Ashuaria Lee: Many parts of the Studio Scenes are impressive.1. Wedge chart...On Low-ISO NX-mini goes until 34~35, while the others remain 30~322. Random dot chart...Looking on whatever ISO, mini is the clear winner.3. Weeds,Grass...Low-ISO, mini has better details.4. Sketch under the wedge...Looking at the ceeks and forehead, mini has more details on whatever ISO.-> I cannot agree the phrase "In the default Jpeg mode at their respecive native ISOs, the cameras reproduce a very similar amount of detail"
Beyond the IQ the battery is almost twice longer than competatives. And with 9mm lens it grows even more. 630 shots CIPA AFAIK.
They mentioned about the poor corners(bragging nikon ;-)..thats the LENS not the camera. perhaps they should have used 9mm fix-focal lens for the test.
I AM a big fan or canon, nikon also, but I remember not being fair for sony few years ago, and I'm getting some similar feeling here again.Am I imagining?
I don't think the 9mm lens is as good as the 17/1.8 they used. If you want 9mm, goto the imaging-resource.com samples. Geometric distortion in corners bothers me, but otherwise it's a fine lens.
Dohmnuill: Another slim camera..without a viewfinder. No thanks.
It seems very nice to hold at waist level with the LCD tilted up, and my thumb on the shutter.
Gesture: That's a Silver Award winner. But Samsung NX owners enjoy great value.
Thanks, I feel with faster menus and higher screen resolution it would be a sure Silver.
Enginel: I see this camera more like a 2X teleconverter for NX lenses...Its native lenses are anyway little too large to be truly pocketable (9-27 is about the size of Sony's APS-C 16-50 collapsible zoom)
These lenses are about the same length, but the 9-27 about half the diameter and less than half the weight.http://camerasize.com/compact/#545.413,535.360,ha,t
vladimir vanek: OMG, now everyone's going to produce "selfie" cameras to support that ill idea to shoot oneselves. Human vanity must have gone a long way to reach today's levels.
On Facebook few people look at posts that don't have a face in them.There's nothing wrong with the selfie for this purpose.
I don't see the Silver award now. Did they remove it.
mosc: Why does the lens have to be so slow? I don't get it. The camer's huge relative to it's sensor. Why is the lens such a piece of crap?
I think you mean WG-4 GPS, which replaced the 3, and has sensor-shift optical stabilization. Ricoh is not far from leading the field with a hypothetical WG-5, but instead we get this.
Does it solve shortcomings of the WG-4? Based on specs, 2 of 5 yes: longer battery life, available WiFi. One probably not, the LCD still looks like stupid 16:9 and is only 2.7". Underwater metering and chromatic aberration, we can't tell from specs.
Oh! It does not have GPS and the WG-4 has 3" LCD, so this one is less competitive with segment leaders.
mcshan: I can't tell from just these samples but I curious if image quality will be that much better than the original G1X? Slightly worse?
I have the original and was always pleased with it as a simple carry around travel camera with some zoom. It will be fun to learn what Canon has changed.
Same, based on the I-R.com comparometer.
iae aa eia: In my opinion no brand beats Canon when it comes to natural color. They only need a Foveon-like sensor to complete the perfectness.
Disagree. Canon ranks at best #3 for pleasing colors behind Fuji and Olympus. Canon might have industry worst highlight treatment. If you are using "natural" to avoid the word pleasing, you should look at the Imatest chart - the G1x is far from accurate.
The lens is wider and faster than before. I wonder if corners are less soft at wide angle? Could not find any sample images on the web.
Do any other enthusiast compacts have 3.5" screen with touch to focus? DPR feature search has only the > 3" constraint. Google search found the Fuji Z800 and Canon SD3500.
This one is just amazing! Would like to know how you got this light.
jaygeephoto: Sound of crickets, tumble weed rolls past, dog looks away bored.
At least it deserves and got a review, which is more than can be said for the Fuji XP50.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder how a GoPro 3 Black would stack up against these cameras?
GoPro stills are rather uncompetitive, especially due to wonky colors, but I am in awe of the video they can produce on such a small device.
Jim Evidon: If you compare the RAW images @ ISO 400, a not to demanding setting, the little Canon G15 blows the Fuji X20 away. How very disappointing for a camera manufacturer of this quality and standard. When looking for a small carry-around camera to use when I don't want to use my more serious equipment, I had a brief romance with the X10, liking the build quality, but ended up with the Canon G15 because of the image quality. According to the comparison images in this X20 review, The G15 is still the better camera.
Did you have your settings wrong in the studio widget? I cannot see any significant difference at ISO 400 between the X20 and the G15. X10 and XA2 show more noise. At ISO 3200 the G15 is better because (it looks like) Fuji did not finish coding their JPEG engine.
Is the red ink really necessary? Reds look good to me with just CMY. Photo cyan is the most critical. We have a printer without it and I see problems. Photo magenta, hard to say. Grays might be useful for people who print B&W, which we do not. The gray cartridge just sits there for years waiting to clog.
Less than half the weight of the Panny 14-140 and faster at the wide end. This probably wipes out any remaining advantage of the travel zoom. Now if Olympus would just put a darn 4:3 LCD on their 4:3 cameras!
RAW images processed by ACR are far too yellow for both P7700 and G15. If you are trying to convince me to shoot JPEG, you are succeeding.
If cameras wrote 16-bit per color lossless files, such as JPEG 2000, we would have no need for RAW. Also now that cameras produce too many megapixels for most purposes, downsampling is common practice. JPEG is sufficient for that, so perhaps we no longer need RAW anyway.