300 bucks for any camera with a 1/2.3 sensor is asking too much.
I bought an Epson PhotoPC in early 1996. I chose it over the QV-10 because it had 640x480 resolution over the QV-10's 320x240. The Epson lacked a view screen and battery life was ~20 shots!
In the early 90's my employer bought a Canon still digital camera that took these mini "video floppy disks". It had 640x480 resolution, had a proprietary interface card that was installed in the computer's internal expansion slot. It made very good pictures for the resolution but it was very expensive. Hard to believe that was over 20 years ago now.
I learned back in the film days that shooting in overcast conditions will often yield more pleasing results because of the huge contrast between light and shadow is not an issue.
I like the new test scene, but it would seem not to challenge a D800 or a 645D much as these could out resolve much of the detail in this scene. The 645D in raw mode is amazing in the detail it pulls out. The next generation of high end cameras won't be challenged at all.
...and probably makes better images than today's point and shoot cameras.
That's about the actual size of the Pentax 67 ;)
Lower cost compacts (where I expect much of the sales to be) produce basically garbage for image quality. Might as well just use the better camera phones.
I bought one of the last good cheap compacts and won't drop a dime on the newer ones. I also bought a mirrorless changeable lens camera last year that I'm happy with, so I have no need to upgrade since the market offers nothing better.
Compared to the Canon D20, this camera looks soft, lacks detail and has lots of noise/mottling in areas of fine detail. At 6mp less, the D20 shows more detail in the face etching and is cleaner all over. Detail is smeared away in the Sony. This is why it is pointless to put high pixel counts on small sensors. But, hey, the market for which this camera is aimed is not supposed to care.
Don't you just love the reviews where the person says something like, "I don't actually own the product but I would not recommend it because...". At least they admit never buying or actually using the product, but why they bother reviewing is beyond me.
"Good image quality for its class." I think that should read, "Good image quality compared to a camera phone. I don't understand why no one makes a decent durable P&S camera. Canon came close with the D10. They need to get a 12mp 1/1.7" BSI sensor in there and stop screwing around with the 16mp pinhead junk.
I like the form factor of this camera because it allows for discreet shooting. Lytro should produce an "ordinary camera" version of this without the light field technology for people who are not interested in it.
The LX7 is an impressive small sensor camera. I'm sure some Leica users (collectors?) will want the one with the red dot, but I'd rather just get the LX7 for 1/3rd the price. After all, the same image quality will come out of the cameras.
The larger sensor makes the lens angle of view more desirable, imho. 23-69mm equivalent is great for a kit zoom. The prime is also more useful as a carry around every day shooter at 39mm (32mm would be ideal for me).
f/6.4 at 70mm and they want how much? Oh pardon me. Almost forgot that it was a Leica.
SunnyFlorida: Canon guys shouldn't complain, at least you have a legit battle proven sensor , Nikon is using a 3rd party 1" sensor which is 4x smaller , lacks DoF control, has horrible noise after ISO 400 and oh yeaah Nikon charges a lot more for their mirror-less set up, and don't even get me started on the lenses, their w/a equivalent is priced 20% higher than this one from Canon,...that's right 20% higher price for a lens that only has to cover 1/4 of the imaging circle of an aps-c sensor.
I'll take the N1 system. Yes, the smaller N1 sensor can't match larger sensors, but it isn't that bad. At least Nikon lets some noise show rather than smearing it away. AF is nearly instant as well. Nikon also has a good lineup of lenses for it despite the system being less than two years old.
Big sensors mean big lenses. This lens is huge compared to even my 30-110 CX telezoom.
Nothing against the EOS-M. I wanted a small interchangeable camera system and Nikon delivered.
Newspapers are suffering in this electronic culture. With multiple sources for free local news on the Web, it will be interesting to see how they cope in the coming years. The photographers are just one unhappy consequence.
SeeRoy: Demonstrates conclusively that there are more air transport movements in the vicinity of large first-world metropolises. Staggering revelation.
Yes, the western US is underdeveloped ;-)
Both are good cameras. I like the P7700 for the image quality and extra reach of the zoom. I'm disturbed that the Canon was so soft in the city scape shot.
OTOH, having the Nikon J1 that is very fast to use, I'm not sure I can deal with the slower P7700. When I use my compacts I get frustrated with their slowness after using the J1.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in several comments about the aperture of the lens. As far as light gathering ability, it is a f/1.2 lens. In other words, with a larger camera (say FF) with its own f/1.2 lens, the shutter speed would be identical to get the proper exposure under the same lighting condition. It is an extremely fast optic.
Where the f/3.2 equivalency comes in is with the depth of field. It can produce a similar amount of out of focus blur (bokeh) that an 86mm f/3.2 lens on FF can produce. While that can still produce a significant isolating DOF, it never is going to be as much as a camera with a larger sensor.