forpetessake: Sorry, it's not a "real-world" sample gallery, not the type of photography this lens targets.The 90mm FL looks ill-suited for many of the subjects in this shoot. They looked crammed and the viewer is annoyed by not seeing wider. This is a specialty lens, mostly for portraits and short distance sport action. That's what the Fujifilm web gallery is correctly advertising.
Not still life studio and not artsy landscape is real world enough for me. :) I think the half shot with guitar, dog in guitar case, etc. show quickly the lens is great.
Look so much better than most of the ACR photos
I would love a showdown with the Samsung 85mm f/1.4 :) this Fuji looks spectacular
Banh Mi: i owned samsung nx300. i sold all canon sl canon 6d 7d and all my L lens. if u dont own a canon 5dIII pr 1DX. then the nx300 plus 45mm f1.8 cost total 450. can beat all of canon and nikon crop frame easily. Right now I am enjoying NX Galaxy and 85mm 1.4 from Samsung. Want too see my work ? Http://500px.com/dslr101 or http://Flickr.com/photos/dslr101
Good work. Let us enjoy the years before Samsung priced like the camera companies. :)
Lens is extremely impressive
Mike FL: It seems Zeiss has problem to sell (real) Zeiss lenses.
In the other words, SONY can live without Zeiss, but not other way around.
Zeiss makes a ton of money in medical, defense, etc. industries and camera lenses is just afterthought and a little extra bonus for them.
Ed Overstreet: I tested both my new G7 and my GX7 with three lenses, using an Edmund Scientific Company Lens Resolving Power chart. Cameras set for shutter priority, on a tripod (OIS turned off) cycled through all shutter speeds at 1/3 increments 1/25 through 1/250, fired using 2-second self-timer.
Consistently I get maybe a one-step improvement in line pairs per mm resolved, often a bit less, or roughly a 5-10% improvement in resolution, using electronic rather than mechanical shutter. BUT — this is pixel-peeping. I have to magnify image 200% to see this, toggle back and forth between electronic/mechanical and squint with eyes close to the 23” monitor. The difference is within the range of differences on one zoom lens tested at different focal lengths on the same camera, and less than what you often see between center and corner sharpness on most zoom lenses. IMO this “issue” is a tempest in a small teapot. Except perhaps for devotees of pixel-peeping, don’t lose sleep over this. I won’t.
The kit lens sample I had was not very good either, think it is luck of the draw with much variation possible.
ARoussil: No external mic input feels like a marketing ploy not to compete with other Sony products. Sony has been guilty of this in the past and it never ends well to forget that the real competition is outside your company and will be barking at your heels before you know it. It's a deal-breaker for me and this lack has often been a deal-breaker in the past for advanced users. It's a great camera and certainly worth the money otherwise.
Might as well use $80-100 audio recorder with better sound quality than a $200-300 mic plugged into a camera.
sandy b: Nice feature set. The J1 matches for IQ upto 3200. I think it's too expensive.
J5 shows the potential for the sensor size very well. If Sony used a prime with that kind of sharpness and contrast of the Nikon 32mm f1.2 rather than the 24-70 equivalent zoom - nobody would question the price tag...I feel. RAW studio sample comparison show a huge difference. 35mm f2 would be just fine especially as the RX100 lens is 2.8 rather quickly when zoomed. A little cropping when it's better utilizing the 20mp would be fine.
Boris F: What is a murky sample images? 85%?
Studio RAW samples I can agree, jpeg processing has a lot of sharpening and contrast enhancement to handle. Sony does a pretty good job though at balancing for the physical downsizing achieved - using a miniaturized pancake zoom afterall.
DFUNLIFE: Well... The bigger question is where does the glass come from? These premium manufacturers may vary in their design and what they're looking for but the raw glass comes from not so many places - I know. When I was a young engineer, I worked in high grade optical manufacturing. So enough with the mystery. As not to divulge any secrets I will say that Zeiss glass most likely comes from the USA...even today since it's been a few years since I worked in that industry. Canon most likely obtains it from the USA as well. Nikon has the capability to make their own to high grade standards so they have a few options.. as do the others because there are a couple high grade manufacturers in ASIA. but basically you can count on one hand where the glass comes from - at least high grade glass.
Even Zeiss optics assembled in the USA uses Japanese glass. Japan, Germany, Austria make the top glass that is used by companies around the world. Many good optical engineers are in the USA.
Actual photo quality doesn't seem better than the $180 Canon 110HS from a few years ago with same size sensor :\
Kevin DiOssi: With the release or announcement of any Canon product these days, it's filled with experts from the interwebs.
Rather than taking a step back and imaging the practical uses for such a camera, and acknowledging that this product is one of the most innovative creations we've ever seen in cameras, we get the "but it doesn't have a Sony sensor" and "it would have more dynamic range if it didn't have a Canon sensor in it" quotes.
It's sad how poisonous DxO has become to the enthusiast and entry level amateur photographers. They really are ignorant to what's important thanks to a meaningless scoring system and scenarios of photography that are rarely ever exploited.
Fun to watch the anti-Canon crusaders go after a different thing or two every few years :)
Sounds amazing and sure if the name Canon wasn't in the title, photos, or body of the article there would be plenty of ooh and aah in the comments.
Shocked that studio shots for this camera seem very poor even at base ISO.
surlezi: After reading this nice piece of review, I feel one great strengths of the camera has been underemphasized in a big way: its Electronical ViewFinder.
This pocketable camera comes with and integrated EVF, something you can use in daylight, and with a quality surpassing the MKIII that is already impressive. It's only last year that the EVF came integrated in the MKIII and it was a milestone.
This is what makes this camera so different from all the other point and shoot cameras in the first place, its EVF. It's because of this feature and its quality it is regularly compared to DSLRs. And it's also why all the point-and-shoots lacking such an EVF cannot be compared to the RX100 III or IV as useful photographic tools.
For some it seems the case, I wouldn't mind the EVF because it hides in the body but still wouldn't use often. I think a screen that is bright, with good antireflection (coatings, gapless layers, etc.) and tilting works just fine for small cameras.
Jock Elliott: Those who practice what I call "wildlife photography for the rest of us" -- ie, long-range photography with (relatively) light, nimble superzoom cameras and generally without tripods -- might be interested in the "figure of merit" calculations for this camera.
Figure of merit calculates the total reach potential of a camera/lens combo by multiplying the equivalent focal length squared times the number of pixels. It does not factor in the quality of the pixels.
Here are some of the numbers for various cameras and combos (the higher, the better):
FZ200 -- 4.320FZ1000 -- 3.216D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580Canon G3X -- 7.272
So the G3X comes off pretty well. I own and shoot with the FZ200.
For more about this concept, check out this: http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/30576/ Be sure to check out the link to the original article.Cheers, Jock
Definitely have to add in sensor quality and quality of optics at max telephoto setting. So many smaller sensors are paired with optics that never give a sharp image viewed at 75% compared to a larger sensor viewed at 100% and have rather poor contrast. Then noise characteristics decide how much sharpening and noise reduction can be/needs applied. RAW files at or near max telephoto tell most.
Neodp: Summary: Sony is really making better; but still inferior enough to question a pocket camera in the first place.
Can we not build a m43 or better APS-C based high quality fixed lens pocket cam that's also affordable?
Are we so tele stupid; to see we best use our feet more with pocket cams? How about a 85mm eqiv (50mm on APS-C, 45mm on m43) fast PRIME with cheap wide-angle (moderately) lens cover? What can't you do with that.
Isn't one better off with an SL1 and 40mm STM right now? It's not that much bigger. (But granted why doesn't Canon make those better in mirror-less??)
The problem is a willingness to put real comprehensive (photographic) quality into one manageable and yet affordable camera system. Flash and great video included.
Untill you are no longer willing to *not* pick your disadvantage (big ones) as you pick the camera and it's lens; that you choose to take along with you then they will never make it.
Credit for stepping a tiny bit that way... acknowledged.
One of the reason so many of us got EOS M original at $300 with really good 22mm f2 pancake :) Right now I'm trying NX500 with 30mm f2 and do think only thing that can match is full frame on up with big jump in size. That said these are still cargo/jacket pocket size and not for front pockets of pants. They do carry better than LX100 because of it's EVF adding bulk and snagging.
All about preference but some will carry an RX100 series or Canon G7X a lot more than anything larger. It adds a lot to the value when you have things on you more often.
For me these get too digicam looking past 200 ISO but are great for days out with family when you don't feel like bringing a "camera"