ealvarez: i wish this was apsc for better low light capability
Why should you assume that a non ILC camera should be cheaper? Certainly the lens needs to cost something.
lacikuss: So what are the expectations for a mini camera like this? To perform like a FF pro camera? lol...
What we are talking about is a little "gold mine" market segment that Sony discovered to which it sells convenient cameras for $800 and Canon now for $700. These cameras don't offer high IQ but because their size and no competition people would pay those prices. I'm happy with the competition, I hope the price will come down to around $450 which is what it is worth to me.
They do offer better IQ than your best smarthphone though
Probably two models from now, you will see it for that price. You can pick up an s100 or s110 for around $200 easily now.
daddyo: Holy cow!Has anyone looked carefully and the bottom area of the studio comparison scene (Look at the bottle labels)? I hope the lens on the test camera was defective and not standard issue. The image is so blurry it started to give me a headache looking at it.
I compared the overall image quality with the Panasonic LX-100 and it's not a contest. I know the Pany is more expensive, but geez, if the studio shot is representative of the lens on the G7 X, I wouldn't want one at any price.
And no, I'm not a Panasonic fanboy -- don't own one.
No way. Where did you compare? On the imaging resource comparometer, the g7x at 125 easily beats the 6d at 6400.
I would say it is a close race at 1600, with the g7x 125 getting a slight nod. At 800, the 6d pulls ahead. That means I'd give the 6D a 3-4 stop advantage, which makes sense given the difference in sensor size.
munro harrap: THe Image Quality is excellent, but to get the sensor from Sony did Canon have to promise not to add a viewfinder? NO viewfinder? NO viewfinder. It has not got a viewfinder. WHY???????
I would imagine they left out the viewfinder on the G7x for the same reason they left one out on the S95,100,110 and 120. They felt that space and price were more important in a pocket camera than VF for the majority of people.
Besides, where would be the fun in building an rx100iii clone? :P
lukulele: You might ask all of these reps if they will support Ali Baba in their future forays against Amazon, DPReview, Woot, etc?
Why? Maybe I missed something.
SKPhoto12: I am astounded by all the requests for " a small, portable, mirrorless, rangefinder style" medium format camera!! It is an oxymoron. Why not ask about the continued trend to smaller, simpler, high quality, mirrorless bodies that produce IQ more and more like the big DSLR's? Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Samsung and Panasonic have been trendsetters and it would be so nice if Nikon and Canon would follow.
@princewolf- "MF" is the future? I'll believe it when I see it.
The trend has overwhelmingly been the opposite- toward smaller and smaller gear as quality became good enough. When 35mm was good enough, most switched to that in favor of full frame. When smaller format digital became good enough for casual users, they switched to that. Now, for most, smartphones are good enough. Technology will only continue to get better, and smaller sensors will produce better results than they already do.
The moral of the story is that people will use the smallest/lightest/cheapest gear that will give them the results they want. I can't for the life of me see why "MF" would be the future.
samhain: @dpreview- could you please ask (particularly Fuji) about medium format, and why it hasn't been persued more? (Please refer to zack arias's post on dedpxl, pleading for a compact MF camera).
Some other juicy questions: -to sony: what is your adversion to optical viewfinders and why have you completely abandoned them? And why not an a-mount A7/future FF?
To olympus, fuji: Kidnap their represenitives and hold them for ransom until both companies bring out Full frame cameras :) (But seriously- rattle fuji's cage about bringing out a FF x100- actually 2 x100's: one with a fixed 35/2 & one with a fixed 50/1.4)!
Also for Fuji: The lack of full support of xtrans is rediculious at this point- What's the deal, seriously. It's the number 1 issue (only issue?) With current fuji cameras. Why hasn't this been resolved yet?
These topics are the most talked about/heated subjects in the forums. Would be nice for someone to really hold their feet to the fire and press them on it.
@Samuel Dilworth - Spot on, as you usually are.
onlooker: Pity there is no EVF.
I think there is still room for something like you propose- a G16 with a 1" sensor, built in vf, and say a 24-200mm lens would be quite interesting. I thought Nikon was going to get there first with a p8000, but it never materialized and there is still an opening for such a cam.
locke_fc: Why buy either?
You're on a photo gear website, what type of content do you expect? :P
Gregm61: 24mm equivalent view is not wide enough and I want something wider (and longer) that's better than a crappy add-on converter.
Buy 3-4 generations of LX100's with lenses you have to throw away each time you upgrade and you've bought the equivalent of an interchangeable lens body and 3 good quality zoom lenses that cover more range and you get to keep with each new generation body.
Added convenience is not worth it to you for the trade off in added price and reduced flexibility. That's ok. For some, it is worth it.
thecameraeye: This is very nearly THE perfect advanced compact. The Achilles heel is none other than the lack of a touchscreen, IMO. You can ignore it for everything else but setting the AF point by touchscreen is so convenient and useful that it's very hard to go back.
I do miss the things they left out, namely the touchscreen, ND filter, lens cap, built in flash. If the camera was slightly bigger/pricier but had those things in it, it would be a more polished and attractive product to me.
armanius: I wonder if Sony will lower the pricing on the RX100iii ...
I think if anything, the Canon G7x will push Sony. It is a more similar model from a bigger competitor. Still, I agree that these price wars will be good. :)
photo perzon: Sony RX100 has EVF. It has bounce flash. Canon has neither.
Does that also assume that natural light is always superior to artificial light? Don't get me wrong, I usually prefer it when I can get it, but many studio photographers would probably beg to differ.
Direct flash just seems to have become a dirty word. I think there should be some photo challenges to show the possible merits of direct flash. Give it a go!
mpgxsvcd: This is a strong camera from Canon. I hope more of their cameras go in this direction in the future.
What exactly did they copy, putting a 1" sensor in a standard compact camera body? It's nothing but a matter of choosing sensor size. It makes sense to use 1" not just because it is a good balance of performance and size, but also because other brands, including Sony, are using them.
The sensor size to body size equation in the rx100 was the revelation, the rest was pretty vanilla (until the built in EVF, which they didn't copy anyway).
Dabbler: I wonder if it uses the RX100II sensor instead of RX100III. After all, why would Sony let a competitor use the most advanced sensor they have? Even the RX10 uses the older RX100II sensor. Hopefully we'll have samples soon to see if this sensor lens combination produces as good results as the RX100III. I hope it does because I like the 100mm at the long end. I gave up 30mm going from RX100 to the M3 and would love to get it back.
Is there really much difference in sensor performance between the mk2 and mk3? I couldn't see any, myself. I think the new model was all about features. In fact, that's why I was considering the mk1 ahead of the mk3- I liked the 100mm more than the faster lens. Luckily, this Canon has both. :)
mpgxsvcd: A lot of people don't realize that the point of a fast wide aperture lens and a larger sensor is to get rid of the flash for most pictures. Sure you might need a flash for a fill flash. However, your phone actually works quite well as a flash if you are in that situation.
This camera doesn't need a flash for most situations like the old small sensor "VERY SLOW" lens cameras did.
I was really hoping for an attractive ALL IN ONE option as well, which means, built in flash, built in lens cover, no need for accessories. The Canon G7x may have a smaller sensor, but the flash, lens cover, and even ND filter are built in, so for me it is a more convenient travel cam.
mosc: I dig it but it should be called an S200 (insert X's wherever you want to taste) and cost $499 new, to go on sale for $399 at the holidays.
You are comparing the street prices of the rx100 mk 1, which is over two years old and has 2 newer models, with the msrp of the g7x, which has just been announced and is not even released. Apples to oranges.
All prices for these cams fall over time, but new competition from Panny and Canon will not only help their prices to come down, but will force Sony to follow suit. These new models should definitely jump start the price war in the 1" sensor compact segment.
Never, ever? Don't worry, I promise if you look at a photo taken with direct flash, your face won't melt like in Raiders of the Lost Ark...
I'll admit that I generally do everything I can to avoid direct flash as well, but if you ask me, some photos deserve to be taken even if you can't have the perfect technical conditions. Sometimes I can get pretty good results without such harsh lighting with a combination of turning the flash power down a bit and then playing with the shadows a bit in post.
I guess to each his own, but just try to keep this individual point in perspective in the interest of a well balanced review. For example, I understand reviewers prefer a control dial with feedback over the clickless style on the rx100 series, but the harping on it over and over gets a bit much.
.... and yet people will buy it at $699. What is Canon thinking?! :P
And the Canon has a touch screen, wider zoom range, EV dial, lower price... it's ok to have choices.