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)
Low F-number marketing is the reason for the tiny sensor.
"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."
Next they will marketing F1-1.4 on 4x3mm sensors. Most manufacturers seem to be moving backwards. The Sony rx100 is the exception and only partially since they should've used an m43 sensor in that camera instead of going for the F1.8 marketing number.
I've been commenting about this for a while now...
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.
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?
28mm F2.8 is the lens i want most for a full frame compact interchangeable lens camera. I am not sure what you mean by F1.4 exactly? On which sensor size? The number is meaningless on its own.
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.
What is your point? I know there are two interpretations which is why i said both that it would double the resolution and added that this would be worth 4 times the amount of pixels.
Besides is that all you have to comment about after these posts? I dont see how it is relevant to the discussion.
I am quite confused about the lack of interest in this topic. Why do people care to buy quality lenses for interchangeable lens camera's if they dont care about the resolution the lens provides?
Sensor size is a huge factor in the optical design for a lens of a given field of view and aperture diameter since resolution limited by optical aberrations scales directly with the F number.Combined with the effect of diffraction, tripling the sensor size for this particular lens spec will roughly double the resolution at an aperture setting somewhere between the largest of the wide and tele end.
I did not say anything about low light noise performance did I? An F4-7 16-60mm zoom lens on 24x16mm sensor would have about the same aperture size throughout the zoom range which is exactly the point i was making.The difference would be that the lens on aps-c would deliver at least double the resolution wide open at F4 than this crappy F1.4 lens, or in other words provide 4x the amount of pixels worth of resolution.
martin0reg: I still can't believe the sound quality coming out of this small device:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRCl7I_XFRMIt would be the definite camera gear for concerts - if it only had better video stabilisation .. nokia please..
Agreed, and i am sure it is coming :)Though i am waiting for the 3840x2160p60 version.
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.
Tom Goodman: Smaller sensor. Forget about it. Faster lens. How often does anyone really need that? Go on, count the number of shots you've done in the last month that needed the faster lens. It isn't going to give you DOF flexibility either.
On compact camera's you actually need to shoot wide open or close to wide open a lot more than on larger sensor camera's with bigger aperture lenses.The extreme example is cell phones which need to shoot wide open all the time. Hence the resolution provided by the lens wide open on compacts is crucial which means f1.4 is indeed a horrible choice for compact camera's which is based purely on marketing.
Expensive full frame F1.4 primes have horrible resolution and vignetting wide open, how good can we expect an F1.4 zoom on a tiny sensor to be?
marike6: It's not a beautiful camera, but has a solid looking grip, a terrific Schneider lens, and a tilt/swivel screen - all great things. But I don't know why vendors have to write f1.4 or f1.8 like the XZ-1 or Full HD on the front of cameras. They aren't places for specs. Take a cue from the X10, still one of the prettiest P&Ss ever. No logos, no writing, nothing on the front. The top panel can have any little "Full HD" or "AVCHD" spec cues designers want, but with the front, the cleaner the better.
Shows why they use the small sensors, if they had put an m43 sensor in this camera they would have had f3-6 as advertisement numbers.
peevee1: Finally RX100 has a competitor, at least at the longer focal lengths.
Exactly, larger sensors do not result in better low light performance, it is the size of the aperture that determines that.
Larger sensors get higher resolution from similar quality equivalent lenses and better good light performance at similar base iso settings.
jon404: Next -- robot cameras with 'decisive moment' AI software!
Why not? Your point 'n shoot will already take a picture when it 'sees' a cat or dog... and can process a pile of snaps to come up with the 'best portrait.'
Brave new world! Sort of.
This is just a matter of time really, in 20 years cellphones like the nokia 808 could be shooting uncompressed 200mp at 3000fps.
You would use a different kind of program that plays through the video at any speed you want and when you found a good still image you can simply fine tune at slower speeds or even frame by frame to find the best one. Even if it is shot at 3000fps it will work just as well if the software is good and the hardware capable of driving it.
The idea that carriers are subsidizing phones is ridiculous, they are not a government spending tax money. You are simply getting a loan included in your monthly contract to pay for the phone.Its no different from saying banks are giving away free houses.
oscarvdvelde: I had a great Toshiba laptop with 17" screen of 1440·900 pixels. Now I have a laptop with 15.6" screen with 1600·900 pixels, it is more dense but frankly, I prefer the former. Images should be displayed larger, not smaller. I'd rather have 2880·1800 pixels in a 34" screen. On the other hand I suppose one could enlarge images 200% and get the same quality and size as before.
I think it wont be long before images on the internet automatically load at the right ppi for your monitor.
malcolm82: I am already looking forward to the next step of 288ppi rather than 192ppi. It wont be too long for 3840x2400 or 4096x2560 laptops and tablets to be released since they will be based on the new tv resolution standard which will replace full hd, either 3840x2160 or possibly 4096x2304.
For phones 288ppi will come very soon: http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-developed-5-full-hd-lcd-panel-440-ppiAt 288ppi setting that gives the same text size as a 15inch full hd laptop screen at 96ppi so its unlikely to be using smaller text, so basically these will be the first 1.5x 'retina' displays.
You mean for double ppi like the current 'retina' generation. For next generation triple ppi displays 3840x2400 will only give the same desktop space of regular 1280x800 laptops so its suitable even for ultra portables.
For 1920x1200 desktop space like for the 17 inch laptop triple ppi will give 5760x3600 or 20.7mp. Finally monitors will be capable of showing high quality images.
whyamihere: I may not have been doing digital photography for long, but I have been doing digital art and video editing since the early 90's, so I'm aware of the implications of pixel density and perceived resolution clarity. Keep that in mind as I say the following:
Anyone who thinks this Retina Display will help them with their digital photography work is either ignorant - as in, "You don't know how the human eye works," - or doing something wrong - as in, "You're face is way too close to your screen."
The ignorant will think the screen is awesome because they think it'll somehow translate into clarity. I'll bet the differences won't be noticeable until you're too close to the screen, at which point you're doing something wrong because nobody holds their laptop that close to their face while working.
The "Retina" trick only works for devices that need to be that close to your eye, such as a phone or a tablet. That sort of pixel density is wasted on a laptop.
You should try putting alternating black and white lines of 1 pixel width on your display to see how far you need to be before you cant see pixel size detail anymore. You will probably need to go about 40 inches from your 27inch display for it to become solid grey. Thats the definition of retina, its not about not seeing the fine pixel wireframe on a solid white screen or something like that.
I wonder why camera's ever got more than 2mp.
Same size, much higher quality :)
Compare pdf text at 100% to 200% and to 300%... And of course for pictures the benefit is even more clear i think?