Sir Punk: 4K is the biggest gimmick ever, who needs to shoot videos in 4K when there are so few TVs out there that support it?! Is 1080p not enough for you guys? Also this camera looks like a NEX
4k TV's will be appealing to still photogs who want to show photos to family and friends, like an old-fashioned Kodachrome slide show.
utomo99: I wish the lens is faster. F 5.6 is too slow now
Props to you, Reesh. You stand up.
You can get it for < $500 on the web. Only always deal with sellers having an approval rating of 99.8% or 99.9%.
Dougbm_2: 28-200mm?I think this is a misprint. Should be 28-300mm.Just wish this was a 1" sensor as the 1/17 sensor is just too small and outdated for this otherwise nice camera.Actually if it was 24-200mm and 1" I would probably buy.
The Olympus website says "28-300mm (equiv. 35mm)."
Like to have some scoop on "pinpoint focusing." Is this just a marketeer's selling phrase, or does it denote a discrete technology?
I'm not snoring at you; I'm snoring at the product. Now that I consider it, I could see how I could have communicated the wrong idea.
The RX100 IV looks to me like a III with a higher price and some spangles. I'll be looking for the III to be selling at lower prices, like on ebay. That is, unless the IV proves to have MUCH better image quality, and I don't see that happening.
As a rule, i don't need tracking focus, high burst rates, creamy bokeh, HDR, or even (gasp) video.
All the best,
Where are the focal-length specifications? Just asking.
thomas2279f: Excellent Sony - you're going to empty my pockets.
The doctor gives me eight days to live.
Pat Cullinan Jr: The price is OK, but the lugs stick out too much, so I'll pass on it.
Sorry, guy. Didn't mean to kid you. I was being facetious-sarcastic. Actually, I'll pass on it because it's way out of my reach, pricewise. Please accept my regrets, as one man to another.
ChuckStJohn: Rented this camera for 4 days while my Nikon was being serviced. Hated the whole experience. It's very counter-intuitive, has necessary things buried layers under layers. Like, why do you have to dig into the menu to find 'formatting' for pete's sake? Manual shooting with with non-panasonic lenses is a guesswork nightmare. Shooting low light at 60fps looks pretty terrible and changing video modes is again so not fun. Think I will go for the Nikon D7200 for a much better working experience.
I like this style of review. Trenchant, mordant, packs a punch. Makes me stop and pay attention.
The price is OK, but the lugs stick out too much, so I'll pass on it.
ARB1: So, will Sony now upgrade their RX1r to include an EVF in addition to many other items then put it on the street for $1,000 less
Actually, a clip-on optical viewfinder works fine with these fixed-lens cameras.
Viewfinder type - None.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Nice, nice, nice, but too dear by a factor of 7.
EthanP99: Remember that canon 4k camera for $2500 announced a few months ago? I think thats the camera that canon will want to forget
Was that the 500 MP camera? ;)
Pat Cullinan Jr: What's that thing sticking out the back? The viewfinder? Does it have to stick out so far? Oh, wait, it helps keep one's oily nose off the LCD.
Are the added points worth the added $300?
>For a 2-years old 1/1.7" sensor camera, $600 is not cheap.
Right you are, Peiasdf.
They sell it on ebay for <$400. At that price, I might get one to play around with.
I'm considering the RX100 III, the FZ1000, the RX10 1 or 2, and the Olympus Stylus 1 -- the latter may come as a surprise. It's an able camera and at $600, it beats the others in price. Plus, it's pretty pocketable. Its principle drawback is a 12MP senxor. See reviews in Cameralabs and PhotographyBLOG.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Is the RX100 IV a mere selling-point horse?
Is it worth the $150 uplift?
Yeah. I'm overstuffed with toys. Getting out and taking photos -- why didn't I think of that?
I had a lot of fun when I was a kid taking photos with a Kodak Bullseye.
I guess I'll go for the MK3. I already have the MK1, and I grow bored with it.