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.
On my CX format wish list is a 13mm f/2 (35mm equiv.) and a 150mm f/4 (405mm equiv.) to give some tele reach without adapters.
No doubt this new lens will perform well. It is apparently easier to make smaller lenses sharp as the other CX lenses have been marvelous. Even the 10-100mm zoom is excellent.
This has been normal for a lot of engineering software for many years. I figured it would start happening to other software sooner or later.
I don't have a single piece of paid software on my computer besides Windows 7 OS. It is all open source. It does what it is supposed to do and has plenty of capability.
Good color and decent sharpness at 55mm (for a kit lens). Early kit lenses lacked sharpness and contrast wide open at the long end.
I still have some criticisms. Some focal lengths show pretty strong color fringing. Is the correction function not used or does the camera even have it? Some shots are very soft on one side. Finally, why only a mono mic? Even many P&S cameras had stereo sound for years now. Seems like an SLR should have stereo sound if they offer video on a camera more advanced than a P&S.
20mp 1/2.3 sensor and a slow lens. I'd be afraid to zoom in on the pix. They make enthusiast compacts with larger 10 and 12 mp sensors, so why push an even smaller sensor to such high mp counts?
I know, I know. Look who it is marketed to.
Interesting camera if the lens can deliver a good image.
Lupti: And BTW: They talk about speed, but what about quality? The Nikon 1 system is just fast, but IQ is really crappy for 1". They shouldn´t sacrifice IQ for speed.
Typical dopey comment. Comparing The Nikon N1 studio test shots with some 4/3rds cameras and even some older APSC SLRs shows it doing a pretty good job.
Nikon allows some noise to show rather than trying to smear it away. I applaud that approach.