Beckler8: Gigantic DSLRs like this are becoming more and more niche - really just for certain pros that need specific types of performance. They should make a more versatile version, call it the D4V or whatever, that has many more video features like 4K, power zoom and AF that actually works. At least then hobbyists can justify the massive price and size because then suddenly it's a cinema camera as well.
I would agree overall. I just think more and more pros can use mirrorless now and certainly for hobbyists like myself they're just making more and more sense. I always intended to get a top SLR but its getting hard to pull the trigger now because relatively speaking, they're *losing* too much versatility to other cameras but are still as logistically impractical as ever.
Gigantic DSLRs like this are becoming more and more niche - really just for certain pros that need specific types of performance. They should make a more versatile version, call it the D4V or whatever, that has many more video features like 4K, power zoom and AF that actually works. At least then hobbyists can justify the massive price and size because then suddenly it's a cinema camera as well.
Highly disappointed they decreased EVF resolution. :( Maybe an a7000 is coming...or is that just the a7 already?
showmeyourpics: I like and own Panasonic camera gear but this one is an absurd design straight out of marketing genius. Let's use a really small 1/2.3 sensor to reduce size and weight and then let's pack it up with 18MP (= noise fiesta). Let's add an EVF, which is a really good idea, but let's make it miniscule with only 200K dot (the Nikon P7800 EVF needs 921K dot to be just decent). And, dulcis in fundo, let's slap on a 24-720mm nice and dark (f/3.3-6.4) zoom lens on a very small body that weighs nothing and will probably be a stability nightmare (at 720mm and f/6.4, one will have to crank up the ISO setting through the roof to get a workable exposure time, but the noise will turn the picture into mush). There are MUCH better balanced compacts out there for the enthusiast photographer, everyone else is better off sticking with a good smart phone camera.
I can't agree with most of this. These types of cameras offer extreme versatility with really quite good image quality except in lower light, and have very nice video too - all while remaining pocketable. The megapixel count, yes that's out of control and damages low-light capability for no reason.
I like all the meaningless talk here about larger sensors and faster lenses. That exists already in Sony RX100 type models. Those have very small zoom ratios and so represent trade-offs, as does this one. So do all cameras. This class offers a unique feature set - a combination you can't find elsewhere. Maybe don't dismiss an entire class because you happen to want a different set. You might as well just say 'this is no SLR so this is garbage'. Oh wait, people do say that.
peevee1: This is art. Buying expensive camera and lens to photograph super-boring subjects with super-shallow DoF is not.
I appreciate your point, but it's only your opinion. You don't decide what art is - no one does.
Beckler8: Great camera, to be sure. But why so incredibly stupid-looking?!
But this one's particularly ridiculous. What's with the giant prism-box? Why try to pretend it has a mirror when the lack thereof is the main feature? Really...idiotic.
Great camera, to be sure. But why so incredibly stupid-looking?!
futile32: best in class... silver.... 79%.... interesting....
I own the RX100, hands down an amazing camera pocketableness asside. My only quibble about using it for my everyday 'keepers' was no tilting display (for waist level shooting) and no EVF. Both of these objections have (sort of) been handled with the MK2. I do wish the EVF was part of the body, but I am still amazed at how they managed to fit in what they did. Can't have it all.
Seriously though, this camera should be graded for what it is intended for and for its target audience. To complain that it has too many options/filtering and no in-camera raw conversion is just a joke.
The review complaining about the tilting screen's limited use, makes no sense. It's *quite* useful and if one doesn't think so, their shooting skill is limited. There are many shots you simply cannot physically get because you can't see the screen from a 90 deg. angle! Sony likely opted for simple tilt (no swivel) because it has almost no impact on size - the main advantage of this camera.
Anyway I don't really like this site, alas. Such a long-winded review (as usual) that leaves out some things, repeats others like twelve times and then rounds it out by saying really stupid things too.
Beckler8: The video samples are, as usual for this site, nearly useless. I've told dpreview before about how we need more useful videos that show AF/AE performance, etc. etc. But you're not interested in improving things I guess.
Oh I see, that's why it shoots 1080p60 video w/stereo audio and manual control then? Give the camera whatever name you wish - it's irrelevant. I assume this site basically ignores video because they don't really "like" video and are into still photography more. Whatever. That's just incredibly stupid if so.
The video samples are, as usual for this site, nearly useless. I've told dpreview before about how we need more useful videos that show AF/AE performance, etc. etc. But you're not interested in improving things I guess.
Do you idiots even know what you're looking at? Yeah, light levels that would produce a black screen from your useless iphone camera.
D R C: When I had a look at the Panasonic LF1 I thought what a great idea to have a EVF instead of the much maligned (but useful) tunnel ones, but I was disappointed with its EVF resolution, also I found the rear controls too small. So I thought to myself what is needed is a camera like the LF1 but a bit larger and with a better EVF…. Nikon must be mind readers!I just hope that the P7800 is as good as it looks.
@Marvol Well that's because like all companies, they're not just making the best products they can for each segment. Rather, all decisions are being made by useless *idiots* in their marketing dept.
For me the problem will be the video - surely it will be the same garbage-performance AF/AE during video as the P7700. Which ruins an otherwise very nice camera.
mad marty: These so called enthusiast cams just make no sense with a sensor in the same size like a mobile phone. If they would be cheap it would be ok but I bought a new nex-3n for half the price of these wannabe-enthusiasts. I don't need a exchangeable lens but there are just no comparable enthsiast-cams in the price range of an nex or a nx1000.
Correct. People like to tout sensor size as most important, when in fact most segments have their own unique strengths.
SHood: Who would pay $5k for a pin head sensor (1/2.3").
Someone who doesn't have *$30k* for a Sony F55, I guess.
No coverage of the very first digital camera (1975) which is pretty unique, though not "consumer". Instead, an implication that apple was the first, which it wasn't - neither for digital cameras nor consumer digital cameras.
Justin Francis: Both completely outclassed by the RX100
Meaningless. It costs almost 2x as much as 7700. And half the zoom. Those are the 2 problems with rx100 I see, otherwise I'd have one by now too. Also massively inferior ergonomics, but whatever.
keysmith: this category of cameras are overpriced and quite big. The same price can be spent on a NEX (nex 5r, 3n) with a 16-50 electric zoom lens. Same size but alot better quality. Only drawback smaller zoom, but crop can be a remedy on that. These bulky compact cameras (7700 and G15) should cost no more than 300-350€. At these price groups they make sense.On the other hand Sony RX100 is the only compact that makes a difference today. Unfortunately it is also expensive and not that good image quality.But the consept is good. Btw I would expect a better rx100 replacement (better noise on high iso).Anyway G15, 7700 to me are a dead category. Something like the old superzoom prosumers category we used to have (Panasonic FZ, Fuji) . Very few talk about them today because they were surpassed.
They still have a useful purpose I think. So cropping nullifies any zoom advantage just like that? Why have zoom at all then? No, the 7700 has a very nice zoom range, while still remaining coat-pocketable. An NEX has neither of those. It's still a unique category. RX100 has no zoom either.
I don't understand why video gets basically no coverage in these reviews. Quick sample clips with no mention of camera settings. No zooming, testing of AF or AE, and no low-light. No comparison or treatment of audio. This is completely negligent IMO.
In the case of the 7700, most videos I see on youtube have unusable AE 'fluttering' when you zoom in/out. AF doesn't work too well either. So I can't even consider it anymore. Anyway I guess no one cares about video.