Autoxave: The specs of of this lens is 25-400 mm/2,8-4. In terms of a FF sensor this will translate (equivalence) into 9-148 mm/5.6-10,8?
>F-numbers dictate how intense the light is - how many photons land on each square mm of sensor.
Intensity is photons per unit area PER UNIT TIME.
Cameracist: Is yabbokie still alive or what? Where are all the trolls?
Fygaren: As you probably never frame your photos using diagonal AOV, to get the equivalent of FF 3:2 with mFT 4:3 or the other way around, you need to do some cropping.
FF 100mm f4 = mFT 48mm f1.9 and then crop vertical AOV to get a 3:2
mFT 50mm f2 = FF 92mm f3.7 and then crop horizontal AOV to get 4:3
Horizontal crop factor of mFT is about 2.1 while vertical is about 1.85
I shoot circular format. Sometimes even pear-shaped format. Awful results.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Thou shalt not steal.
The theft lies in stealing another person's labor.
The stealing of labor is one half of the definition of Capitalism.
iAPX: I don't understand why this one has not been rebranded Leica, I will die for it with a high-res viewfinder, a better creen on the back, and a better construction (says $2000 for all of that).
Ah and Audi design, and nice finish as the leica C!
>The only real difference is the price.
I bought the Panasonic LX3 for roughly half the price of the Leica D-Lux 4. Wikipedia explains the differences--
The Leica D-Lux 4 is very similar to the LX3, sharing most of the design and the mechanical components. The main difference is the more pronounced grip on the LX3, the firmware which processes the JPG files in warmer hues on the D-Lux4 and the fact that D-Lux4 comes bundled with Capture One image processing software.
This red-dot malarky has got to stop.
Nukunukoo: Whoever does full sensor 4K for low-light performance and at 60P on a fixed aperture with uncompressed HDMI out and better than AVCHD codec on a bridge cam for less than a K gets my money!
4K flat-panels will finally give us the means to view our digital stills in all their glory!
Don't be thinking prints all the time, folks. Think slide-show.
aggressor: Nikon D3300 + Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3, about 1000g total weight and about $1300 total price. Much better option, no?
>Much better option, no?
This is a trenchant question. It really trenches. No, seriously, if the IQ of the 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 is comparable to that of the FZ1000 or the RX10, then it's a three-way horse race.
Muellmailer asks,>Is there another competetor to these two cameras?>(Maybe an DSLR/DSLT?) & (i dont need 4K)
peevee1: DPR wrote: "The first thing you'll notice here is that a) the Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 is noticeably sharper"
Huh? Check out the brick building near the bottom right corner, and a yellow structure near it. There is no question about which one is sharper - of course it is Panasonic. There is not difference in the center, but FZ1000 clearly wins in the corners, at least at wide end.
[Re: photo of facade with classical columns]
>please look at the metal fence in left bottom corner. There is no doubt that Sony is sharper.
Correct! And the Sony is much sharper along the right-hand edge.
Argh! Adjudicate, someone!
Very good review. It has decided me in favor of the FZ1000. Thanks, everybody.
osv: why no testing of the parfocal capabilities of the lenses? i didn't see the word "parfocal" anywhere in this review, did i miss it?
i see rack focusing being attempted, but don't these cameras both have focus-by-wire lenses? you can't set rack focusing marks with that type of lens.
Hmmm. Really good question. In the many reviews of zoom lenses that I've read, this issue never came up. I guess AF could take care of any shortcomings.
But then, I don't read reviews of cine lenses.
In the wide-angle skyline shot, on the right-hand edge, the RX10 is noticeably inferior in IQ to the FZ1000. On the left-hand edge, I can't see a difference. In the lower right-hand corner, the FZ1000 seems to have slightly better IQ. In the lower left-hand corner, it's hard to tell.
I'm overjoyed that this is the worst of my problems.
Marty4650: This might be the perfect compact camera.
The only downside might be the price. I guess $800 just isn't as much money as it used to be.
The daily paper here in New Babylon just skyrocketed from 75 cents to $1.25. Better grab one of these Sonys before the price hits $1333.33.
You're a fine writer, Barney -- in case no one ever told you.
Ha ha! This is a GREAT shot! I love sea gulls. They hang out in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, 5 miles from the Atlantic. Every now and then I see one standing in the road in the morning. I'll be needing a new superzoom to get some gull grab shots.
Just a bone-toss.
Thou shalt not steal.
Ha ha! Love those reptiles!
Really nice shot. Balanced. Invites close observation. Intriguing.
Fooey, I'm 99 cents shy of the price.
Pat Cullinan Jr: EVF? Sold! Hope it doesn't fall off, though.
If the first iteration had offered an EVF, it would've been reasonably exciting. Can't help feeling that the III is mildly anticlimactic. Did someone say boring? With 9 digicams in the sock drawer, I'm jaded. I'm torn -- should I buy the III, or should I enter a monastery in the Egyptian desert?
I can't help myself. Stop me before I buy again. Lash me to a chair and keep me out of the moonlight.