charlesaharper: Perhaps I need my eye glasses changed, but it appears to me that still photo comparisons from the Studio Comparison are significantly better with the III than the IV. The super slo-mo and other video features are not of particular interest to me, so I'm inclined to look more seriously at the III. Am I missing something significant?
Perhaps you haven't compared it with the II and I.
Donald M Mackinnon: For £1069 you can buy a kit that would defeat the GX8 on every conceivable front. The worrying aspect of this price is it puts the GX8 beyond the budget of possibly many current mft users. The price will inevitably drop but in two years time will it be down to £600? Any camera shop in the UK will tell you right now that the "camera to have" is the Nikon D5500 - currently £599
Yes, when I said D5500 is old technology I was referring to it being a DSLR. Its perfectly capable camera and an excellent one, but compared to latest mirror-less cameras DSLRs have more disadvantages than advantages in my opinion these days. The extra bulk and weight, having pentaprism, or even pentamirror (yuck!) in cheaper models, flipping mirror, PD sensor & lenses having to be calibrated. You always have to plan if you are taking a DSLR, and at all times you know you are carrying one, and people around you know you are carrying one.
The A6000 especially with a smaller lens you might not notice you are carrying it at times. Nicer AF points spread across the entire sensor, nice bright EVF, that shows actual exposure, and you keep it in check to avoid errors, actual DoF while composing, amplified when using small aperture, high ISO, and so on ...
Nope, the D5500 is overpriced and old technology.
Every decent shop in the UK will tell you that the "camera to have" is the Sony A6000 kit for £470. Best value for money hands down, no competition.
Allen Yang: Why not a used D600 with a cheap Tamron 28-70 at a little more than 1 grand bucks? Yeah,I know, this combination is heavier and bigger,but the IQ you get is much higher than this Forrest Gump! (I like the movie though)
@Allen YangAnd most importantly, people looking for the best pocketable camera with a decent sensor size would not even think about the gigantic combo D600+Tamron 28-70.
The same way people wanting to try full frame photography looking for a D600+Tamron 28-70 would not even think about the pocketable RX100
@Allen YangBuyers are paying that much only for the latest version fo the RX100 camera. All 4 versions of the RX100 are still available new starting from £270 for Mk1.
And I am not sure if your D600 shutter can go down to 1/32000, or do 16 fps burst, silent shutter, or 4K internally, or 1000 frames/sec slow motion video, or has a built in ND filter.
saeba77: simply too expensive
Too expensive for who and what?
You just don't need a stacked sensor with insanely fast readout bad enough.
Boss of Sony: Just ordered the Panasonic LX100. Looking forward to it.
You just wanted to demonstrate what "trolling" means, right?
david vella: Great little camera , except for one repeatedly annoying design problem that this type of camera can suffer from . Namely sticking lens cover blades. Happened on two lesser Sonys and the cost of repair was not worth the bother even though the cameras both still worked fine apart from this annoying glitch.
On a camera of this price , I would rather have a lens cap .
I've been using RX100 version 1 for 3-4 years and never had such problem.Have you ever experienced this with an RX100 camera or only lower level P&S cameras and now speculating there is such a problem with the RX100 series?
The price checking thingy top right reads:"Buy on Amazon.com From $1,111.11"
Ha ha, yeah right, as if someone would pay $1.1k for this thing ;p
Martinka: So how exactly woudl higher DxO Mark help me to produce better pictures?www.artofsport.cz
So lets stop comparing cameras then?
Cameras are expensive tools and users want to have ways to objectively compare them and be able to see which ones are good for some applications and which for others.DxO are trying to do such objective comparisons, doing many tests and providing you the information free of charge.
Don't use it if you don't need, understand or trust it, others will.
munro harrap: Eye recognition can be confused by similar objects, oh yes. The reason it is not universally adopted is DARK GLASSES and SPECTACLES, sported by huge numbers of people, such that FACE recognition alone works better always (as long as you dont then get told you have to ID the face and save it!).
So what all good Nikons have will always be better, unfortunatelyThe huge amounts of guff included to promote this Sony model in Dpreview is typical of gamers, not photographers.
Possibly they would be a lot more useful devoting time to a topic never mentioned in recent years- the speed and amount of RAM in digital cameras.Lets get manufacturers to vastly increase on that first, shall we?
Munro's logic is ridiculous.
Firstly, the eye focus feature works in addition to face detection. If it recognises an eye, great, focus will be more accurate, but if it doesn't, it will still aim to get the face in focus.
Secondly, DSLRs are inherently at disadvantage at face/eye recognition, because during composition their sensor is not exposed, as the light is re-routed to the OVF and PD sensor. The PD sensor has to rely on a very limited amount of information it gets through 30-90 focus points (holes in the mirror).Mirror-less cameras can read the whole sensor if they can process the information and can fine-focus with contrast detect virtually everywhere in the imaging plane.DSLRs are limited to the focus points and if the eye falls between these points they have to interpolate even if they know exactly where the eye is.
Pro shooting digital since 92: How is this useful for anything other than a single person without touch screen? Help me out here. I'd buy Sony if they had touch screens.
@Pro shooting digital since 92How were people able to shoot more than one person without a touch screen in 92 ?
Wait until Skynet puts an AI brain in there and gives it a weapon.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Not much difference in all four RX100 models. I mean, not enough to make a difference in real world shooting, looking at the whole picture.
If anything, the RX100 Mk III looks noticeably sharper than the others at full pixel viewing. Not worth the requested premium price for the last model, in my opinion.
Just get an Olympus E-M10 or E-PL5, 6, or 7 for much better results and reach with the two kit lens for less money.
@digitalhechtSorry, I meant elimination of rolling shutter EFFECT of course.
ianimal: I am still using my RX100 (first edition). Good enough for my use/need.Would love a RX series camera with APS-C sensor size.
They wouldn't be able to fit a zoom lens for APSC sensor in a pocket camera, but maybe with a prime is doable.
The main advantage of the RX100 IV sensor is much faster sensor readout which enables - elimination of rolling shutter - full electronic shutter - 1/32000 shutter - 16fps burst - 4K video - up to 1000fps slow motion video
I am not familiar with EM10, but I don't think it has these features,plus RX100 IV is TRULY pocketable, which the EM10 is not even with a pancake prime.
I am not sure why compare the two at all.
Celsus: Come on Hassy, put out a medium format challenger to the RX1. Put a 50/2 fixed lens with H5D sensor and try your darndest to get all of that in under $5k. I will buy one. If it doesn't try to make the EVF optional for an additional $800...
Its much more likely to see such camera from Pentax
Le Kilt: Who's Taylor Swift?
I thought we are talking about a featherweight boxer ;pkidding of course
garyknrd: Kinda curious why anyone would pick this over the new Sony?What are the advantages?
These Canon cameras are like "kit cameras" you get with the Canon lenses that you buy for your A7R II ;p
futile32: Anyone else seeing comments marked as 4months ago? on page 4/5 onward
Yep, DPR probably periodically link all the articles related to the 5DS/R review in progress to the same thread and thats how it accumulated over 3k comments.