I liked the control ring on the RX100. It operated smoothly with a quiet clicking sound. The corners were somewhat soft at wide angle and there seemed to be a lot of plastic in the all-metal body.
If you look at the the test chart shots for the image quality compared (daylight) the lower left corner is much better than the lower right corner. I ran into a similar thing with mine. But I really did like that control ring.
I guess there is a point to this but if you've decided to use a phone as a camera, you've already decided what your priorities are. It would be interesting to see how much you give up by not using a camera as your camera. Then again, some of the smaller sensor cameras are probably no better than a phone.
abortabort: Seriously? The 16-28mm is a great lens, but 5 TIMES the price?! Samyang's cine versions are something like $50 more, if that. I suppose this will still be cheaper than the competition though.
The biggest cost in optical designs is the labor--to design and make the components, assemble, test, adjust and if necessary, discard. I had four of the Samyang 14mm lenses. Each was different and three were ok but I doubt that's the sort of consistency Tokina is aiming for in this market.
Good info and glad they didn't stick you with the dinner bill. The part about them rejecting a lot of lenses that don't quite measure up was very interesting because with so much automation, I'm sure it's tempting to give everything a pass.
Juck: Listen to all you losers, hating on a shot you lack the talent to create yourself. Pathetic.
I absolutely lack the talent to create this. Don't have the time, either. And if I did have the time, I'd prefer not spending it on digital manipulation. Nice photo, though. Sort of daytime and nighttime in the same picture.
I don't really see this as a useful question. Why not ask "How much quality do you want?" or even better, "How much quality will you sacrifice for convenience?"
As for why megapixel count has become wrapped up in controversy, that's simple--numbers. Is twelve twice as good as six? It must be, because twelve costs more.
Leandros S: Given Nikon's extremely poor track record with its "waterproof" Coolpix AW cameras (AW100, AW110), there may be some hesitation towards this new offering.
If I recall correctly, Nikon did not design the Nikonos but bought the design from a company that specialized in underwater equipment.
jhinkey: At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.
So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .
If there ever was a place where VR would be beneficial, this has to be it.
steelhead3: How are you supposed to hold a bar of soap underwater?
I did it this morning.
This looks like fun but I'm guessing somebody already makes a cell phone that works underwater. I wish I was joking.
jkoch2: Will anyone dare submerge a $1,000 camera and $350 lens to 49'1" or drop it from 6'7", just to see whether the items survive? Will anyone repeat the experience to see how long the seals survive, or degrade?
A relevant test for all such devices would be to drop them multiple times onto concrete and descend them on a line into the local harbor, on two separate dates (and AFTER the drop tests), while shooting video or time lapse. Scuba dives for each test would be too difficult, but perhaps be the only way to confirm whether the control buttons or touch-screen features work at all at any depth.
Maybe the traditional $235 U/W, shock resistant P&S models are a safer gamble. Buyer reviews of these cameras have a larger-than-usual quotient that assign 1 or 2 stars because of failure on the first or second dive.
Man, the comments on this are great. It's a shame John Cameron Swayze isn't around for Nikon to use.
Beachcomber Joe: This camera is the result of Nikon misunderstanding their market research. Their research question was "What would you like to see us do with the Nikon 1 system cameras.?". Those queried overwhelminglyresponded "Throw them in the ocean."
Badda bing. At the root of most great humor there is usually an element of truth.
iShootWideOpen: The three people that shoot Sony DSLR's worldwide are all here complaining about bias about their cameras LOL
Today's "excellence" in cameras is tomorrow's mediocrity--and that's being generous. These cameras are all better than what we had 3 years ago and all of them will be far from excellent, even obsolete in a few years. It's not like buying a 25-year old Pentax and admiring the intrinsic quality of the thing.
GPW: Sony wins, Canon sucks, Nikon is KING, GET over it people
We're over it. And king of what?
SergioMO: What a monster ! Phase one !
I don't think anybody has said more megapixels is a "waist".
Wow, there are a lot of items; something for everybody. I look at the corners, to see if there's anything there before f/5.6 or so but I think the scouring pad with the astrotrurf should make a good comparison, too.
Let's get one thing clear...if the DxO tests conclude that your favorite brand delivers superb sharpness and contrast, they are obviously spot on. If DxO does their test and your perfectly good lens gets a low score, DxO is a bunch of haters and a big fail.
Mirrorless Crusader: DPR why are you giving almost every half-decent camera a gold star now? Literally a large a majority of $600+ cameras now are getting gold stars, it completely dilutes the rating system and makes it look like you are just using it as a marketing ploy to sell cameras at Gear Shop. Can't you come up with a system where only a few cameras at most each year get the top award? Then we would actually know which you really think are best, because right now it looks like you're just trying to satisfy everybody and as a result satisfying nobody.
Think of it as a frequent flyer program. When you're in an airport and they call the diamond, platinum, gold, silver and bronze members. Each of these people thinks they are special but there's no one left in the boarding area.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Does a budget body make sense in a system where the vast majority of the lenses are premium?
The point of the cheap body is to get the people to buy expensive lenses later on. The lenses are rarely much of an "investment" but they don't depreciate as quickly as the bodies.
justmeMN: I wouldn't worry about "brand dilution". Most people have never heard of Fuji brand cameras, so there is nothing to dilute. :-)
Film is making a comeback. Once this digital thing blows over, people who are used to the instant gratification from digital cameras will go out and buy chemicals and developing tanks.