MaRcIu: not sure if everything about this camera is expensive or I'm too poor.
@Roland KarlssonYou assume it cannot be done but have you actually done any analysis on that? How much do you suppose an m43 sensor weighs?
Film compacts used to be full frame, just think about it :)
Here is one: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Sure-Automatic-Compact-Camera/dp/B0001NBHJ4
And dont tell me this camera has a slow lens, it is about the same as the sony rx100.
Timmbits: I feel very disappointed. The tiny sensor leaves it stuck in the past when we were led to believe that a 1/1.7" might be a big improvement over the tiniest of sensors. The hotshoe is way out of the league that the smaller sensor puts it in. And the looks... they've actually managed to take an awesome retro-like design, and make it look _modest_! What's next, copying the s100 design on the next model? They are aware that all the designers at Canon had quit, and that is the only reason the canon models went to market in their pre-production test model casing, right? (because that is definitely what it looks like happened over at canon, yet everyone's stupid enough to want to imitate them)
I understand what you mean but why put an F1-1.4 lens on 4x3mm sensor when you can put an F2-2.8 lens on a 8x6mm sensor in practically the same size for a negligible extra cost?
And keep in mind this discussion is about high end compact camera's not cameraphones. I intended that F1-1.4 on 4x3 sensor as the natural progression for the LX9 based on the current marketing trend.
Also consider that displays will have much higher resolutions soon enough, the ipad 3 and 'retina display' macbook pro is just the beginning, 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304 will be the next 'full hd' television standard and you can be sure it will also be used in all mainstream laptops, tablets and desktop monitors. So the value of higher resolution in good light will increase a lot in the near future.
I really wish it was not unique though, m43 sensors should be the norm for camera's this size at half the price, they will not fool me with claims that the sensors are too expensive. I just hope things will change in that direction in the coming years, maybe triggered by 'phones' like the nokia 808.
malcolm82: Does this camera allow you to choose between 50fps and 60fps or are they forcing 50fps on the PAL country users like sony does?No 60fps support is a deal breaker for me.
I believe even the nokia 808 allows you to choose from 24, 25, and 30fps? Hopefully i wont have to buy a cell phone to get 60fps video in this country.
Yes i have seen examples of that kind of marketing mentality many times as well, its really disgusting that lack of integrity...
peevee1: "The Extra Tele Conversion function extends zoom range Max 4.8x without deterioration of image quality."
Either their video is very bad at the normal mode, or it is just false advertisement. You understand, for 4.8x digital teleconversion you need to use 1/23 part of the sensor. In could not possibly be as good as video from the whole sensor unless it is a complete junk to begin with. Starting with 4/3, it is like 1/4" sensor, it is not that small even in tiny cheap consumer camcorders.
And without IBIS, you still can use only a handful on Pana zooms for video, or have to shoot from a tripod, if you want something better than a shaky-blurry. The same for stills in low light.
Advertisement is always false.It is not real information even though people often interpret it as such.
Its good to know that Canon does allow it, i may just have to wait for them to finally support higher framerates then. Hopefully they release a decent mirrorless system soon. :)
malcolm82: Again with a horrible F1.4 lens.A camera this size with a normal zoom should have an aps-c sensor with a lens of around F3.5-5.6 such as the standard zooms on interchangeable lens camera's.
Just look at the size of the panasonic powerzoom lens:http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6/2
Its total length looks about 32mm so it can easily collapse in a camera size much smaller than this one.
A micro four thirds sensor would be ok for a camera this size with a 5x zoom lens or for a much smaller camera with shorter zoom range but for this size with 3-4x zoom it really should be aps-c.
"All you've done is explain why good sharp F1.4 lenses are more expensive than sharp F4.0 lenses--not news."
Actually the main reason for the higher price of the F1.4 lenses is simply because they are much bigger, an F1.4 lens on 2.8x crop sensor would be only about the same size as the full frame F4.0 and hence should cost about the same. It is size not F-stop that determines cost.
Their 50mm F2 ASPH is a real example of a superior optical design, wide open it roughly equals the resolution of the other lenses stopped down to F5.6 but you can see it still improves a lot when stopping down and if they made a lens design of equal quality with a maximum aperture of F1.4 the resolution would drop dramatically wide open.You can also see that this lens is significantly larger than the other F2 lens, which is a necessary trade off that comes with a superior optical design. You can see the same trade off with the 21mm F3.4 and 24mm F3.8, both are significantly sharper than the 21mm and 24mm F1.4 lenses at equal apertures while obviously being very large lenses for the maximum aperture size they offer.
"That's one reason people are willing to pay for a sharp when wide open F1.4 Fuji 35mm or Leica F1.4 50mm."
These are leica's own numbers! Compare the resolution charts of the 50mm F0.95, F1.4, F2 and F2.5 lenses. You will see they get progressively better at higher F-numbers, in fact the F0.95 and F1.4 lenses stopped down to F5.6 have similar resolution as the F2 and F2.5 lenses also stopped down to F5.6 which proves that the optical design of the larger lenses is in no way superior to that of the small ones.
It is not the fact that you stop down a lens that increases its resolution but simply the fact that you are using a larger F-number which results in smaller chromatic aberrations which is why the F2.5 lens wide open will achieve similar resolution to the F0.95 lens stopped down to F2.5.
This is simply the mathematics of lens design, it does not even have anything to do with manufacturing accuracy.
With two lenses of an equal level of optical design the larger F-number lens on larger sensor will always be superior to an equivalent smaller F-number lens on smaller sensor, why would you assume the lens on a smaller sensor would get a superior optical design for free? Why would you arbitrarily limit the larger sensor lens to be of an inferior design? It does not make any sense. Whatever level design you choose you will get better results on a larger sensor, it is that simple.
rbach44: Now that we have an f1.4 ZOOM when are we gonna have a nice, small, and super sharp fixed, say, 28mm 1.4 equiv.?
That would be pretty desirable to me. Make it super pocketable, have raw, etc. Maybe even some kind of OVF! Something akin to a pocketable, smaller sensor version of an x100. Any else think that would be great?
I mentioning that a full frame 28mm F2.8 would only extend half the distance of the zoom on the RX100. I wanted to add that a 45mm F4.5 lens on the standard medium format size of 56x42 would still only extend about the same amount as the zoom lens on the RX100. So it is actually possible to make a medium format compact camera with a prime lens :)I would like that camera even more of course, though in this case the sensor itself actually will take up quite a bit of room in the camera body.This would be like a miniature version of large format camera's which usually use F4.5 or F5.6 primes.
malcolm82: "The LX7 features a slightly smaller sensor than the LX5, allowing it to offer the brightest lens of any compact camera with a really impressive F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent range."
That should read F7-11.5 24-90mm equivalent range, not quite as impressive compared to the F4.8-13 24-100mm equivalent range of the Sony rx100.
The reason why oversized multi-aspect ratio sensors are good is because they do not increase the size of the camera. It is the size of the lens that is the big determining factor and i want it to be used completely for the aspect ratio i use. This doesn't necessarily mean i want to use more than one aspect ratio but different people have different preferences and you can not expect them to release the same camera in multiple versions with the various aspect ratio sensors. Plus its nice to have the choice anyways :)
@Timmbits, sorry i have to disagree with you here, i like your charts though! :)
It is the size of the equivalent aperture that determines the size optics so using a 9x6 sensor for example allows using a 7mm F/1.4 lens that is about the same size as a 28mm F/5.6 lens on 36x24mm sensor, note that i am talking about the size of the actual optics, the barrel extension would of course be different, but i do take this into account when suggesting what size sensor they should use for a given lens spec in a given camera size.
And also i actually want manufacturers to put oversized sensors in camera's to allow for multiple aspect ratio's to use the full lens image circle, i do not want this to be used to deceive people with fake specs though :)So in the full frame camera i want i actually want a 37.71x25.96mm sensor to allow every aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 to use the full lens image circle diameter.
How can you not understand that ISO 1600 on the LX7 does not equal ISO 1600 on the RX100.This is just so obvious...
An F1.4 lens on 1x0.75mm sensor would also be able to capture with the same shutter speed at the same ISO, does that mean you would be satisfied with the quality it will provide? Maybe they should start selling F0.9 lens cameras on sensors this size, it seems like it will be a success.
In conclusion: larger apertures: GOOD, small F-numbers: BAD--> We need larger sensors to have larger apertures at higher F-numbers.
Have you actually compared the quality of a prime lens at F1.4 compared to that or another prime lens at F5.6? Why do you think lenses need to be stopped down? Optical aberrations are horrible at F1.4
Just look at this review:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/5
A 150mm F4.2 lens on 108x72mm sensor at F4.2 would have optical aberrations the same size as the canon 50mm at F4.2, by this i mean the size of the blur spot compared to the total image meaning 3x larger blur spot on a sensor 3x the size. Of course this 150mm F4.2 lens at F4.2 has only the same effect of diffraction on image resolution as the canon 50mm at F1.4.What this means is that the 150mm F4.2 lens wide open would have significantly higher resolution than the canon 50mm F1.4 stopped down to F4.2. And if you put them at the same actual aperture size of 1.4 and 4.2 the difference will be huge.
I agree, i also would prefer a compact with a prime lens over one with a zoom lens.
A camera the size of the Sony RX100 can be made with an m43 sensor and 14mm F1.4 lens.
Of course as i said before i would much prefer a full frame sensor with 28mm F2.8 lens which would retract to about the same thickness, only the barrel extension mechanism would be larger though i estimate it would still only extend about half the length as the zoom lens on the RX100 does so i consider this insignificant, the sensor size itself is also insignificant compared to the size of the camera so it also would add very little to the total size.
manakiin: Where is that 1" sensor with 1.4 lens that every fanboy out there was preaching about?
It would be bigger than the Canon G1X. :)
I estimated the crop factor as 4.5 at first but i noticed in the image samples that the lens is 4.7mm at the 24mm equivalent wide end giving a crop factor of 5.1.This means that the actual active sensor size of this camera is closer to 1/1.9" rather than 1/1.7".