As a previous NEX owner, I am sad to see that the kit lens hasn't changed, still the worst kit lens on the market. And most of the other Sony lenses are overpriced and not very sharp. And that silly 16:9 display is still there? Obviously, Sony still thinks that this camera is for beginners that don't know much about photography. But at a $1000 for body alone, how many beginners will consider this camera? The technology is state of the art, but the camera should have been redesigned to appeal to more advanced users.
cheenachatze: I wish Panasonic would make 24-120mm equiv. zoom lens that's not too expensive, and bundle it as kit lens with this camera. It would make a perfect travel camera for people that care about image quality, but don't want to carry a lot of gear.
Panasonic offers many zooms that start at 28mm. The only zooms that start at 24mm are either very expensive (f2.8), or very short range (12-32). I wish they offered more general purpose zoom that starts at 24mm, similar to the Olympus 12-50 (which does not have IS, unfortunately). I travel a lot, and I find 24mm extremely useful to have at hand.
I wish Panasonic would make 24-120mm equiv. zoom lens that's not too expensive, and bundle it as kit lens with this camera. It would make a perfect travel camera for people that care about image quality, but don't want to carry a lot of gear.
I am not surprised to hear this. I had two packages 'disappear' once they crossed the border from the states to the Mississauga sorting facility.
Editor: your description of the 340HS says "25-200mm". This should read 25-300mm.Last year's model, the 330HS, was the compact to beat, with very sharp lens and great low light capability for a $200 camera. At least on paper, the 340HS looks like a step in the wrong direction.
My dream (camera) come true! After that, I just hope Sigma will release their excellent and inexpensive DN primes for this mount.
I think that it's the first time ever, that a group test had so many strong performing cameras. This is really great for the industry and for the consumers. Great review, guys!
cheenachatze: According to the Canon specs, shots taken at Fine quality are about 3MB in size, and shots taken at Superfine quality are about 5MB in size. Were the studio shots taken at Fine quality or Superfine quality?
The S100 and SX40 both have Fine and Normal settings. The SX260 has Fine and Superfine. Go figure.
I found the EXIF info. Apparently the shots were indeed taken at Fine setting, which is not the best quality setting. Any reason for that?
According to the Canon specs, shots taken at Fine quality are about 3MB in size, and shots taken at Superfine quality are about 5MB in size. Were the studio shots taken at Fine quality or Superfine quality?
cheenachatze: DPReview always pride themselves that image quality comes first. And yet, the conclusion to this review, clearly ignores that. How can this camera be rated so low, and the Fuji X100 receive a silver award? I think that if this camera would have been reviewed in-house, it would have been rated much higher.
FYI I read the original review at DCResource as well as this one. There are plenty of cameras that suffer from poor quality control, and yet manage to get endorsement from DPreview - Canon S100 for one.
DPReview always pride themselves that image quality comes first. And yet, the conclusion to this review, clearly ignores that. How can this camera be rated so low, and the Fuji X100 receive a silver award? I think that if this camera would have been reviewed in-house, it would have been rated much higher.
Why not a single photograph taken using the flash? Why no studio photos taken in RAW mode? Why no comments about skin tones and white balance under artificial lighting, subjects that many Panasonic cameras struggle with? This review is an embarrassment for DPR.
Why do they charge so much for this "Power Zoom" lens? Every $100 camera has "Power Zoom" lens. These small lenses require less material to make, and it's not like Panasonic has amazing manufacturing technologies that are light years ahead of Canon, Nikon etc., so why are they charging such prices for their lenses? Panasonic 20mm F1.7 retails as much as Canon 50mm F1.4. How do they justify that?
Is this a useless 16:9 LCD again, married to a 4:3 sensor? Does Olympus really think that people that buy cameras with interchangeable lenses don't know anything about photography? Just for the record, I bought an Olympus E-PM1 and returned it after a day. The pictures are great and the camera is fast, but the ergonomics are just awful, especially that useless 16:9 LCD.
They fixed so much that was wrong in the older model: they put a hand grip, went back to a 4:3 LCD, the zoom starts at a wider 25mm and they refrained from raising the resolution. But did they really have to put this x20 zoom?? I wish the cheaper model would have been without GPS and with 25-250mm zoom. I know what I'd be buying.
Great looks, obviously inspired by power tools. But as Steve Jobs said: "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
The cheaper model looks more interesting. Less pixels, less ridiculous zoom, wider range of shutter speeds. It appears to have the same sensor as the DMC-FZ150, which was very well reviewed in many publications.
Michele Kappa: I wonder: Does this mean that older Olympus cameras, such as my E-PL1, will display accurate measurements without a firmware update or that simply Olympus will not update older cameras - thus leaving us with "not-so-accurate" readings if someone with an older body buys the new lenses?
I would be very mad if Olympus does not update my E-PL1 to work with the new Power Zoom lenses. I am very interested in the new 12-50mm lens. What incentive will I have to buy another Olympus product?
cheenachatze: Very impressive output even at ISO3200.Many here complain about the price. If you compare this camera to an entry level SLR, this one has better build quality and better lens than any kit lens. The price of $800 is right on the mark. Maybe if Canon made this in silver, put a piece of leather on the hand grip and call it "retro", no one would mind paying $1500 for it.
I was comparing this to ENTRY level SLR. How many of them come with kit lens with x4 zoom and F2.8? The Canon is sensibly priced compared to SLRs and definitely when compared to Fuji X100 and Leica X1.