Cal22: The Pixpro S-1 is for the 4/3-system, they say, and that's an information on sensor size. We may assume, that the camera has the same lens mount Olympus and Panasonic use - but may we be certain?
Thanks for the response, folks!
I was just wondering about the Kodak line's full integration in the 4/3-system, which is impressively growing on and on.
The Pixpro S-1 is for the 4/3-system, they say, and that's an information on sensor size. We may assume, that the camera has the same lens mount Olympus and Panasonic use - but may we be certain?
Shamael: at this price they should put a yellow square on the front, it's the least I await form a high standard luxury object for pretenders. (sorry, the red dot is taken)
Canon will launch the upcoming G1X II with about the same price tag. Or remember the Sony RX100 II, optional grip and EVF added - what did you have to pay for it at market launch? Don't forget the V3 is a real system camera with versatility and phenomenal performance in some respect! And generally, small size is anything but a disadvantage!
Furthermore, Nikon DSLR-photographers can buy an adapter and use the V3 as a teleconverter - making their 400mm e.g. a lens with about 1100 mmm! With no loss of maximum aperture! And shoot sports e.g. with 20 fps and AF-tracking!
By the way, not only cameras with the said red dot but also heavy DSLRs can be used by pretenders!
This camera has apparently all you need for serious photographing (in due consideration of sensor size, of course). The price tag might cause complaints though. But maybe it isn't reasonable to expect any small camera to be a low price item. The V3 seems to be a real capable camera. It's up to Nikon now to deliver the adequate lenses!
Chris62: In test scene we can see right down corner of the picture completely unsharp and on the left side is much better.It means poor quality.Right mounted lens on camera should give the same sharpness in all 4 corners.
Hi, RasterFarian!'Are you saying that the image quality of the II is lower than the 100?' Yes, that's how it looks! And I don't know what to think of it!
My advice: If you can do without Wi-Fi or an optional viewfinder, go for the RX100, the price of which has dropped down a lot!
Or take the equally sized Panasonic GM1 into consideration, with its bigger sensor, its praised tiny zoom lens and the option for lens changing.
Or what about the Canon G1X II (still to be launched in a few weeks), which seems to be a really versatile and capable compact camera, albeit not as compact as the RX100 II, but with a bigger sensor and with expanded zoom range? The Canon - the optional VF included - is anything but inexpensive, though.
The resolution is impressive! Are you sure you've shot some pictures with 10mm focal length? The images just don't look like having been made with a super wide angle lens, there's nearly no typical vignetting or distortion.
Isn't it a pity? Sigma has re-engineered the DP Merrill cameras, making them less prone to noise in low light conditions and speeding up processing. But making the Quattro cameras look like extraordinary photographic tools on the one hand, and on the other hand still not offering an EVF to the serious photographer is anything but reasonable. It's a contradictory strategy, which might bring the new cameras just like the DP Merrill versions in a very small niche within the toy department, eventually. Furthermore, since there's no EVF attainable Sigma misses out on the chance of offering a real stand-alone camera, a 12mm super wide angle camera would be.
Although I'm not convinced yet of Schneider-Kreuznach as a maker of high quality glass for the MFT system, I'm interested in these new lenses. Three years have elapsed since the first announcement, and Schneider-Kreuznach hasn't even started to deliver!
What's wrong with them? Why are they putting credibility and reputation on the line?
Cal22: I like the line of lenses, especially the primes the high aperture and the handling of which are meant to be reminiscent of great moments in the history of photography. Most likely we'll see a 16mm to be added in the months to come.
Unfortunately, the rangefinder style camera is not to my liking, it's too inconvenient for a left-eye photographer. And since there's no EVF attachable to an M1 or A1 I'm still standing on the sidelines.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Considering to buy me the XE-1 a while ago I got aware of the inconvenience: '..-your nose rubs the screen." Moreover, what do you do when you want to shoot from ground level?!
The XE-1 (even more the X Pro-1) represents a link to the old days when rangefinder cameras were in the hands of the masters of photography. And a great many photographers nowadays might be happy with such a retro style camera, especially when engaged in street photography. But for landscapes or traveling for instance I'd prefer two slim and capable camera bodies and an attachable EVF.
My right eye has a visual defect, so in this regard my left eye has to do the work - especially, of course, when it comes to photographing. Composing the picture may take me a lot of time sometimes; and with my left eye at the built-in viewfinder dials and buttons of the camera - sitting close to my right eye - are hardly to use.
These built-in viewfinders can prove to be fine tools indeed. But they come from the past. Nowadays photographers should be given the option for a viewfinder to their liking. A rear screen might be helpful especially when the camera is in low or high position or being mounted on a tripod. But I don't want it to be my only tool for composing. Generally there's no better tool than an attachable and tiltable EVF, in my view.
I like the line of lenses, especially the primes the high aperture and the handling of which are meant to be reminiscent of great moments in the history of photography. Most likely we'll see a 16mm to be added in the months to come.
I had thought the converter makes a 75mm (FF, equiv.). If it is not more than 50mm, it's not worth the money and the inconvenience. You'd better forgo the converter and crop the image!
This accessory might help to expand the camera's versatility. The question is though: How much will this additional glass deteriorate the image quality?
By the way, I'd rather see a sibling with 50 mm lens for the Ricoh GR and an optional EVF for that pair of cameras. I don't understand why Ricoh is missing out on this chance.
Tripeiro: No EVF no sell. Still, an interesting product if you don`t care for an EVF.
If you care for an EVF you may buy an optional one!
Thrashbarg: I'd really been looking forward to this camera, but sadly the lack of viewfinder had removed it from my shopping list.
If only I could find a waterproof housing for the Ricoh GR...
Why not attaching the optional EVF?
iudex: There were 4 issues with the G1x:1. it was too bulky 2. the VF was useless3. the lens was slow4. the AF was poorThis successor solves 2 problems completely and partially (possibly) the other 2.First I applaud for the lens: the improvement in speed is enermous, f2-3,9 is much better than most of the competition, only Fuji with 18-55/2,8-4 can compete, however it looses in range. Getting rid of some external controls, OVF and articulated screen helped make the body smaller (however getting rid of some controls is controversial). While I do not regret dropping the OVF, I hoped for a built-in EVF. Possibility to buy external EVF is fine, bue a built-in one would be better and more pocketable.The improvement in AF speed is yet to be checked, but it will problably not be amazing.So generally a lot has been improved and I like the nex G1x very much, but there is still space for improvements, most importantly putting a built-in EVF.
I prefer an optional EVF to a built-in one! The camera body is smaller without an EVF. An optional EVF is tiltable and you do not have to press your nose on the rear screen. And many photographers who can do without an EVF, don't have to pay for one.
Good news, indeed! Especially the optional EVF and the new lens are to my liking (not mentioning all other new features including the better look). Most important is of course the image quality: How does the lens perform in low light conditions with bright lights inside or just outside the frame? Does the lens allow usage of filters?
Sigma, the work is half done: Where's the stabilizer? And where's the optional EVF?
You're right in seeing 'poor quality'!
Whatever might be causing the 'poor quality' - the alignment of the camera in the studio or the alignment of lens elements or the lenses attachment to the camera body - the result is an image quality, you can't seriously praise as 'top of its class'!
In a camera review on a german website ('dkamera') you can find the same phenomenon: They ignore the poor image quality of the RX100II compared to the RX100 (see last two images in test chapter 'Abbildungsleistung') - and give the camera the highest rating!
I'm surely no hater of Zeiss lenses as being owner of six of them. But the renowned brandname can't make me blind. That's why I haven't bought me the RX100 II I was really interested in.