Vitruvius: You still need 2 devices, so how does this solve anything? You still need to carry your smart phone AND this 'camera' without a screen or controls.
You save a bit of money (on rapidly outdated technology) and in exchange you are very limited to who, how, and when you can use it.
What is the point? What was the problem they are trying to solve?
Solved problem of size??? The RX100 II is 225 cubic cm and relatively slim and pocketable. The QX100 is 222 cubic cm, shaped like a cinimon bun, and only 102 grams less.
So save the $250 and only ever be able to use it with your smart phone? Doesn't make sense to me. But if you really need to stand out to be cool, knock yourself out.
You still need 2 devices, so how does this solve anything? You still need to carry your smart phone AND this 'camera' without a screen or controls.
The CONNECT version of this story would be if someone went to a cell phone recyling centre and took one truck load home.
Interesting that a German photographer from Reuters Germany is even allowed to talk to judges at a professional event and provide forensic evidence to a judge to support a German athlete.
Should each country be looking to secure positions in the media to ensure they get real time photographic evidence to the judges on the field for their country?
As long as they continue to charge more for replacement ink cartridges than an entire new printer - they don't give a rats petuti about the environment. They would rather sue people who sell cheap ink refills. This is all PR. Nothing to do with the environment. It is also called "Green Washing".
Daxs: This is how to make sales! Everything is about pixels today! "Brainwashing"Nokia was good phone long time ago!
Why can't people actually look at what they are doing with all those pixels before posting ignorant criticism.
BeaniePic: 41MP's on that size sensor is a joke. Over processed and a complete scam. Sorry for those who fall for it....
Obviously you have no idea what they use the 41 MP for. You should research it before posting here and looking like the fool.
No IBIS for video ??? If it works for 2 second exposures (as reviewers have claimed) then what is the problem with video? Hope this is a firmware update.
Legacy glass + IBIS during video + Focus Peaking during video = AWESOMENESS!
waxart: I'm chiefly a videographer with a GH2 and GH3. The GX7 might encourage me to trade in my GH2, provided it is as good in low light as the GH3. My husband uses the Olympus OMD and has an array of lenses that I can't wait to borrow!
Same here but noticed that there is not IBIS in video. There is focus peaking during video though. So I hope they add IBIS during video by firmware update soon. Then you can shoot video with legacy glass, IBIS, and focus peaking. Would be AWESOME!
Larry Witt: I finely got a look at the bottom of the GX7, on the Panasonic home page. The tripod mount looks way better engineered (magnesium plate) then my NEX7, which is at the Sony repair center right now, because the weak tripod mount was breaking out of the thin plastic holding it in place. This occurred while only using a light Sony 18-55 and an equally light Tamron 18-200 which is not any heaver then the kit lens. I am very disappointed in an otherwise really great camera. I can only shoot using a tripod because of the shakes now days, and must have camera that has a decent tripod mount.
AND it looks to be centered on the sensor in both axis! Great for people who want to do simple panoramas without all the offset accessories. I know, I know. You need to align with the lens focal node, but still, it is close and it is nice to see them try.
The only thing missing that I would like is an external microphone plug. If the hot shoe has the same functionality as the Olympus then they might be able to make something like the SEMA-1.
Finally a good complete package with all the features I would like in one compact camera, but the real feature that will open my wallet is the image quality of the new sensor. Look forward to the studio shots and DXO results.
leschnyhan: Yeah, okay it doesn't have a mic input. On the one hand, most people who are trying to get really excellent audio would use a separate digital audio recorder anyway. But on the other hand--it seems like putting a mic input on the camera would be pretty straightforward, and a shoe-mounted mic would be useful on occasion.
The basic design reminds me a lot of the NEX-6 and NEX-7, and the feature set seems pretty similar to NEX-6 except that the Sony has a physically larger sensor that should translate to better image quality. (And has consequences for depth of field, too.) The one thing that keeps me away from MFT cameras is the MFT part.
And they're asking $999 for this thing? When an NEX-6 is currently available brand new for $798?
So with the 1/8000 shutter on the GX7 you could open up the lens more and get better DOF from a smaller sensor than the NEX 6 with a larger sensor.
ChrisKramer1: LOL! Only Panasonic could come up with a camera that looks exactly the same as the Sony NEX 7, costs exactly the same but with a sensor that is half the size!
I LOVE how the NEX 7 has IBIS, ISO 25,600, 40 frames per second, a great menu system, etc, etc,....
Oh, it doesn't, but it still costs the same.
AndyW17: Why is the flip-up viewfinder useful? I can see it if you're using a short tripod or a cat up a tree - but otherwise? What am I missing?
I am 6 foot 6 inches. My eye level is 6 foot. What do you think my pictures of the 5 foot nothing bride would look like if I shot from my eye level? I use an articulated screen 99% of the time to save me from walking around on my knees.
If I had one of these people would ask me if I built the hand grip in my garage. I mean just look at the huge DIY screws. High end?? NOT.
peevee1: "two photodiodes to be mounted within each pixel, both of which can be read independently to achieve autofocus, or together for image capture"
Why not independently for image capture then? It would be 40 Mpix...
@ T3 - It is ignorant to assume that nobody will ever want to crop an image. I crop virtually every picture I print to some degree. Often I want something in the middle third and failed to zoom in at the moment. So why not have extra pixel? Increasing your wildlife lens from a 300mm to a 600mm will cost you thousands. Increasing pixels can have the same effect for much less money and weight. Take your blinders off.
FINALLY!!! I was starting to think that Canon had developed an allergy to innovation. Now they just need to retire the 1990 body design.
Doesn't even do motion time lapses, even though it physically could.
There is a much better, cheaper, and lighter option that does everything including apps. It is called the Automate 1.0 by thegadgetworks.
But they don't have any special deals with NASA or Google. Perhaps that is why it is better and cheaper though.
Tim F 101: It makes sense for this to cost about the same as the OM-D. In a sense it is both an upgrade and a downgrade from that camera.
Advantage OMD: viewfinder, weather sealing, cool optional battery grip.
Wash: sensor, IBIS, two-dial controls, metal body, annoying Olympus menu design. The ISO '100' is a gimmick.
Advantage EP5: smaller, focus peaking (!!) and autofocus improvements, max shutter speed, flash sync speed, wifi, time lapse options, some crap to do with art filters.
I always shoot people with (indirect) flash and run up against my GH2's 1/4000 max speed all the time so those new features are pretty tasty. None of the OMD exclusives are that big a deal to me.
Focus peaking is black or white only for some stupid reason. Not much better than the E-M5 keyline art filter approach.