These look like generic P&S cameras. They could be made by Vivitar or Polaroid, or whatever factory in China grinds them out.
That writing on the front advertising the megapixel count is really impressive. And so 2003.
Guess what. This IS a generic P&S camera, which some non-professionals looking for a relatively cheap pocket camera might actually buy and might - though this might be shocking - enjoy.
I know that you are completely taken aback by the adjective "stylish", but seeing as how this a press release and not a review, "stylish" is probably seen as more appropriate for a press release than "generic". Yes, I know. Marketers can be devious sometimes.
Also, many things of high quality are made in China - iPhones for one (although I'm an Android guy...and many of those are also made in China...maybe even in the same factory). I know that "China" is synonymous with "low quality", but a factory built to Japanese specifications with Japanese robots and a strict, monitored assembly line might in fact produce things the same in China as it would in Japan. I fail to see how just being on Chinese soil makes all of these identical machines function worse.
Just keepin' it real.
I wonder why some people are so outraged to see the details of a camera they would never buy anyway. Guess what...some people are going to buy small sensor cameras. And many of those people want more megapixels. And some of those people will also want bright colors.
Not for you? Then move on. When your favorite company produces a camera that you would otherwise buy but it has way too many megapixels for you (and you're too lazy to go into the menu and turn it to a lower megapixel setting or think the interpolation to fewer megapixels will somehow destroy your image), then definitely feel free to rage as much as you like.
Jeff Peterman: Amazing how our expectations have changed. To me, these are grainy and over saturated compared to modern digital images!
I feel the same way. It seems to me that the love of film is due more to nostalgia than actual quality. I'm sure film-lovers will say that's not the case, but I'm just throwing my opinion out there.
Carl Crumley: McCurry used a digital camera BEFORE he clicked the shutter on that last role of Kodachrome: “I wanted that reinforcement, to be able to see it on a two-dimensional screen...” – Steve McCurry, National Geographic photographer, on shooting the last roll of Kodachrome film produced by Kodak, during which time he took each photograph first with a digital camera. From Shutterbug Magazine, October 2011: “McCurry took no chances shooting the last roll of Kodachrome. To make sure he had exactly the right moment for each photo, in focus and at the right exposure, he first used a digital camera.”
Unfortunately for film enthusiasts, the fact that he used a digital camera first just goes to show how much more versatile and user-friendly digital cameras are.
Wow! A gimmick for a gimmick! Pentax has become a master of gimmicks.
I think that people who think of themselves as "real photographers" are fanatic about optical viewfinders.
Look at the paragraph and picture above. Here's one quote:
"It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder."
OK guys...be honest. What good is that? Can some "real photographers" tell me? It's a tiny viewfinder with a parallax error and has no shooting information on it (all problems the LCD lacks). Now look at the photo. A guy is inside a relatively dark room (not outside at noon on a clear day at the beach with lots of glare) and he's still using the tiny optical viewfinder with a parallax error instead of the back screen.
Seems a bit silly, don't you think? Alas, I can never be a "real photographer", because I often use LCD screens on cameras, and I think that flip-out screens are more important to have than optical viewfinders. I know. I'm such a noob.
raztec: Great job in image quality, but when are we not going to get a dumbed down camera from Nikon? Why can't they put the best AF and video features in this camera?
Those who buy the D800 want the resolution. I want a light weight DSLR for bokeh and fast and accurate focus. And I want a rangefinder style FF camera with interchangeable lenses for everything else.
Seriously, is that too much to ask?
"And I want a rangefinder style FF camera with interchangeable lenses for everything else. Seriously, is that too much to ask?"
Yes, that is too much to ask...from Nikon, for a low price, that is. I'm sorry to tell you, but rangefinders are an old technology. It's like wanting to ride a horse on the highway. If you only want rangefinder style, but not a rangefinder, go with Fuji. If you want a small full-frame, then go with the RX1, or wait for a Sony full-frame NEX. A true full-frame rangefinder will not sell as well as a D600, so the price would obviously be more. It doesn't make any sense for Nikon to make such a thing. If you want to pay thousands of dollars more for poorer sensor quality, then go with Leica.
Zvonimir Tosic: And when Nikon introduced V1, many spewed on it. Same sensor, same resolving power. Pity the resolving power of the brain of today journalism is at its all TIME low.
First of all, it's not the same sensor. The RX100's sensor is better (as many reviewers have said). However, you're right if you mean only that they are the same size.
Here's the thing. The Micro Four Thirds system came along way before the V1, and those cameras take better pictures and have more lenses. Nikon was way late to the party on that one.
However, the RX100 is a COMPACT camera, with one great lens, though without interchangeable lenses. It can easily fit in your pocket with zoom lens attached (as its lens always is). The V1 cannot fit in your pocket with a zoom lens attached.
It's the same size sensor but two completely different outcomes. The sensor size was not the reason why the RX100 was a success. The fact that they put it into a compact camera IS the reason why it was a success.
(PS: I'm not saying that TIME magazine is particularly credible or that their opinion(s) should be taken seriously.)
I wouldn't get it, but I think that the look is at least better than that of the V1. Importantly, it has a hand grip. The only problem is that that adds to bulk. This isn't going to be a pocket camera.
Unless you need the features like the super-high frame rate (for a short burst), I think that the Sony RX100 would be better. I wouldn't buy interchangeable lenses for any camera with a sensor smaller than M4/3. To me, it wouldn't be worth it.
But anyway, I do have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the look of this one compared to the last one.
James A Rinner: Interesting statement they made when they compared it to other cameras. "and only lags (in image quality) behind the very impressive Micro Four Thirds Olympus OM-D E-M5." What is Olympus doing so well that the smaller sensor out performs this larger one?
I guess Olympus should be lucky that they could get Sony to make the sensor for their OM-D. It is quite amazing (especially considering that it's smaller). I guess Sony can't be accused of selling its rivals inferior sensors...
DStudio: There's no way the SX50 HS can have ultimate image quality at 1200mm equiv., but 50x zoom still looks very impressive, with a decently sized sensor as well.
I can imagine many circumstances in which it would still be fun and/or useful.
I have an SX30is (35x zoom) and I have absolutely no problem with it hand-held, except at night (which is to be expected). But just by leaning against something, I'm able to get completely clear shots of the moon at night...at ISO 80 or 100. (It has 4.5 stops of images stabilization, after all.)
So how about trying out this one before knocking it. You might be surprised and impressed.
Nishi Drew: "revolutionary digital camera concept to meet supreme professional requirements"
This camera is for rich people who like to masturbate in front of a mirror. These are the ones whose egos are stroked by the words "supreme professional requirements". So they ask their wealthy dads for this as a present, and are confident when they take their snapshots, that they are of "supreme professional" quality.
nikos theodosiou: Lots of negative comments, why?? Do I sense some bitterness here?You don't see the same comments with Hasselblad, maybe it's something to do with the red dot!?
The comments are negative because a lot of people realize that it's a rip-off, and it's our way of saying that people who buy this should feel embarrassed instead of feeling cool. How about give a scholarship to a smart kid with no money for college, and ALSO buy a D800 (or D600 if you're feeling extra charitable)?
By the way, you must not have checked out the comments on the Hasselblad Lunar if you think that people are just being anti-Leica instead of anti-rip-off.
kwojdyna: I do not agree with all the criticism here. In business you do not want to produce the best products but to make money.
If owners of Leica brand buy cheap crap from Panasonic, put their red dot Leica logo on it and find rich idiots who pay couple times more for it - why wouldn't they do that?
If owners of Zeiss brand put their logo on cellphones' and computer cameras' crappy PEEPHOLE and still find customers for premium lenses in the same time in spite of self-depreciating the brand to make some more money - they do that.
Leica and Zeiss are no longer valuable brands objectively, but on the market they are doing fine selling the rights of putting logos on crap. Hasselblad just wants to take their chance too. Too bad though...
P.S. Of course, I do not mean NEX as crap untill it's priced 10 times that what you can easily get it for...
I would feel sorry for those fools who have bought Leica cameras, except they obviously have a lot more cash than I, and they don't realize that they've been duped - that rangefinder technology should be much cheaper to implement than EVF technology. Taking away technology shouldn't triple, quadruple, or quintuple the price. That obviously doesn't make sense. But some people will buy a completely overpriced camera just because of that Leica logo.
Hasselblad made a big mistake. If they'd made this complete rip-off of a camera a rangefinder, rich people would be going ga-ga over it. "Wow! ANOTHER unique shooting experience!"
justmeMN: My speculation is that Canon removed the articulated screen, for the sake of product differentiation.
If you want an articulated screen, Canon wants you to buy a (more expensive) G1 X.
Too bad. Canon is walking a fine line. The articulated screen was a big selling point. I wouldn't consider this camera without it. And instead of going for the G1 X, people might look elsewhere.
Francis Carver: "If you want to take advantage of the A57's full-time AF during video, you'll have to shoot in program AE mode, at which point the camera will not select an aperture smaller than the lens' maximum (or f/3.5, in lenses with a maximum aperture greater than f/4). This simply reflects the fact that the AF system will stop working if the aperture is stopped-down smaller than f/5.6."
The way I read this, the Sony Alpha 57 is an autofocus camera -- provided you are shooting at high noon on the beach.
Autofocus will STOP WORKING when iris gets to F5.6 or below, although text also states that AF will always force the lens to its maximum wide open aperture, which F3.5.
Not much use overall then, is it? And this is the SAME LIMITATION that the $2,800 priced Alpha 99 also has, correct?
Supposedly with Nikon D600 AF will happily keep on focusing down to F8.0.
Oh well, at least you can shoot video w. the A57 in manual mode, that's something.
@Francis Carver: Nobody is saying that a $670 camera is superior to a $2,100 camera. What people ARE saying is that having phase detect autofocus during live view and video mode (in program mode) is superior to DSLRs with contrast detection.
And in my experience, DSLRs with contrast detection, even expensive ones, somehow can't do it as fast as even point and shoot cameras, also with contrast detection.
As phase detection moves to sensors, we can see an improvement, but I will tell you the truth...live view autofocus and video autofocus on this $670 camera ARE better than on a $2,100 camera.
RedFox88: Does DPR have any credibility left? Giving a "gold award" to a camera that has "mediocre JPGs with mushy details". Yikes! And yes the majority of users of this camera will probably be shooting JPG as RAW is for those with lots of time of who many are on here but most shooters don't have time for RAW nor internet forums.
What good are silver and gold awards if 66% of reviews get one!?! Sony uses them for magazine ads to convince buyers their products are good. Canon and Nikon don't need to advertise awards for buyers to know their stuff is good. ;)
cgarrard is completely right, of course.
Being pretentious doesn't make you right, RedFox88, although many people who comment on this website seem to think it does.
It won't be long now before it will get hard to criticize the NEX series for having a poor E-mount lens selection. Remember, you have to start somewhere. And Sony has started.
I'm dying to try this camera out. Sony is going in the right direction and I see it gaining a huge market share in the next few years.
PASM right on the mode dial is a welcome addition!