DVT80111: Still does not fit in my pant pocket like the RX100, passed.
Somewhere between the rx100ii and the G1Xii lies my perfect camera. :P Take the wider lens coverage, small grip, ND filter of the Canon. Smaller size, nice shooting modes (pano, night shot etc.) and good 1" sensor from the Sony. Put the two in a blender and lets see what comes out!
steve ohlhaber: If this shot 60fps at 1080p, I would be more interested as a solid backup to an SLR for still and video. Sony does it on many models.
It would be nice to see a 1inch sensor that has a better zoom range. I would love a camera that can cover 24-300mm AND shoot raw with a big sensor and pocketable. That should easily be doable given a 1 inch sensor is much smaller than this camera. Its like it forces you into a narrow zoom range AND no movie mode. So if you need tele or video, you need 1 or 2 other cameras. That just makes no sense to me. It seems hard to own this as your only camera due to those missing features. My father just got back from a trip around the world with the rx100 and his big complaint was predictable, not enough zoom range on either end. I think 24mm is enough on the wide side, but 120mm just isn't much for long zoom.
I don't do video and I don't need much more than 90mm tele, so for me it's great. Aftab is right on with the rx10 example, it's 1" sensor and 200mm range is a pretty hefty combo.
The Olympus Stylus 1 is a nice balance of size and quality for a 300mm zoom, but its 1/1.7" sensor is the best you're going to get at that size.
cheetah43: Sony, an RX100 with a VF - optical or electronic - replacing either the flash or having slightly larger body would wipe everything else off the market.
Before we got the RX10, I was really hoping they would essentially beef up the rx100 with a grip, hotshoe, tilting screen and 5x zoom range. The rx100ii addressed a few of those. The G1X basically gave me what I was asking for (though I'd like a Sony version with slightly smaller size and nice 1" sensor even more). The rx10 ended up being overkill in my opinion- and the $1299 price tag reflected that.
Donnie G: Alright, who's the comedian who came up with the term "mirrorless" cameras? Who the heck walks into a Costco, Walmart or Best Buy and says "Hey, can I buy a mirrorless camera? Or, Hey, can I buy a stepless ladder?" Sounds like something important has been left out of the product, doesn't it? I mean I understand what those folks are trying to say: "Mirrors! We don't need no stinking mirrors." I get it. But they need to come up with a new product description or catch phrase to help sell these cameras they claim to love so much. And please no, don't use E.V.I.L. either, unless you want to continue to have warehouses full of "marketless, SLRless" cameras for sale. :)
I think it needs to sound good and roll off the tongue to catch on. I like compact system camera (CSC) myself. CSC rolls like SLR.
Plus, I do eventually see mirrorless as the standard (even if it does take quite a while), so for most casual shoppers, whatever term they adopt will probably become the new SLR. I also think that as with SLR, the actual meaning of the abbreviation won't matter to most, and many won't even know what it stands for.
luxor2: The chart showing "equivalent aperture" is nearly unreadable due to poor color contrast. Almost a poster child for Excel disasters!
I agree, there are basically 4 colors that are some shade of blue/purple. I've always had some trouble reading them too.
If you think about it, the term SLR is the same way. Single lens reflex was meant to differentiate from the more typical twin lens systems at the time, so you could argue that the term is saying "hey, we only have one lens!" :P
ecm: Are people really not interested in having a viewfinder any more? Or do Canon and Nikon think that "we don't need no steenkin' viewfinder" is the only take-home message from increasing mirrorless camera sales?
I bought a mirrorless because of the small size, and then went back to a dSLR because of the lack of an integrated viewfinder..... accessory viewfinders SUCK.....
After the G1X, everyone complained that the OVF was terrible. So Canon listened and decided to save space by removing it, and offering an add on EVF. Sometimes, you just can't win...
Black Box: So how much did the Greedysoft pay him for it?
I don't get all the Microsoft hate. Do you want them to give away their products for free? Linux isn't for everyone...
BorisAkunin: I've always replaced that picture with a blank black background as soon as possible...
Retzius: Nikon, why do you waste your time on this junk.
Canon has abandoned the cheap point and shoot because they realized there are these new inventions called cell phones that people use to take casual photos.
Canon's no different, they]ve announced 10 or more compact point and shoots in the last 2 or 3 months, and at least a few of them (135, 140, 150, 340) are way under $200.
By the way, the 330hs at least is a pretty decent cam, for about $150. Still, I agree that it's a dying market segment.
l_d_allan: How much bigger and more expensive would it be for this camera to also be a fully functional phone?
Even better ... to also have a 1/1.7" sensor like my Canon S110? It's easily shirt-pocketable, and almost front-jeans-pocketable. If it had a shorter zoom range like 3x (28-85mm equiv) instead of 5x (24 to 120mm) and fully retracted into the body, it might be front-jeans-pocketable.
Or even to have a 1" sensor like the Sony RX100? It's not much bigger than my S110, which I consider to be impressive engineering.
I'm amazed at how tall and wide some of the popular smart-phones like the Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3" are getting to be. Even with their shallow depth/thickness, I'd think it would get old carrying them around in a front pants pocket.
So, if those tall/wide phones are selling well, might a thicker phone-camera with the following find a niche market?* glass lens* 3x zoom with stabilization* decent sensor size (1/1.7" or larger)
I've been wondering the same thing. How long until someone will release a proper camera/phone? You and I want very similar things. Take something like an S120 and a phone, squish 'em together, and I'll buy one. I want decent IQ, optical zoom, and manual controls. Is that too much to ask?
Honestly, I was tempted by the Galaxy s4 zoom. Even with its 1/2.3 sensor, I wanted that 10x zoom and manual controls. If it wasn't so strangely designed and cumbersome, I might have bought one. I'd lean toward a shorter zoom to get a faster lens or larger sensor, but beggars cant be choosers.
MrTaikitso: I wonder how long before Sony join Micro4/3? With the IQ difference between their larger sensor formats (NEX/Alpha) and 4/3rds slowly diminishing as technology progresses, and Sony being experts in miniaturisation, the Panasonic GM1 proves that you can only produce a compact body AND lens kit with 4/3rds, but NOT with NEX/Alpha. (I had an NEX 5R and even with a prime, it was much wider than the GM1 and not pocketable.)
And who better to make sexy do it all compact 4/3rds than Sony? They did it with the RX100, so have the ability.
I can't see MF ever becoming commonplace again. There's a limit to how big, heavy and expensive people are willing to reasonably go for good quality.
35 mm took over as the mainstream years ago because it was good enough, and things will just keep getting better (and smaller).
Johannes Zander: 4k is not enough! I wait for 16k.Until then I I am happy with HD.With me not resolution is lacking but the skil and the crew and additional gear. For me as an Amateur the Nikon V1 is just fine.This modular camera is for the pros with crew.
I'm sure we will be there and beyond much sooner. Advancement of technology is coming faster and faster. 10 years ago, I got my first 2mp digital camera, and it was barely better than a disposable. Look what we have now.
I'm in my 30s, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have the opportunity for commercial space flight in my lifetime. You never know!
makofoto: Consider how much storage and processing power you need for 4K :-(
And 8k will be a transient format before 16k, or 50k, and so on. So what?
tlinn: I've seen some G1X II macro shots at wide open apertures that look really soft. I was hoping to see some similar shots here to help clarify whether this was operator error or a characteristic of this camera.
When shooting this big sensor/small lens combo at close macro distances wide open, softness wouldn't surprise me. You see the same with the rx100.
Jogger: Weird, the only reason to use the m43 mount is to use native m43 lenses.
If the m43 lenses doesnt cover the s35 sensor, then there is no point.
If the idea is to have a free, ready-made mount (and expect users to use non-native m43 lenses), then there are others mounts that already serve this purpose.
It does seem weird at first, but blackmagic is doing something similar in going with the m4/3 mount even though they are using a smaller sensor area.
I don't know whether it's the open format, support of multiple brands, the ecosystem being friendly to adapting 3rd party lenses, or something else, but something must appeal to these brands to make them choose m4/3 even when they aren't using the m4/3 sensor size.
Mattersburger: Check it out:
SEVEN lenses, no purse, all for $999.95
That kit sure looks like fun though! Unfortunately, $999 is way past my impulse fun buy limit. I'd be tempted at half the price.
SteveNunez: These April Fools posts are foolish and undermine the site's integrity to a point- we come here for information not trickery.
h2k: They keep shying away from a super wide angle prime.
And, yes, as a Pana shooter (except GX7) i'd rather prefer this one with IS.
Olympus has the 12mm 2.0 which is almost the same equivalent FOV as the Pentax. I think they could use something like a 9mm f4 though. You could always get a fisheye and remove the distortion later.
Wide angles for these formats are hard to do well at a reasonable price.
Where was this taken? I live near an old Bethlehem steel site myself in Buffalo, NY.