advantages of small sensor digicam in the best possible way.
brianj: Interesting, it has the same size and type of sensor at the canon SX260HS, yet has not got as wide angle nor anywhere near as much zoom. Ah, I see, its called enthusiast because it sports a f1.8 aperture lens.
I wondered what the name 'enthusiast' meant!
pity I can't assign more than one "like" to your reply ! I really wonder why is it so tough for many to grasp the benefit of low ISOs enabled by fast lens.
To balance the negative comments: I have bought G3 recently and enjoying it tremendously. I especially like the great viewfinder and AF speed.
Thank you, Panasonic !
Timmbits: Proof you don't need to make a compromise on sensor size in order to have a reasonable sized package. (re: page 3 vs. gx1) Makes you wonder why they came out with MFT in the first place.
Size of the lenses maybe ?
dpfan32: Funny no one is discussing the XZ-10 :)IMHO they took a too small sensor.To provide better quality than an iPhone 5 they need something like 1/1.7" or bigger. 1/2.3" can't shoot significant better photos than a good smartphone camera (not to mention the 808 PureView)
Unfortunatelly I haven't seen iPhone5 shots, but here's iPhone4S:http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/IPHONE4S/FULLRES/IPHONE4SINBFL.HTM
And here's how a good 1/2.3 sensor crushes it:http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ150/FULLRES/FZ150INBI0200.HTM
dpLarry: The future is 2/3".
I'd say the future is anywhere in the range from 2/3 to 4/3.
The next logical step is FF.
Really surprised by the answers given by Mr. Maeda.
Especially given the popularity of their own G15, Olympus OM-D, Fuji X10 and Sony RX100. Even the Nikon 1 is doing quite much better than EOS M.
OTOH, it is exactly 1/2.3 that is about to die, in my opinion. It's only saving grace (compared to smartphones) is telephoto. I don't think that suffices.
Timmbits: Don't let the f1.8 number fool you! For all you guys who think that f1.8 is a big deal with a 1/2.3" sensor, it is equivalent to only f6.4 on an aps-c sensor camera.
According to the link below, you would need a f0.5 on a 1/2,3" sensor like this one in order to compete with an f1.8 on an aps-c sensor.
And we're not even comparing to FF (which is the more common reference).
Here is a very useful link for everyone in this forum: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Anyways, I realize that this is a high-end in the low-end cameras, and these comparisons aren't really relevant to it't target consumer market.
Just putting things into proper perspective here, so we can all understand what we are looking at.
f1/8 (together with ISO) *determines* the shutter speed irrespective of sensor size.
That means, that if the scene reaquires 1/100s @ISO400 f/1.8 for APS-C sensor to be well exposed, then the same scene will be exposed just right by shooting 1/100s @ISO400 f/1.8 with 1/2.33" sensor.
Feel free to take APS-C camera and 1/2.33" camera and experiment. You'll see this fact (shutter speed not changing with sensor size for given ISO&aperture) yourself.
I have yet to see a good review of a Tamron superzoom. In case that happens, I am ready to buy.
io_bg: For this price it should've been f/2... And I hope it won't be as soft as the 16mm f/2.8.
Panasonic does 20mm f/1.7. Pancaked !
naththo: Still can't beat Nikon D800 and D600 by dynamic range unfortunately in dxomark test. But the dpreview has different view of point of testing the dynamic range using different method than dxomark me think. I see Canon 5D MK III only just beat Nikon D800 by one stop in dynamic range on this forum here. But in the dxomark it seems that D800 beats 5D MKIII by a few stops. So something is fishing to me really. The rest of other test are pretty much similar mostly toward ISO and colours per bit though. I am not sure which one is more accurate in test. ;)
DxOMark's notion of "dynamic range" is much more sensible than DPR's.
Dynamic range is not about "highlights cliping" - as that part can (and is) be corrected by exposition and tone-curve adjustment.
Dynamic range of the sensor is determined solely by the noise in the dark shadows - that part cannot be improved upon by any tweaks.
Rachotilko: Regarding sensor improvement: grils&guys, you can use DPR studio comparison tool to compare Canon SX20 vs Canon SX50: you'll see that 1/2.33 sensors have improved, quite substantially.
@iudexI'm with you on the lens speed issue completely. But I spotted some comment below saying that the pinheads don't improve - which is obviously not true, at least not for Canon.
Well, actually, I am wrong: FZ200 is noisier than FZ150, which is actually sad.
Regarding sensor improvement: grils&guys, you can use DPR studio comparison tool to compare Canon SX20 vs Canon SX50: you'll see that 1/2.33 sensors have improved, quite substantially.
in high-ISO studio comparison, SX50 shot is ISO800, while other cameras have ISO1600 selected. I doubt it was intended.
forpetessake: In the final analysis what it means is that APS-C and m4/3 lens manufacturers have no excuse creating lenses same size as FF but faster proportionally to the crop size. If the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms were ok on FF, the APS-C typical zooms should be f/2.3-3.7 and m4/3 should be f/1.7-2.8 to collect the same light on smaller surface. Why do Olympus/Panasonic/Sony produce those terribly slow APS-C/m43 lenses instead?
Don't know where you've got your info about the sizes from, but you are wrong: http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.289,183.336,ha,t
These two lenses provide the same FOV. Had Panasonic make it f/1.4, it would have been the same size as FF Canon lense.
Mssimo: Take a look at this: Nikon E SeriesFrom Wikipedia:The E series uses a unique additional optical system that enables the small sensor to capture the field of view of a 35mm film, with a crop factor of 1. This comes not at the expense of the lightness of the lenses, because the light is bundled to the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor with approximately 1⁄16 smaller area. The result is approximately 4 stops (24 = 16) more light at the small sensor compared to a full-frame sensor. Therefore the camera has a minimum full-frame sensitivity of ISO 800 which is equivalent to ISO 50 at 2⁄3 inch. As a result the noise of the camera at ISO 800 full-frame is equivalent to ISO 50 of the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor. Nikon could not reduce sensitivity below 800 ISO full-frame, because the little sensor will be overexposed below 50 ISO.
Yes ! Fry the bloody sensor, fry !
aardvark7: I am sure that someone will be able to explain why we can't have our cake and eat it...
My immediate reaction is why wouldn't the lens manufacturers offer this, along with their existing line up? I presume there is a good reason.
There's a sequence in the article that reads:
"It has the effect of shrinking the lens's image circle, which means that it only works with optics designed for larger formats."
It can transform a FF lens to APS-C and APS-C to M43 and make it faster.
The end of sanity in travelzoom domain.
cyuill2007: I am convinced that, in general, those who dis the Nikon 1 system have never shot pictures with a Nikon 1 camera, or even picked one up. I have a Nikon D7000, and I get great images from it. Good camera! I have owned and been shooting with a Nikon V1 for 3 weeks, and I can get shots with it, when used right, that approach those I get with the D7000. I much prefer the videos I can get with the V1. And if I have to carry around a camera for an entire day I'd much rather carry around a V1 than a D7000.
These very nice test shots (which I recognize as being taken in and around Victoria BC Canada) indicate to me that the V2 produces similar images to the V1. I doubt I'll pick one up as I'm satisfied with my V1. But I am convinced that Nikon created a very viable mirrorless system that will only improve with age.
I don't think the Nikon 1 cameras will be to everyone's taste. That's why it's good there are lots of good alternatives.
My $0.02 worth.
According to DxOMark, RX100's sensor is better in DR (and that in low-ISO settings). Noise-wise they are equal. BTW, DxO mark normalizes the results with respect to resolution.
When talking of lenses: RX100 optics have some shotcoming (mostly sharpenss, @wide-angle, closeup), an inevitable result of being a zoom packed in a small volume.
With Nikon1's lenses definitely offer more, in terms of quality and versatility. You can't do tele with RX100, and sharpeness of Nikon1 primes is clearly superior.
That means, I do not bash RX100. I just don't agree that Nikon1 system was made irrlelvant by it.