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.
Caoedhen: The A58 looks very interesting to replace my A300... but did anyone else notice the ISO hot shoe??? It looks like a single contact generic shoe, so has Sony brought out new flash guns to go with it?
Or am I way behind on my camera upgrades?
I have the NEX 6, which has the same hot shoe. It works great with my "low budget" yongnuo flash. If you want the TTL and high speed sync, (I think) you still need to get the flash from Sony, and the HVL58 is still about $400.
88SAL: Id like an EVF option, inbuilt, in ko2 and they will sell them. There is a great and acheivable product design in ko2 just by reading commebts of this thread. First company to directly use mirrorless tech to support native brand lensmount. Bad start but we all saw this cameras demise on the horizon. Thats not to say a few revisions and we would have a solid product. Pentax is brining the fight to cost/benefit APSC - DONT RETREAT!
I agree. I hope Pentax spends some time reading the comments. It is not hard to identify the trend:1. People will buy any camera that takes good pictures, no matter what it looks like.2. People will only go crazy for a camera if it is well above average in some way. 3. If you have a camera with average AF, average size, average IQ and average looks, people will only buy it when the price is attractive.4. That means average cameras end up on the discount rack, which is not where you want your product.
Dear Pentax: Either make it faster, smaller, or better. If you don't do one of those three, then the only thing you can do is make it cheaper.
The hard work is actually going into conflict zones and being willing to document what you see. All the rest is marketing. I don't like the filters, but they accomplished what he wanted them to do: I clicked on the article and looked at the pictures.
Sam Carriere: One of the amazing things about this discussion, and similar ones elsewhere is that two years ago, when the NEX-7 was first announced, it was universally deemed the best thing since sliced bread. Reviewers who had never even seen the actual camera fell over themselves finding appropriate superlatives. It took a year from the first announcement for Sony to actually produce the camera and in that time, the enthusiasm raged unabated. And now ... it seems few people have much good to say about the poor NEX-7.I did not have much faith in web-based reviews at the time this all happened, and I have even less now.The whole thing, though, was a triumph for Sony marketing which correctly assessed the leming-like nature of both reviewers and consumers.
Sam, The job of marketing people is to create hype. If they can do it for products that aren't invented yet, they will. Because of their size and history, Sony is a little better at it than most, but it is really just a matter of degree.
If Canon could start the hype for their 5Dmk5 right now, they would do it. Hard to judge camera companies for doing what their shareholders demand.
Having said that, I did go ahead and purchase a NEX6 when my old camera broke. Maybe I bought into the hype, or it was wishful thinking, but the end result is still a camera that was worth what I paid for it. It doesn't solve any problems for me, it just takes pictures.
The quality of the pictures still depends on me more than the camera. It has a few more missed-focus shots than average, and it takes me a little longer to change settings than I would like, but if I really wanted a D800, I would have had to buy a D800.
As far as product review speed, I am not sure any web site does particularly complete reviews in advance of product introduction. I am not sure how they could. As far as the NEX6 goes, I bought it when my old camera broke, based on the assumption that it would be about the same as every other camera in the price range.
Generally, it is a pretty good camera. I am not wild about the color on the kit lens, but that is easy to fix with the Sony 50mm or even the Sigma 35mm. The autofocus speed seems to be pretty good, but the accuracy is only about average. The camera gets distracted by bright areas, even if you are using center focus or spot focus. Anything moving gets out of focus very quickly, and the Sony has trouble keeping up. The Sony face detection is more likely to focus on the outline of the head than on the eyes.
The kit lens is designed for portability, and comes with the trade-offs you would expect. The only thing I didn't expect is how touchy it is to manually focus. A quarter of a turn takes you from front focus to rear focus, and only a very good eye and steady hands will be able to capture a shot in between. In this respect (and many others) the 50mm "sippy cup" is vastly better.
In short, it is about the same as every other camera in the price range. It is a little better at some things and a little worse at others. Of course, if they said this in a review, they could finish every review within 2 hours of getting the camera.
They might also add: "This camera won't help you take better pictures, unless you are upgrading from a cell phone, and maybe not even then." This sentence can be safely added to every review.
Hey DPR, how about a full review? (While we are at it, can you explain the hotshoe to us?)
Looks like a great camera. I am sure that once Sony gets around to adding a touchscreen, we can finally play Angry Birds on a $1000 camera.
Robert P Miller: I do believe some smartphone users would not mind better quality in low light to help with blurs and noise, but otherwise most are not candidates for a second body camera. They will simply accept the better quality sensors when they arrive in the smart phone world.
All things considered, I would rather have an NEX that makes (mediocre) phone calls than a phone that takes mediocre pictures.
The C-AF makes sense when you consider the RX-100. The S-AF is reliable and fast, but the C-AF hunts back and forth. In movie mode, it does not, but it picture mode, it is annoying. Sony took the feature out because it was causing more problems than it was fixing.
The shutter speed is also a matter of working with the available tools. Some engineer somewhere pointed out that the camera might be useful for sports photography if you could up the speed just a little bit. On leaf cameras, one way to do this is to shoot at F7, or whatever. All you have to do is tell the software to stop protecting you from yourself.
It does not fit my needs or my bank account, but if you want portrait quality in a small package, Sony seems to be delivering the goods.
Fazal Majid: Smartphones.
Given the abysmal software skills of most camera makers, their allegedly-smart devices will underwhelm and die a horrible death, and in the end only true smartphones will have those capabilities. In one of the recent Photokina interviews (Fuji?), the product manager was sensibly pointing out that people are not exactly going to line up to pay for yet another data plan in addition to the one on their smartphones.
"Phones" has my vote too. Just because they are missing a feature doesn't change the market they will be judged against.
Justin Francis: Will be blown away by the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.
It is pretty rare for any camera to blow any other camera out of the market. Canon and Nikon did it to Kodak, but Sony is not Kodak.
If it takes good pictures, it is likely to be around a while. In spite of what people say here, few people need more than 6 fps.
I'm quite a big fan of the Sony Alpha system (and own an Alpha 55) but this body makes no sense to me.Which professional would be jumping on a Sony Alpha FF body just reviewing the line of FF compatible glasses (either from Sony or Tamron or Sigma). There is only a very few as most of those lenses has been designed for APS-C bodies. Why should I limit myself?Are there any plans / rumors for more lenses in the A-mount domain?regards
I only ever use one lens at a time.
mikeydread: Quote from the Sony official website:
"there’s a tiltable LCD touch screen"
oh dear DPReview - how can you do a hands-on preview and not know it has a touch screen!!!!
You might be looking at the NEX-5R. The screen on the 6 does not tilt or touch.
JDT0505: That's a lot of dough for a point and shoot. Personally, I'd go for an X100. Even though it's got a smaller sensor simply because the wider feature set. Seriously, $2800 and it's got a hot-shoe mounted viewfinder?
The pixel pitch on the two cameras are about the same as is the focal length. The Fuji can be got for less than $1000 these days. The only thing it's got going for it is the Zeiss "named" lens. Sorry Sony. Fail.
I suspect that we will see comparisons pretty soon. Fuji is a good camera, bu Sony will have better AF, better IQ, and more overhead to do post-processing. For some people, this is worth the extra money.
echelon2004: Who on earth was it that decided that what we need most was smaller cameras and that that pretty much was the most important thing? Did we suddenly develop smaller hands? Are we shrinking? Should we worry?
My Airline made that decision for me, when they started charging me by the pound to carry on luggage.