ironcam: How can Leica make a dslr with such a minimalist design, while Japanese dslr's have more buttons than an 80's stereo tower?
Leica listens to common sense, the Japanese listen to forum members.
Increasing the size of the camera was the stupidest thing Panasonic could do. Just make a detachable EVF and bundle it with the camera for free, not necessary to ruin the camera appeal and the display size for a small EVF.
Does anyone know if the smartphone part of this device includes a notification light (LED) ? I am really interested in it, but I can't use a smartphone without this feature.
HS Wells: why this reminds me of NX mini ?
Not sure why. This one includes a high-end smartphone and is 3mm slimmer than the NX Mini without any lens attached. There shouldn't be any reason aside from the brushed aluminium sides :)
Jarda_Houdek: Interesting, finally some competition for Lumia 1020.Still, Lumia beats Lumix: Lumia may have a smaller sensor, but with stabilization and brighter lens. Also Lumia supports RAW, which is not yet supported in Android. And Lumia has Xenon flash. Can't see how this devide could win against Lumia.
Well, just compare some samples from the Lumia 1020 to the ones from the Sony RX100. You will then realize that the Lumia stands no chance against this, there is no comparison. Plus the auto-focus on the CM1 is worlds faster (at least according to specs) and has a dedicated imaging processor. The CM1 is a no-compromise photo camera, while the Lumia is a smartphone with a good camera.
This is great even if you use it as a camera-only device (not to mention that you can leave your phone at home when having this with you). This is a no-compromise photo camera. I don't know of many 1" cameras (if any) with this size. All the other fixed lens cameras are larger than this and miss the point of having a fixed lens camera, which should be as small as possible.
I only wish that it could do 1080p at 60FPS, on my Sony RX100 the 60FPS footage looked a lot less choppier than the 30FPS, but maybe Panasonic is better at this. It's probably a heat issue that prevents 60FPS.
Also, the lack of optical image stabilization would require at least software-based stabilization in movies, which is still unknown if it exists in-camera, but given the dedicated Venus Engine imaging processor there may be some kind of stabilization available.
Waiting for reviews !
What's interesting is that this device also looks very good as a smartphone. Great leather-like texture, it reminds me of the expensive Vertu phones. And full-HD 4.7" screen, also decent. It's also impossibly thin for a 1" sensor camera.
I would buy it solely for the looks. It really looks cool. I think it's a great achievement from Panasonic.
Canon may be late to the party, but if the color rendition is the typical Canon, it has a winner. I for one don't need a viewfinder, I just need good image quality in as compact a camera as possible. I sold my Sony RX100 (and a NEX-5n) for the awful colors. If the G7X is priced right, I think it will be my next camera.
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).