Mildly interested photography amateur.Grew up with a Canon AE1.Now ponders how to be smart in the digital world.
Total absence of anything Ricoh !?No GRX news, no GRD .. ?
The top plate on this thing is ugly.edit: Hey I just noticed, look how the center box is supposed to mimic classic 500CW style. Egad, a mixture of styles NOT meant for each other.
Apart from that, if NEX7=1300$ and HB Lunar=6000$, does that mean that since A99=2800$, HB "lunatix" DSLR will be 13000$ ?
ianimal: Now I understand where Sony got the idea for the RX1 (and the price). That said, I really like the RX1 :)
Mis-comparison.I actually cannot imagine two cameras more different than Hasselblad medium format DSLR exchangable lens camera, and Sony RX1 35mm FF viewfinderless fixed lens camera.
Jan Kritzinger: In stead of Hasselblad bodies, I'd rather want to see some Hasselbald E-mount glass! Sony bodies are perfect.
Your wish is granted !Zeiss makes lenses for Hasselblad.Zeiss makes lenses for Sony E-mount.Zeiss has just announced more lenses for Sony E-mount.
Kinematic Digit: I might be in the minority in all of this, but I actually like the design of this over the NEX-7. It looks way more comfortable in the hand and far more functional than the model it's based on. Is it worth the extra $4K+? Not sure about that. Sounds like Leica strategy in pricing.
There's plenty of current examples of fugly looking cameras (Pentax), but I've found ergonomically they functioned and felt great. Let not forget that what many people thought were ugly at first, became the basis of almost all SLR cameras of the last 30 years in the Canon T-90 design. Luigi Colani's influence on industrial design is very much a big part of our culture today.
This is a bold step by Hasselblad to try and make this category a little better designed. Personal tastes aside, I think once this is held in your hand it might be a different story. I wish it was full frame though and from Fujifilm instead.
"This is a bold step by Hasselblad to try and make this category a little better designed. "Sarcasm ?
Look at the "additional images" above. Seriously, the lunar4.jpg is so grating a design I cannot look at it for more than a few seconds. Pentax K-01 looks good by comparison.
I am guessing that you really like the extra big grip. I can understand that. I would just buy a NEX7 and then mod the grip. Could be a fun project. Would earn some respect to anyone who really went and did it. But not this no no no no.edit: That said, Sony NEX7 has the best grip of all mirrorless cameras yet. It just has to be little bit deeper to be perfect.
ecmjr: I'd buy it just to annoy my photo buddies, LOL!
They will be annoyed from the aching ribs from laughing too hard.
What is worst, that it is a huge fail and HB looses a lot of money on the effort ?Or that it is a huge success and HB decides that this is the way to go ?
Either way, Hasselblad MF looses.
mosc: Soo many comments about f2.5 being better than f4.9 comparing this to an RX100 at tele. Wow, do the math!
This camera is f11.8 equivalent at 112. The Sony is f13.4 at 100. Complain all you want about it but at least do the math correctly people.
or realize the real difference here is that one has a hot shoe, an option for an externa viewfinder, and is intended as a general purpose camera where the other is a carry anywhere compact designed for indoor shooting without an external flash at wide. The user who picks the Olympus and uses it without anything in the hot shoe probably made the wrong purchasing decision. Similarly, the user who never brings the sony with him because it doesn't have a viewfinder or external flash probably should have gotten the olympus.
If you get the VF2 for the XZ2, wont it then be a total 880$ ?That is a heck of a lot of money based around an 1/1.7" sensor.Naahhh... I think the price has been set so high just so that resellers can quickly offer steep "discounts".
peevee1: I like Oly in general, but at $600... you must be mad not to prefer Sony RX100 instead. XZ-2 should be $300, for price-conscious who cannot spring a little higher for much better cameras. Even $500 Pana LX-7 and Samsung EX2F are better cameras, and cheaper.
No he is right.Unless Oly has done something miracolously with the 1/1.7" sensor, then the RX100 is in completely different class than XZ2.
300$ is a tad unrealistic. S95 trades at 330$ at the moment. S100 at 380$. I think 450$ will be the right price for XZ2.
bobbarber: Having owned an Olympus compact (C-7070) and an Olympus DSLR (E-510), and currently owning a Panasonic GH2 and Canon SX230, I think that other manufacturers have a ways to go to match the sharpness of the Olympic lenses and the jpeg processing engine.
I do agree that this camera seems expensive. Let's hope the price comes down.
The comments by the Sony posters about f2.5 and f4.9 being equivalent because of DOF are manipulative and designed to take advantage of people who know little about photography. The wider aperture allows more photos to be taken at base ISO for a given shutter speed. That's not an advantage? Please.
Regarding "The wider aperture allows more photos to be taken at base ISO for a given shutter speed.":
Yes, also in this respect the combination of sensor size and aperture is equivalently the same. If you have to go to ISO100 on a small sensor camera, then you can go to ISO400 or even ISO800 on an APS-C sensor camera and get principally the same IQ at the same shutter speed, but at differing apertures.
mrdc76: Nice camera, but not really pocketable. *sigh* RX100 looks like a better and better choice.
stevepix, what to do when you dont wear a jacket ?As to lop-sided, yeah, but the S95 will make the shirt far less lop-sided than XZ2.As to falls out, no you need to have the strap around your neck as well.
JesperMP: I realise that it is like comparing apples and oranges, BUT...at 600 list price it is too close to the 649 list price for RX100.Even Canon S100 is now down to under 400.
A fine camera no doubt, but 600 list price is too much.
These cameras have differences. One camera beats the other in one department and vice-versa.XZ2 is just not 160 USD better than LX7. And not 220 USD better than S100. And how can you ignore that for 50 USD more you can get the RX100 which is in a whole different class.
Both S100, RX100 and XZ2 have metal bodies.Sure XZ2 has a brighter lens at the long end than S100 has, but that is a tradeoff for the pocketability that the S100 really has.
Another comparison:LX7 is essentially the same as XZ2, exept LX7 has an even brighter lens F1.4..F2.3 (!) and it sells for 440 USD (!!).XZ2 is priced 100 USD too high at least.
"Pocketable" is sooo debatable.I have an S95 just because it is actually really pocketable.Shirt pocket: S95/S100=yes, RX100=just, XZ1=noJacket pocket: S95/S100=yes, RX100=yes, XZ1=yesJeans pocket: NEVER PUT YOUR CAMERA IN A JEANS POCKET !!!
I realise that it is like comparing apples and oranges, BUT...at 600 list price it is too close to the 649 list price for RX100.Even Canon S100 is now down to under 400.
D1N0: Looks great, but a bit too snobistic for me (prefer x10) Good to see compacts are maturing more and more. Bigger sensors, better handling and iq. This will be a real alterative to the Canon s110
The big difference between X10 and XF1 is that the latter is actualy truly pocketable. It means you can have it with you all the time and not just some of the time. To get to that pocketable size you have to accept some compromises.
BeanyPic: I like the retro look. Fuji needed something different. Price is needed. I will keep my eye on this. I still may go for the Canon S110 as the control Ring makes all the difference. My S95 has been the best compact camera I've ever used.
If you have an S95, then I see no really compelling reson to get S110 or XF1, not unless you suffer from severe GAS.
I have an S95 too. It will be a cople of years before I will consider to replace it as there has come no significantly better camera in its price class. I am attracted to RX100, but will have to save up for it.
One thing, Canon should either remove the stupid small OVF (like Nikon did on P7700), or improve it drastically.
G-series used to be very interesting with a much higher IQ than P&S, and much smaller than DSLRs.But nowadays there are much smaller cameras with at least as good IQ (S110, XF1, RX100..). And there are mirrorless cameras with much better IQ and same size (with collapsing zooms) - at a higher price point though.These days I think G-series has lost its relevance.
I have an S95 too, and I dont see any compelling reason to upgrade (*).If I were in the market for such a camera, I would definitely try to get a discount on one of the previous cameras in stead of buying the latest one.
*: Full HD video maybe, but the 720p video on the S95 is not bad at all.
One thing that I think one should take into consideration is the lack of grip on these cameras. It is a problem. The S100 gained a small finger ridge, but that has gone now. And if you choose the white S110 it will have a totally smooth and slippery surface. Not reassuring at all. Definitely try it out and think about this before you buy.
It is not a decisive factor for me, but I have to say that it is a very nice retro design. The design of the lettering and knurled zoom dial around the lens base is the most perfect 1950's design I have seen yet. Only when seen from the rear, the LCD and the plastic buttons and dials gives it away. The "leather" body covering will make for a reasonably good grip.
It seems that there is a new product category - "pocketable enthusiast compact" - where there are many good offerings, with a range of quality and prices to chose from. Good times indeed if you want such a camera - I certainly do, I have an S95.
Despite that X10 looks very nice and retro too, I think that this really pocketable camera makes more sense and will sell better.