Jiri Folta: I was taken by the quality of Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Not only optical quality but also craftsmanship quality. It was major reason why I sold my Nikon D7000 and all those plastic Nikon lenses made in China, Thailand and so on.Now, I'm reading that new Fuji lenses are plastic and made in China (XC 16-50mm OIS and XF 27mm (as written on fujirumors.com - First Look: X-M1 with New Kit Zoom and Pancake Lens). An idea of photographic company that is going to bring quality materials and some quality spirit is gone. I hope not but it seems like things are going this way.Reading some day that X-Pro 2 or X-E 2 are made in China I would sell it all away. I don't want to buy plastic in China made lenses and cameras. I want in Japan made metal quality. For me, buying Fuji was not only buying photographic tool, it was also investment in the future! It was some kind of promise many photographers had accepted.I hope we can call Go Fuji Go in the future again!
I suspect that the profits Fuji make on cameras like the XM1 and XA1 are the resource that will enable them to continue to make higher level cameras like the XPro1 and XE1. Plus their lower volume prime lenses that appeal to pros and enthusiasts. Anything they can do to broaden their base is a therefore a good thing. And lets not pretend that the metal shells of the XPro1 and XE1 reflect an entirely metal structure.......there are plastics in their construction too.
Thanks to DPR for the post and link. A good and informative read.
novak977: lovely concept but I would rather invest in underwater case for upcoming Full Frame NEX or alternatively Fuji (with their excellent low light performance). Large sensor is the key for good underwater photography or video. Just don't expect exciting results with your f5.6 Nikon lens - equivalent of f 15.1 on full frame!
Yet another person who, faced with either rugged compact cameras or this AW1, argue for a bigger camera and casing. It's not either/or. There has to be a middle ground - which used to be held by the Nikonos.
Quite apart from the cost of a casing, the sheer size and weight of the things is a deterrent to many outdoor users. Hopeless for mountaineering, caving, kayaking etc. Try stuffing a DSLR in a casing inside your life jacket. We need a slightly bigger camera with real 'O'ring sealing to cater for diving pressures and really rough conditions.
I agree with you about the potential for an NEX FF in a small casing, but let's wait and see the camera first. FWIW I really can't see the point of debating equivalent apertures between formats for UW use. It's not about shallow DOF UW - it's usually more about getting enough light and actual depth of field.
I commented that I liked this camera, despite the 1" sensor, under the announcement comment page. I think it's probably still the best AW camera so far, but I'm feeling a bit more cautious having read more. I suspect that it's not quite as rugged as I first assumed. There are no real "o"rings - and those square gaskets on the doors have a terrible reputation across the net for leaking.
Yes the system needs a really wide prime lens. I can't see the point of offering a 10mm prime and a zoom that starts at 11mm. The prime should have been a 7mm or 8mm. And it needs a tele zoom.
No, it's not a Nikonos. And I don't really understand DPR's joy in finding that it doesn't feel like a rugged camera. Surely it would be better if it did?
Interesting camera. I'm down on record (in the comments pages of the rugged camera reviews) as saying that someone needed to make one with a larger sensor. And here it is.....
I was hoping for APSC, but this is still a major improvement. I like it - it'll be a great camera for my beachy and adventurous kids. Good for sailing and kayaking too. A real test will be the performance of the zoom - it needs to be good to attract serious users who like outdoor photography and don't want crappy compact IQ.
I think Nikon really need to release a couple of extra lenses, but perhaps that will come if the camera is successful. It's disappointing that the wide prime isn't wider. In fact I can't see the point of offering a 28mm (35mm equiv) and a 30mm-74mm zoom (35mm equiv). And it's only half a stop faster. The system needs a decent wide, maybe a 20mm or 24mm (35mm equiv) especially for underwater use, and a tele-photo zoom.
I invite DPR to look at the use of these comment pages in relation to the carpet bombing of negative posts from certain posters. If a poster has an adverse view of a camera that's fine - let it be said. However, once should be enough if you don't like it and you're not going to buy it. And if you're not, what is the ongoing purpose of being here and continuing to post multiple negative comments. This surely invites the reader to suspect that some of these posters are trolls at best and at worst, that it's a deliberate strategy to denigrate a product.
FWIW, I'm not an Olympus user, have no plans to buy it, and read this page out of interest only. However the repeated criticism from posters known to have interests elsewhere is just plain obvious and hardly fair.
Frank_BR: Surreptitiously, the EVF penetrates more and more into the stronghold of the OVF kingdom.
I hate to tell you this but this camera's predecessor, the P7700, didn't have an OVF, or any VF at all. And Nikon's main rival, the Canon G series, have had an inaccurate 80% tunnel finder for about a decade. There was no OVF stronghold in the compact world. Most had nothing, many had an inadequate finder, and it was the rare exception where an OVF was really any good. As far as I can see, a good EVF is the answer. Like them or not, they can't be occluded by the lens and can display exposure and other useful data.
It should be very good. Let's see how user experience and the reviews pan out. Personally I'm hoping that the extra stop (over the 23mm f2) hasn't compromised other aspects of IQ like flare resistance and contra light performance.....
Josh152: I bet Canon is saving the flippy screen and EVF for the G2X.
The Canon G1X already has a swivel screen. I agree that it would be nice to see an EVF in preference to the 80% tunnel finders they've used through the G series. Don't know if it's going to happen.......
locke42: Comparing the $550 P7800 to the $600 RX100, you get:- a smaller sensor- a larger body- a slower lens- a shorter ISO range- fewer video options
All in exchange for what? An articulated screen and an EVF?
Methinks you've been a bit selective. Yes the sensor is smaller, and the shorter ISO range goes with that. Yes the body is bigger but it features an EVF, a tilt screen, a host of external controls and grip that the RX100 design omits. And the lens might be marginally slower than the RX100's lens at the wide end, but it's longer and faster at the long end. (I can't speak about the video - not something I use).
It's horses for courses - they're different cameras. I don't plan to buy either, but I'll give Nikon the credit for coming out with a decent feature set.
If I do have any doubts, I share the concern about the sensor size - the obvious trend is upwards and for good reason. If Nikon brought out a similar camera with a larger sensor it could be brilliant. It would also be bigger, heavier and dearer and it's unlikely that it's lens could offer the same zoom range and still retract to a flat package.
Thanks for posting these images - very spectacular, and well rendered. We rarely see anything in our part of the world (South Australia) quite like the cloud formations North America regularly experiences. I guess that sometimes there's some comfort in that......
These are incremental improvements to five good existing lenses that will offer a little extra to new buyers. It's probably uneconomic to upgrade for those like me who already own the current versions. It's also a pity Pentax didn't add seals to make them water resistant to match its camera bodies
Tomskyair: If you think these things are big - wait until the FF NEX-style system arrives if it ever does. That system's lenses will make the new NEX lenses looking much smaller.
Maybe then the eager FF MILC adepts will eventually realize that a "faaaast" 2.8 standard zoom for FF is going to be huge and heavy regardless whether there's a mirror in the camera or not. "Where can I buy a large and heavy battery grip to balance this monster on my small and flimsy camera?"
Ever tried to cheat the laws of physics? Well, simply doesn't work as they are laws and not an opinion. And as APS-C is the second largest sensor format being used in consumer cameras it requires relatively large lenses especially when aiming at fast f-stops and decent quality.
It's not true that all FF lenses are huge. While f2.8 zooms and long teles may well be quite large, a wide range of prime lenses can be relatively small. There are millions of small light legacy AF DSLR lenses with FLs from 24mm to about 85mm with filter threads of 46mm, 49mm and 52mm. Not large at all. I suspect that most of the people looking for a FF NEX plan to use primes for landscape, street and travel rather than very large zoom and long tele lenses.
It will be interesting to see the performance of the 16-70f4. There has been quite a bit of whining about the f4 maximum aperture, but if it's IQ excels corner to corner at f4, that would be fine for many users.
Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4 is undoubtedly the best 18-55 standard zoom currently on the APSC market and one reason for many buyers to consider their X series mirror-less cameras. Sony's Zeiss 16-70 is wider, longer and physically smaller (if a stop slower). If it performs as well as its premium price suggests, it might be a real asset to the e-mount range.
Human filing cabinets. Not a leaf to be seen. Sad that it's probably the future in many places.
I'm still using my G12 and G1X. The G15 & 16 offer a brighter lens than the G12, but I'm not yet persuaded to part with it. There's no news here re any developments to their larger-sensor compact cameras like the G1X and EOS M. I'll be interested to see what emerges later in the year.......
Agree with photo nuts - a great shot. It's much more than a moon shot, it's a night shot with wonderful lighting and enough mood and interest to keep your eye roving around in the image.
tvstaff: These are poor choices. I'm sorry but the quality leaves little but for the novice consumer. At some point Canon or Nikon will get serious in this space. I like to shoot Kitesurfing and it would be a GREAT pleasure at under $1,500 to have a quality camera with good IQ I could take in the water as I shoot at times up to my neck to get a great perspective. The KEY word here is IQ. I don't need GPS, a can opener or wi-fi. I JUST WANT IQ and DR.... It seems that Canon and Nikon are leaving the market open for some new 4K cameras coming out of China. Make fun of LG if you want but they are about hit Nikon, Canon and Sony in the chest. Fluff cameras like the 70D and such will be the rope that hung them. For under $1,500 I should have a Point and Shoot camera I can throw in my bag that can take the elements. As good as a H4D-60 or Leica S NO!! But how about the IQ of a stripped down camera devoted to IQ and sans all the FLUFF. Enough DR to deal with PP issues in PS. IMHO ;)
To LaFonte. Here we go yet again...... I don't know why so many commentators seem to offer the suggestion of a high grade pro camera (usually a DSLR) in a housing as the only alternative to these little 'tough cameras'.
Quite apart from the expense of a DSLR housing, you can't conveniently dangle a D4 in a housing off your climbing harness, stuff it in your life jacket or drag it through a cave. Nor can you use all of them one handed. They're huge!
What we NEED is the missing middle ground. Something like a digital equivalent of the old Nikonos. Yes it wasn't a light weight camera or cheap, but it was simply the absolute best at what it did. There are many here who'd pay for something like that again today. One problem is that no-one makes one. The second problem is that no-one is listening!
Hi DPR, thanks for your review.
People buy these things because there's no alternative other than a bigger camera and a housing. I'd like to see a manufacturer opt for a new approach. Year after year your reviews (and others) comment on their small sensors and poor IQ. The internet is also littered with leak complaints and poor company response on guarantees.
There seems to be a view that wilderness/outdoor/water sport followers don't value better IQ, which is absolutely untrue. And that serious photographers should have a D4 in a housing. Try stuffing one of those in your life jacket. The middle ground - the old Nikonos - is gone.
We need a manufacturer to make a robust, WR, direct light path camera with an APSC sensor, a fixed 24-85eq zoom (or primes) and real "O" rings. One 25mm "O" ring cover could give access to an SD card, a shaped battery and USB plug. Add a decent grip. And useable with gloves please.
Yes it would be bigger and cost more. But worth every cent.
Mr Fartleberry: Don't think I'll be running out to buy a 50 to do landscape with.
Every lens is potentially a landscape lens but I sill prefer modest WAs. It just depends how you see the world, what you want to capture and what you have with you. Stitching has also come incredibly far (though there are still issues with subject movement) but some of us prefer to spend more time out there and behind a camera than on a computer doing PP. Each to his own.