Great natural colours. Were these all taken with the Standard picture control?
I don't see the problem with two cameras offering the same sensor but different features. Nikon has been doing it, successfully, for years; look at the D3xxx, D5xxx and D7xxxx series. The key to that is offering different bodies with different facilities. By and large the image quality produced by those bodies is the same; it's a question of how you produce those images and other related issues.
ag80: Such polls among usual readers don't make a lot of sense, since majority just uses minimal equipment set. A camera and a lens or two. They may have used something else in the past, but that's no longer relevant in this year competition. So what they have now is either best for them and they vote for that or for something else they crave for based solely on the reviews or quick hands-on at most. Which is again far from accurate.
Professional reviewers votes are much more interesting, since they can actually compare rather then speculate.
E.g. I owned Nikon DSLR with a couple of lenses in the past, now I own Fuji with a couple of lenses. I was happy with both, but these are not even 2013 models. So what would my vote represent should I put it?
But professional reviewers have to speculate about what people need; people usually know better what their own needs are, and can read reviews (many of them), look at example output, and make a reasonably informed decision about how good something on a shortlist is from their perspective.
For example, I think the T1 seems to be a terrific camera... except looking at a lot of example output it doesn't seem to do it with the sort of colour I want for my landscape interest. Likewise the A7. But I do have both a Df and a D3100, with similar colour and great for landscapes, so I'm pretty sure a D750 would be a great camera, at least as far what I want to produce.
Think Richard's right on this one. Full-frame, like medium format, gives you something different, in some but not all senses something better. Keeping in the back of your mind the idea that you may one day want to explore such a format is fine. But stuff you are using at the moment will at best have only supplementary use with the larger format and quite likely will have none at all. Don't worry about it.
jkokich: I've looked at the gallery and the samples, and the shots just aren't impressive.
Why not? One trip shooting what's on offer = one photoshoot.
The point being, obviously, the shots are limited to what's available around that location.
I think the shots were all, or nearly all, done on one photoshoot, and cover a very limited range. I'd have preferred shots taken over a much wider range of subjects and conditions. It's difficult to judge the capabilities of the camera based on these shots, which is a pity.
Fair enough review as far as it goes. A couple of thoughts:
1) Re the LX100, the Leica D-lux Type 109 isn't much more and you get extras for the extra cost. If, as now seems to be the case, the JPEGs are different, it might be the better buy, or certainly an option worth considering. I'd love you to do a comparison of the two.
2) The stand out thing is that all 4 favoured cameras have sensors larger than 1", and 3 of them have built in viewfinders. The market segment has changed, radically (for the better). Maybe the enthusiast compact segment needs to be divided up, viz:a) Ultra-compact enthusiast: size and weight are the dominant issue, at the expense of other things.b) Mid-range enthusiast: larger size and the flexibility/features which go with it, while not necessarily having large-sensor image quality (or cost).c) Semi-pro enthusiast: large-sensor image quality, together with quality handling, features and controls.
Don Sata: I just bought a D3300 with the collapsible VR kit lens. It's a great package as it is but for portability and flexibility this camera is quite tempting: more portable, better controls, sexier.
The D3300 is indeed a great package. But it shouldn't be too hard to convince yourself that you need both ...
Reilly Diefenbach: The D3300 with kit lens kills this nice little camera at $350 less. Can't carry a one pound camera? Really?
I've a D3100, and for stills you have a point. However, the question for me is not so much size as weight. I want a quality camera which I can stick in a rucksack pocket for longer walks and doesn't weigh more than around 400gm. Currently I use a 9 year old Nikon Coolpix 8400. I still use it because nothing in that class I've tried since comes near. It has great colour, it has a sharp lens, and most of all it doesn't wipe out detail with noise reduction trying to disguise the effect of cramming too many pixels on to too small a sensor. I've come to the conclusion that I need something with approaching an APS-C sensor with not too many pixels on it. The LX100 is definitely in the frame.
Excellent review. It seems the jpeg processing could be improved a tad. I'm wondering how it would compare with the Leica D-Lux (Type 109). Do you intend to do a review of that camera?
James Pilcher: This camera may well relegate my very fine m4/3 bodies to super-wide and telephoto work. Assuming this is a great lens, I see no need to put a normal zoom on a m4/3 body when this camera is available in the bag.
This is the hiking camera I've been waiting for. No longer do I have to choose between my LX7 (fine lens but 1/1.7 sensor) and my much larger kit of Olympus E-P5 + a couple of primes.
Looks like a winner, Panasonic!
Hiking is what I'd use it for. Would like more tele reach, but if the IQ is good enough I could live with what it provides. Will be very interested in the full review + samples.
An alternative with more reach would be the new GM5 coupled with the rather good original 14-45 zoom which came with my G1; overall weight would be similar, but not as neat a package.
What's put me of X-trans sensor cameras in the past has been the green problem in areas such as grass, clearly visible in some sample pics. The grass in these pics looks fine. Wonder if Fuji has found a workaround.
Anyway, I like these pics. Good balanced colour.
HENNIGArts: In my opinion Fujifilm did a great job with the X30.
I had a X20 last year. It was very nice to use in barcelona - have a look at the photos on my homepage. The image quality was good and I really likes the styling of the camera and the feeling I had using it.
A manual zoom feels much better than a powerzoom, for me this makes the difference between point and shoot and a "real" camera - together with a proper viewfinder. The optical one in the X20 was a nice idea, but much to imprecise, so I stopped using it and that was finally the reason I sold the X20.
The X30 keeps all the good and replaces the poor OVF with a high end EVF - perfect.
Think you've hit the button. I need a viewfinder and generally I prefer optical ones, but compact OVFs these days leave you guessing the framing too much. A quality EVF is a great improvement.
As for the other issues, a good camera two years ago is still a good camera. The fact the other cameras have introduced other things only matters if you want those things. There's a lot more to image quality than sensor size; if the X30 produces what you want then it's OK.
NCB: Sensor size isn't quite as important as many believe. 12MP on a 2/3" sensor is roughly the same pixel density as 21MP on a 1" sensor as in the Sony RX100 III. I would expect similar image quality. And 12MP is easily enough for many people.
The EVF is enough to make me seriously consider it. I like optical viewfinders, but framing difficulties with those found in compacts combined with the improved quality of some recent EVFs make me think it's time to move on. The "advances" found on other recent cameras aren't necessarily what people want. So, for those looking for a top quality compact picture-taking machine, I think the X30 will prove attractive.
No single factor determines image quality, but low pixel density definitely helps. All other things being equal, a 16MP full-frame sensor will outperform a 16MP APS-C sensor. And no, more pixels isn't always better.
As to the X30 versus the RX100 III, it depends what you want. The RX100 III can produce outstanding output, if you like it; I've taken a close look, and I don't go a bundle on the colour, greens in particular look insipid. Likewise, the main doubt I have about all Fuji X-trans sensored cameras are the greens. I shoot landscapes, and grass needs to look right.
Sensor size isn't quite as important as many believe. 12MP on a 2/3" sensor is roughly the same pixel density as 21MP on a 1" sensor as in the Sony RX100 III. I would expect similar image quality. And 12MP is easily enough for many people.
Daniel Lee Taylor: I don't get it. This is an EOS M with an optional EVF but without IS, the 11-22 UWA, or EF lens compatibility...at 12-20x the price depending on which component you're looking at.
Who in their right mind would drop thousands of dollars to buy this thing? For the money you could have a Sony A7, and I dare anyone to suggest that IQ would be better with the Leica T.
Leica has made some great cameras and lenses in the past, but lately it seems like the red badge means "sucker."
I bought an EOS M. Gave it a thorough workout, but eventually sold it on. The IQ wasn't good enough, not nearly. The Leica T is in a different ball park to the M; the images look sharp and the colour spot on.
Sony A7? Too many minuses. Yes, I reckon the T's image quality is better, if by quality you mean what you see in real world pics.
NCB: OK, you go out and snap away with the T just as you might with say a Sony CSC, and it's not the same. DPReview didn't like the Nikon Df either, for much the same reasons. I have the Df. It's a dream of a camera and I wouldn't be parted from it.
Not all of us go around with our digicam glued to the eye and snapping at everything which moves. For a start, you miss a lot of good scenes that way. Some of us take our time. I see a scene which has got something and mentally frame the possibilities before ever I get the camera out. I turn it on and twiddle the odd setting, if necessary, before it gets to the eye. There's nothing in the operation of the T which you've run through which would put me off. In the slightest.
I want sharp pics with the right colour and exposure. The JPGs might be a tad flat; seeing what alternative settings could do would be useful. But the colours are superbly natural. The T has distinct attractions.
Expensive? Not for a Leica. Or other options for that matter.
If you need speed, fine, this camera probably isn't for you. The only time I need speed is when light is changing fast over a landscape. But if I miss the moment I just hang around until it changes back.
OK, you go out and snap away with the T just as you might with say a Sony CSC, and it's not the same. DPReview didn't like the Nikon Df either, for much the same reasons. I have the Df. It's a dream of a camera and I wouldn't be parted from it.
jondh: How can we hold an aluminium camera in outdoor winter??
Some nice samples, in others the colours look fairly flat. Which brings me to a general point about reviews (not just DPreview). It's rarely stated what picture controls (colour model, etc) are being used in jpg samples. And nothing about how changing picture control may affect things like colour. It would be good to not only know what's there, but see some samples using alternative pic controls. For example, we might guess that some of the flatter looking pics would like different/better with an alternative choice of pic control. But we don't. And without that we can't really judge what the camera can achieve using a few simple tweaks.
But ... in the real world it DOES compete with the likes of Olympus Stylus 1. And indeed various APS-C and M4/3 DSLR and CSC cameras. The bottom line is that it's a brute of a camera in terms of weight and size, has a price to match the weight, and almost anybody who might include it on their shortlist can almost certainly find a better package for their particular needs elsewhere.