SaltLakeGuy: Such typical banter regarding the 18-55 "kit" lens. It is perhaps the most wrongly maligned lens out there. I've had the Nikon, Canon and Sony so called equivalents and they don't deserve to be in the same room as the 18-55 OIS. It is exceptional assuming of course you haven't gotten a duff copy which I don't happen to think there are many out there of. As for this new kid on the block, I'm sure for many it will be an essential tool. I prefer the faster 18-55 and frankly I don't shoot in rain conditions nor terribly dusty either so it's of no advantage to me. If I really need longer focal ranges I'll slap on my all time fav the 55-200 OIS which always gets it done as well.
This is Fuji's $800 'kit' zoom, classified as a kit because they didn't have anything else:
This is Canon's actual 'kit' zoom that is much more modestly priced:
This is Fuji's actual 'kit' zoom:
abortabort: Woot? This is a kit zoom tartied up to be a premium lens by putting lipstick on a pig. Wow its got a million stops of IS so I can marvel at how good it is taking pictures of figurines on my desk and explaining to forums how great it is. But let's not forget the weather sealing! How great will it be to use an overpriced kit zoom in the rain, amazeballs! There is a reason lenses like this don't usually get the pig in lipstick treatment...
I'm all for IS, but honestly for those of us actually shooting in the real world, the difference between 4 and 5 stops of IS is pretty worthless unless shooting still life in the dark.
As for weather sealing, yes it is useful, but most systems have a decent selection of weather sealed lenses, not normally optically compromised super zooms (don't go telling me this is a 'magic' lens because it's a Fuji, which are usually average to good). Sure as Fuji's only weather sealed lens it might be of benefit for Fuji users.... like putting a big wing on a golf, it produces more down force, but that isn't terribly useful, but does work if that's all you have.
What unless we all fall into line with the Fuji clan we are trolls? Please. I've owned the 18-55mm and it was ok, faster than a normal kit lens and better built, optically it is on par with many modern kit lenses. It also retails for something like $800 so it would want to be all those things.
Yes yes, it's the best lens of all time on the best system of all time, you made a great choice, well done. Better?
Canon 18-55mm IS STM and EF-M version, Panasonic 12-32mm, 14-42mm II, Samsung 20-50mm, Sony 16-50mm f2.8 SSM...
There is nothing particularly special about the 18-55mm. Yes it is 'slightly' better than most 'kit' zooms, but it is also considerably more expensive.
Woot? This is a kit zoom tartied up to be a premium lens by putting lipstick on a pig. Wow its got a million stops of IS so I can marvel at how good it is taking pictures of figurines on my desk and explaining to forums how great it is. But let's not forget the weather sealing! How great will it be to use an overpriced kit zoom in the rain, amazeballs! There is a reason lenses like this don't usually get the pig in lipstick treatment...
Joe Pineapples: The new High Speed AF mode is significantly faster - great job, Ricoh!
I know G1X II does a similar thing, but not sure if it can be turned off there. One of the nice things about Ricoh updates is they leave all the original options, when they add stuff they don't 'change' stuff, they actually add it. Yes it locks up slightly, but it is pretty fast and less obvious than the pixelated mess the G1X II turns into during focus.
shadowhumper: Not Fuji, Ricoh is the camera maker that deserves most appreciation for their FW updates.
Everyone does it, only Fuji who make a big song and dance about it and their customers lap it up.
Ricoh still does it better.
TransientEye: Excellent support from Ricoh. The new AF speed seems to be quite a bit faster - comparable to the better u4/3 cameras. And the new firmware finally fixes the lockups when syncing with Lightroom on a Mac.
The GR may well be a one-trick-pony, but it is a very very good trick (sharp 28mm equivalent with APSC sensor and great controls), and it is nice to see a company supporting its products with these updates.
Most Pentax models have this feature with the 'green' button which is instant program mode. Very useful on any camera that has it.
jennyrae: I did not know that putting touchscreen can cost so much......NOT ! Sony just cut significant corner with that missing feature.
I can just see the updated 'cons' list now, had it had a touch screen:
Cons -Touchscreen cumbersome to turn on and off.
Because it is a Sony... If it were Olympus it would be genius.
ProfHankD: I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)
This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.
@ iudex - You mean the Fuji f2.8 zoom that doesn't exist yet or some other one I don't know about? Your argument about f2.8 zooms was that Sony dont have lenses, my retort was Sony have lenses, popular lenses, that no other mirrorless systems has, but you are still hung up on f2.8 zooms like that is the only lens anyone would ever use / need. On the other hand m43's DOES have f2.8 zooms, which when tied to their smaller sensors are pretty close to f4 equiv, yet cover a smaller range.... So what's the big advantage there? That they can claim to have an f2.8 zoom? Well I have a Sony with a bigger f2.8 zoom than any of them, cost less than any of them (on their own) and clearly f2.8 is the only factor so it is instantly 'the best' right?
If so, then Sony produces the best lenses in the world bar none because they have a 24-200mm equiv f2.8, who would need anything else ever?
midimid: Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?
@ Gregm61 - At last count Sony had more lenses than Fuji, than Olympus and also Panasonic (though not Olympus and Panasonic combined).
Sony also are the only of the 'big 3' mirrorless systems that also support a DSLR system still (Oly, Panasonic and Fuji all abandoned theirs, though Fuji didn't really have one to begin with). As such Sony are the only company of those that offer proper compatibility with their existing system.
None of the other mirrorless systems offer popular focal length ranges with constant aperture like 24-105mm equiv and 28-158mm equiv.
None of the other systems have as many third party lenses for it, Fuji lack Tamron and Sigma support, M43's lacks Zeiss and Tamron support.
So.... there that is....
@ Carnex - Actually the reviewer did thanks.
@ iudex - Really? I don't see any of the other systems having constant aperture f4 zooms like the 24-105mm equiv and 28-158mm equiv do you? These are also popular FL lenses... Guess EVERYONE is behind Sony then?
Hubertus Bigend: I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.
Yes, pity that there are no good optical viewfinders at a $650 price point, so your points are hardly valid. Sure a 1DX OVF is leagues ahead (well at least in terms of clarity, shooting information is a different story) but you won't see an OVF like that on a $650 camera... well ever.
Also as has been noted your math is wrong, it is an 800x600 panel.
Oh I see, Fuji are more 'serious' because their 'portrait' lens is a whole 1mm longer than Sony's... Ok got it!
armandino: I was in the market for a used RX100 MKI as $400-500 is what I would really pay for a compact with a 1" sensor. At some point I started think that my pricing idea was for some reasons off if Sony asks so much for a little compact and people are willing to pay for it...then last Friday I grabbed the last NEX 3 in a Costco nearby for $300 new with a 16-50mm on it. Less than half of an RX100 MKII!!!Sorry guys but this little gem needs to come down in price quite a bit before I will start considering it
I recently sold a mint condition RX100 MkI for $300, best I could get for it and this was before rumours of MkIII started surfacing. I could have bought a MkII for $450 brand new a couple months ago with free genuine case.
NEX-3n has less controls, lower screen quality, lower quality lens, has better sensor but needs to to keep up with faster lens of RX. MkII has hotshoe and can take an EVF, 3n cannot. RX has faster focussing and better video, higher burst rate, leaf shutter, bigger buffer, smaller, better more advanced menus, better made and has better resale (usually).
While I am sure you are happy with your 3n (and it was cheap), it doesn't automatically beat the RX100 series (any of them really). Also I think you may have wasted $200 on that 16mm, they really are not good at all and not better than 16-50mm.
ProfHankD: Well, the IQ for the studio test scene at lower ISOs is virtually identical to the APS-C Sony A3000, but by ISO 800 there's a clear difference favoring the A3000. Still, not bad. I'd rather go with an A6000, which is about the same price as the RX100M III....
The Canon G1 X Mark II does worse than the RX100M III on low ISO (less sharp, but with halos from oversharpening). It's about the same on higher ISOs as the RX100 III, but looks cleaner because it is a lot less "painterly" (less raw color noise, weaker JPEG smoothing).
And at ISO 800 on the RX you'll be reaching for ISO 3200 on the a6000/a3000 etc with kit lens.
iudex: As far as I remember dpreview wrote in the G1x II review that they expected more as regards the picture quality, given the sensor size and that it is larger than RX100s sensor. But comparing this RX100 Mk II with the G1x Mk II there is visible difference in picture quality and G1x is noticeably better. So in my opinion the sensor size still counts a lot. On the other hand for all those critisizing Mk III have a look at Nikon 1 with the same sensor: the RX100 is visibly better.
Is that at 1:1 or down sampled to 12MP?