BorisAkunin: Can we have normal sized cards first?
Memory cards are cheap enough that there's no reason to need to share cards between devices unless you have advice you rarely use. 64GB now in the $40 range. Dirt cheap for reusable storage space! My first CF card cost $190 in 2004 and was just 1GB! And 8GB cards are $10 which is about what 4 rolls of film used to cost and developing costs were extra. So no one should be complaining about the price of memory cards or dealing with a full card while at a party - mainly talking about the normal camera user here.
JordanAT: Wow, that's fast enough - and large enough - to be a SSD drive in a small PC. Pretty soon we're going to need faster USB ports.
No, pretty soon we're not going to have cables, aside from laptop to screen and device to electric outlet. Things will all be wireless and people will be happy. Cables suck.
small is the new normal, in case you haven't noticed. A camera was just announced on here recently that only has a micro-SD slot. Most mid to low end SLRs take SD cards. The CF card will be a thing only for Pro and high end models very soon! Why? You don't need a super-duper fast card to record 1080p video these days and few people do 8+ fps burst all the time - where the only instance a fast card is useful.
RedFox88: This makes the size of CF cards look very obsolete.
I haven't had a need to take a memory card out anywhere but at my computer in years. Not everyone sprays and prays shooting 500 RAW photos in an afternoon and needs to get another 64GB card out.
And flip phones went out because of added functionality (keyboard, more meory and faster CPUs allowed for a phone to do more than voice and text) - not because they were too small for people's hands!
This makes the size of CF cards look very obsolete.
Roland Karlsson: Hmmmmmm ... the images are not all that fantastic. Not bad ... but. And it shows that it is only 13 MP.
I have my G10 and really loves it. So, this has better IQ. But ... is it worth it. Or shall I buy something else?
I need something newer to replace my G10 as a smaller companion to my Pentax K-5.
All pixels are not created equal. Even my G15 does far better than your G10, and I should know since my brother has a G10 - that doesn't focus well indoors because of its slow lens. Faster lens does wonders for indoor autofocus... and the MUCH bigger sensor the G1 X mark II has over your G10 will blow your photos away at higher ISO.
Jay Williams: I can't believe dpreview has stooped to the level of using the word "selfie." What is this world coming to?
The Pope now takes selfies with the public. I believe it was added to the two major dictionaries.
AbrasiveReducer: Why is it so hard to get a camera like this right? I’m sure it takes better shots than the RX100 (the original G1X does this) but for $800 there shouldn't be any obvious “issues”.
If it needs a bigger grip, they should give you one. If the battery doesn't last, let the user zoom manually.
Right... every $800 should be perfect for everyone, right?
ChrisKramer1: Hmm. I'm just wondering how long such a camera will last before dust starts getting in the sensor, the electronic zoom starts playing up, EVF is dropped/lost and the flip screen breaks off. Maybe smaller should also mean simpler. I see the Panasonic GM1 is now down to 600 Euros with kit lens.
When's the last time you had a P&S compact (all have power zooms) with a zoom lens that stopped zooming? I haven't. I thought one of the m4/3 makers started to make powered zooms too.
FRANCISCO ARAGAO: I wonder whats the G1X advantage over the mirrorless counterparts.
A small 24-120 f/2-f/3.9 lens that's the advantage. No need to interchangeable lenses if the included lens is good and fast! Fill many a photo user's needs!
RedFox88: Canon's 2 MP HD video camera that made news a few months ago seems to be the low light video king. No need for more than 2 MP if the goal is HD video.
This is about video, not stills. Not having to downsize or skip lines ia a big advantage for Canon's offering.
KrisAK: Whatever happened to those Canonian fireflies?
Let me know when TV shows are being broadcast in 4k. Until then it's only for gadget junkies who like paying top dollar for the latest thing.
Canon's 2 MP HD video camera that made news a few months ago seems to be the low light video king. No need for more than 2 MP if the goal is HD video.
More of sony making so many cameras but not really being great at any of them. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Ron A 19: What a great idea! The A7s uses the same approach as the d700 - less resolution, more sensitivity. However, now that all cameras can give low noise at ISO 12800, I wonder if it's really necessary for sony to push resolution downward to 12MP. Seems that the real benefits aren't for stills but for low light video. I'm sure this will do very well in a videographer's arsenal.
No, the d700 is an old camera that's why it's low resolution - it used the d3 image sensor. Newer image sensors beat old ones even when adding more pixels. That's plainly clear. I don't use nikon but I'd take a d800 over a d700 for high ISO noise easily.
AbrasiveReducer: People risk their lives to show we should never engage in war unless absolutely unavoidable. Yet we keep electing tough talking nitwits who have never been in combat but have no problem sending others.
Dude, it's an all volunteer army. Nobody is picking people off the streets to go into battle. They know what they are agreeing to when they sign their contract with the military. So easy to criticize. Making big decisions is tough and takes a big man to do so.
All 4 cameras compare equally in RAW. Glad you waited and whined for months, ricohians?
kodak is now like polaroid: a name to pay for to slap on your product. I've seen polaroid laptops! LOL!
Frank_BR: That sensitivity of ISO 409600 is real?
If you download the test pictures, you'll find that the EXIF data for exposure ISO 100 and 409600 are respectively:
F5.6 1/50s F16 1/8000s
Doing some calculations, it is easy to see that the settings for ISO 409600 gave an exposure 1280x smaller than for ISO 100. This means the actual ISO sensitivity was 128000, and not 409600!
Is Nikon cheating here?
Maybe that setting has reciprocity effect that causes 2 extra stops of exposure to be used.
szak1352: Okay, we've got a new peak with the ISO 409600. That's marketing.
It's more important that I can see no difference between the D4 and D4s RAW performance. They're basically identical, which is good news. D4 was and is an excellent performer.
I like the JPG output on the D4s better though...
that's apparently all that is different on the d4s - the JPG output.