zorgon: It's hard to believe that they can make a lens that small, with that zoom range and aperture. On paper at least it looks better than the Sony RX100III and Panasonic LX100 but I get the feeling that something has to give. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the image quality is like.
People take pictures in bright light with their smartphones every day. Lack of a VF of any sort has never been a problem. If you say it's a personal preference, ok,but it's not a must for everyone.
Kirk Tuck: No EVF? DOA.
For some others, maybe ;)
For some, maybe.
Tripeiro: Had Canon put an EVF they would have had a very interesting product (and it has been a while). But of course they had to disappoint and launch a product that although interesting, still feels half baked. Canikon being Canikon.
Disagree. It would be bigger with an EVF, and right now pocketability is one of the, if not the, biggest advantages of the G7X over the LX100, along with the longer zoom lens and tilting screen. A larger body, even with an EVF, with a 1" sensor would be pointless.
locke_fc: Not really interested in the camera, but no wifi caught my attention.
It's 2014. At what point will camera makers decide it is no longer acceptable to release a flagship camera with something as simple, but highly useful, as wifi??
So yeah, no good reason NOT to include wifi in a high-end camera.
Not really interested in the camera, but no wifi caught my attention.
Unless there's a big differemce in IQ (which looks unlikely), I'm going to be SO torn between this one and the LX100...
Impressive specs indeed, although I'm not too crazy about the short zoom. Somethning like 100mm would have been much more practical for a compact.
However, I'm more disppointed in the size. I know, it's a m43 sensor in a body with external controls AND a VF, but still... too large (particularly, thick) to be anywhere near pocketable.
I'll defnitely wait for reviews as this is a really exciting camera, but right now, I'm slighlty more interested in the G7X, with its much smaller body, longer zoom, tilting screen and integrated flash (I truly hate those tiny clip-on flashes).
Too heavy, far too expensive. Not for me!
Jogger: We basically don't need any dedicated compact camera that doesnt have a large sensor, isnt a superzoom, or isnt ruggedised. Flagship phones are already using 1/2.3 sensor and some have even larger.
I still agree with the other points Jogger made.
I read the piece, and before even reading any of the comments I thought that this reads like something straight out, or heavily inspired by, Fuji's marketing department I'm not saying it is, but maybe writers should consider what the stuff they write may sound like, and maybe put their arguments forward in a different manner. Just saying.
Oh, and my personal take? No, we don't 'need' the X-30 and it adds far too little for a camera coming almost two years after its predecessor. At the very least an upgraded sensor, or a smaller size, or something more substantial than this.
RickBuddy: Pretty sad day when a photographer attempts to convert a photo taken by a monkey to his own copyright.
"No! I'm really as good as that monkey!'
Right about there, the guy's lost.
Pretty sad day when a photographer buys the equipment, travels thousands of miles to get to some monkey, sets the equipment up so that the monkey can get some meaningful results with it, PP the images, distributes them and yet he's denied copyright.
b craw: I was really hoping we were not going to revisit this monkey business upon ruling. But alas...
Sorry for those that are speaking opinions relating to fairness or some abstract spirit of fairness that should exist in this whole matter. Truth is, all laws are subject to degrees of interpretation, but the interpretive latitude was quite narrow in this case - outcome quite predictable. Defining moment of creation " selfie" resided in the activity of a natural force (animal) therefore copyright can not be held by photographer despite preparation, editing, or distribution. Animal cannot hold copyright, therefore no copyright of these images. Period. And, contrary to some opinion, this ruling should not make vulnerable copyrights granted to photographers setting wildlife photo traps. That action is entirely different, involving much more distinct authorship/production by the photographer.
Well, that is the US Office's interpretation. But it's wrong.
It's ridiculous, ffs. Wikimedia and the US Copyright office are taking a most cynical stance.
locke_fc: Sorry, but a 1/1.7" sensor is no longer acceptable. Might as well use your smartphone instead.
Felix E Klee - Of course it's an opinion. Unless you happen to be so anally retentive as to take it literally.
If you're going to sleep better at night thinking that I have a different opinion to yours because of my "deep lack of technical understanding", go ahead. I have no time for people who think that anyone who doesn't agree with them have to be ill-informed idiots..
Raist3d - It's not silly, as far as I'm concerned it is unacceptable and hardly better than a smartphone. Again, MY opinion, nobody has to agree.
Jacob - sassy, but nothing else.
Like I said, you guys go out and buy it. It's not for me!
This is dpr's final verdict on the Q7:
"The Pentax Q7 does well in everyday shooting, delivering image quality that's generally as good as the best enthusiast compacts. However, it under delivers for the entry-level ILC class in terms of resolution and high ISO performance. Though we had few serious complaints about its performance, it's hard to recommend among so many excellent fixed and interchangeable lens cameras that cost about the same."
Of course, there's the lenses that go with the puny sensor. IQ is still almost as good/bad as you can get with a decent smartphone, or a few dozen compact cameras costing half as much.
Seriously, I don't have an issue with those who like this and are willing to pay for it, but to me, in this day and age, it's unacceptable. And yes, I can be categorical because I speak for myself ;)