Half the comments say it's too expensive. The other half say the IQ sucks.
If the camera were (impossibly) priced at $500, ALL the comments would be positive.
People here seem to only respond to breathtaking post card photos taken with dirt cheap cameras with hyper real jpeg engines. Everything else supposedly sucks.
The fact remains, as it did with the original RX-1; a full frame compact with a fast Zeiss lens for $3K is a BARGAIN. On the other hand, if all you shoot is cats and rainbows for Facebook, of course it will seem overpriced, because anything larger than a 1" sensor with an f3.5 mega zoom lens is completely overkill for you.
To me these images, banal as they may be, look like 35mm Ektachrome 100 slides from 20 years ago, which is about the highest compliment you could pay to a jpeg in 2015.
Was hoping to see a dramatic improvement in low light noise vs the RX1. It does seem to have improved, in the underexposed areas of processed files, but not dramatically. I'm still seeing sizable grain/noise and even a few hot pixels that my RX1 doesn't display.
rpm40: LOVE the concept. I hope the results hold up. This type of ambitious thinking has the potential to really change things. So much potential, as long as the processing power is there to back it up.
What are you smoking AprilW?
This place is hilarious. They post real world examples of cats and barns and people complain the pictures suck. They post professional post processed photos and people "well of course it looks great; it was shot by a pro and post processed".
News flash. Cat and barn pictures ALL suck. From EVERY camera. And if you spend $4K on a camera and don't spend time processing your RAWs, you just blew $4K.
If you can't look at unprocessed RAWs and see a camera's potential, or can't look at processed RAWs and see a camera's potential, you can't see, period. So stop slagging cameras that are over your budget, and way over your head.
Impulses: $1,000 huh... Looks like the G7x, LX100, et al haven't provided quite enough competition to the RX100 line, Sony keeps bumping the price every year. Way to dash my hopes of picking up a cheaper V when the IV came out Sony... Tho the GM1 had diminished my lust for it to a certain extent already. Maybe they'll launch what I'd really like, a cheaper/slimmer stripped down RX90 (RX1000?) sans flip screen, EVF, hotshoe, etc.
It's called the RX100, and it's still completely awesome. Grab one while you can.
Sure is funny to see so many banal, unoriginal, uninspired shots, from a community overrun with pixel peeping, gear obsessed perfectionists.
Some nice stuff scattered throughout, but on the whole, people here need to focus less on equipment and megapixels and more on seeing.
Wow. Is there there another site on the internet with a more pompous, arrogant, rude, and self centered community than dpreview?
These tips are great starters. If you don't know them, use them. If you do know them, STFU.
I wouldn't stick this onto a leatherette surface. I can't imagine there won't be an issue removing it. Removing it from a metal surface is one thing...
Having had a Franiec on my RX100, I much preferred Sony's own textured rubber version to Franiec's cold scratchable painted metal version.
ScottRH: Nice and useless.
Why would anyone even bother typing this comment? Go take some pictures you dolt.
How much is the motor drive? ;D
vFunct: Mirrorless cameras are junk. They're like cell-phone cameras, with their visual preview lag, but they're not as useful as cell phones because they aren't pocketable.
There are only two useful camera classes: dSLRs and cell phones. Everything else is a useless compromise that isn't as good as either.
There are absolutely NO professionals that use mirror less cameras at a press event. Every press photographer uses either a Nikon or Canon, while the writers use iPhones.
Mirrorless cameras aren't as good as an dSLR or a cell phone, and therefore nobody uses them.
They are junk toys.
All baseless uninformed posts are junk.
Sad Joe: The marketing for this new camera has been outstanding - Nikon should be proud of their UK or US based marketing team....I switched (mainly) into Canon some years ago but this is the 1st new Nikon that has ticked my boxes (and I don't even know its spec!) as regards marketing image - I want to be that man with a bag of primes and my Nikon DF in my hands. I look forward to the Canon reply - say what lets call it the DF 1....!!
@Henry, please enlighten us, oh wise one, as to what camera the smart people, like you, have purchased, and how you came to know about said camera, since you are so clearly impervious to marketing. And while you're at it, let's see some of your photos, so we can all see just how well your marketing-free camera performs. Or maybe you're just one of those people who hangs around the bus station but never rides the bus...
Retro styled cameras are marketed toward those old enough to remember, or young enough to revere, cameras that were not based on trendy, sculpted ergonomics and designer racing stripes. The utilitarian simplicity and purity of purpose in the design of older cameras speaks to some people's desire to make photographs with a similar simplicity and purity of purpose. Whether they actually achieve that goal by buying a retro camera is obviously debatable. Clearly some do and some don't.
Regardless, that anyone would bother complaining about a camera company's desire to cater to the retro market is baffling. I'm not even sure anyone can sanely rationalize a complaint. Strong sales of retro cameras serve to bolster the company's coffers and allow for even more R&D into the next line of trendy sculpted racing stripe cameras. Duh?
If you are vocally averse to retro styled cameras, you are either bored, high, ignorant, or possibly all three. Retro cameras are win win for everyone.
I think Instagram is doing the exact opposite of debasing photography. I think it's championing it. It's widening the appeal of photography and getting people who otherwise may have never discovered photography to think about it as an expressive medium, and to get satisfying results without $5000 worth of equipment and hours spent in a darkroom or fiddling in Photoshop.
Instagram is also getting people to take pictures more creatively, For any given photo, there is often one Instagram filter that suits it best. Which filter looks best is a critical visual decision that the average person has never been faced with, and when they choose the right filter, they get satisfying results. This is because they're unconsciously mimicking the look of photos they've seen before. It's like casually humming along to a tune and discovering you can actually sing pretty well. Instagram can be rewarding, and that reward can fuel the pursuit of better photographic technique. Win win.
Eigenmeat: 11 "mega rays", yet I still cannot find the output resolution on their website...
Wow, some unbelievably close minded and short sighted people in this discussion.
This camera is basically an early proof of concept that you can actually buy and use. How often do you get to do that in the tech world? Mark my words, this camera has made a place for itself in the history of photography, and fantastic images WILL be made with it, by someone, somewhere. Maybe by not you, but it WILL happen.
Oh, and it's no surprise that DL is suing. Take a grossly egocentric eccentric whose salad days are waning and a current star whose career is still on the upward arc who says or does anything remotely resembling anything the former ever did, and you will see a lawsuit.
Larry Page, CEO of Google, said it best...those who can not innovate litigate.
Dude's got nerve.