Epitaph_pmr: Any bets on what it will cost?14k?
Annd most of the time, I realise that Nikon isn't more expensive, or vice versa. It's normally how new the lens is that determines its price.
ARTASHES: Sony on the way to dominate sensors market (if it isn't the case today)
I could still not see anyone other than Sony that can create sensors with such low read noise..
magneto shot: "using a smaller sensor to keep the cost down" . well sounds familiar kind of decision making ...nikon 1 vs 4/3....and here is where its "enthusiasts" aint so interested in...hello, Nokia 808 have a much bigger sensor and innovation. Maybe nokia should start doing camera and gives these boring companies and tis never ending MP baloney a wake up call
The Nokia 808 has smaller sensor than the Nikon 1 series, and pixel binning is nothing special.You are clearly confused by marketing.
gl2k: Does someone really still buy such a cam ?Smartphones have taken over.
I didn't know smart phone have such external controls and zooms.
I wish they had a 'No eye blinks' feature that selects the pictures with the least eye blinks.
This is too large.
The A-Team: Massive! There will be a market for this, although I almost never use my 18-200 anymore, except in the studio when I want to zoom without changing lenses. This kinda makes the 55/70-300mm obsolete for the casual consumer.
2mm is quite a lot.
keepreal: The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.
I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.
I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?
I would buy this lens over 24-70 2.8.5 reasons.1. Smaller.2. Lighter.3. Cheaper.4. With VR.5. Similar aperture size to DX 2.8s
Jefftan: Although sensor is much smaller than NEX (about 1/3 size) it is:
and the NEX sensor is not. May help overcome some IQ loss to sensor size
More like 150MP.
JJJPhoto: I'm sorry, but someone at Sony suggested calling a new technology "WhiteMagic" and NOBODY said, "Hey, we probably shouldn't call it that?" Next from Sony, the new Sony VAIO laptop with "WhitePower" for extended battery life!
justmeMN: Panasonic stock recently (May) hit a 30-year (yes, year) low, so they aren't a very financially strong partner.
Negative negative positive. :D
I'd be waiting for the next generation.
Give me 24mm on the wide end.Add another dial/Fn button somewhere.Decrease shutter lag and increase autofocus speed. (if it is slow)Decrease base ISO.Auto ISO system like Nikon's.
And finally, a lower price tag. :D
keeponkeepingon: Bravo sony!
An S95 with a larger sensor and faster AF? What's not to like?
I wouldn't be surprised if this tiny Sony sensor can almost beat G1X.
tesch: I love to see people complain about too many mega pixels.....shows their ignorance.
BSI, micro lenses?
jonikon: This Sony RX100 is a BIG improvement over all the other truly pocketable cameras and should be well received by many. Cameras like this should have been made years ago, as the demand has been there for some time now. Although the RX100 is definitely a Canon G1X killer, it is not perfect however. I would like to see Sony add:1. an EVF2. Phase detection auto focus for acceptable continuous AF of moving subjects.3. Less megapixels. 10MP is enough, but 20MP is unnecessary and results some IQ issues (like color accuracy and diffraction limiting, noise reduction smearing), that could have been avoided with a 10 or 12 MP sensor.4. A way to remove the lens for sensor cleaning.5. Lower price.
That said, I think the RX100 is good enough to take away a lot of sales from their NEX line of cameras that are definitely NOT pocketable with a zoom lens attached, and offer little more than lens interchangeability over the RX100.
Pixel count doesn't equal image quality, but it doesn't really degrade image quality much.
facedodge: which of these can achieve the most compression and shallow depth of field for good subject isolation/background blur, Sony RX100 or Canon G1X?
Not true. G1X has less bokeh than Sony at the wider end.
Mike Brunette: This is a true game changer, if you're serious about photography & more importantly video this is a killer piece of glass.
Suffice it to say that the super heavyweight 200mm/2.0 lenses that most pros want, yet can't afford is way more expensive (list price $9,500), and harder to transport, not to mention the big canon is almost 1/2 stop slower.
Dimensions = φ60.7 x 51.7mm / φ2.39 X 2.04 in.Weight = 165g / 5.82 oz.
Canon EF 200mm f/2.0
Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 2.4 x 2.4 inches ; 5.6 pounds
The Olympus is about the size and weight of the Canpn's lens hood.
It's just 1/3 stop lower, but effectively, it is 1 and 2/3rd stop higher. Ya, and this lens is remarkably small.
Wow. Although I'm not interested in this lens, it's surprisingly small for a equivalent 150mm f/3.6
Riccardo IT: Too expensive.
lol. My friend just bought the OM-D. Don't know why did he even buy it. Too large (M43 is supposed to be small). Too expensive. Rather buy a D7000.