cgarrard: I think the X30 is easy to dismiss if ...
A. You haven't used itB. You tend to believe whatever is popular on forums at a given time...C. You don't want to use it
Otherwise, the crowd that..
A. Have used itB. Believe experience vs forum popularityC. Want to use it
... Have a much different opinion of the X30! :)
My X10 never had the "white orb" problem (which was probably overblown anyway). I do understand the X30 is a different creature altogether, though I've never used it. For me, without an optical viewfinder and with a somewhat more standard sensor (no longer the crazy diagonal pixels...) I no longer have a differentiating reason to get this over my GX7 and GM1 plus pancake zoom and primes. But I can certainly see the appeal.
I still own the X10, though seldom use it now. The image quality does drop quickly with the light. However, with ok light, there is something really lovely about the colors and the texture of noise -- very "film-like", if you'll forgive the cliche. The main reason I stopped using it was the frustration of not knowing where it was focusing when looking through the optical viewfinder (having to either trust the camera or guess where the center point is).
lacikuss: Basically your phone with an EVF, for those without a phone....
On account of my work, I travel a lot in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. These days, to find someone who doesn't have a camera-phone you have to go to deeply rural areas of abject poverty. The models in those markets are mostly chinese brands you never heard of plus cheap Nokias, but still with half-decent cameras. Sorry, can't stop laughing that there's someone with simultaneously no clue about any of this and so much arrogance about it.
Are you a very, very dim bulb or just trolling? Those are just the people who can, of course, afford a premium compact camera.
You stated that there is a place for it for those who do not have a phone, which is to say that you stated that there is no place for it.
How are the zoom, optical viewfinder, direct controls and ergonomics on those phones? To be fair, there's a Samsung with a zoom, but its image quality is notoriously bad. The point is, it's ok if this is not for you, but there's a place for it depending on what priorities people have.
AbrasiveReducer: They always seem to get it right. TT goes out of their way to design a bag that doesn't attract attention; Tenba designs a bag with brightly colored covers you can use to attract attention, I guess.
A brightly colored bag is less likely to attract attention to you having expensive camera gear inside.
There's some guys out there who are seriously insecure in their masculinity, just sayin'...
ShatteredSky: RAW for the tough series please. Or better finally do a tough XZ-3. Thanks!(yes, I am aware that this may not be what the market demands, it's just me).
I'll probably get a diving housing at some point for my 5Diii plus ports for the 16-35/2.8 and the 100 macro, but would really like to also have something that's pocketable for kayaking, sailing, kids at beach, pool, etc. without too much compromise in image quality - it's hard to believe there isn't a market for something like that.
ShatteredSky: Yes, it's odd that with a camera that would be perfect for snorkeling and such they didn't make a real wide angle (ideally an ultra-wide angle) nor a macro. If those lenses existed I'd buy it, in spite of the price and of my other reservations.
Ocolon: I was very close to buying the AW1 for a lack of alternatives, but it's not really in the same category as the rugged compacts (too big, much more expensive, unlikely to be as robust given the interchangeable mount).
TSeiler -- wasn't aware of the S1, but that seems to be sealing like the usual weather-sealing in high-end DSLRs, not immersible water-proof. I'd want something rated to at least 10m depth (and, since we're on wish-lists, ideally with a lens that's fairly bright at 24mm equivalent...)
misolo: Wish they'd gone for a less extreme zoom range (say 25-200 or 25-300), and included a slightly larger sensor and slightly brighter lens. At 600mm-equivalent, the aperture equivalent is f/35. At that point diffraction will mean it won't have much more than about 2MP worth of resolution.
Fair enough, but the Stylus-1 is not pocketable, and that's a much bigger differentiator. If you drop the top end of the zoom range (and use whatever you gain in size to make the lens a bit brighter, or illuminate a slightly larger sensor) it would indeed be in some ways closer to a Stylus-1 in image quality (not a bad thing...), but still like the SH in form and size (no EVF, no tiltable LCD, and lens not quite as bright as in the Stylus-1 to keep it compact).
I will buy whatever tough/waterproof camera with RAW is first offered by any manufacturer, been waiting for that for years -- so it's at least a market of two.
Wish they'd gone for a less extreme zoom range (say 25-200 or 25-300), and included a slightly larger sensor and slightly brighter lens. At 600mm-equivalent, the aperture equivalent is f/35. At that point diffraction will mean it won't have much more than about 2MP worth of resolution.
misolo: The engineer in me is puzzled. It's odd that they give zero details of their key technology: how the "digital rangefinder" would work "without the need for calibration". The secondary digital image has to be (digitally) shifted laterally as the focus ring is turned. Somehow this digital shift will have to be calibrated to the mechanical action of the focus ring on the lens.
NetMage: that would require both sensors to be behind the main lens, and a semi-transparent mirror to split the image. That's not consistent with their description (they claim no mirrors), and with the flange distance of the M mount there isn't room anyway for a mirror between the lens and main sensor.
Adding: they could do what you suggest with a single sensor with dual pixels but, as with a solution involving a semi-transparent mirror, this would be terrible for manual focus based on visual overlap - not enough paralax, the images would be too close (works for a DSP doing AF, not so much for human vision). That's why rangefinders have the two viewfinder lenses as separated as possible.
NetMage: even if that's the case, one of the images needs to somehow be moved horizontally, either optically or digitally (from what they say it seems to be digitally, since they say they have no rotating prism). The camera needs to somehow calibrate this horizontal translation of the digital image to the mechanical rotation of the focus ring, so even if the camera doesn't have any settings for calibration, the lenses still need to be calibrated to the camera. Actually, they'd make users happier if they implemented electronic lens-specific calibration in the camera -- then people could do it at home and save themselves a lot of hassle and cost.
The engineer in me is puzzled. It's odd that they give zero details of their key technology: how the "digital rangefinder" would work "without the need for calibration". The secondary digital image has to be (digitally) shifted laterally as the focus ring is turned. Somehow this digital shift will have to be calibrated to the mechanical action of the focus ring on the lens.
ryan2007: In the micro four thirds class, Panasonic has always been innovative and first to the market place with great products. They were the first with the 12-35 & 35-100 mm 2.8 zooms.
Good for micro four thirds and Panasonic. I knew from the start they were a better product than Olympus in this MFT's niche.
Jorginho: it's great that it's coming out, but to go from that (one scheduled tele for Olympus vs. no information from Panasonic when they never give advance notice anyway) to saying "you are deadwrong: Oly does a much better job" at "addressing the needs of all its users" you need an enormous dose of hyperbole... And, in any case, there actually are needs that Panasonic covers natively in micro 4/3 and Olympus "leaves out in the cold", e.g. fast portrait and fisheye. Look, I have lenses from both, and both have great virtues, and the nice thing about the system is the diversity and complementarity (not just Olympus and Panasonic, but also Sigma, Samyang, etc.), no need for dramatic accusations of anyone of "leaving users in the cold".
misolo: Full specs here:http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-lenses.html
30/2.8 -- 180g, 1x magnification (2x equiv.)42.5/1.7 -- 130g
ithinkihaveacat: that's not supposed to be a sample, it's the generic illustration for the description of the high-speed auto-focus mechanism.