CameraLabTester: The DSLR range with the MOST number of lenses available for it will always win, no matter how much over $1000 the price will be.
If you're a pro with broad needs, it matters, but why would a pro spending the thousands on lenses be buying from this list? He wouldn't, unless the body happened to meet his needs (probably on clearance.) This is a list for enthusiasts with moderate budgets. Most brands offer the handful of basic lenses I'd ever likely own.
Adrian Van: These are the article writer's choices, and possibly based also on dpreviews reviews overall to date. However, my vote for "best bang for the buck", would be EPL5 which for nearly HALF the price of the OMD delivers virtually equal image quality in most lighting, and enough controls to satisfy a lot of people (also it is bit more compact body than OMD in size).
For an OMD you get more features and worth it to many, but not everyone needs these extras, as the EPL5 is very capable anyway! And it is lens choices that make the difference.
And the E-PM2 offers the same image quality and access to the same lenses for even less. They're all differentiated by features. You decide how much the fancy IS and build quality are worth (to get you to the E-P5), and then the evf.
Rainer2022: Of cause these are the writer's choices.
It's apparent he took at least one cam from every important brand. (Did I forget a brand?)
Maybe two canons and two panasonics were taken because many people own those brands.
Today, most new cams are worth their money. I feel happy there is the choice between so much of them. Everybody gets the cam which is made for him / his needs. Of cause, there are different opinions, what is good for someone. You can write your own opinion, but don't blame the writer for his choice, please. Don't take the world so serious. Photography is just a hobby for most of us, no need to make yourself miserable with it.
If you have invested in glass from one brand, you have to choose your next cam from the same supplier; like it or not - so the fact, there is one cam chosen from each brand was a good decision.
If you really see a very good cam and you are not convinced with your system (me canon-owner thinks of 18MPIX APS-C) just switch :-)
Panasonic is pretty far down in sales, well below Nikon and Sony. Given that the different brands offer various features and have varying strengths, spreading around the attention does make some sense. Cameras have reached such a high degree of competence that I'd have a hard time coming up with ten bad cameras. Value strikes me as what varies the most, with some cameras seeming overpriced compared to others.
Create Dont Imitate: The end of the AA filter... finally.
I'll take the AA filter, please. The reduction in resolution is minor.
Ben O Connor: God what specs! What a cam!
The most serious treathe to Olympus XZ-2. Come on olympus! Now give us the XZ-3 which has same sensor body & specs with ep-5, smilar amazing lens as XZ-2 which is 20mm on the wide, 120mm on tele end. And not above f2.8
I think Panasonic realized they couldn't compete directly with this, so they made the LF1 by pouring as much as they could into a small body at a reasonable price. Of course I'd rather have the Sony, but the LF1 would be a good travel camera.
Treeshade: RX100 sits comfortably between more expansive pocketable APS-C and those cheaper large sensor compact. Wouldn't the price up mean direct competition with Ricoh GR? GR is slightly larger (worth for the grip) but with much larger sensor and more control. So, is the 28-100mm zoom enough to differentiate the products, or is Sony playing purely on reputation?
Not sure why you would want a GR or RX100 II to back up a NEX-6. It's not as if the NEX is all that big or that there are significant differences in features or iq. I suppose they are just slightly more pocketable, but the difference is very modest.
thomas2279f: Looks good... where's Canon and Nikon equivalents of RX-1 & RX-100 ?
Uh, Canon already sells the G15 and the G1X. The first is cheaper and simpler, with a smaller sensor, the second is bigger and has an even bigger sensor. It's a bit too slow and can't focus anywhere close, but the iq is very nice. Canon is the only make with a fairly complete line. Sony needs a line between this and their p&s models. Fuji also has a decent lineup with the XF1 and X20, though the latter is a big step behind the new Sony.
Jefftan: $750 crazy price for 1 inch sensorHow much bigger is NEX-3N at $450
but IQ must be much bettercan't understand Sony pricing
The collapsing 16-50mm lens is quite small. As is the 3N. Sure, it won't fit in a shirt pocket like an RX100 II, but it fits easily in a jacket pocket. The 16-50mm had to be optically compromised to be that small, but the cameras do a good job of fixing most of it. It would be nice to have better optics, but for this line the size was more important. I don't doubt the RX100 II is doing some digital correction at some focal lengths, too. As it should.
Jefftan: I would buy a GR or NEX-3N and anyone care about their money should
With the wide angle fixed lens of the GR stabilization wasn't essential (though it wouldn't have hurt). It's a nice camera, but in a very different category. The Sony clearly offers more features, but the GR appears to be a very pleasant camera to use, with nice controls and menus and very nice iq. But I'd rather have the Sony for most uses.
marike6: Lots of knee jerk comments about the NEX-3N being a better value.
The NEX-3N is obviously less expensive (and cheaper build quality-wise). But it's an CSC so you can mount any lens on it. But I'm wondering if these people below have actually used the NEX-3N.
In spite of the versatile E-mount and larger sensor, the 3N has some issues that don't work in it's favor:
* no option to add an EVF (or flash)* poor LCD. The 460 K LCD (the 3N's only VF) is grainy in low-light, hard to see in bright light* Average at best AF performance * video quality on NEX-3N is not what we expect from a Sony with heavymoire/aliasing as extreme as any I've ever seen. The RX100's video is truly outstanding. * the 16-50 kit lens is not wonderful (to put it mildly)
The NEX-5R or an old stock 5N could be considered good values vs the RX100, but with the 3N, all I can say is try before you buy.
The NEX-3N is a good entry-level mirrorless camera. Build quality is basic, features are appropriate for many shooters who would never have bought an add-on evf or flash, and the performance is typical entry level. I disagree about the 16-50mm power zoom kit lens. Sure, it's got terrible distortion, but the camera does a surprisingly good job of fixing it without too much ill effect. Sure, it's kind of soft off center, but so are plenty of other lenses. What's great about this lens is that it matches up with the NEX system so well. It's the right size, starts out at the right focal length, and has good zoom controls for video use.
But the RX100 II is clearly a more premium camera. Now that they've added the hot shoe/acessory port it can do more than a 3N. Image quality will be similar, with the faster lens helping make up for the smaller sensor. The old one didn't seem significantly better than the NEX-3N, but this is morning like a 5R in features.
Digital Suicide: The only useful improvement over mk1 I see tiltable screen. I do lack one on my RX100. But what really bothers me about SONY, that they since launch of the first RX100 still no firmware update.
I guess a more sensitive sensor doesn't count for anything? I can see not caring about the WIfi. Sony hasn't done much with their WiFi implementations yet, but a better sensor is a decided improvement (if it really is better, but I trust Sony more than most on sensor claims).
I'd love to know what conceivable drawback bsi could ever have. Oh, I suppose you could claim another surface (the sustrate) in front of the photosites, but that isn't necessarily a major problem. I'm surprised at Sony's 40% claim, because I doubt bsi alone would give that much improvement on a sensor this large, though it is rather packed with photosites. They likely made some other improvements, too. In any case, this looks like a killer camera that addressed most concerns about the original. Oh, a wider, faster lens would have been nice, but this will do.
Impulses: Oh man, I had already been planning on getting one by the end of this year... It'll be my first MFT lens. Hopefully they don't jack the price up (specially if there's no improvements on AF speed or propensity to focus hunt), otherwise I guess I'll be on the lookout for good deals on the old model.
I'd say it's perfect timing. You might get a slight price reduction on the old lens. It's a classic either way.
stealthhacker: fuji may be good at retro design, but their lens&accesseries are quite expensive. and the body is bulkier than its competitors.
Oh, and I looked it up. The NEX-5R is noticeably smaller at 4.37"x2.32"x1.54". And the 3N is even smaller, at 4.33"x2.44"x1.38", mostly because it has a small grip. Both are much smaller than the Fuji. Which is pretty average.
Sure there are. The Sony NEX-3N is smaller than this, with a much more compact kit lens. The NEX-5R is of similar size, thinner through the body, but with a bigger grip (a good thing). This is a typically compact mirrorless model. They are limited by the need for a rear screen, controls, and a grip as much as anything. Those plus a lens mount and you have a modern camera.
limlh: At last, a company has produced a tiltable LCD only camera without making it look like a cheap P&S and without astronomical pricing. Good job.
There's something wrong with the comparable E-PL5? Similar retro styling, tilting screen, similar build quality. I do like the two Fuji control dials, an overdue feature (no, I don't consider rings around the button pad equivalent).
cgarrard: Decent price, bet that grip isn't comfortable though... needs to be deeper into the body a bit (wider) by about 1/2" from the looks of it- however, I'd need to hold it for a 100% sure opinion. No viewfinder/option I presume, that's fine since they have the X-E1 but would have been neat to see Fuji put a viewfinder on this one then every camera in the line up would have one.
Btw, that brown and silver one is SERIOUSLY sexy looking. Wow.
The brown one will only look good if Fuji gives it a different finish. The plastic Fuji has been using seems tough, but it is hard and glossy. A softer, less shiny finish would be much more pleasant to touch and look at.
MrTaikitso: Not to troll, as know how lovely the Fujis are, but spec wise, this is still not as good as my similarly priced Sony NEX 5R + 16-50mm Power Zoom kit, that offers an identical lens to the Fuji zoom, plus 50fps video (important), touch screen that can be flipped forward, faster high speed still shooting (10fps), and correct me if I am wrong, but a larger sensor amongst other things.
The very reason I would move to Fuji was their twin tactile exposure controls, but here, they have removed them, bringing back the same usability issues that effect the mid to low end NEX cameras with their somewhat fiddly on screen menu system. (I only keep my NEX because the IQ and shot to shot speed is superb. As is the articulating display.)
This may not have the traditional controls, but it has two control dials that can likely be set up to control the same functions. That rear dial looks weird to me. I can't imagine using it. I guess I'll have to wait until I see one.
Jefftan: Anyone know why pair with 16-50mm instead of 18-55mm kit lensIs the 16-50mm worse than 18-55mm?
It's a very handy zoom range. Starting out wider (fov equiv. to ff 24mm instead of 28mm) makes it more attractive for many uses, especially shooting indoors in small rooms and landscapes. The minor loss of length in insignificant. A lens like this has all the width many people need. I'm sure it's optically superior to the Sony 16-50mm, but it's about twice as big. The Sony power zoom is also attractive for video. I like this lens, but do wish they had gotten the size down a bit.
scrup: I would say one of those shock proof, water resistant cameras will be good to start with. it won't break in the first week
Depends on how young the kid is, but not every kid is careless with his possessions. I got my first camera when I was about eight and was very careful with it. By that age many kids understand the idea that things break if abused.