moimoi: Although I welcome Pentax-Ricoh going for Full Frame, it is unfortunately way too late.
The phrase "Pentax is doomed!" has become a humerous punchline among Pentaxians. All I can say is, remember that Ricoh took on Canon in copiers - and won. I can't imagine that Ricoh bought Pentax to be a hobby business. It may not happen overnight, but I expect Pentax to be a bigger part of the camera industry in 5-10 years.
Richard is right: Full frame is lovely but it's all about the size/price/quality balance for each individual user.
I have a very complete Pentax APS-C kit that produces very high quality results. Finicky pixel-peepers may find issues with some of the images (good lord, what would the say about micro four thirds and CX?) but, for me, it makes no sense to "upgrade" to full frame.
Besides, even after selling off all of my APS-C gear, I still couldn't afford all of the glass I'd need to gain the functionality that I now have with my APS-C lenses. But if Sony wanted to present me with an A7 II body and a couple of decent zooms, I certainly wouldn't turn them down. :)
I must say that I'm a bit surprised that the XQ2 is such a modest upgrade over the XQ1. Not that either is a bad camera, mind you. But one would expect the phase out of the 2/3" sensor to begin just about now. I've heard a lot about the focus speed of the XQ1 with on-chip phase detection. But I wonder about accuracy. That was a bit of an issue with the XF1, which was totally contrast-detection autofocus.
ZS50: Less MP for better low-light performance and a much-improved EVF at a price below that of the ZS40. Now that's progress - at least in this class of camera. One has to be realistic about what ZS50 can do but it appears this is now a viable option for a take-anywhere, always-have-it-with-you camera.
At this point, one would expect those who are nitpicking the X100T with little technical niggles would understand that they don't get this camera and that it's not for them. And that's fine on both counts. As has been stated before, this is not a "set and forget" device.
Worried about the lack of image stabilization? There are scores of other cameras available to to you. Need additional focal lengths? Ditto. Don't enjoy changing settings if the output isn't what you're looking for? The X100 family is for those who know how to work in manual and near-manual mode.
Now, I will grant that if one already owns the original X100 or the X100s, there's little reason to upgrade. But most of those who say they would buy an X100T "if only it had..." are fooling themselves. They were never going to buy one and never will.
Let's not try to make the X100 line something that it isn't. And please allow those of us who do get this camera to celebrate it for what it is.
jorg14: Did I miss something but with touting all the manual controls, where is the PASM.. knob?
I would have thought the A stands for "auto," meaning that A on the aperture ring means shutter priority mode.
I really want to love the LX100. I really do. I'm totally fine with the styling, size, sensor, lens and control interface. What's more, I have the cash in hand and can actually afford it.
But the lack of an integrated flash drives me crazy. The whole idea of the LX100, at least for me, is the have a reasonably sized, grab-and-go all-rounder for daily use. By definition, I don't want to bring along extra bits - whether lenses or flashes.
I'm only asking for something good enough for fill and reasonably close snapshots. It doesn't even have to be a pop-up (although being able to tilt back a pop-up unit for bounce purposes would be nice). Something akin to the flashes on Panasonic travel-zooms would be fine.
I'm not saying that I won't buy the LX100. But while the camera would have been an immediate pre-order with an integrated flash, I am now waiting to find out more about it. And I am seriously considering the Fuji X100T, Sony RX100 III and even the Canon G7X while I wait.
Boss of Sony: I'd prefer an article explaining the point of photography. So far, I can't see a point. It's just people playing with high-tech toys that do nothing useful. The world is here for me to see in all its glory. I don't want reduce the time I can spend enjoying the real world just to produce and view small, 2-D representations of it on a computer screen or a piece of paper.
There is no point to his comment. If he has to ask, he'll never understand.
Okay, I guess it's been decided that the X30 is a stillborne camera - a failure against the competition in its price range. Excellent. I look forward to picking up my X30 for $299 or less this Christmas. :)
No touchscreen, no native wifi, big K-mount lens with noisy autofocus. The problem with the K-S1 is that it's not going to appeal to its intended market: mobile-interface shooters. There've been only two devices that have resonated with this market in the past decade: the iPhone and the GoPro camera. Pentax and the rest of the traditional camera industry still don't have a clue about how to reach these people and I have to wonder what Pentax's next crack at mirrorless will look like. I just have to shake my head.
Still no Pentax version yet. As always: Canon, Nikon... and even Sony. But no Pentax. Of course, a Pentax-branded version could always be introduced (a la the Tamron 18-250 and 18-270). But that will no doubt take another three years and cost another $300. Do I sound bitter?
DWM: This camera is huge! What exactly is the advantage of a 1" sensor again? I'd rather have a D5300 and a kit zoom. Or a Nikon 1 and 10-100mm if small size was important.
It looks like Camera Size has come through for us. Here' s a comparison between the FZ1000 and the G5 with the 100-300 and the G5 with the 14-140:
You're right Impulses, the FZ1000 is smaller than both, although it's close to the G5 with the 14-140 on it.
Come to think of it, is the FZ1000 that smaller than my G5 with the 100-300mm (200-600mm equivalent) mounted on it? No 4K video but many photographers aren't concerned about that.
i'd love to see a review of this camera up against Olympus's new SH-1.
thx1138: I think the slow tele end of the zoom range should have been mentioned as a weakness and the rapid drop in aperture. It goes from f/1.8 to f/2 just changing from 28mm to 29mm, which is a joke. To really standout form the first version, it should have been f/4 at tele end, 24mm at wide end, placed more emphasis on improving lens quality as it's clearly soft at the edges and corners of the test scene, had 1/4000 shutter speed, at least allowed monochrome filters in RAW+jpg, kept the RAW files used for the HDR mode, bundled it with an EVF at a good discount.
Still a great little camera, but I'm not really seeing much reason to get this over the original
The RX100 II is not "much thicker" than the RX100. It's a tenth of an inch thicker and still fits in the same pockets as the original camera. It is a bit heavier, though.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: I really only see the water color effect at ISO 800 in the man's face. If you don't pixel peep and look at the overall picture, the images are impressive with sharpness and color accuracy, even at ISO 6400. Olympus is now spreading it's impressive newly acquired technology in all kinds of cameras. If only they would release it in a standard 4/3 DSLR, it would please a lot of people who owns a lot of 4/3 lenses.
But to pack a 24 X zoom in a such a small pocketable body is quite a feat. And if you add the 5 axis stabilisation in it is really another step ahead for the non stop innovative company that is Olympus. Bravo Olympus!
I'd seriously like to hear more of your thoughts about this. I don't own the Stylus 1 but if you can offer some more specifics, I'd be eager to read them.
I really have to scratch my head over the comments that complain about the jpg quality from the SH-1. This is a compact camera with a very long zoom range. Output is quite good for the class.
Perhaps RAW would be nice but, frankly, when I'm using this kind of camera, RAW isn't a priority. I have other, bigger and better cameras for when image quality is critical.
If one doesn't need the long zoom, then certainly a Sony RX100 (even the original) would be better. But, sometimes, 100mm just doesn't cut it. I am very interested in the comment that finds the SH-1's output better than the Stylus 1.
But the SH-1's main competition is no doubt the Panasonic ZS40, which has a built-in EVF, a control dial around the lens and a slighty faster lens with a slightly wider and longer zoom range.
But if the SH-1's rear LCD (lower resolution than on the Panasonic) holds up in bright sunlight, it might be okay. I'm looking for a one-on-one comparison review between these two cameras.
Fuji... how about a firmware update for the X-E1 that takes autofocus one more step forward... and, more importantly, improves the refresh rate of the EVF?
Wow. There's way too much hand-wringing over the A3000. Yes, it's an NEX-3 with the form factor of a compact DSLR. I find nothing wrong with this - and I'm speaking as a person with a full-on three-body Pentax DSLR kit and a three-body micro four-thirds kit.
Yes, it would be nice if the EVF had more resolution. But it's still better than any rear LCD in bright sunlight. And as far as that rear LCD goes, the 230K-dot display on my Pentax K200D was perfectly adequate - just as it is on a number of Leica digital cameras.
My take: The A3000, at $399 with stabilized kit 18-55mm zoom, is a great deal. Maybe add the Sigma 19mm and 30mm primes in E-mount for a compact package with high image and video quality that you won't be too worried about trashing. Then go out and have fun.
Don't like it? Then don't buy it. Me? I may pick one up just for jollies - and to reward Sony for thinking a bit outside of the box.
Well, how about that? Not only is the K-01 still being sold, apparently it's still in production. Many people just didn't get this camera and that's fine. But I'm glad I have mine. I hope eventually there will be some kind of a K-02.