nathansmith: "It will provide the angle of view and depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" is in the 2nd line.
See why ALL Micro Four-Third lenses lose two full f-stops of depth of field control at http://discoverfullframe.com.
The only reason I can figure that "full frame" has so many zealots is simply because it has been around a long time. They romanticize it, they idealize it, whatever you want to call it.
Sure, you get more DOF control than 4/3 or 1" sensors. But you also face problems when you want more DOF, or a smaller or cheaper camera. On the other end of the spectrum, you have medium format (technically, doesn't that make "full frame" a small format?) with even more DOF control and even more compromise on size and expense. Pick your spot on the spectrum where the compromise works best for you. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to "teach" others why a certain format is "better".
35mm is just a measurement, and to feel an emotional connection with a measurement is a little weird.
jozhua: why limit in Asia? even thoug im from Asia i do not understand why they would do that. sTill no new sensor technology,
What do you mean "still"? Its the newest generation sensor Oly has, same as the Sony sensor in the OMD, only about a year old and still a good performer. They beat the previous 12 megapixel sensor to death for over 4 years.
Anfernee Cheang: "Enthusiast" DC without hot shoe? That sounds funny to me...
I like EVF while all other specs are the same. However, without an EVF I still can shoot. But without hot shoe I can do nothing under certain circumstances. I'd prefer Nikon P7700 in this case, with same 1/1.7" sensor and a brighter F2.0-4.0 lens. P7700 does not have EVF, but instead it has a fully articulated LCD.
Why would anyone need a hotshoe on a pocket cam? Planning on squeezing that flash in the other pocket?
Why did google have both snapseed and picassa in the first place? I understand they have some different features, but why not just integrate them?
Richard Murdey: 1:1.8-2.7
Wow. That's all you need to know, right there.
Timm,You do know this equivalence stuff has no effect on shutter speed right? 1.8 is 1.8 when you're exposing your shot. You will be using much lower ISOs. If you use the long end of the zoom at all, this will be on par with the rx100, and beat the s100.
I'm really not sure why you're obsessing about dof with point and shoots. It's a big deal with big sensors, but on these cameras it's really about keeping the ISO down in low light. You're not going to be getting many dreamy backgrounds in your portraits with these things, no- but that's not what they're intended for. Right tool for the right job..
BruceB609: Any real focal length control?
I'm a huge admirer and former user of Olympus FT but then Olympus should wonder why I now use a Nikon D7000 and Canon S100 to shoot street scenes instead of using mFT or an XZ. I need these photos for painting as a pro artist. These photos go to imaging and it's a giant task level less when perspectives match.
Regarding the XZ, I asked Olympus about selective zoom. It was "unavailable." Without it, images vary in perspectives and are less useful for composing. On the S and G series, Canon seems to have a grasp with selective lengths settings. And for the larger mFT camera, Olympus again seems too zoom oriented over primes. If they can't produce more normal length primes for mFT then I wish Olympus would, at least, be more sensitive to selective zoom control on XZ. Such a small compact can save the day without the larger camera with me but zoom fill bars and guessing isn't enough to meet the objective.
You can choose from the following m4/3 primes: 12 2.0, 14 2.5, 17 2.8, 17 1.8, 19 2.8, 20 1.7, 25 1.4, 30 1.8, 45 1.8, 45 1.8, all native m4/3 lenses. That isn't enough standard primes for you yet?
3systermuser: what is the sensor inside of it?really a Sony as Mirrorless rumors site reported ?if it is really a Sony sensor , I wont get one , I do not like Sony sensors , especially the way they render skin tone.I hope it will be a REAL Kodak CCD.Kinda tired of boring CMOS from Sony and Canon.
When is the last time Kodak was really selling a lot of sensors anyway? Are people clinging to the "magic colors" from their old Olympus E-1's and the like?
That doesn't seem right. If the sensor is built into the lens, why does the lens have a rear element at all?
Clint Dunn: So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
The added depth is really minimal. The difference between the Olympus e-pm1 with fixed screen and e-pl3 with tilt screen is 3mm. Hardly enough to affect pocketability/portability at all in most cases.
NeilJones: Does "Timmbits" work for Smagsum?
Nah, he's just as enthusiastic for Fuji, so I assume he's just a guy who really likes his cameras.
I took this to mean the camera that represented the biggest technological achievement. It was a tough call, but I see the rx100 as the biggest accomplishment, in part because Sony was willing to take the risk and do something different, and in part because they were able to cram so much power into a truely pocketable camera.
My close second choice would be the OM-D. Sure, it's a nice camera all around, but it's got some truely new and innovative features that seperate it as an innovative product, like 5 axis IBIS, and live exposure. These are just a few more progessive steps by olympus, who have always tried to lead in innovation- they got in early on features like supersonic wave filter, liveview, etc. Not to mention being brave enough to establish an all digital format, not relying on existing systems. The OM-D keeps that going, and is definitely worthy of consideration
aardvark7: I know that photography is expensive, whether a profession or a hobby, but DPReview live in a different world to me if these qualify as 'gifts'!
I think, though, this is probably a true reflection of the vile, consumerist spectacle that Christmas has become with adverts on television and signs appearing in shops, etc. by early October trying to get you to spend on these 'ideal presents'.
It's no wonder the world has got itself into an almighty money tangle and we need to take a cold, hard look at ourselves in terms of what is really important (and before you jump to conclusions, I'm an atheist).
Then why celebrate Christmas at all? It is a (theoretically) religious holiday, after all.
zinedi: Tell me why some manufacturers are competing in biggest/smallest item horse-race? Max. Mpix number (with IQ trade-off), smallest design (with handling trade-off), etc. Why they simply don't listen to our needs, wishes?Fuji is trying and showing the way - thank you Fuji, Sony - you are wrong - my opinion only.
Because if nobody pushed the limits of the technology, it would stagnate. Plus, everyone has a different opinion of what is too big, too many, too few. Even if they could agree, ifmanufacturers didn't put out models that were "too big/too small", "too many megapixels/too few", etc., everything would be middle of the road boring. I like choices.
Personally, I don't see the huge appeal of this camera's size. I look at it practically. If I can't stick it in a pocket, it doesn't bother me if it is a little bigger. That's the appeal of the rx100- just small enough to fit in a pants pocket, so it totally changes how I can leave the house if I want to take photos.
emircruz: Pretty Lens but I wish Oly would stop producing these premium lens cr*p. It doesn't make any sense. How do they expect to get a bigger market share when they release interesting lenses at uninteresting pricepoints?
I say make them good but make them cheap. ie 20mm and 45mm. No need for these all metal construction and pull-manual focus gmicks.
And if you want command higher prices.. I say reincarnate the old SG line to m43! Now those lenses are real gems! They are pricy but at least all come weather-sealed.. and all come with hoods and cases.
If you aren't the kind of person that wants high quality and will pay a premium for products like this, you don't need to. That's one of the best things about m4/3, it's the first mirrorless system to offer a fairly mature lens lineup.
You can do exactly what I did and buy the 14mm 2.5, 20mm 1.7, and 45mm 1.8, and have a well rounded set of primes that give very nice results for easily under $1000. Not a bad value proposition if you ask me.
Not to mention other cheapies like the Oly 17 2.8, Sigma 19 and 30, Samyang 7.5 fisheye, Olympus 40-150...Tons of options can be had for a few hundred bucks. Take your pick.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying m4/3 is cheap- it isn't. The manufacturers smartly charge as much as the market will bear for their products, knowing they offer benefits that some other systems don't. That said, there are choices at a range of price points. If none of the options appeal to you, move along to something that does. Not that hard, right? :)
aekn: limlh-what's your idea of a better camera and why?
Why bother to reply if you're not going to answer the question?
Zvonimir Tosic: All right, is this Digital *Photography* Review website, or Digital *Video* Review website? Isn't it about time DPR finally makes some clear decision towards evaluating those two separately?
And leave right to some companies still more interested in photography than in video to make great *photography* cameras, in which case lack of extra video features should not be taken as 'cons'.
As Apple CEO Tim Cooks said, making a great product means making some hard decisions. Every good designer knows that. I see part of reason DPR exists is to educate too, and not to dumb down either great products, great sacrifices needed to achieve such great products, nor dumb down their potential users.
Good video can be implemented on these cameras with little or no negative effect on the still image performance (one can get into the details of choosing different internal components, processors, etc., but that isn't what the review or comments are talking about). If they can do it right, why not do it?
I respect Cooks' point, but I still see an iPhone- a phone- that is also a still camera, video camera, mp3 player, voice recorder, etc. etc. I really think his recent statements on the issue were just to jab at Microsoft's new "surface" approach to tablets.
Edmond Leung: I think this is the right time for Olympus and Panasonic to think about FF cameras.In the long run, there is no way for 4/3 to compete with FF cameras.
It's never gonna happen, and it shouldn't. Oly and Panny don't want to go toe to toe with the big boys, Canon and Nikon have been doing it for ages and they aren't going away any time soon. 4/3 allows them to blaze their own trail and offer a legitimate alternative with smaller and lighter gear that can still give great results.
Recent models like the om-d show that sensor tech keeps improving, and now allows great IQ using 4/3 sensors. If you need full frame dof control or high iso performance, then you have plenty of choices already, but be prepared to shell out three grand and give your shoulders and neck a workout.
Oly or Panny messing with 4/3 would be a huge business mistake. Luckily, I don't think either is crazy enough to try it.
Hey DPreview, how about taking the word "Phone" out of the headline, since its not? Samsung's release doesn't call it a phone. Since it can't make calls, I think that's a good call...
brumd: but.. does it make phone calls? The title suggests so, but I can't seem to find any confirmation in the text.
I wish you were right, but I don't think so. Your link doesn't mention the ability to make calls.
Too bad, if it did, I'd definitely consider it for my next phone.