D1N0: Too bad it doesn't have a Full frame sensor.
If only it were that simple. The X-system may compete on size with a larger sensor, but are nowhere even close in terms of AF speed in any light slightly less than good light.
Even if one really wanted a small camera - I see very little reason to go for it. The camera size might be perfect, but Canon just doesn't have very many small lenses.
Compared to an m43rds system, or a smallish Pentax DSLR plus any of the very nice and tiny DA Limited lenses, I just don't see anything that'll sway me towards this.
But it will sell, just based on brand and availability alone (by availability, I mean that it will likely be front and center at your local Best Buy or Costco camera section)
OfcrMike: As I read some of the critiques, I found myself wondering if I had been looking at the same samples as those critics... "lack detail", "too soft", "smeared detail", etc - unless we're comparing the X100S to 40MP medium format cameras (we're not, right?) these ooc jpegs look pretty darn good, imho. This is a 16MP APS-C camera, and I think its jpegs hold their own against a 16MP FF DSLR.
I'm almost certain some critics have confused a slightly oof area in some images for being soft or smeared or whatever adjective they were using. The shooter's choice of focus-point with closer subjects may be questionable, but the lens/sensor's resolution is not.
Scrolling down, there's someone complaining about moire in the indoor-girl's jacket. I saw it too in the "original"-sized image when I downloaded it, but as soon as I re-oriented the image 90 degrees, it went away. That was an artifact of the monitor, not the image sensor; X-trans seems to have moire well-controlled w/o AA filter.
Compared to a similar APS-C with no anti-aliasing filter like the K5 IIs, I'd say these results are actually similar to the XE1/X Pro1, which just aren't as good as they should be.
Even compared to one with a fairly weak anti-aliasing filter like the OMD, the X-trans files just don't seem to have the resolution expected from a supposedly AA-less sensor.
Which is not to say they're bad, but speaking for myself, the sensor just doesn't seem to perform as expected (similar to the XE1/Xpro-1)
You can compare the XE1 and XPro 1 vs the K5 IIs, and the OMD right here on DPReview or on the Imaging Resource comparometer, and I think the samples will speak for themselves. No need to even compare to the D800.
magneto shot: hmm set aperture to 1.8 , shoot picture of portrait standing 5 meters away...no blurring of background, no bokeh....set aperture to 2.7, shoot picture of portrait standing 5 meters away, no blurring of bg, no bokeh
whats the point of small sensor again?
LOL. Since when did fast lenses only mean "bokeh"?
A fast lens on a tiny sensor means you can shoot wide -open to keep shutter speeds up, and yet still have sufficient DOF for non-portrait shots. e.g. street shooting.
gl2k: Why would someone use manual focus ? Especially since CDAF prevents all problems with back/front focus.
Typical statement from people who only take pictures of flowers and other stuff that doesn't move.
bobbarber: I think this does look cool, and I'm interested in trying it out.
That said, I'm wondering about the statement "many ...[mirrorless models] still lack a quick method for assessing manual focus."
I have "crude" manual focus (no split-screen, no focus-peaking) on my Panasonic GH2, and I don't find it lacking. I can focus on an eyelash quickly and accurately. What is missing from current technology? Ordinary old zoom-in manual focus, which is not color blind, might be more accurate in more situations than this manual focus.
This is an appeal to nostalgia, in my opinion. If there is an increase in functionality over current systems, I'm missing it.
If you can focus on an eye-lash quickly, then good for you.
I've tried the EM5 and the XE1 for street photography, and I personally cannot even focus fast enough on a person walking towards me at f/4 using any focus-by-wire system.
I've been forced to rely entirely on shooting at f/8 and zone focusing when using fly by wire focus.
dnral: Wow! It is only $500 more than Canon's 24-70II. What do you do with the fixed lens when the body quits working?
Really, the Canon 24-70 is only $500 cheaper than this? I can't believe people are spending that much for it. To me the RX1 is going to be worth it, unless the 24-70 is the same size as this guy, I won't even pay $100 for a big honking 24-70.
photofan1986: Well, I am a bit torn about this one. As a technical achievement, it's quite something. And history will certainly recall Sony for being the first non-Leica manufacturer that made this possible, ie a full frame in a compact camera.But from a purely practical point of view, I'm not sure. A camera with no viewfinder (the overpriced optical external thing showing no info is a joke, sorry), few manual controls, and a fixed 35mm lens...all this for 2800$ seems like craze to me!Also, I don't really see the point of a 24x36mm sensor in a compact camera like this. The new APS-C sized sensor give excellent image quality even at high ISO (6400 on a Fuji X-Pro 1 looks terrific). Also, with a lens like the Fuji 35 1.4, depth of field control is quite easy already. The full frame sensor will give approximately one stop advantage in noise compared to a APC-S, but at the expense of a much bigger lens and a much, much more expensive sensor to produce. Really, what's the point?
35mm f/1.4 on the X-PRO1 has an FOV of a 52mm lens. Not even close to being the same as the one on the RX1. For a lot of street shooters, as this camera is aimed at, that is a huge difference.
35mm FL in street photography is significantly more useful than 50mm.
DA Limited Zoom??!! DA Limited Zoom! DA Limited Zoom!
Not quite sure what to make of the DA* ultra zoom either. From the markings on the chart, it almost looks like a 24-80. Pretty useless for APS-C. I doubt they can make an 18-200 f/2.8? Unless they're turning the DA* nomenclature to mean weather-sealed only, and no longer constant aperture and weather-sealed.
Assuming one does get past the quirky aesthetic - the biggest question to me is actually AF speed.
Size is a minor issue - yes, it isn't as small as other MILC's - but one must also keep in mind that Pentax makes very small lenses - especially when compared to Canon/Nikon.
In fact, even compared to Sony NEX and pretty much most mirrorless, Pentax prime lenses (even those designed for Full Frame) are relatively smaller. Take the Limited line for example, if they can re-design them as XS lenses (take out the distance scale for example) - they you can literally carry 3-4 lenses in your pockets.
**Personally, I like having the distance scales on the lenses - but then, something has to give here.
Perhaps, with the K-02 Pentax can go with a less controversial aesthetic, add an EVF, and as long as AF is up to par with other mirrorless - then it's going to be quite something.
The 18mm f/2 looks good - nice, wide, fast and small-ish. Perfect for street photography. Though I wonder just how much smaller this set-up is going to be compared to say a Pentax Kx/Kr + any of the small Pentax Limited primes.
I hope they offer it in a kit with the 18mm f/2, not just the 35mm f/1.4.
Too many people commenting here seem to just be comparing zooms vs primes.
As anyone who has actually used the GRD III will tell you, you'll find that the S95 and other top compacts don't even come close to the handling and customization that the GRD series offers. Majority of street photographers looking for a compact digital will pretty much agree that the GRD IV is pretty much in a league of its own. And 28mm is a pretty sweet spot for street photography.
Although obviously, it's not for everyone, if you don't like primes, or if you feel the need to cover every single FL, if you think HD video is useful, then go and get yourself an S100 or an XZ1 or the myriad of other me-too compacts that Canon and Sony churn out every year.
Personally, the only thing I'd want on this little baby is a built in VF, even at the expense of size. Although that Tri-Elmar idea posted a few comments down sounds pretty good too. I wouldn't mind a 24/35 two-in-one lens.