Timur Born: Will dust stay out when this camera is stuffed into a pocket? The main drawback of my Panasonic LF1 (smaller than RX) is that dust creeps in very fast and now some of my images are full of dark spots.
No, it won't. You should really get a carrying case or pouch.
radissimo: Can somebody please calculate how much you can crop from telephoto on RX100III (from 20MP to 12Mp) of the Canon GX1 MkII? Ta
1.3x (90mm tele).
Chev Chelios: Is it just me who was expecting to see the obvious "sideways-on" photo of the converter mounted on the camera (to judge its overall depth once fitted), but found there wasn't one?
You can see that on Fuji's website. It's quite deep: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/accessories/lens/conversionlens/x100wideconversionlens/index.html
Edit: oops, that's the wide angle converter. Never mind.
Looks like the RX10's competition has arrived. Would be interesting to see how these two and the rumoured P8000 (1" sensor, f/2.0-3.0 24-120mm lens) would compare with each other.
greypixelz: This alpha bs is getting a bit tiring. It's clear they are using it to confuse the users. The fact they made the a5000 similar in look to the NEX 5 series shows intention on sony's part to confuse the new adopters. Wonder what they will call the NEX 5 line now. Is the 20Mp sensor better than the 16Mp sensor in terms of dynamic range and noise performance?
*I jumped the trigger. Never mind.*
JefDeC: From the text : 'in which case the ISO selected on the dial serves as the minimum ISO sensitivity that auto ISO will use'
Question : When and why would one choose a higher minimum ISO ? It seems to me that having the lowest ISO available is optimum ?
Does limiting the ISO range improve the reaction speed of the camera (less to calculate) ?
Best regards ... jef
You'd want a higher minimum ISO if your chances of getting a good shot improve with fast shutter speed, even if you can accept a lower speed in limiting conditions.
E.g. while shooting kids in action, I set the min shutter to 1/80s, which gives fairly good results, but I bump min ISO up to 800 because a 1/320s shot at ISO 800 is more desirable than 1/80s shot at ISO 200 due to better action freezing and reduced camera shake.
Artistico: This is clearly aimed at someone who thinks their smartphone's built-in camera isn't good enough, yet they don't want the hassle of bringing along a compact camera as well as their omnipresent phone. I think it has good market potential and I wouldn't mind seeing more camera manufacturers getting in on this idea to give us a better choice of smartphone camera modules.
Now. If only the QX100 (and the RX-100 for that matter) had a more sensible 10 megapixels - it can't resolve any more detail than that anyway, so the extra megapixels only serve to reduce dynamic range and increase noise. I can't speak for the QX10 from experience, but 18 megapixels in a 1/2.3" is way to much.
I've never felt the RX100 lens lacking in any way to match the 20MP sensor. At 1:1, RX100 pictures look much sharper than what I get on the 24MP D7100 with any of 35mm f/1.8G Nikkor or 16-85mm VR Nikkor or 55-300mm VR Nikkor.
I don't understand why Coolpix A and D7100 raw photos at low ISO look worse than their JPEG counterparts. Has ACR still not been updated to cope with OLPF omission or is it something else? I don't see such bad raw output with CNX2 at home.
Edit: Maybe the globe actually has bad print and surface. The "issue" doesn't seem to be present with other parts of the scene.
photo perzon: I bought it at Best Buy for $899HEre's how:Walk in and speak with a manager. Ask him to match the Best Buy sale for $899 on Feb 19. Tell him managers have been matching it.I got it.Now I have two A's. One I got at JR, one at Best Buy. I'm comparing the two for differences. So far none.One advantage of f2.8 is a lot is in focus. The 1.8 cameras are great but a lot if not in focus.I find the IQ same as X100S, at half the volume! Pocketable, and when you use it at parties or dinners, it looks like "a normal camera." You don't look like the enthusiast.
+1 for the camera looking "normal" at parties or dinners!
I was trying to compare the build quality score for this camera against others, and it seems like the widget is not showing the difference against other cameras.
The build quality rating of this camera is shown as 10/15, which is even less than that of NEX-3 (11/15) and PEN EPM-1 (11/15). I'm wondering if it's a bug in the score widget.
Can someone qualitatively compare the build quality against cameras like Fujifilm XE-1, NEX-5, etc.?
abolit66: another piece of....
... brilliant market research and engineering.
Wonder if this camera also has user accessible AF fine tuning like D300, etc.
javidog: Seriously guys. You cannot be serious on wasting an ounce of energy on reviewing such a camera. Surely there is better equipment out there for y'all to play with and write about.
marike6, all early reviews of this camera have given it "junk" rating. DPR could at least have deprioritised reviewing this camera over better ones. I doubt if their testing method is so unique that they might show a junk camera as a winner.
Oh, let me check the conclusion to see if they actually did this...
GaryJP: Hmm. All these people banging on about it being a pocketable camera. Don't your pockets have pocket lint?
It's the last place I'd put a camera without a case, and with a case it isn't exactly pocketable.
I carry mine on the wrist strap, ready to shoot, which makes it only mildly more convenient than many other small cams.
I slip it in along with a piece lint-free microfiber cloth that I got free with my eyewear. That solves the pocket-lint problem and still leaves the camera more freely accessible than from a camera case.
What a shame that people are declaring the camera ugly just by looking at pictures of the body that are over-sharpened and don't give a sense of scale.
Look at how it feels in actual proportions in this video http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/24/nikon-v2-mirrorless-compact-hands-on/
The white body actually has a glossy surface and, to me, looks very beautiful.
How do you feel after seeing it shoot at 15fps? http://vimeo.com/52067338
Rupert Bottomsworth: Why would anyone buy this over a Sony RX100?
With the choice in lenses, it would be a great complement for the RX100.
While the RX100 remains a great carry-anywhere camera, you could use the V2 with the 18.5mm f/1.8 (or 32mm f/1.2) for portrait/low-light work where RX100 falls to f/3.2 (or f/4.5).
You can also use a 16-85mm DX on it as a small and light 45-230mm tele, or a 55-300mm DX as a small and light 150-810mm super-tele.
The announced 6.7-13mm 1 Nikkor (18-35mm equiv.) will also provide ultra-wide angle coverage.
VadymA: I wonder how easy is it to use this tiny screen even without manual adjustments? Having a viewfinder instead of a screen seems to be much more functional for this tube-like design.
The screen is not only small, it's also low on pixel density, so it's quite difficult to use. I couldn't make out the difference in the on-screen image while switching between near and far focus points.
Jens_G: So far, I'm still leaning towards the Sony RX100 - will have to wait for in an-depth review to see how IQ and AF performance compare.
The preview mentions that the IQ is expected to be similar to that of Fuji X10, which looks quite a bit worse than RX100 as per DPreview's tests.
Going by the DPReview scoring, it seems like S90 is the best among S90, S95 and S100, with vastly better optics, and an overall score of 75 against 72 for the others.
How does that work out?
P Hartung: Please. It’s a novelty for a few Mac users, at best. The vagueness of ’11 megarays, 8x optics, etc.’ is laughable. If these specs were photographically significant then they would have been made clear in terms that photographers understand (corresponding to the 35mm standard).
And what segment of the market is this aimed at – the P/S users who know little more than how to click the shutter release? Those who don’t fathom spending more than $200.00 per throw-away camera?
Lytro has not realistically positioned/equipped this thing to snag a coherent portion of the market, and it certainly isn’t going to carve out an untapped segment.
The technology itself is intriguing, but this first application of it seems like a total blunder. Too bad.
Actually, they've very strategically targeted an audience that's willing to spend lots of money on good looking, "simplified" products. For that audience, the vagueness of "11 Megarays" is more gratifying than megapixels, ISO, etc.
They're not as likely to complain about lack of features and flexibility, as long as what they get is done nicely.