Pocket superzoom indeed.
Something with 10x + and stellar image quality. Fast shutter and multiple FPS. Great JPEG right in camera, without having to resort to a RAW workaround/workflow just for some great shots of the weekend trip to the zoo with the kids.
also note the blown highlights in the peak of the building in the Lumina versus the Canon.
I'd like to see this redone with RAW from both.
5x lens? Nikon beats it.No tilt-swivel screen? Nikon beats it.But the Nikon is infuriatingly slow to use.
Can someone come out with a mash up?Great image quality, 10x bright lens, very zippy, 10MP enough- use big pixels to gather lots of light, WiFi, = great travel zoom.
I reviewed the P7700 and sent it back (instead of buying it) because I just couldn't deal with the slow interface. Slow compared to anything else I used. Slow meaning you have to wait after every action. Slow meaning, if you lie to move slow, it's fine, but if you use and are used to using any other piece of electronics today, the P7700 was notably slow.
So they update the camera and keep the slow?
Awesome roundup Jeff. Great to see your work over here and this kind of multi-camera review is so much more usable to so many more people than another $1000+ DSLR or Lens review that people will nit pick in the comments, but so few will actually purchase.
I'd love to see a similar comparison article of some nice compact travel zooms. I recently recommended the Panasonic TZ15 to a good friend because every review of the TZ20 said that if I didn't need the GPS, and I don't, the TZ15 was a great choice. For the person I recommended it to, it was. But with two kids I need a camera of similar performance that don't start up in playback mode (the physical switch) which causes more missed pictures than you'd think.
I have an aging Canon SX20 that I'd like to replace. I don't need 20x zoom, but greater than 10x. I want full 1080p30 HD and as good still images as I can get. And it has to slide into a belt pouch or pocket. Cost less than $500.
Ever since I kickstarted Capture quick release clamp, and that uses an Arca-compatable plate, I've been looking for an manfrotto-like, drop-in, automatic locking plate to put my camera into. Everything else I have is manfrotto, but the Capture is so handy, that I've been itching for some way to have that auto-lock functionality with the Arca.
I looked around and all I see is "quick release" and I'd much rather have quick LOCK. As in, the base locks on to the camera plate when it is dropped in to place. Just like Manfrotto has done for years.
Peak Design actually made an Arca/Manfrotto combo plate, but designed it 90° wrong so the camera mounted on the Capture belt clip goes in to the Manfrotto head facing sideways.
Now Capture has v2 of their belt clip system, and it has a tripod plate on the bottom, but ... really? NOBODY else has made an automatic latching system for Arca? As in, drop the camera in and it click-locks automatically. 1-hand secure with zero extra effort?
Is it possible that the lens can be profiled and a correction file be made so that when converting from RAW, a lot of the corrections (CA, barrel distortion, etc) can be corrected in post?
Rage Joe: The capability of the optical/ image stabilisation ( or the lack of it) should have been tested too, since people take the majority of their images handheld.
That could have been done fairly using some sort of device to move all the cameras the same way while taking the shots. The easiest way to do this could have been to mount the cameras on a car and drive the same track at the same speed and taking a lot of shots, then comparing them. Could you please do this?
and can you do a skydiving comparison when you're done at the race track?
SimenO1: I wish dpreview would compare similary scaled photos. 100% 1:1 pixelmapping is NOT the same scale since each photo have different pixel counts.
I disagree. Seeing the images represented 1:1 on the screen means this is what it would look like on my computer screen. I don't want to see how it would look interpolated so all the images match size- because then we will all question the interpolation used and how it's not a true representation of the actual camera results.
pretol: The reviewers keep doing this per-pixel quality, which is irrelevant! the pictures need to be compared per-actual-scene. When I zoom in for detail, I don't care about number of pixels, I care about the actual detail on the object being photographed..
It's the same "oh per-pixel quality is much better on HTC one", who gives a rat's ass when CLEARLY detail is MUCH worse on it. Taking this to extreme, you can replace the whole image with a single super-sensitive pixel with very sharp edges. You'll have amazing per-pixel quality with amazing iso, but alas... only one pixel.
When you zoom in for detail, what do you think provides the detail you're zoom in on- the pixels.
Otherwise we'd all still be shooting 640x480.
siberstorm27: Hello. I'm trying to choose my next smartphone and I want to take great pictures with it, mostly indoor shots. However, I have shaky hands and a lot of my images tend to blur. I also don't want to constantly take multiple pictures to get a useable one or have to mess with and experiment with settings. They are all time consuming and the best moments don't wait around for you to frame your shot with the best adjusted settings. Which one of these phones takes the best photos the first time around and is the most consistent and well-rounded on auto mode?
I think there are also phones with a real flash. This "strobe" will freeze the action much better than any LED will.
I love this comparison. For those who value quality images, and will have the phone with them all the time, this sort of comparison is WAY WAY more valuable than individual reviews.
Of all the apps on my phone, I have several FOLDERS of imaging apps. The picture-taking ability is critical.They can all make calls, and get mail, browse the web. But how well they take pictures DIFFERENTIATES these phones.
I really hope there's a part-2 where you compare VIDEO prowess. Bright, dark, motion in bright & dark, and lastly, if exposed to preserve highlights, can detail be recovered in the darks, or does the camera's video compression obliterate the details.
Thanks again and I look forward to more comparison articles.
Now, if someone can make an amplified speaker for skype / facetime calls, I'm in.
Goodmeme: relatively inefficient my ass. why don't dpreview review sanyo eneloops?! :)
Yea, my first thought was WTF with the "opinion" slipped in the middle of the announcement there.
My GH2 has a 1500 mAh Lion battery. I can get 2700 mAh rechargeable AA's. And, if I'm out somewhere and my batter goes dead, I'm not SOL, I can just go get some alkalines and get some more pictures.
Or, if it's seldom used, a set of Lithium AA's will sit there, in a drawer for years, ready to take a picture of Bigfoot when he walks past the cabin window. Fat chance of a rechargeable lasting like that.
Man, that dig is just SO out of place for DPrieview.
ogl: the most Boring camera ever made
Yes. Yes I am.
Gordon W: Canon obviously spent a lot of effort coming up with an APS-C mirrorless that won't cannibalize their DSLR sales, but the end result is pretty unappealing as a result. Kind of like Photoshop vs Photoshop Elements.
If what is intended to be a small camera won't fit in a pocket, I can see no reason not to incorporate an EVF. I detest being forced to use the rear display as a viewfinder and therefore would never buy something without an EVF that’s too large to be pocketable.
Exactly- why bother to make it small if you have to attach a lens that gives it considerable bulk, or carry multiple lenses to try and do what a compact travel zoom does in a genuine pocketable device.
FTW: Imagine all camera makers would find a way to one single common M mount, what a wonderful world of lenses we would live in. So, no need to say that the EOS M looks like a NEX-5 with some less features. It probably makes same good picture as the NEX. It is a better IQ tourist camera. Just ask myself why this "pocketables" like this one too, are made with that bulky lenses. They should be sold with pancakes as a standard kit lens, that makes sense, not this bulky thing like Sony has it also. And then, why pancakes in 20 or 22 mm. An alround tourist pancake needs between 12 and 16mm.
Yea, I don't get the whole segment. It's more compact!Unless you wan to use a lens.Then you might as well use a DSLR so you can have more buttons, more control, more features and easier operation of all of those.
Until they start making a compact travel zoom with a bigger sensor, or even the same size sensor with less pixels and IQ as the primary focus, I'll stick with what I got. There's zero incentive to use any of these tiny ILC.
I almost thought this was my next camera, but a 3x zoom is not what I want. I'll take a bigger camera, even Canon XS-20 sized, if you can give me a 12x-15x zoom, tilt-swivel display, and the large sensor for very high IQ.
They talk of a hole in the sensor size market... well there's also a hole in the compact travel zoom that focuses on image quality over pixel count or zoom range or gps, etc. Like a HX9v that has a 10 or 12 MP sensor and really good glass over it that really provides good low light, no need for heavy noise reduction, and stellar image quality.
"We didn't notice much rolling shutter effect.."It has a CCD, nitwit. Rolling shutter is a problem with CMOS sensors.
CCDs can deliver ful HD, and they can deliver higher FPS. DSLRs based on CCDs have done that for years. But it's the cost savings that keeps higher quality & faster image processing out of the camera, and the pixel count chasing that robs the sensor of light gathering that would reduce nose... that hurt this camera the most.
Put in a 10 MP sensor with larger, light gathering pixels, and bump up the processor to handle higher FPS and 1080p30, at least. Canon, the G1X was the camera no one asked for. We want something between features without quality (this) and quality without features (that.)
"So has Canon cut too many corners in pursuit of cut-price capability?"Yes.
Jim Keye: 10 fps is pretty darn cool. But the wi-fi? In a "rugged" camera? If there's one camera that's likely to be taking pictures where a tablet doesn't exist and a cel phone doesn't work, it's /this/ camera. And they chose this feature over GPS? Hmmm.
I think it's great, if it works right. No need to open the door and get the card, and use a computer or accessory to get th photo into your phone to share it...
Why would I need GPS? If it's a family trip to the shore, I can tag all the photos later. I don't need a power hungry, slow, costly GPS to tag every image I take when it's not anywhere near as useful as being able to get access to the images seconds after shooting them, with zero accessories.