" More unique is that each lens module has its own sensor and shutter mechanism"
How is that a copy of Nikon 1?
ET2: Here is demo of Flucard but it should work with any camera.
Looks like this system is camera agnostic.
No, I prefer better cameras that fit in pockets ;)
Here is demo of Flucard but it should work with any camera.
marike6: From the K-3 preview: "Build quality remains top-notch, with an all-metal body that is a sharp contrast to the plasticky bodies on the Canon 70D and Nikon D7100".
From the D7100 review: "The D7100 features a solidly-built magnesium alloy body that offers moisture and dust resistance."
We get that the K3 like the K5 is solid. But not sure why some reviewers feel compelled to spin tales about one body to promote another. Having a brief play with the D7100 at B&H, my impression was more inline with the second reviewer's assessment. "Plasticky" implies a low-end, T4i or D3200 type of body which is not at all what the D7100 is.
But I've always like the K5 (and the K30, one of the best deals in photography right now) and this new release looks great.
Image quality was pretty similar to all cameras that were using Sony's 16 MP sensor, including cheaper $500 cameras that were available with that sensor back then. Focus peaking was not new (and it didn't even work in video mode when you really need it). There was no continuous AF in video either.
No EVF and no option to add external one. Larger body but yet no tiltable LCD. The AF was the slowest as the native lenses were designed for a DSLR PDAF system, and one fps in raw was just outright pathetic for a 2012 camera that was listed at $899 ($900) with the kit lens.
DSPographer: This AA method was discussed almost five years ago in the forums here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/30005672
Here is post from 2004 where Joseph S Wisniewski not only mentions the idea but says he designed such a system "years ago"
"It is quite possible to implement a very nice antialiasing filter by shaking the sensor a bit. I designed such a system years ago."
So that would put the idea posted to internet almost 10 years old.
That's now how it works. The idea that was discussed in public forum cannot be patented. Ricoh might be able to patent a certain unique hardware technique but general idea cannot be patented as it was posted on open forum 5 years ago.
limlh: Nothing is mentioned about the rumored multi-pattern wb. If true, this must be the best feature of the k-3.
Since vast majority of cameras have flashes it would be stupid to go revise hundreds of cameras in the database just to make one Pentax fanboy happy.
DPR has posted CIPA standard for battery life for years. Why should they change that now?
ogl: 560 frames is with 50% flash, 720 frames without flash. Change data.
Since vast majority of cameras have flashes it would be stupid to go revise hundreds of cameras in the database just to make some Pentax fanboys happy.
DPR has posted CIPA standard for years. Why should they change it now?
It was not only DPR that gave K01 negative review. Other reviewers (photographyblog) were far more negative. Aside from design, the AF was slowest compared to other mirrorless cameras and it did only one fps in raw. That's pretty pathetic for a $700 (MSRP at that time) camera.
Well that would mean Pentax cannot patent this idea.
DPR lists the battery life (for all cameras) according to CIPA standard, which is 50% of flash use.
Zvonimir Tosic: In 6 months from now, a K-3 review. Silver award. Cons: 1. "Uses some bizarre K-mount (?) lenses"2. "Doesn't have a Canon logo"3. "Too rugged compared to competition".4. "Too many video options". :)
CaptureAll: Good review but you should have included the Nexus 4 and iPhone 5S.
Going slightly OT here; the main benefit (imho) is regular OTA updates, both of the above have them. All other Androids get updates when your carrier approves them, which takes months, or may never happen at all. Sure, you can root your device then put on a custom ROM but. not everyone wants or knows how to do that.
My point is hardware is good but if software is buggy or lacks a feature the updates (to the camera) my not come as quickly as the Google Nexus or iPhone devices.
Also watch this video. She goes in very detail showing how LG G2 screen has inaccurate colors
G2 screen has better viewing angle, but Z1 has more accurate colors.
As for camera, according to Lars Rehm (who has both phones) Z1 has a better camera
Teru Kage: The G-series was a serious contender during the early boom of DCs but with the advent of MILC, I find it increasing difficult to find a justification for this line. There are M4/3 and NEX cameras that offer better quality and performance with less bulk and comparable prices, and compact DCs that fit in your pocket with similar image quality, which makes me wonder what benefit the G-series offers in today's market.
Nex-3N (with pancake zoom) sells for $449, so the Canon needs to drop $100 just to match that price
martin0reg: What about the video mode?Especially image stabilisation while shooting handheld videos - and also audio recording quality? On dpreview there should be at least some samples to judge this..
Z1 in video mode does have electronic image stabilization. And it works from what I have seen
Alex Permit: For me, a "satisfying photographic experience" is taking photos and then being satisfied with the results when i look and/or print them at home.
The images i get from my rx100 ii are satisfying, while those from my previous powershots/Lumix/ et al are not. I know of no other POCKETABLE camera that gives pictures which satisfy but for the rx 100.
DPR's objective tests back up my subjective views.
The "user experience" of the rx 100 does not match my x100s, or even my nex 6. Those cameras, however, don't fit in my pants pocket. Neither does my D3s. So what. Each camera size class fits a purpose.
The rx100 is, imho, a clear gold star.
"RX100II is not pocketable"
It sure is
makofoto: ?! Where's the iPhone 5s
You need to add Z1 studio shots
paulbysea: As soon as i saw the reviewer doesn't appear to know the difference between aperture and sensor size I decided not to read further,
There is an error on the first page table where sensor and aperture are mislabeled. Instead of politely pointing out error, paulbysea choose to point out the error in snarky arrogant way.
That's an obvious typo-type error