The images look pretty good but I fear it would have the same effect on me like the lumia. Looks tempting on the paper but when thinking about buying it I would rather buy a RX100 for half of the money and just keep my $0 smartphone for the smartphone stuff, like calling, texting and...taking pics that no-one is going to see anyway.
Awesome photographic eye
Finally a reasonable launch price. It means that by waiting few months we can get it for awesome 399.
Dimac: omg, it looks awful
I am all for the retro look, but I must agree it just look plainly bad. Even if it cost $10 bucks I would not put it on the camera.
There is nothing wrong with the alexa camera itself, alexa cameras are the must have gear of every serious hollywood production... I just think posting it here totally misses the target audience.
The zoom on my FZ1000 is a borderline usable on the long end with the 16x zoom and F4. With F6.5 at 83x zoom and smaller sensor, this is really just for the show.
I would highly doubt that anybody could venture money for making a brand new camera when even established companies are winding down productions.It isn't even in a vaporware ballpark.
Looks awesome. Does anyone know the US price?
snapa: Most boring camera release I can remember. After reading the specs and looking at the camera, it took me about 5 milliseconds to decide I was not interested. No matter how fast the AF is, if the pictures are not any good (at least RX100III IQ), what is the point? No tilting/touch screen, 4k video, no grip, EVF, WTF!
Canon, Panasonic, Fuji has failed this year IMO with their pitiful attempts to produce anything worth upgrading to. Hopefully Sony (a7000), Olympus (ZX-3), Nikon (P8000) may still introduce something worthwhile this year.
You failed to realize that people are going to buy less cameras in 2015 than in 2014. They know that.
Sean65: There's a lot of talk about sensor size but to be honest the small sensor in the XF1 which I bought for my partner took a lovely shot. That was only a 6MP sensor so I not sure if the 12MP sensor produces the same image quality but if it does then it definitely worth a look. The older XQ1 was also known to be quite a responsive P&S camera. I'd imagine the price will drop quite fast.
I had xF1 and I can tell you it had abysmal quality for the money. It didn't make better images than the wal-mart $100 bubble wrapped Fuji/Olympus/canon cameras but easily cost more than 3x-4x.
One thing I learned long time ago. Fujis rugged waterproof cameras stink like no other. As much respect I have for the X series, there is hardly worse rugged compact than fujis.
How about a new X100U with bayer sensor?
Axel Vercauteren: Same poor ergonomics as the X-A1. The A6000 is about the same size and weightand adds a viewfinder and a much better grip.Another marketing thing from Fuji along withnumerous superzooms.
here A6000 is nearly 2 x more expensive than a1. Whats the point of such comparison? I can also say that X-t1 is much more ergonomic camera, but that again is a faulty comparison.
Stephen Scharf: The Fuji X-A-series are really under-rated cameras. I have the original X-A1, and the image quality, color, dynamic range, and high-ISO noise performance are exceptional. The X-A1 may have the best noise performance at high ISO of any of the X-series cameras (see the review of this by Imaging Resource last year).
At this price point, you get a very capable camera that has image quality that exceeds the Olympus OM-D series (I also own the OM-D E-M1 and previously owned the E-M5), and the camera scales very well with the higher specification Fuji X-mount lenses.
Great way to get in to the Fuji X system at a very reasonable cost. It also pairs beautifully with the sweet little 27mm pancake.
I agree with that. it is tremedous bang for the buck, but very people realize tat. Those A1 had been sitting on permanent sale in my local best buy store for a long time.
Just a Photographer: It does show that mobile phones are taking over a large portion of the overall camera market. But it doesn't say anything about the quality of the images taken with those phones.
The quality doesn't play significant role in most people lives. In fact I don't know any of my smart phone friends who would complain about quality of their images. It is like complaining of quality of mp3 vs CD. Real-life people do not do that.
wow, what a totally new concept.
I look more into this and I smell rat. The HEVC/ H.265 falls under a commercial patent administered by MPEG LA and the patent pool is held by companies like Fraunhofer , apple, Cisco, Ericsson etc...Why would anybody create a "new" web standard that relies on possible patent and royalty licensing scheme is beyond my comprehension, unless the guy behind it is financed by the patent holders or simply don't care.
The last thing I need is to start using a new BPG format only to realize in few years that I am in a lawsuit for unpaid royalties.
Fool me once with Gif....
Poweruser: A solution to a problem that doesnt exist. JPG in best quality is already "good enough" for almost anything. If you want something losless, use PNG, TIFF, whatever.
Even if we want to get out of jpeg 8 bit per channel, do we need to create whole new format? It would be easy to make backward compatible jpg+ that can hold more bits. It reminds me Linux where everyone wants to make his own distro.
Why would chroma subsampling be put as a feature? As I understand chroma subsampling means encoding chroma in lower resolution than luma. The only reason for doing this is to save file size, everything else is a disadvantage and results in the famous jpeg artifacts. We don't necessary need to save few kb of file space anymore.
After all that experimenting, Nikon is back on track with what they do best.