groucher: This is a classic compromise - a fully featured camera (except for video) in a retro body. A shrink wrapped but cluttered D4. I'm hoping that this is the first in a series of Dfs and that eventually we'll have a Dfm with no rear screen, no PAS and no wired or wireless connectivity - a true uncluttered digital FM (or FE).
Underneath all the controls, thumbwheels and displays the Fd looks pretty good.
Or I could just buy an FE.
Toccata47: The only point that matters is autofocus speed...I may have missed it, but I didn't see any commentary on this.
@brownie314: I have the same situation. I have a very low rate of keepers for a variety of reasons, but usually it is because the camera (my NEX5, for example) failed to focus. Almost any kid can give you a low "hit" rate, but special needs kids even more so.
All cameras are a compromise, and I frequently have to wait for the reviews to let me know how much AF speed I am giving up to gain a weight advantage.
rdz: tautological??? WOW! DP REVIEW Vocab class is now in session. Bueller? Bueller? Not only do we get the absolute pinnacle of camera reviewing expertise we also get the word for the day. My dictionary is smokin'.
Ha. I live in Florida. Using big words here is like showing a card trick to a dog.
jhinkey: At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.
So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .
HA Raw: I looked up some samples from the DP review of each, and the D800 completely buries the V1 at every ISO.
The color is similar at 6400, but only in JPG. In Raw, the chroma noise on the V1 is overwhelming. The resolution on the D800 is outstanding, even at 6400, while the V1 is only usable for telephone-size screens.
I admit that a lot of people are obsessed with sharpness, and miss out on the artistic look that can be obtained from the V1. In addition, the V1 might deliver better images for hacks like me, because of the blazing fast AF. (Also, since it is smaller, I might actually have it with me, if I bought one.)
But for sharpness, dynamic range, color, and low-light capability, the D800 is hard to beat. If your V1 works better, then there is a chance that your D800 needs service.
AS far as HA RAW claiming the ISO 6400 will be better than the D800, I can't imagine that will be true. (No matter how much you like grain...)
I have not used either, so I can't say for sure, but there are some laws of physics to deal with. Also, about a hundred thousand camera reviews from people who know a lot about image quality.
Faster AF, maybe.
I think your comment was exactly right. This is a great camera for people who occasionally drop their camera. I, for one, never plan to drop the camera, so I rarely have the waterproof housing on when it happens.
Deardorff: 14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
I always thought "freeze proof" was an odd spec anyway. The thing that goes bad at 20 degrees (on my cameras, at least) is the battery life.
For my money, they could have just put a telephone in the RX100.
It will be fun to play with, though. You could walk around with the camera in one hand and your phone in the other, and never actually look where you are going, except by turning your hand.
I can just imagine people walking around using their phone as a periscope.
AngryCorgi: Shoulda titled this "Wolf in Cheap Clothing?"...that EVF doesn't belong on any even remotely serious camera. I was really hoping for a little less compromise (not the 2.4M EVF but maybe something in the 1-1.4M dot range), but this thing belongs on a P&S (see LVF1), not on an ILC.
Maybe they meant "a sheep in wolf's clothing." The sensors in the NEX have been great for several years. It is the AF (and particularly C-AF) that is troublesome.
Sony's solution: Dress up an NEX sensor so that it looks like it might have great C-AF.
oselimg: Some of you constant whiners and whingers...there will never ever be a camera with a "talent" button.
I heard the new Sony full frame NEX is going to have a "talent" setting. I can't wait to fire that up and go take pictures of people's feet.
leschnyhan: Yeah, okay it doesn't have a mic input. On the one hand, most people who are trying to get really excellent audio would use a separate digital audio recorder anyway. But on the other hand--it seems like putting a mic input on the camera would be pretty straightforward, and a shoe-mounted mic would be useful on occasion.
The basic design reminds me a lot of the NEX-6 and NEX-7, and the feature set seems pretty similar to NEX-6 except that the Sony has a physically larger sensor that should translate to better image quality. (And has consequences for depth of field, too.) The one thing that keeps me away from MFT cameras is the MFT part.
And they're asking $999 for this thing? When an NEX-6 is currently available brand new for $798?
I like the NEX-6, but I always had trouble with focus speed and accuracy, particularly in low light. If Panny can beat the Sony in AF, then it might be worth the extra money, particularly for people who use the camera with kids, indoor sports, and that sort of thing.
I wish DPR would go back and finish the review of the EOS M. It has been about a year, and Canon even finally got around to fixing the firmware. A review of that camera might give us a good idea how well Canon has figured out hybrid AF.
v_lestat: Samsung Samsung SamsungOh dear lord you people crying Samsung have no idea what on earth you are doing.If Samsung made a good camera at any price it would be on a list some where of must have cameras.But it's not.Not hereNot thereNot anywhereI own a lot of Samsung gear (phones tv's and more) but I would NEVER buy a Samsung camera because they are garbage and are destroyed by nearly everything on the market in its vertical.There are even p-n-s cameras better than the NX cameras.
Wow you kids should really use a GOOD camera before call dp review the names you have and imply the childish things you have.
So is DXo mark worthless too?
Show me one Samsung camera on their site anywhere near the caliber of these cameras.
Depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for a small 300g camera to carry around, an ASPC sensor or bigger, hybrid AF, touchscreen, 1/6000 shutter speed, and changeable lenses, then the only camera you can buy with those specs is the Samsung NX300.
Period. That's then end of the list. Samsung NX300.
Those are not obscure features either. Those are features that every camera manufacturer is running in their advertisements.
You don't like the color? Well, buy yourself a copy of Lightroom (or rent Photoshop), and play with the colors all you want.
Don't like the picture quality? Well, then, don't buy it. But don't sit here and pretend that no one should buy it just because you don't like it. Other people like it just fine.
v_lestat: @underdog 3000
The omd like it or not is one of the if not THE best camera on this list.
Who ever said this list is for deals.You are very nieve to believe that a deal means its on sale.A deal is value for the dollar and frankly if I wasn't so vested in my current gear I would have owned an omd long ago.
And you show your invalidity by saying the omd @ $1000 is the original retail.Wow... Dead wrong... Go home and read some more.
The OMD is a good camera, but a set of compromises, just like every camera. The kit lens does not stand up well to the competition in the same price range, and predictive autofocus is average at best.
If you put on the stunning Oly 45mm lens, you can take some great portraits, but then you could put a nice lens on the K5 as well.
The video out of the OMD is better than anything except the Sony, but the Sony is visibly better, especially at low light, or with zoom lenses.
The Canon and Nikon entries in the list are outstanding all-around cameras, and take a variety of lenses that you could never get for your OMD.
If I were starting over with no lenses, I would get the K5, since it has a set of features that match and beat the OMD at its own game: Triple axis IS, high speed AF, pentaprism, weatherproof, great color at super high ISO, DNG RAW files, huge selection of lenses, and so on.
The only downside of the K5 is that the video is terrible. But every camera is a compromise.
ulfie: Compare the X100S with the lowly, humble and aging Olympus EPL-1 at ISO 100 on DP Review's interactive studio shot comparison widget. Zoom in on various parts of this test scene area. The Oly clearly out resolves the Fuji and has better JPEG colors/hues too.
I think the DP Review comparisons are good, but the real world can still be different. The problem with the EP1 was autofocus and high ISO. The still pictures at ISO 100 were always good.
In addition, remember that Fuji files use different compression than Oly files do. The Fuji JPG files, for example, are roughly 5.6 meg files. Even the old EP1 files are 8MB. For the JPG comparison, you are mostly just looking at compression softness.
Even on the RAW comparison, it depends what you are looking for. Fuji files at high ISO adjust out the color noise, but lose sharpness. Oly (and Canon, for that matter) keep the sharpness but show lots of color noise.
Biro: I'm not so sure the question is whether this camera is better than the Sony RX100. I see the Sony NEX 6 as being a more natural competitor to this new Fuji. And while the Fuji X-M1 looks like a nice piece, the NEX 6 is probably just as good while offering a viewfinder.
I don't understand the comparison to RX100 either. If the RX100 was the perfect camera for the price range, why would Sony make the NEX-3? (Some people like to switch lenses, maybe?)
I see the NEX-6 and X-E1 as more-or-less the same camera. (EVF, ILC, and great IQ). This one seems closer to the NEX-3.
I have not compared prices, but I expect the XM-1 will fetch a little more due to the filter-free sensor. In this price range, though, AF speed and accuracy is a big consideration.
Once Fuji applies the X100S tricks to the rest of the X-line, it will be harder to justify Canon and Nikon, even with lenses in hand.
Price will be as interesting a stat as the max aperture.
1. It is a new market. If you price it low enough, it keeps away the competition. (If you price it too low, though, you are leaving money on the table, since some people would buy it even at $2000.)
2. It takes a lot of technology to make a lens with these specs. If it was easy to make a lens like this, everyone would be doing it.
I take photographs as a hobby, and do not charge for it. If I need a photograph with professional lighting, composition, and posing, then I will hire someone who has studied those things. And I would negotiate a rate, and then pay it.
Similarly, if a photographer called me up and asked me to do his accounting for free, I would suggest that they buy an accounting program off-the-shelf, and see if they can get a friend or relative to do it "for the exposure". If they want a professional to do it, I would certainly not be offended if they tried to negotiate a rate.
After all, photography is an art and accounting is merely a trade.
Negotiation is a skill, and if you want to survive as an artist, you need to get good at one or two skills besides just taking great photos.
If I were to create a jreat work like that, I would also feel entitled to name it anything I want. Then, as I jrew older, I would feel perfectly comfortable telling people how to pronounce it.
For all the jood it would do.
Philip Corlis: Take a look at that smug bustard Winston and tell me Adobe is looking out for its customers. WRONG. Winston and his pals are looking out for their stock options. Adobe makes 1B in profits on 4B in sales annually and even thats not enough for Winston and his friends.
Winston thinks you should pay him more money more often so he can offer you swell new things like camera shake reduction. Well Winston, most of us learned how to avoid camera shake long ago. Winston and his pals want you to use their "cloud" so they can hijack your files later and hold them ransom - "Sorry folks looks like we'll have to start charging you for that cloud storage..."
Personally, I hope Winston and his friends choke on this idea. I hope he's back here in six months apologizing to his former customers just like the geniuses at NetFlix had to do.
Me. I'll wait and see who else shows up in the marketplace to fill the vacuum that Winston and his pals at Adobe have created with their greed and hubris.
I think this is correct. I suspect most CS users will informally boycott this idea. Adobe will make more money in the short run, of course, because they are milking a smaller number of cash cows 12 times as often, but in the long run, it will provide cash for competitors to improve their products.
As for me, I have already started reading the reviews for Corel.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review