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.
I'm not so sure the question is whether this camera is better than the Sony RX100. I see the Sony NEX 6 as being a more natural competitor to this new Fuji. And while the Fuji X-M1 looks like a nice piece, the NEX 6 is probably just as good while offering a viewfinder.
Dougbm_2: A lot will depend on how good the evf is. Probably the same as in the FZ20. If it was as good as the OMD E5 evf then I would be interested. I think they may be on to a winner.
Yes, the EVF has only something like 202,000 dots. But it's not meant for things like manual focus. It's meant for framing shots. And, arguably, it may be more useful than the tunnel-like OVFs in the much-larger and heavier Canon G15 and Nikon P7100. The P7700 has no viewfinder at all.
Sergey Borachev: Brilliant!
A really small camera with an EVF and a long zoom. People complaining about the 200k EVF or the slow speed at the 200mm end are not being realistic with what can be done in a small camera. Even the smaller battery capacity is fine for what this camera is intended, not a whole day of shooting.
Be thankful that it is only 12MP and not 16, 18 or 20MP, and there is a Leica lens, and has Panasonic OIS, and some bonuses in the connectivity features.
IMO, if everything works well, this is going to be the new standard to beat for a carry anywhere pocket camera.
I've been saying this on another site. If the LF1's lens is at something akin to f/2.8 at 90mm, that would be just fine - even if things got dim fairly quickly after that. Most people wouldn't go beyond 90mm unless they're outdors anyway.
Oh my. Heaven forbid Sigma should think outside the box a bit. Out come the long knives, proving once again that photography, along with amateur radio, is almost comically tradition-bound.
I don't know if this lens will be great, lousy or anywhere in between. But it looks interesting for a variety of low-light applications to me. Changing prime lenses or carrying two camera bodies isn't always possible. Props to Sigma for giving it a shot.
Hey, the Q is now $399 with the 47mm f1.9 prime lens. Everyone I know or have spoken to who owns one loves the camera. I think the risk is quite low by now. If you like the Q, just buy one (I certainly plan to). Just don't expect it to be a K-5 or K-30.