This is no trivial stuff and the results are really great. However it seems to be based on previous similar algorithms, as I noticed from the technical video.
marc petzold: Is it just myself? The Lens looks too soft into wideangle shots, and even in telephoto not tack-sharp. For my personal taste, the video from the RX10 looks better, sharper...look at the glasses onto the shelf inside this bar in the sample video. no offence - but a "one does it all" doesn't work for me...at last in IQterms, i prefer primes and small focal length zooms, but for ppl or soccer moms who don't need/or want to exchange lenses it might come in handy,and to film juniors prom, for example.
It is just yourself.
If Sony can afford to drop the price by $300 in an instant, can you imagine what profit margins they operate on ? Talk about customer rip-off.
Last time I checked, Canon DPP could not stand a chance against Adobe Lightroom. Bad noise reduction, bad colors. RAWs had much more information that what I could obtain with DPP. I would love to not depend on Lightroom but it would take a lot from Canon to achieve this.
John McCormack: No built-in ND filter! Even the LX-7 has one. A pity...
Wow, you spotted the first problem. This camera must be pretty much perfect if all you could come with is "no ND filter".
Lukemynick: Yes, I share the same sentiment. I wanted the M8 but not the camera. Now the E8 got me excited.
However I feel there's a possible catch. Does it come with a dedicated imaging chip like M8?How about Zoe and Pan360?How would the capture speed fare compared with M8?
Hope we get to know this soon.:)
There is no other catch other than the plastic back, I think.
Lens is much sharper compared to the RX100/II. Corners are great. Color rendition is also quite different, I think it may be much better but we need to see real-world samples.
jkoch2: A wider 24mm equivalent focal length. Otherwise, resembles its two baggy pant pocket predecessors. For the near $800 price, couldn't they have added time lapse, or how about 4k video? The latter is being offered on phones, so why not?
The <$300 coat pocket LX7 is more bang for buck: smaller 1/1.7" sensor, yes, but as many or more controls, 24mm wide end, longer optical zoom, and time lapse too.
Any as-good-as-new RX100i models priced below $400 might also be viable options. I seriously suspect that many are as-good-as-new, since not many buyers of a (originally) $650 camera will want to bang it around much.
The LX7 is a joke of a camera, look at the sales numbers. It's huge for a 1/1.7" sensor camera and that's why nobody buys it. For that sensor it should be the size of the Canon S120.
Daniel Lauring: I tried the Surface Pro 2 for a while. The 9.5" screen was just too small. This fixes that. I'll be picking one of these up.
It's 10.6" for the Surface Pro 2.
Mike FL: This Sony is the NIGHTMARE for Canon G1XMK2 if RX100M3 Lowlight IQ is as good as RX100M2 [which is much better than Canon G1X MK2].
Forget about Nikon 1 as Nikon J1 with 10/30mm lens is priced @$199 in OfficeDepot in US.
IQ is everything, and four poor IQ Nikon J1 (4x199=796) is $2 cheaper than one RX100M3 ($798).
Well executed, Sony!
The RX100 III has the Bionz X processor, which has a lot of extra image quality improvements. Should be better than the RX100 II for sure (assuming that the lens is equally good).
Good addition to the mirrorless market. You don't need a lot of lenses if you know what lenses the customers really need. I use a Canon EOS M and the 35mm F2 is all I ever use for pictures. And it costs $99 with outstanding sharpness. Leica also nailed it with the launch of a 35mm F2 lens.
On the other hand, Sony struggles with stupidly expensive Zeiss lenses (a 24mm F1.8 Zeiss costs around $1000), and that's why getting a Sony is not worth it due to quality lens prices (and submediocre kit lenses).
Lawrencew: Here in the UK it is interesting to note that the pre-order prices of the Sony A6000 (£729) and the Olympus OM-D E10 (£599) with kit lenses are both lower than the G1 X II (£749). And that is before you even add the price of the EVF to the G1 X II making it £949.You can argue they are in different segments, but for anyone just about to spend circa £700 on a new compact camera (i.e. none DSLR) the Sony and Olympus offer fantastic VMF for the feature set they offer in comparison.
The G1X II is not for the walmart shopper, that's for sure. It's for the people who appreciate image quality and great color rendering.
I got rid of a Sony NEX-5n and a Sony RX100 because of vastly inferior color rendering. Also the Sony kit lenses are really, really bad, so if you are comparing to Sony, please factor in a $1000+ Zeiss lens to get some decent results, and even then you can't get rid of the bad colors.
If the G1X II delivers its image quality and autofocus promises it will be a great camera which could replace a myriad of interchangeable m43 and APS-C cameras and lenses.
Shunda77: The problem is that it has got a big sensor with canons outdated sensor technology, so the advantages of better high iso, dynamic range etc are simply not going to be there in the way that they should.
It's almost unbelievable actually, and they just released yet another camera with that positively ancient 18mp sensor!!!!
The sad thing is that no one has really beaten the Canon 18Mp sensor except in DxO Mark numbers. When you look at the actual pictures, Canon's sensor is superior most of the time.
dmanthree: Why would anyone buy this instead of a GX7?
Because the GX7 produces inferior color rendering with any lens.
Allen Yang: I'm wondering if this one is more portable than Canon S120, in terms of size.
Don't wonder, compare the size specs.
Catalin Stavaru: Basically, there wasn't a lot that was wrong with the EOS M. Autofocus is now fixed, picture-to-picture time much reduced, and Wi-Fi added. Basic very compact camera with the highest APS-C image quality. I am beginning to like it. Hopefully I can pick up one for $300 soon.
@rpm40: Just look at the colors...nothing matches Canon. The competitors can be "technically" better (faster AF, some $1000 sharper Zeiss lenses - not sharper than the $100 EF-M 22mm though) but when you look at the actual pictures, they are vastly inferior in color and tone rendering.
Basically, there wasn't a lot that was wrong with the EOS M. Autofocus is now fixed, picture-to-picture time much reduced, and Wi-Fi added. Basic very compact camera with the highest APS-C image quality. I am beginning to like it. Hopefully I can pick up one for $300 soon.
wakaba: So it sucks and sticking tailfins (WiFi and strange sensor) on that Olds is not going to make it better.
Canon is dead, check the data on dxo, 30-100% worse than a D600.
Doesn't the D600 have a full-frame sensor compared to 70D's APS-C size sensor ? Why would you compare these ? Compare the D600 with the 6D, please. And if you really want to compare them, how about taking some videos...you will then see what the dual pixel is about.
PS: How could DxO Mark measure the D600 with those oil patches on sensor ? :)
jackgreen: Great, that Sony is really in close co-operation with Zeiss, unlike Canon, who treat 3rd party makes as competition.
Because they have different business models, there is no wrong in this. Canon also manufactures high-quality lenses, while Sony leaves this task to 3rd parties. Nothing wrong with this.