xMichaelx: Even Leica can't make an add-on viewfinder that doesn't look like a ridiculous afterthought.
@Kinematic, you forgot to mention they also double the price after silkscreening the new logo.
If this is as clunky to use as the tablet version of Photoshop, I will pass, thank you.
facedodge: These are all great tips if you want to be like William Klein... I think the real lesson of William Klein is to not try and be William Klein. I think Eric missed this point.
Number three is "go against the grain". I don't think William cared which way the grain went. He went his way and that was that. Following Eric's advise on to go against the grain precludes needing to know which way is with and which way is against.
Find your vision and have the courage to develop it regardless of direction of grain. William Klein did so and we can too.
Hey man, I happen to like my tired cliches!
Hmmm. Sounds like DRM to me. Your lens will only work while connected to the internet.... Oh, and you don't actually own the lens, you only have a license to use it....
BJN: The question is how consistent the color and tonality are across the large display. I tried and returned a 30" Dell display that has wide gamut but that had very poor consistency across the display. You can't do accurate work if only a portion of your display is showing accurate colors.
I'm guessing that at $1600 that the hood and calibration package are extra.
Yeah, that's the real question. Both color and luminance are wretchedly incosistent on my 30" Dell. I'll wait to see what the real world has to say about this one before getting excited.
Hassy lost me at the Lunar....
Pity that no one uses a digital camera long enough for brassing to occur any more....
Damn, I obviously am not buying new cameras fast enough!
Isn't the G series sort of old tech by now?
Give us automatic troll filtering!
Timbukto: IMO with the QA/QC problems of the D800 and looking at these studio shots...unless there was a *vast* improvement made in ACR from the D600 to the D800...the D800 is giving you larger file sizes without an increase in detail. Look at all the feathery and fine detail bits of the studio shot...the D600 is showing more *true* detail. That or someone had a duff 85mm 1.8 on the D800. Looking at these shots I would never buy the D800 over the D600 and suffer the extra file bloat if I'm not getting more true detail. I think 24MP which Sony uses for their new flagship might be the sweet spot for classical Bayer AA filter type cameras? D600 really looks killer here...
I have not played with the DPR samples yet, but I downloaded the still lifes at Imaging Resourse, uprezzed each one to the standard 360 dpi 17x25" I send to the printer, and the D800 clearly resolved more fine detail as you could see in the uprezzed files. Moreover, you can see it in the print, if you are up close. That said, it's not earth shattering. YMMV.
Wow, they still have bowls of crack lying around in Sigma's marketing department.
Camediadude: Why are cinema lenses so pleasing to gaze at? Is it becasue they ooze pure function ...
It would look even nicer with another zero in the price
AngryCorgi: Stopped down the lens to f/6.3 for the test shots?? That's not very smart. You are well into diffraction area (35mm equiv of f/17) at 20MP. Not only that, but you front-focused the heck out of it. If you want to extract every possible detail from the sensor, you have to keep it below f/5 and focus properly. You shot the frickin J1 at f/4.5...why did you hamstring the RX100??
C'mon. Reshoot it at a reasonable aperture, please.
Just want to add that adding the same USM settings to each camera's developed RAW files is not the best procedure for revealing absolute image quality because the optimal amount will vary from camera to camera based on the strength of the AA filter.
Take a look at the photos produced by the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which only had ONE megapixel cameras and see how much information is there. "Postcards From Mars" is the book that has them. 2MP and newer technology can only be better.
davids8560: Lots of interesting comments. But many of the hardest questions remain as yet unaddressed. For instance, what if you're an accomplished chess player? And what about Sub-space Tachyon Particles? What if you consume a non-dairy whipped topping prior to shooting with the RX100? How will IQ be affected by these types of things? And let's say you yank really hard on the lens when it's fully extended - what then? Can you coax more zoom range out of the camera by doing so? And not one person has addressed the matter of spotting Elvis while using this camera. What then? I mean, isn't spotting Elvis the main reason we're all interested in photography? Just my two cents. I'll probably buy one of these cameras, but you can bet I'll be putting it through its paces without mercy!
You're forgetting the globular highlight problem the Fuji had, totally wrecks pix of sequins and rhinestones.
Marty4650: If this camera was around the same price as a Canon S100, then it will be a huge hit.
But Sony is planning to sell it for around the same price as a Nikon D5100 with lens, or twice as much as an S100, and that price just won't fly. It's a nice little camera but it just doesn't offer enough value for the money.
Marty, some of us want it all, pocketability plus a large enough sensor (and optics quality) to make wall-size prints of those shots that present themselves out of nowhere when you don't have your "large camera" with you. That makes the price premium worthwhile to us.
Pity about the 20MP sensor. For that size sensor, 12 mp with more DR would have been a better choice, IMO
Interestingly, it's not that much smaller than the Oly 4/3 14-54mm Mk II. The Panny is .25" smaller in diameter and .5" shorter in length. I had been hoping for more compactness, it makes the $1,000 price a little more problematic for me....