SW Anderson

"So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused) . . ."

The specifications list above clearly statess, "Manual focus | Yes."

I share your appreciation for dials and buttons, but can get along nicely without a touchscreen. The faster lens is good, too. Alas the lack of an OVF or EVF is a deal breaker. If one is offered later at a reasonable price, I'd be willing to take another look at this camera. But if the viewfinder costs as much as a good camera, forget it.

I wish camera makers would ensconce every lithium ion battery within a module that could be swapped out for an AA batteries module should the proper lithiums no longer be available. Of course, lithium batteries for cameras using this design approach would have to be 3 volt or 6 volt and of appropriate amperage to make this workable.

I'm very interested. If IQ measures up, I'm in. I just wish the sensor size was larger or pixel count was less. But I will withhold judgment until review results are in.

So, priced at $500 like a DSLR or ILC but with a smaller sensor and no optical or electronic viewfinder. I'll pass.

Folks who covet things very small and sleek, and who have been pining for that form factor in a larger-sensor camera, will probably flock to this one. It delivers impressive IQ, going by the sample photos. But for the flock to be of good size, the street price will have to come down closer to where most people can reach it without getting behind in their bills. At this price, the RX100 is up against DSLR's and ILC's with terrific IQ, more features and greater flexibility.

And, BTW, some of us prefer a bit more camera to hold on to and work with over very small and sleek.

I 'm sure manufacturers hope these mirrorless cameras will create a lucrative market for additional lenses. I read years ago that was the thinking of leading film SLR makers, which competed more on camera price but realized bigger per-item profits from lens sales. However, I think what spurred the growth of film SLR sales from the 1970's-1990's was the availability of more-affordable, good- to excellent-quality lenses from third-party makers.

So far, I don't see third-party lens makers hurrying out products for ILC's. They're probably in wait-and-see mode. If independent lens makers do bring out some "popular"-priced ultrawides, faster-than-kit medium zooms and faster fixed focal length portrait lenses, I think they will be rewarded with good initial sales. But down the line, when more people buy ILC's in part because more more-affordable lenses are available, the lens makers will enjoy even bigger sales.

Just a thought, anyway.

Hmm. I was a little quick on the draw. For some reason, the headlines didn't appear when I first landed on your main page. When I went back to it just now, there they were. Someone either responded to my previous comment with amazing speed, or I mistook a glitch in rendering the page for a design change.

Your site is overall excellent. That said, I really miss headlines on the main-page news items. Please bring them back.

Even though the X-S1's sensor is smaller than its LCD, I'm smitten. Maybe it's because I don't get prints the size of a sports bar flat screen TV. The EXR system's flexibility strikes me as a smart way of dealing with challenges different lighting conditions present. If this camera performs in line with its specs, the piggy bank gets it. :)

All in all, very impressive performance. The Half Price Books shot, the informal portrait aboard a ferry and that sunburst scenic are wow factor results. Makes me really want one of these, even if it's a budget stretcher.

Repeated attempts here and at Youtube to watch the video resulted in a message, "This video is private."

What's with that?

I've been comfortable shooting several form factors and sizes of camera over the years. Classic rangefinder and SLR suit me best.

Maybe it's just shock of the new, but the Lytro design leaves me cold. Sort of like holding a salt shaker at an awkward angle, but without a nice taper. Aesthetically, I'm enough of a traditionalist to prefer a camera that looks like cameras have traditionally looked. As for practicalities, judging by the photo of a woman looking at the viewing screen, this camera will take us back to the skimpy/squinty mini-LCD days of about eight years ago. For $400.

Ex post facto focusing is nifty technology. But it appears there are limits on it effective range — probably to within depth of field. So, it appears it's not hard to record images that include elements whose sharpness can't be adjusted after the fact.

I look forward to some nitty-gritty reviews. If they're good, maybe the design will grow on me. For now, I'm kind of underwhelmed and disappointed.

Looks to be a very nice camera, provided IQ is really good. I can't help but think the price is overly ambitious, especially in this economy. Even considering the actual selling price will be somewhat lower, it's high. For that kind of money many will go with a DSLR or ILC, whether or not they intend to buy additional lenses.

Good overall performance, IMO. I wish the Panasonic FZ0 and Fuji S4000 were among the cameras available for comparison.

For $899 an optical viewfinder as standard equipment shouldn't be too much to expect. The new sensor has 21.6 million total pixels,
20.3 million effective pixels. That must be for users who standardize on 4x6 prints — 4x6 feet.
I don't like to sound so negative, but running up the price with more megapixels than make sense for 98 percent of photographers, likely at the expense of image quality, is a poor idea. So is omitting an zooming optical viewfinder, IMO.

Amen.

Fuji has come up with an exceptionally appealing design. If the image quality doesn't disappoint, they've surely got another instant classic in the X10. The two nits I will pick are the price, which is high for the current economy, and the lens only being 28mm at the wide end. A 24mm f/2.8 would've been better.

I'm impressed. A bit of softness here and there that I could do without, but this camera is doing a lot of things exactly right. Of course, for its hefty $500 list price, it should.

BTW, as someone with an ongoing crush on Seattle, I especially enjoyed these images.

I'm sure Olympus is offering this in hopes of up-selling cameras to people who would otherwise buy a point and shoot for $100 to $200 less. But that's not all. I'm equally sure Olympus hopes to sell more interchangeable lenses, to consumers who otherwise would never consider buying an interchangeable lens.

I can appreciate why Olympus wants to do this, but I'm skeptical about the company's chance of succeeding with it.

As a practical matter, I suspect many consumers in this bad economy will make comparisons and decide one of the better travel zooms or bridge cameras can do every they want, with more than enough bells and whistles, with more than enough image quality — and with plenty of zoom range, no added expense of buying a pricey interchangeable lens involved.

Meanwhile, camera enthusiasts will look at this model's simplified interface and anorexic physique, and conclude it belongs in the hands of snapshooters with more money than good sense.