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.
John Ellis: Any enthusiast camera without a provided viewfinder leaves me cold. I can see this system as having a lot of potential. The new telephoto zoom is impressive, especially for the nature crowd. Hopefully (very) Nikon will continue to evolve this new system and if so, I will gladly part with 3K for a system I can use for general photography and the occasional walk in the several national forests not far from DC, looking for more birds to complete my life list. If Nikon does not evolve this system, at least Tamron has a new telephoto zoom I can use with a FF or APS sensor camera.
I'd miss not having a viewfinder as well. Maybe Nikon sees this as having it both ways; you can leave off the viewfinder when you want something smaller (if you are happy with using the rear screen). Maybe that's why in some markets the viewfinder isn't optional.
Never used a Nikon 1 but as far as I can tell the reputation of the lenses is very good. Seems Nikon sees this as a premium system, in spite of the relatively small sensor (for a CSC). Seems DPR's view of what a consumer-grade lens is is dictated purely by max aperture, rather than actual lens performance in all its aspects.
NCB: What will make or break this camera is the pic quality. Period. And as yet nobody knows what that is. 1" isn't a tiny sensor; a "premium" compact would be considered brilliant with this sized sensor. And this is a rather special sensor. So, let's see how it actually does in real world shooting.
I'm surprised that this article has actually appeared when it has. It's somewhat pre-empting a serious review.
Price? People said that about the Df. The Df is selling. Enough people will pay a premium price if the product is good enough; i.e. if they're convinced they're getting quality and the performance and characteristics of the product press the right buttons. All the major players are now producing premium-priced products. OK Nikon 1 has a 1" sensor, but that doesn't rule it out. It's a CSC with emphasis on the compact; the V3 build is said to be good, and the Nikon 1 lenses are reckoned to be very good.
Get things in proportion with price. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix 800 bought in 2000; 2Mp and a 36-76 zoom (a very nice camera). It cost £600 then. What's that equivalent to today? Somewhere around a V3 with EVF. People will pay that sort of money. It doesn't matter if there are cheaper cameras; it's what someone wants and what that person is prepared to pay.
Would I buy a V3? I might. If I convinced it will deliver. The size and weight are hugely attractive.
What will make or break this camera is the pic quality. Period. And as yet nobody knows what that is. 1" isn't a tiny sensor; a "premium" compact would be considered brilliant with this sized sensor. And this is a rather special sensor. So, let's see how it actually does in real world shooting.
burnymeister: I think people are missing the point on this camera. $1200 isn't that bad when you consider what you're getting. For under $3k you can get a system that covers the focal range of 18-800mm with pretty good features and small enough to fit in a backpack.
How is this not a great thing? 800mm in any other system will either result in a horrible unbalanced mess or $11k just for the lens and will be so heavy you won't hike it anywhere. This is the first time I'm interested in the 1 series. I think Nikon's finally coming through.
Zanton - have you ever seen the output from a bridge camera? Tolerable because of what it gives you in terms of reach. Quality zilch.
I'm fascinated by the number of comments about small chip, etc, when there hasn't been a single test, let alone a comprehensive review, performed with the camera. Are people only interested in specs these days? m4/3 used to suffer for precisely the same reason, and possibly still does.
To state the obvious, Nikon 1 is different. Strikingly so. If you're interested in the stand-out features of the V3, then there's no other game in town. It is also a capable, flexible and well-built camera in a more general sense. It avoids the safe but very boring route of the EOS-M. It's a system camera but offering a different mix from the other CSCs. Nikon's gamble is that overall there's enough of a market there to make it worthwhile.
I suspect they're right. Get away from the notion that photographers exist on a small number of different levels each one of which has a fixed range of requirements. There's a vast range of requirements out there. The V3 will tick a number of boxes.
Price? If you want value for money you can't beat a D3100/D3200/D3300. You can also spend a lot on buying somewhat inflexible "premium" fixed-lens compacts. This isn't a cheap camera, but for the enthusiast who wants to use it it isn't that expensive either.
vroger1: Still has that Teensy sensor?? What's the point? My results with the EOS M (yes reallythe EOS M with an Optical v/f) are so remarkable at APS-C size, that I refuse to go small. Even my Lumix m4/3 can't cut Black and White as well.
Tried the EOS-M and rapidly ditched it. Even my aging M4/3 G1 is a better camera.
The sensor in V3 may only be 1" but it's a rather special sensor. It'll appeal to some. Be interested to see how it does in real-world shots.
Matthewson: Would someone please tell Mr. Imano that sensor size is not just about image quality, or the perception of quality - it's about image control. It has less to do with megapixels, and more to do with the ability to control depth of field.
Depends what you want out of the camera. If you're someone who raves about bokeh and wants DOF as shallow as you want, then go FF and use fast primes. If you're someone who's looking for great depth of field, crisp detail from foreground to distance, then small sensors are fine. The only problem with small sensors then is too much noise from cramming too many pixels onto the sensor, and the associated problem of trying to hid it with over-done noise reduction. A 6mp m4/3 sensor could be a killer.
babalu: ...in five to ten years any camera with a mirror box will be as antiquated as film cameras are today .
DSLRs, like SLRs, are for people who take photographs, rather than gear junkies...
NCB: Sony deserves credit for producing an innovative camera which is capable, under the right circumstances, of producing excellent pics, and all in a light and compact body, for a full frame camera. BUT GOLD? Seems to me DPR has shrunk the market this camera is supposedly aimed at to the point it can consider that award. Fact is, it has quite a lot of minuses, ones which rivals from Canon and Nikon don't possess. It should be judged against the market those cameras are aimed it. It's a good first attempt from Sony, but GOLD implies that it's outstanding in its market, which, unless you shrink the market as I indicated, it patently isn't.
Err... how many Canon and Nikon pro users have switched then?
I can see quite a few committed FF users, pro or otherwise, adding this to their kit as it gives something different, weight and size in particular, and the very limited range of (extremely good) lenses may not matter too much if you're thinking of particular uses. Pro users ditching their whole main Nikon or Canon gear in favour of this is another matter entirely, and I just don't see it happening.