ARTASHES: It would be nice to see the D3x samples to :)
Agree, why 5D Mk II but no D3X? Inquiring minds what to know.
jenbenn: Well I pray that this camera can be used for what it was build for (unlike the x100). Reportage and snapshots. Please, please Fuji, dont mess up the processing. The camera needs to react FAST. Recycle times between shots MUST be less than 0.5s for this cam to be usable. Everything else is just perfect Manual zoom, bright lens, sensor large enough to use iso 400-800.
Why can't the X100 be used for snapshots? It's one of the top APS-C cameras ever made as evidence by how they are flying off the shelfs.
marike6: It's nice to see that high ISO images like the cafe don't have the "watercolor" effect, heavy NR that some even high-end compacts have.
I have an XZ-1. In JPEG ISO 800, the NR would smooth all the details. In RAW, it would be much noisier. I'm liking the look of X10 images so far. Sort of DSLR-like in quality, with good dynamic range, and no typically agressive NR obliterating fine detail.
jumpshotjr: Much smaller sensor but it's the same price as a NEX-5N body?
Should've been $499 since they're really competing with the G12, LX5, and P7100.
Sensor size is not everything. Some people already have DSLRs but want a smaller, non-ILC camera with big IQ in a well-made metal body.
It's nice to see that high ISO images like the cafe don't have the "watercolor" effect, heavy NR that some even high-end compacts have.
Robert Hoffman: Image quality does not match the hype - not even close. At 100%, my wife's $179 100 HS has better sharpness, much lower noise, and way better color.
These samples look like they were shot with a lens covered with Vaseline.
Most consumer P&S have the default sharpening turned way up. Cameras with larger sensors like the X10, m43, and DSLRs mostly have more subtle (read lower) default sharpening, and produce shallower DOF. A P&S image will often look sharper, because everything is in focus. That said, the way the "snap-shots" from Lenstip look are not an definitive word on the X10's IQ. Some of the images look great. I think this cameras gonna be very good, probably excellent. Nowhere near the X100, of course, but a mini version.
ThePhilips: It became a habit: every time I see news about coming Fuji cameras I head to page 27 of DPR's X100 review. It is so sad that great product are marred by such trivial bugs.
I'm not sure how long my negative perception of Fuji would stay, but sure as hell I'm not going to buy any premium camera from them.
a) DPR's X100 review was before the firmware updateb) it's kind of silly to deprive yourself of a camera with probably the best IQ of any APS-C camera based on a subjective review that took place before Fuji fixed the "issues" with the firmware. Shooting with an X100 is a pure joy.
aljudy: Somehow this is becoming a little insane. A fixed lens camera for $600 is a bargain! I must be in some other universe of camera owners... Al
Many people, DSLR owners, for example, don't want to buy multiple system cameras. Maintaining more than one ILC gets expensive fast. Some photographers just want something small, with good IQ to carry everywhere. A camera like an X10 or XZ-1, with a short zoom, fills that need perfectly. It's not always about price or sensor size.
vshin: It's funny how a 2/3" sensor for $600 is "reasonable" but a smaller camera with a 1" sensor and interchangeable lens for $650 is highway robbery.
Nikon has already released the 10 2.8 wide for the Nikon 1. And it looks to be a good performer. As an X100 owner, I'm sure I'll like this X10, but lets bet fair. A fixed lens to an ILC it not really a good comparison.
thx1138: Sounds impressive, but it would have been nice if had used a 1/1.6" sensor and hi res LCD.
For consumer video cameras, 1/2.3" sensor is one of the larger sizes. Even professional video cameras, use mostly 1/3" CMOS sensors. Back to consumer video cams, 3 in this market segment have a larger, and they are all Sony NEX-VG video cameras with APS-C sensors. But they cost 2 1/2 X's more. No, the newer 1/2.3" back illuminated CMOS sensors are quite good, and I expect this JVC to perform well.
fransams: What is the function of the 4-3-2-1-0 dial on the front? Is it a manual self-timer?
Seems everyone is an "expert" now days. "How could they use such a small 1/2.3" sensor?" they say. "What about bokeh?" and on and on. The we see images from the Q and the positive reviews, and it's "well, it's still too expensive". Same thing happened when the Nikon 1 was released. "Such a tiny 1" sensor, what is Nikon thinking?" Then the images came out, and then people criticized the high price. But the sensor size wasn't mentioned again.
I downloaded tons of samples from the Q, and I've played with it at B&H, and I will surely buy it. Will it replace my D7000? No, but it's not meant to.
Max Pometun: Pentax could learn a thing or two from Olympus.
Zvonimir, I will I could hit the "LIKE" button 5 times for your post. The Q looks great, and now that I've seen the excellent IQ, I totally want one, possibly to replace my Ricoh GRD III.
zanypoet: Puny sensor, low IQ, high price .... hmmm, who would buy this crap!!??
@zanypoet, I guess you haven't seen the images. They are excellent.
Magnus W: I just don't get one thing.
All you Nikon shooters saying "great, we will get super teles FOR FREE", do you really think those lenses have 2.7x resolving power to spare?
Inquiring minds want to know.
When they photograph ketchup bottles and chubby chicks jeans in bright 12 noon light, it wouldn't matter if they had used a Hasselblad. The images would have still been bad. But this has little to do with the camera. Sample on Nikon USA look quite good, even though there is slight smearing due to high ISO NR.
Thinking that a Canon S100, and the like, have better IQ based on the above samples is completely misguided. Look at these sample images http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/v1/sample.htm to see real "real world" images, not like the snapshots from DPReview.
I have an XZ-1 which is great, but I know that it doesn't have the IQ of this large sensor camera. As far as DOF, wait until Nikon releases some faster lenses, or adapters for Nikon F lenses, and you'll see shallow DOF.
Honestly, DPReview in general does a good job with reviews, but what can we learn from these images? To go to NYC, one of the best for photography, and shoot ketchup bottles is a bit odd, when you have iconic buildings like Grand Central Terminal, or the Plaza Hotel.
Anyway, anyone who thinks their P&S takes images as good as this camera, go to Nikon's website and download the full-size sample images.
AnandaSim: What is sad is the company decision to amputate their design to achieve product differentiation and segregation within their own catalog. Nikon engineers must be as good or better than anyone else. However, from their product philosophy, they purposely cripple their D3100 and D5100 line by not having an AF motor so that it does not steal sales from their D90 and above lines. And I hear (I don't own one) that they cripple their D90 class with metering handicap for manual lenses vs their D3 etc..... These are not technological can't do, they are management and product design decisions.
Now, they are doing every other brand a favour by purposely choosing an in-betweener sensor size - it's not small with the advantages of small like an LX-5 class and it's not DX with all the advantages of DX.
It seems "normal" lenses, not try-hard-primes are difficult to make small for any crop bigger than a bridge camera size sensor. That big lens for this cam is huge.
Not overwhelmed by this announcement, but anyone who thinks that Canon s95 and the like produce better or equal IQ to the V1/J1 have not seen the sample images on Nikon's website. Pretty impressive.
Not an answer to an Fuji x100, which is extremely popular, and produces some of the best IQ of any camera that isn't FF.
As far as why the sensor is smaller than m43, I think Nikon didn't want to a) pay Pany/Oly for m43 mount b) and didn't want to make a camera in m43 space in case it was worse than Olympus or Panasonic, it would be truly embarrassing for Nikon. Now, if the Nikon 1 is a dud, they can always say, "well it's not meant to compete with m43 because it has a smaller sensor".
MichaelSpotts: Some of them look great, such as the first wine glass! Others reveal the weakness of the sensor to resolve all that the lens is capable of. The splotchiness of the second rider's jersey comes to mind.
Seems like these shots (and many of the DPReview) are taken in the least interesting light, 12-3 PM. To present samples of a fast lens, and not take any low-light shots makes no sense at all.