zinedi: Are the big players Ca/Ni/So so stupid or deaf and blind? Don't they see the way that Fuji shows in mirorless field? For cell-phones and similar toys there's Apple and Korea toy companies. Have you really understand what PHOTOGRAPHERS want?Try think about this :- big sensor => excellent high ISO IQ- fast prime lens and zoom = > excellent IQ- excellent viewfinder- through 100 years' proved handling design - range-finder style...It's so simple.
Well, how do you know this thing has low IQ. From sensor size ? C'mon, there are other factors.
This thing wipes the floor with the 5 years old APS-C sized sensors IQ-wise. And don't tell me those were unsuficient for quality photography.
Of course, todays APS-C have far surpassed it, but if you get D60-ish performance from this 1V2 thing, I'd say it is good enough.
altugo: What an ugly camera! ;-(
what an ugly comment ;-)
!@#$%, is this section an online herd mentality experiment or what ???
The DPR have done the 1V2 the worst disservice they possibly could by not displaying the camera's body in holding hands. I completelly changed my opinion regarding its aesthetics after seeing it held.
1, I don't mind the design2, Even if I minded it, cameras are not about looks. It's about taking the pictures & usability & ergonomics. In this respect it supposedly does the job very well.
Hi, maybe I am missing something ... why do we need FF ? I mean, current sub-FF cameras have IQ, dynamic range (after some PP), resolution etc. greatly surpassing anything a film could have dreamed of. The only exception is DOF. But that could bee remedied by larger apperture lenses, could it not ?Let's be realistic here: it is very expensive to manufacture a FF sensor. This comments section could have been an outstanding opportunity for letting manufacturers know, what we want, *within a realm of realistic expectations*. Instead it is plagued by all the unrealistic "sub-$800 FF" demands. Because it *is* expensive to manufacture a digital FF sensor.
Rachotilko: I am BTW, why do FF DSLR's have to be so HUGE compared to APS-C ? I mean, internals are roughly the same, why all the bulk ?
@wetsleet:Think of old 35mm film manual-focused DSLRs - how small they used to be. Including mirror & pentaprism. I do not believe the addition of AF, circuitry & batteries requires such a jump in size.
ebsilon: I think one needs actually two ideal cameras - a system camera and a compact travel/walkaround camera. Since I'm happy with my Nikon DX (although missing some lenses), I'll sketch out my ideal compact:
24-100mm f/2-f/4 range (alternatively 28-140mm)1" sensor with PDAF - oversized both horisontally and vertically to provide aspect ratios fro 16:9 to 4:5Sensor performance of current 1" is good enough, but will always wish for moreRAW format - maybe DNG?State-of-the art EVF Tilt or sviwel screen - with excellent visisbility in sunshineSized and design like Canon G12 or Nikon P7700External controls like P7700Weathersealed/splash proofHotshoe and remote CLS triggering
Actually, I think the technology is already more or less here - just hoping for someone putting this together. Maybe for next Photokina?
24-100mm f/2-4 on 1" ? Well, that would end up being much larger than Sony RX100.
I am BTW, why do FF DSLR's have to be so HUGE compared to APS-C ? I mean, internals are roughly the same, why all the bulk ?
Rachotilko: I keep reading here request for digital FM2, but: would you guys give up autofocus & image stabilization ? I don't think it's possible to make features such as these two take no space.
@wildbildRangefinder ? I would like to remind you that rangefinder design (the focusing aid in the form of two overlaying images exaggerating misfocus) preclude the zoom lens designs.Even if you omited the rangefinder (that is not the same thing as OVF), you still end up with manual focus, unstabilized shooting. I doubt that action photographers (among others) would be happy with this.
Rachotilko: "Classic range-finder type finder": does that mean the finder with overlaying two images to aid the manual focusing ?
@EasycassWell, I am maybe a bit particular aout the word "rangefinder", which is about "finding the range", ie. distance measuring and manual focusing. Such a device employs particular optics to exaggerate the misfocussing.
Anyway, I've got your idea, but I doubt its usefullness compared to quality EVF, which is quite easier to employ today.
I keep reading here request for digital FM2, but: would you guys give up autofocus & image stabilization ? I don't think it's possible to make features such as these two take no space.
"Classic range-finder type finder": does that mean the finder with overlaying two images to aid the manual focusing ?
Fujifilm X-S1 is very close to my dreamed ideal - if Fuji just did not screw it up in their own unimitable way. Had X-S1's lens sharpenss not been compromised & IS would be actually working, I'd say X-S1 is my dream.
tron555: There are MANY camera's that have "clean and crisp base ISO performance", so what is your point? It's when light gets low and ISO gets high that things change drastically in the compact camera arena. It is obvious that 1/1.7" size sensors are (or should be) a thing of the past when it comes to enthusiast fixed lens cameras!!!
You can achieve low light capability by fast lens as well. Tell me of a large sensor camera with fast lens being size of P7700.
Regarding review: LX7 is obviously a concept based on optical performance of the lens, inviting user to choose low ISO even in low light situations. That's why some quantitative testing of the lens performance (edge-to-edge sharpness with aperture wide open) would be very wellcome. The image stabilization efficiency test is missing as well.
This thing has *fast* lens (even on the long end) of very high optical quality. That makes it an outstanding device, in some aspects more usable than Sony RX100.
I am really tired of the 1" and RX100 mantra claiming this to be the sole way to achieve good low-light capability. This is different approach ("small sensor+fast lens") to achieve low-light capability.
Bridgecam with 1" sensor, quality optics 28-300eq f2.8-4.5, manual zoom.
Will it come true ? Panasonic: are you listening ?
Well forum's more or less functional. It is the galleries that need improvement. Search by camera&lens model would be awesome. Or fulltext search in the tags, at least.
Mescalamba: Dying breed. Eventually extinct due increasing performance of cellphones and lowering price of mirrorless. Even today you can buy second-hand mirrorless for price of new PnS.
They should either do mirrorless, or try cellphones. Or leave business. It wont happen from day to day, but it will happen quite soon.
Lowering price of mirrorless ? That would have been great, but it's not true, unfortunatelly. Every generation of mirrorlesses gets more expensive, not to mention the lenses.