Richard Franiec: Majority of people with negative comments are confined into a "thinking inside box" category, I think.Just wondering what they do have to offer to put someone else's innovation to shame in terms of ideas or execution?Don't want it, don't buy it. Simple as that.Other than that shut your mouth (fingers) ...up.
You couldn't be further from the mark. The whole point of the negative commentary is that the general feeling is that this is in no way an innovation at all. Our feeling is that it's useless garbage that is being trotted-out merely because it fills a particular marketing niche. We'd prefer to see manufacturers and R&D, generally, focused in areas that actually advance the technology, rather than just spewing out ill-conceived devices that momentarily satisfy the latest, transient desires of the most clueless "in-the-box thinking" consumers. And that, right there, is the real irony in your statement that prompted me to reply: this product is a perfect example of what it means to be keeping one's ideas "inside the box," not vice-versa. On the surface it might "look like" it's outside the box, because the product is shaped differently than what we are used to. But you're wrong: it's not innovative, it's not "outside the box," and it's important to let opinions be heard.
Just one question. What does "terribly good" mean?
samfan: Pop-up EVF?? I just might need to re-evaluate my 'never Sony' stance.
I had a similar stance and re-evaluated it with the first iteration of the RX100. With this new version, I may start asking myself `why anything OTHER than Sony?'
viking79: Pop up viewfinder is nice, but how does one hold onto that camera? It looks like it has no comfortable way to hold it.
As an owner of the original RX100, I'll say that I can understand where you're coming-from. I'm a compact-enthusiast, so am inclined to be forgiving of the "handling difficulties" presented by really small cameras. But I can definitely sympathize with people that aren't so inclined. I'll say that of all the ultra-compacts that I've owned, the RX100 design is the easiest among them to deal with. With THAT said, however, I'll also admit that I've added a Franiec grip, which does improve handling by quite a bit. And I do prefer the after-market approach, on this issue, with a camera like this. I'd rather have the manufacturer do as little as possible with the handling ergonomics, and allow me to solve the matter to my own taste, with a personalized solution.
I own the first iteration of the RX100 and love it. For as amazing as it is, I'd love for it to have a VF. I am happy to see that Sony has decided it to be worthwhile to think through a rather slick solution to the problem of including one onboard an otherwise ultra-compact camera. At 800 bucks it is stupidly expensive, of course, but I predict I will cave, anyway, and pick it up.
I would hope that this has Google's attention, in the sense that they are seeing a huge opportunity in turning Picasa (or some variant) into a true Photoshop (or at least Elements) alternative.
Limitations of technology and physics dictate that compromise is necessary; anyone's "perfect" camera will be a reflection of what factors are most important to them. For me, portability and convenience are key, but I also want full manual control, reasonable photographic versatility, and excellent IQ. My Sony RX100 is very nearly perfect, for me, as it is. If I were able to do so, however, without compromising much on size, I'd add the following: full weather sealing, a usable VF (wouldn't have to be great--just usable), a couple more externally-accessible manual controls, slightly faster lens, and perhaps an even larger sensor. Price it at <$1,000 and I'll buy it immediately.
Is it just me, or is Canon's output in anything except their DSLR line increasingly yawn-worthy? As a former S-series owner & fan, this is disheartening. I'm now a Sony RX100 owner and have to say (hopefully without going too far down the road with the hype bandwagon) that it's now difficult to view these tiny-sensor enthusiast compacts as anything but irrelevant. My assumption was that Sony just happened to be lucky enough to be first to market with a large(ish) sensor in a pocketable form factor. I expected the next round of compacts from Canon, Samsung, and Panasonic to all sport larger sensors and be very significant upgrades to each respective model series... Instead: minor refreshes only, right across the board.
mytake: My prediction is that this sensor will be trounced by Oly Em-5...just saying.
Hey mytake: I can't resist the spelling lesson, as regards your "grammer" lesson. I think you might have wanted the word "grammar," unless you were going for some sort of odd, vernacular reference to someone's grandmother.
So... slow news day at DPReview, eh?
At $35, I think the Franiec grip to be a far better investment. I've found this sort of protective "shooting" case to be not only unnecessary, but obtrusive as well, for the ultra compact cameras. With my Oly XZ-1, I used the Franiec grip and an Op/Tech neck lanyard for carry-around shooting, and then just stuffed the whole business into a light, belt-clip pouch, for protective stowage and transport. I'll use the same system for my RX100.
Michael Doleman: A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
That's a legitimate observation, for sure, but I like to look at all the various aspects in light of what each camera is attempting to accomplish, and then discount the shortcomings that are sacrifces for realizing the primary objective. For me, the RX100's convergence of big sensor/small camera hits the sweetspot of what I want. I rarely zoom much with a small camera (and my expectations are appropriately realistic when I do), so f4.9 seems plenty fast at the long end, for me. I agree that the high pixel count gives me some pause, but I'm reading nothing but good things about IQ, with the early samples.My main point in downplaying the LX7 is that Sony has proven it's entirely feasible to put a reasonably large-ish sensor into a truly pocketable, all-in-one camera. It's time, thus, to move on to the next phase of evolution for the compact-enthusiast niche. I would love to see Canon respond, for example, by refreshing the S-series with a ~1" sensor. And an LX9 with m4/3 sensor...
A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
I'm not "unhappy" with Flickr--for the pittance that I pay for a Pro account, it does everything that I think it could be expected to do. The interface & usability experience could stand a bit of sprucing-up, is all, and perhaps a few more interesting "social" features. The way groups/tags are managed could use some re-thinking, too.On the other hand, though, if Flickr wanted to charge more for various "premium" services, there are some interesting things they could do. The biggest example I could think of would be to offer a true cloud-based storage/backup service for entire archives, and make that service seamlessly integrate with Lightroom, Aperture, iPhoto, etc. Perhaps even go all the way and offer a bona-fide asset management system accessed directly through the site. That would be cool.
fberns: If this camera size, sensor andlens is possible, why the heck didn't anyone build a camera like that before???And why are all the peers much larger?
I'm at the same time happy about the seemingly great package in a small size and wonder what the camera engineers have been working at if not a camera like that?Dpreview got it exactly right: Size versus image quality and the capability for a shallow depth of field is the main problem that is to solve for a compact enthusiast camera!
My two cents worth would be that it simply took a while for the details of the technology to converge with the will, on the part of a major manufacturer, to go ahead and do it. And finally, too, there seems to be a market for this type of camera. Up until very recently, consumers of pocketable cameras couldn't have cared less about sensor size, nor about lens quality--it was always about pixel count and zoom length. Now there's a market among knowledgeable shooters for a larger sensor camera that can shoot wide, at larger aperture, and that can fit reasonably into a pocket. This is simply the first "true" example of a camera in that class.
toomanycanons: Did all the major camera makers get together and agree to be done with viewfinders? Is their consensus that us buyers don't want them (WRONG) or what?
I love my DSLRs, don't find them too bulky, love their IQ and versatility. A camera such as this Sony comes along, looks great...but alas, no viewfinder so I immediately cross it off my list of potential next buys. Pentax just did that as well. What gives?
Viewfinders on cameras of this size & class were always (still are) crap, anyway. I think it's great if you don't find the size/heft of a DSLR to be any sort of hindrance. For much of the shooting I do, it definitely is so. Thus, a camera like this fits the bill perfectly for those circumstances. The lack of a VF can be limiting at times, but that's the (minimum) penalty you have to pay for the convenience of a pocketable camera. It works-out fine, IMO. I can compose quite well with modern displays, and now this camera--with a large(ish) sensor and an f1.8 lens? Are you kidding? I'm buying that.
This will undoubtedly replace my Oly XZ-1.
This may just bring me back to m4/3, depending on final street price. That's a pretty nice little practical shooter. I guess the rumors of Olympus' demise have been greatly exaggerated...
In a way I'd have rather seen them build an actual DSLR, especially given the styling--I mean, why mimic the OM of yore if it is, conceptually, not even close to the same camera? But, then again, the EVF sounds promising, it's a great-looking camera, it's amazingly compact, and I can certainly understand why Olympus wouldn't want to go up against the latest and greatest DSLRs from Canon and Nikon--it's wise of them to bail out of that market, entirely.
WOW! SIXTEEN megapixels?!? TWENTY-times zoom?!? Pocket-sized?!? Only $250?!? Take my money! Quick!
As much as I'd love to be enthusiastic about another entrant to the "high-end compact/mirrorless" market, I fear that this camera is all but dead on arrival. I cannot for the life of me figure-out where on Earth this camera fits-in. I just don't see why anyone would choose it over any of it's potential competitors. The issue is the sensor. If a truly compact camera were my goal, why would I choose this camera over a Canon S95 or Olympus XZ-1? Or, if I want a small "system" camera, why would I choose this over a 4/3 or APS-C sized camera such as the Olympus EPL series or Samsung NX? It just doesn't add-up. I think it is a huge gamble to build an entirely new lens system around a small-sensor camera like this. I honestly hope I'm wrong, and that this camera finds a niche. But on another note entirely, they haven't helped matters much by creating a... um... let's call it "awkward looking" camera body...