misolo: "bono-ruggedized" - mental image of Bono kicking the camera around on stage...
dammit, they fixed the typo. that was a lovely auto-correct.
MPA1: Only 15 meters? Not really a Nikonos replacement then when the sport diving limit is generally 40-50 metres - never mind the pro diving limit on mixed gas etc.
this camera is for snorkeling, boating, etc., not for scuba diving. however, if they make a housing for it, it would be a great camera for diving: housings sometimes leak, and when you open and close the housing on a diving boat or around wet gear, things can get unpleasant for electronic equipment. having a waterproof camera to go inside your housing can be a very good idea.
RStyga: It cannot compete IQ-wise with the other DSLM manufacturers so is this what the marketing dept has come up with to save the day? Oh, well, some people will even call it "pioneering"...
meanwhile: you can get similar IQ for a similar overall price with a high-end compact with a waterproof housing, but it'll be a much bulkier package and less versatile (though usable for scuba diving, whereas this is just for snorkeling). nevertheless, it's an outstanding entry in a niche that has long been frustratingly empty.
i just may buy my first digital nikon product...
JustDavid: 'announced alongside two equally rugged lenses' - surely not 2m shockproof lenses :)
that's what's written on the lenses. one is 15m, the other 20m waterproof, both 2m shock-proof.
"bono-ruggedized" - mental image of Bono kicking the camera around on stage...
nopt: So... what's actually inside this thing? I am surprised how deep the body appears to be. Is there a bunch of empty space between the sensor and the LCD?
Less miniaturization makes it cheaper to make.
Jogger: calling it art doesnt make it art...
groucher: My dictionary (Oxford American) says "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". Creative skill doesn't have to be related to skill of craft, and often isn't. What's beautiful or emotionally powerful to one person can be, and usually is, completely different than what is to another.
Actually, it pretty much does by definition. The question is whether it's good or bad art - whether it is interesting, original, thought provoking, aesthetically pleasing, etc.
dmanthree: Nice new scene. One thing it does show is that the differences between competing cameras are so slim now that high ISO performance is no longer a real concern. It appears that the NEX 6 is slightly superior to the m4/3 at ISO 6400, but the difference is so small that it's no concern (to me, anyway). Anyway, nice job with the new scene. Only drawback is that we don't have a history and can't compare the newer cameras to the old ones. Oh, well.
To my eyes, in RAW the GX7 seems to easily match the NEX 6 at ISO 6400 in the low-light scene. In JPEG the GX7 beats the NEX 6: see, e.g., the fine print writing on the spools (top half, left of center). Seems almost hard to believe...
qwertyasdf: Equivalency debate starting in 3...2...1
@Karroly: I have no idea who you're talking about, but I am certain that you don't know what you're talking about. Brightness, or light density, has little impact on final image quality, the key number is total light (density times sensor area). The f-number (aperture divided by focal length) is convenient for calculating exposure (i.e., it's the relevant number once you've picked a system). But to compare systems you should look at actual aperture in mm (f-number times focal length), plus of course at angle of view. I regularly use cameras with 5 different sensor sizes (FF, APS-C, MFT, 1/1.7, camera phone) so this is not just a theoretical fact (even if the physics of it are fairly straightforward), it's an empirical fact I confirm every day.
Ok then ;-) The P+S camera has a sensor with 24mm diagonal, 135 format has 43mm diagonal, so the crop factor is approx. 1.8. The 50/0.7 is then equivalent to 90/1.26, and the 35/0.7 is equivalent to 63//1.26. Still impressive, but most of it you can do (for a small fraction of the cost) with Canon's cinema lenses and a 1D C.
MaxTux: > And camera makers need to eliminate the painful process of uploading to a computer, then posting to your favorite website...
This is nonsense. If the purpose of taking a photograph is to post it on some "favourite website", surely the quality delivered by some mobile phone "camera" will suffice. Why would one need a real camera with a larger sensor - which he seems to be pushing for - if the end product is a snapshot on FB or somesuch?
Because a lot of what people want to share online is in low light (parties, etc.) where the results from phone cameras are a disaster even at small sizes.
tkbslc: The DSLM lingo makes me chuckle. Some marketing guy was so proud of that, wasn't he?
To Kriekira: Leicas still aren't SL... My vote would have been DSLE (E for electronic instead of reflex viewfinder).
wootpile: That's a good-looking camera with lot's of features.seems kind of heavy though compared to the APS-C offers on hand... ?
it is larger and heavier than the fuji xm1, heavier than fuji xe1, larger and heavier than pana nx300, and ALL sony nex
with all the above offering superior image quality (less crop factor, increased dof, and resolution).. unless pana have created a completely new sensortechnology - which they haven't
What happened to the m43 = small idea?
One word: lenses.
Rod McD: There's a lot to like in this camera and I think Panasonic should be commended for getting all the features into one body. It redeems (for me) their earlier VF-less designs. I might consider one when we know a bit more about the sensor and its performance.
There's one thing that I'd like to see in any future model - environmental sealing. For some strange reason all the mirror-less manufacturers (except Olympus with the OMD) seem to take the view that this just doesn't matter. Well it does. And they're premium cameras at premium prices. There are several low level DSLRs with sealing for half the price. Tsk.Tsk....
Panasonic's GH3 is also has environmental sealing.
iae aa eia: For what reason are they cheating on the people (me included) that were amazed by the 808's performance?
Smaller sensor, less well-performing lens, much grainier images, the same 41 MP appeal...
This is not fair, Nokia!
People, run for the 808 while still available or hold your horses 'til they show some respect!
Because the big hump in the back didn't sell well with most potential buyers. I'd be happy with it (even with a bigger one, if the image quality improved), but realize that there are many more people for whom a thin phone is a much bigger priority in their purchase decision.
How is 1600 "base ISO"? I don't think that means what you think it means... If you want to make an "equivalent" comparison that would be ISO 100 f/2 on the Nokia vs. ISO 800 f/16 on an APS-C sensor. Of course, the APS-C camera has the advantage of being able to open the lens further, that's one of the reasons people buy them... But if what has your panties in a bunch are the comments regarding resolution, you need to compare maximum achievable resolution with each camera. On an APS-C camera this is typically ISO 100 f/5.6, on the Nokia it's ISO 100 f/2. Comparing resolution is not what you're doing, you're comparing low-light ability, where I haven't heard anyone say that the Nokia comes even close to a DSLR. Just plain silly.
Close enough to equivalent 28mm f/8: with the grip this may develop a good following with the street shooting crowd.
Tan68: I guess I don't know what a 3D printer is...
Wikipedia and search engines are your friends.