nerd2: Why they are still making long-flange (mirrored) version of their camera instead of going full mirrorless?
What lenses are you lacking in A mount? This isn't E-mount camera. Care to list all the "missing" lenses?
SammyToronto: Typical example of a company charging an exorbitant price for a camera not based on merit, but because they can. They were one of a kind in the market, so, to Sony, that meant ripping off their customers is fair game. Thank God for Panasonic, and competition in general!
SammyToronto, let us know of a company that doesn't gouge prices of a unique product that does not have a direct competition in the market.
List them here:
FuhTeng: Being able to record 4k video is something nice to put on an advertisement but what's the point? Unless you're ridiculously close to a large TV you'll never see the advantage over 1080p, and 4k video makes enormous files.
Guimar, a still grab from video is never as good as photo taken in still mode (lower DR due to higher readout speed, rolling shutter, compression artifacts).
Samaistuin, so you can't mention the fact that SammyToronto was not compelled to buy it? Great sense of debate.
It's a free world. A company is free to set a price, and buyers are free not to buy it.
pedroboe100: I would still get a K5iiS and a Tamron superzoom lense and it would not cost that much. Don't care about video that much...
yallo, K-5 is an APSC camera (not FF) so F6.3 lens on APSC would be equal to F9 or F10 lens on FF.
RX10 is indeed faster than APSC camera with super zoom
"I don't believe you were being forced to buy one."
Exactly. He is implying it's "cheating" when no one was holding a gun on his head to buy a camera.
It's free market.
Also, $300 drop in price -- after 8 months -- is not really that big. Canon dropped 6D prices more than that after few weeks, as I remember last year
arbuz: "The point is that downscaling produces more detailed, sharp and noise-free image. "
But isn't RX10/FZ1000 already doing full sensor readout then downscaling in the camera?
oselimg, is K5 better at low light by 3 stops? I don't think so. According to dxomark, the difference is 1.3 stops. Not enough to compensate for F6.3 vs F2.8 difference at tele end.
oselimg: it's amazing that some people even present this huge price cut for a new model as "smart move". It sounds like coming from a Sony executive trying divert attention from the fact how much the consumer was about to be ripped off. It would have been a dumb thing not to reduce the price against a very strong competition named FZ1000 but, one can hardly call it as smart. Or perhaps most of comments here are written by "brand lovers". Yes, love is a blinding thing but we mustn't fall in love with big, multinational companies.
"it's amazing that some people even present this huge price cut for a new model as "smart move"."
New model? RX10 was released 8 months ago. It surprising that it was still selling for $1300 after that long.
Some cameras drop by $300 within a month (take K5 II as an example).
Tamron superzoom is significantly slower lens 2 to 4 stops slower (vs constant F2.8 on RX10). Much larger overall package too, and lens optically quality would be worse
G1Houston: Just tell you how much SONY has been overpricing its products ...
Yeah, like the cheapest FF A7 camera that is selling for under $1500.
Or A3000, the cheapest ILC camera at launch, period.
Or A6000 that is 2 times cheaper than direct competitors from Fuji.
RX10 has been out for 8 months, and there was no competition to it. Why should have they priced it cheaper?
mosc: The Sony makes so much more sense now at $1k than priced like a high end APS-C with 18-135 lens. Now, it's a price savvy competitor with a rich feature set and a competitive price.
16-135mm APSC (not 18-135mm)
Only 2 mm, but some people think 24mm is big deal.
ET2: RX10 dropped $300 on amazon to under $1000, so the difference now isn't $500 (which was never the case) but $98
A fact this comparison should note.
I doubt that "temp" thing. RX10 has been out for 8 months, and there is no camera that maintains MSRP launch price for ever. In this case there is even competition,
Sony is lying if they tell you it's "temp"
As someone pointed out, the original statement that the difference is "$500" was still not correct. It was $400 difference. 900 vs 1300
RX10 dropped $300 on amazon to under $1000, so the difference now isn't $500 (which was never the case) but $98
JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.
A7s does 14 bits raw. Asa for color, Nikon has worse colors separation in raw as they use weaker color filter.
That's not true. Sensor has to read data at 30 frames per second. It's not the just imaging processor but sensor itself and wiring that can do that much data without overheating.
What I am not satisfied with is your claim that the "tech" is "2007" based on a single criteria of MP count. .
JDThomas , are you stupid or what? The 12 MP FF sensor in D700 was not by Sony, and that sensor was not capable of doing 30 frames per second with all 12 MP, and the lowlight capability of that sensor was much worse than the new sensor.
It's not "2007 tech"
ET2: "Unkind people might say that ‘early adopter’ is a polite way of saying ‘guinea-pig’."
Early adopters of bitcoin in 2009 and 2010 when it was trading for less than 1 penny and all of them millionaire now would disagree with being called "‘guinea-pig’."
The article implies that early adapters always end up worse which isn't true. They either get to enjoy new tech early while rest are stuck with old (which by itself isn't that bad for early adopters) or they could become millionaire if they invested in some unknown company called Google back in the 90s.
I am pretty sure early adopters of Google Fiber in Kansas City aren't missing slower DSL right now.
"Unkind people might say that ‘early adopter’ is a polite way of saying ‘guinea-pig’."