Whenever I hear Kodak, I think Walmart. Super cheap, crappy stuff for $5 per hour McDonalds workers. Match Kodak with a Blackberry phone and the whole neighborhood will laugh at you.
justmeMN: I'm skeptical of pancake zooms, because they tend to sacrifice quality for compactness. (e.g. Sony) Hopefully, this one is good.
Leica lenses are compact too
Joseph Mama: Too bad that FZ1000 aperture is limited to F8. I'd expect at least F11 or a ND filter. Im afraid that could really affect a common use case, which is outdoor sunny videos.I suppose you could put a ND filter on the end as needed. Wonder if it has threads or if you need a magfilter?
"It starts with T and ends with L"Tembel
"Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 compared to Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10"
That's the funniest headline I've ever seen here!
I've owned several Panasonic cameras, and I own the Rx10.The only Panasonic product I have ever liked was a cordless telephone.Saying a Panasonic anything could even remotely compare to a Sony anything is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here, and I've read a lot of nonsense.
The only reason I would even take this seriously is if I owned a Panasonic and didn't know any better.
Wow! Another one off his medication. BiologicalX, we are so glad you're in bed with Sony and love him so much. Gay relations must be a substitute for your Xanax. Since the Walkman was released 30 years ago, I don't recall another Sony product to grab my attention. Sony makes overpriced garbage for those few fanboys left around. Sony, Kodak, Palm, Polaroid...they all have something in common. You get it?
minzaw: Sony and Apple are a well known ripped off companies.Remember Sony attempted with sony memory sticks now obsolete >>> now all sony cameras use SD or micro SD card
Minzaw, why so full of hatred? No one is forcing you to buy brand names. It's like blaming BMW for charging a premium for their amazing cars. You do realize you can always drive a Chevy, don't you? Not that you can afford a BMW anyway
Garbage like camera. Only if they pay me, I'd use a Kodak like that. It reminds me of a brownie in a shiny package. No thanks
Garbage. Wall Mart comes in mind when I think about Kodak
Pete Grady: The T wins the award for worst looking Leica ever. WHAT is with that viewfinder?
Yep, always bad looking when you can't even afford the empty box
panpen: Meh.....Canon is for amateurs with little or no money. Looking at those samples, I wouldn't use a camera like this even if Canon paid me to do it. But there are always fanboys ready to fork whatever Canon asks for their garbage. The rear view camera from my car takes better pictures.
Interesting. Why do you need a camera there! You don't trust your friends?
srados: I think FUJI X-T1 could learn thing or two how to process JPG's from Canon.Even with smaller sensor, this camera beats Fuji X-T1.I will purchase this cam based on these samples.I do not care how heavy it is.It is DEFINITELY LIGHTER than SLR with 2 lenses in the bag.
Much better even than a Leica M9 or Sony A7R. Wait! Even better than a Canon 5D with the best L lens
Meh.....Canon is for amateurs with little or no money. Looking at those samples, I wouldn't use a camera like this even if Canon paid me to do it. But there are always fanboys ready to fork whatever Canon asks for their garbage. The rear view camera from my car takes better pictures.
Horrible samples. I bet I can take better picture with the rear view camera from my car.If I want pocketable and good quality I'd look at Ricoh GR that has an APS C sensor and costs a bit more.
$1k for a 50mm 2.8 macro lens? Insane. If you don't need the macro capabilities, the Sigma 60mm 2.8 does the job for less than $240.
Hideous. One camera I'd use if Vivitar paid me to do it.
I thought the whole idea in designing a mirrorless camera was weight and size. An XPro1 with a grip in not smaller, or lighter than most Canikons, except the pro bodies.
RossN: All for the technology, but this is ridiculous and unbalanced pricing for those who don't earn their living from photography. It would be good to be able to access photos from central storage, but it's not worth doubling the cost of owning lightroom from ~$100 -> $200/yr for that feature when products like photogene exist for $3 for a perpetual license.
" RAW files that can be manipulated from mobile devices all over the world"
Damn, I bet we can't even breath anymore without processing RAW files while we ride the subway.
$99? Are people from Adobe insane?
Romania is a fine country, if you don't live there.
tabloid: Personally i would never buy a camera without a viewfinder.No good in sunlight, when on holiday.
With a little electronic add on viewfinder, it would be worth a second look at.
"Personally i would never buy a camera without a viewfinder"
Pro's cannot live without a viewfinder
David Smith - Photographer: Not much of an improvement over the X-E1. I don't like the Fuji processing. When you compare the image quality to a camera like the Olympus E-M5, you can clearly see that the output is softer, more processed. At higher ISO's there's less noise, but also less detail. I prefer to do my own processing rather then let the camera do it for me.
Interesting but I find the jpegs from Olympus cameras oversaturated, fake. Panasonic jpegs are too dull for my taste. Fuji files are right in between. They are perfect for my taste.