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.
Lassoni: The camera looks soft..? http://tinyurl.com/o5hs6rf , even compared to LX100 http://tinyurl.com/ps9rwgh .
lowlight is not so good eitherhttp://tinyurl.com/orujzr9 , http://tinyurl.com/n44poxa
The LX100 SHOULD be capable of better IQ. It has a bigger sensor, and a bigger, less compromised lens. No surprises there. The g7x is more of a compromise in the interest of compactness.
kadardr: Nikon 1 J4 double lens kit is $546 right now. It is better than this and has a 28-295mm reach.
The g7x and Nikon 1 dual lens kit are just too different to compare. One is about compact size, the other is about range and flexibility. The choice between the two would be subjective, no objective.
NWT: "Based on sensor size differences alone, one might expect the G1X II’s twice-as-large sensor to show 1 EV better ISO performance compared to the G7 X; in reality, ISO 6400 on the G1X II is noticeably noisier than ISO 3200 on the G7 X."
What a strange way of comparing. Base on the reviewer's theroy, because RX100's sensor is about three times larger than S120, one would expect its RAW at 3200 iso would have less noise than S120's at 800.
Makes sense to me... I always like to use the studio scene or IR's comparometer to see what the equivalent ISOs are as far as image quality. Essentially he's saying, "I thought the G1x iso 6400 would be as good as the g7x iso 3200, but it's not."
But yes, I might expect the g7x at iso 3200 to be as good as the s120 at 800- and it basically is:
Donnie G: Olympus makes great lenses. It's too bad that these lenses are being made for a dying system. Micro 4/3 will be laid to rest alongside 4/3 because both Olympus and Panasonic together can't generate enough sales volume to keep the standard alive, and 3rd party lens makers are swallowing up the few chances at profit that are left. R.I.P. M4/3.
M4/3 is a pretty reliable system. It has support not only from Olympus and Panasonic (much more from Panny than 4/3 ever had), but it also has support from the rebranded Kodak releasing both bodies and lenses, Blackmagic offering bodies, and a wide range of 3rd party lens makers like sigma, voightlander, etc. I had hoped Sigma and Fuji would both enter the system before they made their own, but it is still more than enough support to be stable. Certainly more predictable than, say, Nikon 1, Samsung, Pentax, etc.
Weia: The old 7-14 is hard to beat, so hope it is equal.
My guess is the new lens will be at least as good stopped down to f4 as the old one was wide open (though I understand this isn't necessarily the case).
RichRMA: Are any of these lenses likely to be as good as the old Olympus Super High Grade 4/3rds lenses? Or are they more akin to the High Grade in-terms of performance and build-quality?
The 12-60 was one of the best standard zooms available when released. Sure, it's impressive that it went to 60mm, but if the 12-40 holds its own while shrinking in size, its a real achievement.
ShatteredSky: XZ-3 please (as in LX100 competitor)! LX100 size, 1 inch sensor, Zuiko-quality lens (like XZ-2), 24-120mm (1.8-2.8), tilt- and touchscreen. Should be possible, no?
I've been waiting for a camera like that since the release of the first rx100. Sony did the RX10, but it was too big and pricey (and I don't need that much zoom). The fz1000 was again too big for too much zoom. The G1X was very close, but sensor performance was poor, though it was close.
The lx100 was a step back to me- I want a well specified, versatile all in one solution. I don't want accessory flashes, or short zooms, or non touch screens.
I picture something with specs like the g7x, with a slightly larger body for better handling and controls, like the lx100.
Give me a 1" sensor, 24-120 1.8-2.8 lens, decent grip and controls, and everything built in (flash, vf, nd filter, lens cover etc.) so it is truly all I need to take, and you've got a deal.
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.