Saw mention of OIS and a PDAF sort of feature on another, non-photo, website... any news on that? And does the 'Play' version have the PDAF?
Thanks, knew I could count on you guys for some decent test shots... which I agree do look quite good. Lumia 640 won the race to market for me (and shoots *great* pics for the price) but looks like the G was only a week or two behind.
Any word on Raw or HDR modes?
nikkornikon: I got a message from the President of Canon, Mr. Akihiro Canon and he wanted me to tell you all...If you don't like this camera, and it's over the top price, and no 4k, and our rather Old Dusty Sensor..or any up to date features on other cameras, then by all means, move along to Sony. Thanks...Mr. Akihiro Canon.
Canon has come to remind me a bit of Rolls before BMW bought them... well maybe not that far up the scale, but some marque with a distinguished history and a still-unique quality to their products... but lagging badly on engine performance and the other technologies that matter equally in the overall view.
I'll follow further developments from DxO with interest and will kind of be cheering them on in their efforts to bring some fresh thinking to the camera market. One result I hope for is that the stodgy established manufacturers get prodded into working hard on their own "connected camera" interfaces. It took them several YEARS to discover WiFi and some of them STILL haven't discovered in-camera charging... I hope they move more adroitly to get their imagers tightly and responsively integrated with everyone's pocket computers (aka cellphones)... there's a lot of promise there.
Call me fusty but I am having trouble sorting out the use scenario on this, as on all previous phone-attached imagers.
Is it meant to stay attached to the phone fullltime, or at least whenever pictures might be wanted (which for most phone users is full time)? In which case we have the reality that phones have already gotten as big as pockets allow, and even as unitary slabs of metal and glass are already having bending problems...
Or is it meant to be carried around in a separate pocket, and fished out and attached when a photo-op presents itself? In which case we have to allocate pocket (purse, bag, whatever) space to a separate gadget, and for the same price that gadget might as well be an RX100 or G7X that can stand on its own.
It is fascinating to watch technology, and the market(s), try to converge from two directions upon something that many would like to have: something the size and weight of a phone that takes pictures with the quality and control of a 1"-type camera.
These zoom ratios are beyond ridiculous, they almost sound like self parodies. Is there no performance metric that marketing forces won't distort beyond any point of reasonableness, and that the (stenographic, apparently brain dead) press won't breathlessly report as "progress"?
Seems like the lemming rush off the deep end of zoom ratio has opened up the middle ground again... for a small-sensor (1/2.3 or 1/1.7) compact with a 10x or 12x zoom, that is actually usable and not an optical freakshow.
Any word on Lens and Camera Profiles for Lightroom? Will Adobe be providing them or will Panasonic make their own and offer them for download?
Surely any optical system THAT compact must need a little bit of help in the distortion department in Post...
Sonyshine: An impressive camera phone I would really quite like - the only thing that really puts me off ( price apart) is the complete lack of any lens protection - I can see it getting damaged and messed up too easily.
Been eagerly scanning every CM1 review for mention of lens protection, it's definitely the Elephant In The Room when you start thinking about a 1"-sensor camera rattling around in your pocket without it. Did Panasonic really entirely punt on this issue? No lens cap, no moveable doors, no sapphire cover glass? They have to be offereing SOMETHING or this becomes just a novelty like a concept car.
dannyboy5400: Let me get this right. They are going to charge similar prices for an equivalent 24-70mm 2.8 when it uses LESS OPTICAL GLASS. Oh, but you pay more for less but it is lighter. Yeah, a lighter wallet.
What costs in any of these hi-tech products is design, development, precision tooling, and number of finishing and machining steps. Raw material costs are probably just a few percent of final price. So while the glass and metal in a smaller lens may be a few dollars cheaper, the same amount of engineering time, and factory floor time, is required regardless of size.
Looks nice... hope the video codec is revamped from the XZ-1.
From a technical standpoint, what additional hardware (if any) is required to implement RAW? Isn't it mainly software... with an additional production unit cost of about .01% ?
I'll be okay with Oly JPEGS but I too don't see why RAW wouldn't be included.
Hmmm... I recall the car companies got their knuckles rapped by the FTC for trying to do something similar. In fact I believe they not only have to make parts available, but also shop manuals and other service information. I wonder what the parallels might be with this situation.
Seems like a greedy grab on Nikon's part in any case, and the exact opposite of what professionals would want from their camera company. The shop in town might get your gear fixed today in time for tomorrow's shoot... the service depot two states away, not so likely.
What Hans-Helmut said! Does this contain hidden improvements and bug fixes, or is it of concern only if one is operating a DMW-MA1 (whatever that is)?
Great action pic.
I had to chuckle at the DPR message below the photo... "This photo is marked as: *Safe". I think it goes in the "Don't try this at home... or in your Cessna" category, myself!