TJGKG: I had the first version of this camera and loved it. It really took some great pictures and allowed for some interesting creativity. The only problem I had was that it was just too small for my large hands. And it could have used an EVF. I now have an X100S which takes really great pictures (the video is not nearly as good as with the Sony), has the EVF and fits much better in my hands. The fixed focal length is not an issue since the vast majority of my shots are for travel/landscape/etc. But the Sony was just a magnificent camera and I wish they made a larger version like the X100S.
The Fuji is larger than the RX1. Also I'm not really sure I am willing to pay $3000 for a camera that size without a built in EVF. The pictures are not significantly better from the Sony and I am not a professional. The Sony is more of an indulgence than anything else.
I might also add that I have owned the Ricoh GR as well. It was still a bit too small for my hands and did not have the EVF-but that took even better pictures and video than the Sony or the Fuji and the macros were really great. These new cameras are a welcome alternative from bulky DSLR's to take high quality pictures whilst traveling.
I had the first version of this camera and loved it. It really took some great pictures and allowed for some interesting creativity. The only problem I had was that it was just too small for my large hands. And it could have used an EVF. I now have an X100S which takes really great pictures (the video is not nearly as good as with the Sony), has the EVF and fits much better in my hands. The fixed focal length is not an issue since the vast majority of my shots are for travel/landscape/etc. But the Sony was just a magnificent camera and I wish they made a larger version like the X100S.
It is bad enough the first version of this camera did not get a gold award when it clearly deserved one. But now the MkII version, which is supposedly better than the original, also gets a silver award you really have to question the ratings. Granted these are high marks but as someone who owns the first version of the camera, I can tell you it is extraordinary. Not only are the pictures fantastic, but the movies are incredible. In fact, the movies are far superior to movies on my other gear: the Nikon D7000 and the newly acquired Ricoh GR. The in camera charging is a nuisance but I bought an external charger for my spare battery so that issue is negated. I took this camera on vacation and it was just a pleasure to use with fantastic picutres.
Kodachrome200: I bought one. I have been loving the hell out of it. I did try a coolpix and i found the autfofocus and user interface to be just unusable. I found this to not only be the best pocket size camera ever but so good it is hard to believe it is as good as it is
much has been made about the 1/3 stop iso advantage of the coolpix a so for everyones edification iso 6400 well handled in raw http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/9036967643/in/set-72157634119481540
also if youd like to see some more Ricoh samples i upload pretty high res to flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/kodachromewolf/sets/72157634119481540/
Really fabulous pictures! They make me want to go out and get the GR! I just wish you had the exposure information on each picture. Pictures are very sharp. Actually the black and whites look even better than the colour shots. I'd like to use this camera for travel. My shoulders can't support carrying around a big DSLR and gear any more.
After all this, the Sony RX-100 still scores higher! Whilst both got a silver award, the Sony got a 78 and the Nikon a 75. Interesting. From the review I would guess the GR is going to score even lower.
calxn: I find it very interesting that Sony is holding back the RX10 till Nikon and Ricoh release their cameras.
The RX10 is just a rumour.
TJGKG: When is the full review coming?
Great news thank you.
When is the full review coming?
WOW! Excellent shot. Thanks for sharing!
Paulo Ferreira: $47,000/61=$770 per picture! Cheap! Either the Beatles are not what they were or the photos are not what they should.
Why pay anything for these photos? They aren't rare or behind the scenes. They are of a concert at Shea Stadium that pretty much any Beatle fan has. There is nothing special about them. They aren't even autographed or anything. So why waste money?
Note to DPR: I just got an email from NikonUSA, the GP-1 GPS unit is not compatible with the Nikon A. There is no GPS capability on this unit. Only the Wifi dongle is available for this product.
Douglas F Watt: Well after the RX-1 has proven a market for this type of camera, perhaps Nikon is aiming at folks that can't afford the high price of that camera. Does that make it an RX-1 wannabe? Or if the RX-1 is, as some have suggested, a Leica wannabe, does this mean that this camera becomes a Leica wannabe wannabe?
Or does this post just prove that I should have had more coffee this morning before hitting the blogosphere?
Maybe Nikon should have had more coffee before they set that insane pricepoint on this camera!
artHarris: I have always wanted a truly small camera which is capable of producing high quality BIG prints; my Nikon D300s is too big to carry on ski tour! For years I have had to be happy with the small Canons; the G12 being the latest, and I love its close focusing (flowers) and pivotting screen; the true view-finder is a real plus.Now, I am spoilt for choice, but it is truly a no-brainer - the Sony RX100 beats all. It may not have the pivotting screen and lacks a view-finder, but in all other respects, it has everything. And this Nikon "Copy" doesn't have any extras to justify its almost double price; even at a similar price, the Sony wins. As for the Canon G1X: too big, no close focus, no pivoting screen. So, put to the real test over the last 2 months, the Sony is everything I had hoped for.
I agree with you. I also own the RX100 and think it is a marvelous camera. The pictures look just as good as ones taken with my D7000 (which has the same sensor as the Coolpix A) and I don't have to lug all that equipment around. So for twice the price as the RX100, I don't see any advantage.
olyflyer: Nice camera. Good luck Nikon.
Anyway, people will whine about this camera also. Pathetic.
Why would you say it is pathetic to complain about this camera? It's an $1100 Coolpix. Unless that lens is the sine que non of 28mm DX primes in the Nikon arsenal what is there to justify that price? The RX100 gets great pictures with a smaller sensor, better lens at half the price. You can stick a V12 in a VW bug but it doesn't mean you are going to get the same performance as a Rolls.
Deleted1929: I'm at a loss to know why anyone would get this thing, especially at £1000 each. It look quite lame compared to an RX100 ( which has a faster lens at 28mm and even zooms ).
A fixed lens camera needed to be at least f1.8 or f1.4 to attract enthusiasts at £1000.
The viewfinder price is practically an instruction not to buy the camera. You could hardly insult the buying public more.
So too expensive to attract consumers, but too inadequate to attract enthusiasts.
What is the point of having a big sensor if the glass isn't really that great? The RX100 has a Zeiss lens which is 1.8. The AF is outstanding. I just don't see the Nikon being worth twice as much when it doesn't offer anything more than what you could get from a NEX.
kadardr: I am looking forward a full frame Canon G1 X with a prime lens for this price...
Or at least the next version of the G1X. As with any first version, Canon has to fix a few issues with the G1X (close focussing being the first). But at $300 less and a lot more flexible, I think the Canon is a better deal.
TJGKG: Why would I get this camera when the more flexible G1X is available and much less expensive? In fact, the updated G2X(?) is probably right around the corner that will address any shortcomings of the first generation. A 28mm lens is not really going to be all that useful. And maybe 2.8 is not as bright as a prime should be. And is Nikon studying pricing from Sony?
The G1X is generally acknowledged as taking some of the best pictures in the compact class. How can you possibly state that it is not capable of the IQ of this camera? And if I had one focal length to choose from, it would be 35mm. The DX 28 works out to about 18 which is way too wide. Look at Nikons sample shots.
Why would I get this camera when the more flexible G1X is available and much less expensive? In fact, the updated G2X(?) is probably right around the corner that will address any shortcomings of the first generation. A 28mm lens is not really going to be all that useful. And maybe 2.8 is not as bright as a prime should be. And is Nikon studying pricing from Sony?
I voted for the RX100. It has produced spectacular images since I purchased it. Took it to the UK and never missed my D7000-especially its bulk. It was a pleasure to use, easy to configure and also took astounding movies. I can only imagine what the RX1 will be like. But I will have to imagine because I don't have three grand lying around!