photo perzon: Sony RX100 has EVF. It has bounce flash. Canon has neither.
>I will never, ever take a photograph with a direct flash.
Cartier-Bresson once said that [direct] flash photography is a "horrific massacre."
Jim: It's not much smaller than the G1X Mk II. Both appear not to be shirt pocket-able but both do appear to be jacket pocket-able. Given this and the fact that the G1X Mk II isn't much more money, why not buy a G1X Mk II instead of the G7 X?
>I'd hate to put a $700 in a shirt pocket
Pete peterson: I'm only interested in cameras with dials as I hate getting into menus for every change, but even if this camera's IQ is as good as the Sony RX100III, I wouldn't buy it cos it has no EVF. To me no EVF means putting on my reading glasses every time I take a picture then take my reading glass off so that I can see the rest of the world in focus, then put the on again to take or inspect the next picture - totally inconvenient. I bet most of the geeks developing this camera wear glasses, did they not think of us long sighted people?
Good argument for VF's generally.
$700, no VF.
Parkettpolitur: I have a Ricoh GR, so I'm probably not going to buy this. Still, I've been interested in the X-series for quite some time now. Does DxO finally support their RAWs? Will they ever? I only use DxO, so that's been a huge hurdle for me (and one of the main reasons I haven't sold my E-M1 for the superior X-T1).
>ISO 3200 is actually 1600 ISO
And I wasn't a big fan of those "orbs."
Is this a me-too?
Oh, wait -- "the G7 X's maximum aperture stays bright for much longer than the RX100 III's" (G7 X First Impressions Review).
That's all right then.
>it is the reason I stopped purchasing Fuji Products.
Hmm, now that's something to think about.
jorg14: Great camera that serves a niche market.
>Most people do go for something like the X-E2 first.
This sounds very sensible to me.
pacnwhobbyist: I'll bet a re-badged Leica version of this camera comes out and costs twice as much.
They did that with the LX3.
Bjorn_L: Seems like a lovely pocket camera. Something to finally trump the Sony RX100 series. However the "multi-aspect" cropping modes is just stupid. How about using the entire sensor and letting us choose how to crop it ourself? Tossing out 25% of the pixels (or more) by doing what anyone with any photo editing software can do better on their own? It doesn't change the fact that this is the camera with the largest sensor in class (ignoring the APS-C bulky things). But all anyone who wants to trump this camera has to do is make a clone of it without these modes and they can legitimately claim to have a 25% effective larger sensor and a higher resolution as well.Dumbest feature ever.
Yes -- how can they possibly bill this as a 16MP camera?
Paul Kersey Photography: I've always longed for an X100 series camera. The sticky shutter issue and glacially slow focus kept me from the X100 and the next model had better resolution but not enough performance advances from the first (for me). With the T model, I am seeing a camera that is sufficiently seasoned to satisfy me. I am pleased that it didn't roll out at a higher price. Pre-ordering one on this day.
"...do not qualify for manufacturer rebate or warranty programs."
Sounds like "gray market" selling. No?
papa natas: "...horizontal and vertical angular shifts (yam and pitch)..."YAM..(?) Yummy?YAWL...Maybe.From the aerodynamic trilogy: Pitch, Yawl & Roll.
Only thing to do now is run screaming out of the room.
My goodness, the trouble people get into.
You're a funny guy, Papa Natas.
miles green: Looks nice. Very nice actually.But interesting choice of name: "Loxia" in Greek means: not straight, crooked...
These work well with the Bagelia camera.
I used Kodak Digital ROC to make it look good. It took almost just one click.
JacquesBalthazar: Beautiful machine! This is indeed a really impressive technological showcase of a tool.
This is the whole story in a nutshell.
cheetah43: With its design it belongs to Goddam City.
You know, I have an F3 corroding away in a drawer. When I first got it, I ran a couple of rolls of film through it and found it to be an ergonomic workout. So I bought three N2000's and was off to the races.
bobbarber: Point of view of an average schlub:
1. Don't need the I.Q.
2. Too expensive for a toy.
Very cool though, I'll admit, if you have 7 grand to throw around.
Anyone who has a Hummer needs one. No -- that's what they used to say about Corvettes.
Mebbe, mebbe not.
Wubslin: Another overblown, overdone, oversized, overweight, overpriced failure from Nikon then?
Time to stick a fork in it.
>35mm film is great, but really only through ISO 400.
That is precisely the rub about film -- the limited speeds. I shot film for decades, and was glad to put it aside and take up digital. I make an exception for medium and large format film -- these can be used to make images that can be scanned to many megapixels. That's why I kept my Fujifilm 690.
ngtszhodavid: seriously are they just lazy and actually need so much time to do a full review? geez...
>how you can complain about a free service
Good on them for the free revs. But we have yet to enjoy a free rev of the D4S. So let's complain. WHEEE!
Sorry to be butting in with this drivel. The D4S holds no attraction for me. I personally won't be using a camera the size of a manhole cover. Which needs flash units as big as beer coolers. Just joshing! In truth, I admire the D4S as an awesome piece of engineering.
tkbslc: Uhhh, why?