bartjeej: Good article, I'm sure the issue will become clearer for a lot of folks.
One request though; could you PLEASE not contribute to the already much too pervasive myth that the word 'bokeh' only refers to the quality of the blur and not the quantity? It simply means blur, and you can have lots or little blur/bokeh just like you can have pleasant or unpleasant blur/bokeh. 'The quality of the blur' would be 'boke(h)-aji'. Just a little pet pieve of mine :)
haha never knew that, frsIII, but it makes sense :) much like 'dense' can be an insult in English.
Good article, I'm sure the issue will become clearer for a lot of folks.
This may have been noted already, but I'm quite sure the camera has no built in flash, despite what the review says in the key features list.
mikesco: For typical photos 300 dpi is overkill. Many photo labs only have equipment that prints at either 240 or 256 dpi. It is rare for 210 dpi not to give great results and with larger prints you can often get away with 180 - 150 dpi.
Agreed. This 300ppi myth really ought not be spread even further. It only makes sense at close viewing distances - say the distance you'd read a book at - since human vision simply isn't sharp enough to discern 300ppi at longer distances. And the larger the print, the longer the viewing distance. 10 sharp megapixels is enough for prints of just about any size, provided you're interested in the overall image and don't press your nose against the paper for maximum detail in one specific part of a large print.
Tape5: RX100 is so incredibly capable and sexy it makes me take ten times as many photos with it as my other two cameras, both DSLRs. I am having a complete love affair with this unobtrusive beauty.
These days I think if a shot cannot be taken with my RX100, I don't want it at all. Wide at 1.8 or with a tiny zoom to still keep it open at around 4.0, I am taking pictures I can crop and enlarge to crazy levels.
Who needs a zoom better than 20 million super sharp pixels?
If there is one camera that heralds the end of chunky ugly DSLRs, it is this one. Sony is certainly here to change things and they are experimenting with RX1 as well. And all the while they are doing this, they are making RED bleed at the other front with their video machines. Insane.
I'll agree that cameras like the one you listed are currently out of the reach of non-DSLRs in terms of capability, but I think that won't last very long.
Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that many people who are serious about their photography have no need whatsoever for a heavy bulky beast, when smaller cameras can get image quality that meets just about anyone's criteria in the vast, vast majority of situations (and remember, we were talking about camera's, not just compacts; so CSCs / mirrorless cameras should also be taken into consideration). So for lots serious photographers, there are non-DSLRs that do indeed render DSLRs obsolete.
so GaryJP, you're saying that "those serious about photography" need to have a DSLR? in the words of AmateurSnaps above: what a load of bull.
I think this is the first compact camera that, for the majority of consumers, will be able to do everything they want from a DSLR. That is, the very large group of (potential) DSLR buyers that just wants consistently good image quality in all situations and fast performance, and isn't interested in buying anything other than the kit lens.
So yes, in that sense, the RX100 can be considered the end of DSLRs' ubiquity, or at least the entry level DSLRs. And for most of the (potential) DSLR buyers who are interested in chancing lenses, CSCs are, or will soon be, able to fulfill their needs as well.
bartjeej: My ultimate travel compact: a 1" to 4/3 sized sensor (preferably in 4/3 aspect ratio) and a fast, versatile single focal length lens (somewhere in the 30 - 40mm efl range), in a waterproof body that's about the size of the Canon G15.
A decent grip and two clickable dials; a vertical one, recessed in the top surface, and a horizontal one recessed in the rear surface. Both dials clickable to give aperture, shutter speed, iso and exposure compensation their own, directly accessible dial, and all of that can be adjusted with one hand and without moving your hand out of the shooting position.
Battery life of at least 500 shots. Oh, and USB charging and wifi file transfer, so you never have to open up the camera beyond the usb charging point.
In terms of firmware, sweep panorama and in-camera raw processing.
Price, provided it's waterproof: € 1000.
Oh, and a second camera: similar as the one above, but with a smaller sensor, and (much) longer zoom than the current waterproof cameras.
Yes, and preferably with a fixed lens (20/1.7 would be fine with me!) to make it a good bit less deep. If the GX2 turns out to be weatherproof I'd be tempted big time!
A waterproof (or at least weatherproof) X100, combined with a water/weatherproof compact with decent zoom (say 200mm or more) would pretty much be my ultimate travel combination :) although I'd be willing to sacrifice some sensor area on the Fuji for a smaller overall camera (particularly a less deep one)
My ultimate travel compact: a 1" to 4/3 sized sensor (preferably in 4/3 aspect ratio) and a fast, versatile single focal length lens (somewhere in the 30 - 40mm efl range), in a waterproof body that's about the size of the Canon G15.
bartjeej: The sensor size that's stated in the review and in the database are inconsistent. In the table it says that the LX7's sensor is 6.7x5.1mm, which is consistent with the focal length specified on the lens. However, that's not a 1/1.7" type sensor (which is 7.4x5.6mm, like the Samsung and the Canon).
The database also says the LX7 sensor is 7.4x5.6mm, which would be a 1/1.7"type, but again, the lens suggests otherwise.
Also, the Olympus XZ-1 has, like the LX5, a 1/1.63" type sensor of 8.04x5.56mm, not a 1/1.7" type like suggested in the table in this preview.
So if I understand you correctly, the sensor's overall size is not quite 7.4x5.6mm, but somewhat wider and lower, although the diagonal is equal to that of a 7.4x5.6mm sensor? Comparing the maximum horizontal resolution (3968) to the maximum vertical resolution ((2736) gives an overall sensor aspect ratio of 1.45/1.
The sensor size that's stated in the review and in the database are inconsistent. In the table it says that the LX7's sensor is 6.7x5.1mm, which is consistent with the focal length specified on the lens. However, that's not a 1/1.7" type sensor (which is 7.4x5.6mm, like the Samsung and the Canon).
nice photo, but it appears to be of a Jaguar, not a leopard...