Lab D: Just read nerd2's classic comment abour how since f2.8 on m43 is really f5.6, and so apsc with an f5.6 lens is better. I bet he still doesn't get why that is so funny.
I have no problem with what nerd2 says, as its correct. The issue is the assumption that sensors of varying size are equally efficient, but they generally aren't. Small tend to outperform larger ones per unit of sensor area., and progress in smaller sensors seems to be leading larger sensors these days due to demand, which would tip the efficiency scales in favor of small sensors.
Its really a discrepancy between theory and practical results.
acassino: I think this ad campaign is stupid and offensive.
You seriously cant be that sensitive. Can you?
Offensive? To whom?
azlover: Too big. I need a smaller P&S with built in 35-90/2.8 lens and a new sensor that falls somewhere in between 1" - 4/3.
The Canon g7x is probably closest, since it covers all his criteria and is smaller.
0mega: I just don't see how this can compete with Sony mirror-less.
@thematic- what size do you often print that this camera could not live up to? I suppose it depends on your standards, but I have printed tons of 13x19 that turn out great. If you need to print larger sizes from images taken in less than ideal conditions, maybe you need 35mm or the like. For many, the IQ difference between the two isn't a dealbreaker. I'd go as far as to say that for most beyond pixel peepers, the difference between m4/3 and aps-c is unnoticeable.
ShatteredSky: RAW for the tough series please. Or better finally do a tough XZ-3. Thanks!(yes, I am aware that this may not be what the market demands, it's just me).
I'm really surprised Olympus didn't add RAW to the tg3 if they wanted to differentiate it from the other waterproof models already out there.
LukeDuciel: thumb up for adding 5 axis stabilization on a travel zoom, big competitive edge over all other in the same niche.
big thumb down for the proprietary port. I HATE this kind of design. I have a tg-2, you have to charge via that port, such a shitty thing. I have to taken care of the precious special cable, carry it and find it when needed.
The little Canon 330hs does a nice job for a dirt cheap price. Decent 2.3 sensor and lens combo.
Maybe a good compact with a separate waterproof housing would be a good option for you- more choices.
CAcreeks: After using even a typical smartphone, the 3" LCD on most cameras seems totally pathetic.
.....are you saying you use a DSLR primarily with the LCD?
nerd2: RX100III is more compact, has much faster lens (even in equivalence), and has better ISO capability due to the BSI sensor.
The rx100iii is great. It's just not a replacement for this camera. Argue about which sensor is better all you want, one is not a good substitute for the other.
And it is apples to oranges. Either you want a fixed lens compact, or you want a system camera. The Rx100ii will likely outperform the gf7 in low light shooting thanks to its fast lens, but how does the rx100iii stand up if you want to use a wide angle lens? Tele? fisheye? You get the idea. They're just too different.
What is wrong with people wanting to take the occasional self shot or group shot with them in it? For many, if not most, hobby photographers, the documentary aspect of photographs is part of the appeal. Years later, photos of friends and family are often the most cherished. People like to be able to look back to remember their lives and loved ones.
Maybe people are lashing back more against the silly word "selfie" than anything else.
Maybe many people interested in photography feel more comfortable behind the lens and out of the spotlight (I see a bit of this in myself) and so they have trouble relating to those that want to be in front of the lens.
Maybe photography "purists" around here just see it as fueled primarily by new technology like smartphones and social media, and since for many of these folks new must be bad, so it puts them off.
Whatever it is- getting all riled up and raising your blood pressure about it is silly.
RedFox88: DPR: 2/3" is really 1/1.5". Use common nomenclature to make it not sound like a much bigger image sensor.
Why the started using the 1/2.3 and 1/1.7 in the first place is the confusing thing to me...
I want to see a phone that basically just adds in a good point and shoot. Squish the s120 into a phone, and I'm in.
If not, maybe they can use the periscoping design for optical zoom that you see in many of the slim weatherproof cameras. The Sony TX series, for example, was pretty slim with a 1/2.3 sensor and optical zoom, close to modern cell phone territory. These cell sensors are even smaller, so it should be possible.
mpgxsvcd: If you buy any of these cameras you have no clue what actually makes a camera take a better picture. Every single one of these cameras is utterly useless with these ridiculous focal ratios.
That being said. I bet Canon will sell plenty of them just because most of the Canon consumers don’t know any better.
Not at, say, 500mm equivalent.
"Enthusiast" seems like an unnecessary term around here at this point. How many reviews do we see here for $100 point and shoots? The dedicated camera market is heavily skewing to the enthusiast now, and so we see more "enthusiast" models to choose from. That's why this list looks disjointed, like it tries to cover too much ground (even without the rx100, g7x, et al).
I think it would be best to break it down, as has been done before, by feature set- best super zooms (stylus 1, fz1000, rx10), best large sensor cams (g1x, lx100, GR, X100), best compacts (rx100, g7x, s120) and so on. There is so much choice for the enthusiast today that it is difficult even just to summarize it all in one article.
Jogger: Another con would be the lack of a built in lens cap/shutter, which is pretty much standard for compact cameras. One more thing to carry/lose.
In the years I worked in a camera shop, bent/stuck/missing lens cover blades were not uncommon. they were usually a result of the camera taking a physical beating of some kind, but it happens.
That said, I would definitely prefer a built in lens cover/flash/ND filter in a camera meant to be an all in one solution. If I don't want to worry about switching lenses, why would I want to worry about all the various bits and pieces?
FBoneOne: That's the difference between a luxury brand and a consumer brand. Leica takes out the bling and charges you $1000 more for the privilege of knowing you have a leica but not show it while Nikon adds bling and charges you the same... I wish they had resisted the temptation, just for their own sake.
I honestly think it looks MUCH better. The regular DF looked bloated, forced, but just didn't quite pull off the look. This looks good to me.
ianp5a: Shame no EVF like recent cameras Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Olympus.
That's the point, there are already models with EVFs from other manufacturers. If this had an EVF, it would be even more similar to an rx100.