This is a rather silly product. Now, if they made it digital, well maybe they would have something.
I am really curious if the FZ1000 can be effectively used to shoot college and high school sports? Namely, football in poorly lit high school stadiums at night or hockey in less than professional rinks. Anyone used this camera for those purposes or something close that would tell me if this is a wise choice? I freelance for a major city newspaper shooting high school and college sports and need the reach of the zoom on this, as there is nothing comparable in the Fuji X-T1 lens line at present.
Jeff73: I have two weeks to make a decision on a new camera. For both budget and mobility reasons I am not interested in DSLR or mirrorless. At this point, it is down to the difference between Canon G1X Mark II versus the Sony RX100 III. Based on reviews and comments, the choice seemed easy: the Sony RX 100 III. I finally looked at the side-by-side studio comparison, however, and I’m surprised to see the Canon seemly doing better (except for moire effects). My interest is mostly architectural photography, with some street, landscape, and sports mixed in. I’m not a portrait or macro guy. I like a clean intuitive interface. Any feedback out there?
I have had the camera for almost 3 weeks and I also considered the Canon, but the viewfinder on the Sony sold me. I have used it for some of my newspaper assignments and found the images to be great. The camera does have a couple of quirks. Yes, the jpegs are sharpened in camera quite a bit and secondly, the EVF can be disabled when it brushes up against your glasses, as an example, and the result is you do not see clearly what you are shooting. It would be nice if it snapped into place and stayed there until being released. But that aside, the lens is super fast and the images are very clean up to 3200. The price is up there, but I love the thing and it is truly pocketable, which the Canon is not. My two cents.
Craig Atkinson: I've got a question! Sorry if it's been asked already; I have looked.
I doubt I'd use the wide end much, maybe 28mm but more 35mm equiv. Is there a way to set the camera to turn on at 35mm equiv - IE to auto zoom to that focal length?
That would be an amazing feature if it exists.
Ah, no, I do not believe that you can do that.
The comments, especially after an in-depth review that are posted here on dpreview are often infused with what the camera isn't and questions about who in their right mind would even buy one. Well, I bought one based on many reviews and because it had the features that I wanted in a pocketable compact. The EVF was key for me, as well. Sure, Sony should have put the grip on instead of making it an option or having to seek out an after market one and yes, they should give you a battery charger. However, the bottom line is that it takes great pictures and is a hell of a lot of fun to use. After all, how can you be critical of a camera that has a scene setting called Gourmet and adds that it shoots food to look delicious? I rest my case.
What I would like to know is how many of these improvements can be added to the X100 by firmware upgrade? I really hope that some can as with the X10, when the RAW button was converted to a Q button with a firmware revision. Any thoughts?
The stuff I am reading here at times is just perverse and somewhat ridiculous. I own an X10 and the orb problem for me is minimal or non-existent. As for the fact the people feel ripped off, how about owning a D1H that is useless over ISO 400 or a Canon Mark III that can't focus or track and those cameras were over six times the cost of an X10 and the both Nikon and Canon refused to acknowledge the problem, although Canon did replace my Mark III three times and finally I gave up on it and got a 7D, which is not perfect either. The X10 is fun and I get great images from it. If you don't like it with its little foibles, then do not buy it or return it or use your energy to get the Syrian government to wake up!
Well, all of this may be true, but I can say that my X10 with both the old and the new firmware does NOT exhibit the white orb phenomenon. Perhaps, I am just fortunate or too dumb to notice.
Maybe I am just lucky or not paying attention, but I have not encountered the orb situation and the new firmware is great for the other things it adds or fixes. The complaining about the X10 is just way overboard. It is not an M9 and yet it really does a nice job. I have shot sports with it and concerts and everyday stuff as well and I am more than satisfied. It is better than my G9 and a lot more fun to use. None of these point and shoots are perfect as they all have their little quirks. If you don't want the camera, don't buy it.
amateur83: I am seeking advice...I am torn between the Canon G12 and this new X10. I am by no means a photographer but would like to tap into my creative side with photography. Never used anything other than your basic consumer digital camera and would like to invest in a higher quality camera. Can the professionals offer some advice, differences, opinions please :)
I now own an X10 and have shot with the G12 and the G9. The X10 has a fun quotient that the other two do not have. Does it have quirks, YES, but they are certainly outweighed by the low light capability and the general quality of the jpegs. No camera is perfect. Try the G12 in your hand and shoot with it and then do the same for the X10. That would be the best test.
I downloaded some of the images and did a bit of work in Photo Shop with them and they were vastly improved. I am a tad disappointed in the low light high ISO images and think that the G12 stuff out of the box looks a lot better and requires less fixing, however, we do not know what the settings were regarding sharpening, noise reduction, etc., in the samples shown from the Polish media briefing. There are, theoretically, many pluses with this camera and so only time will tell if it is a winner. Right now, I too, believe that the price is a bit high when compared to the G12 and I am interested to see what Canon will do now to answer both Fuji and Nikon. The Sony entry is interesting but too expensive and not exactly a pocket camera.
I am not sure who or what Nikon wishes to better with this offering, but the entire concept does nothing for me. I am now curious as to whether Canon will come forth with a m4/3 system or will be looking to compete with the Fuji X100 and put a digital gut into one of its tried and true rangefinders from the last century with interchangeable lenses like Leica, but for a Canon price. It is clear that most of the posters here are not just shooting with point and shoots and this system seems to be an expensive version of that with some frosting that makes one want to put your finger in and taste, but not necessarily then ask for a piece.
Well, I was wondering when you guys would start doing video reviews and I am happy to see that it is NOW! Great first effort and I look forward to many more as you review products. Hopefully, the videos will be as comprehensive as the regular full reviews. Love this site!!!
It appears that we are getting closer and closer to something affordable set up like the Leica M9 and able to use multiple lenses. What is missing is the viewfinder in or on the camera that is NOT. Ideally, I would like to see Canon or Nikon or both put digital components in one of their rangefinders from the 70's with optical rangefinder focus.