I agree with others, why compare chalk and cheese? Comparing a M4/3 with a FF is absolute nonsense, particularly harping on video when we all know that video cameras take much better video. It would also be nice to see 'professional' standard sample photos, instead of the usual snapshots. For instance, I chose a Fuji S2 Pro long ago after downloading the extra sharp London Bridge shot.
We expect to see the ultimate capabilities of cameras in these reviews, not amateur examples. That an a7S was used to shoot a Chev commercial is hardly a recommendation, an Airbus or even a BMW, maybe.
My Pan M4/3 system is sitting in its bag, waiting for a buyer, but my NEX 7 and Samsung NX20/200 are kept busy.
For this kind of camera, I'll stick to my Nikon P7000
Comparing the RX-100 III and Olympus XZ-2 is comparing chalk and cheese. Make a 3' enlargement from both and see the difference. Let's get real here and compare similar sensor cameras.
I'll stick with my Nikon P7000. If I need anything smaller, the Nikon L22 is fine.
Why M4/3 is pushed, over an APS-C is beyond me. That's like preferring a VW over a BMW.
A few GOOD sample photos would have been nice....
Most of these shots are not even sharp (see the single flower) and have considerable purple fringing. Certainly not up to the standard of DP's own samples with the Fuji S2 Pro, so many years ago.
I have an original self-wind Seiko watch, made from a solid block of stainless steel, which is also a work of art and as new , though 47 years old. I would be inclined to buy this camera for similar reasons, but am not a lover of touch screens and think that the sample shots are not great.
Too bad we can't evaluate RAW samples. Certainly, some of my NEX 7 processed RAW shots are sharper and, of course, of greater resolution. I want to see processed RAW samples from the 23mm F2. As it is, it is not as sharp as my old film 6 x 7 Rapid Omega.
Don't know who took these photos, but they aren't sharp and are very noisy. Perhaps a good tripod might help! I have far better results from my Nikon D700.
Eleven. You forgot the toilet paper.....
disasterpiece: What is this, a camera or a space ship?
Jeez! I LOVE spaceships!
thx1138: After searching the trest chart high and low in jpeg and RAW it makes almost no difference, basically looks like the RX1 with a bit of sharpening applied with radius 0.3-0.4 say. It might be the lens holding it back, since the D600 results are much crisper. So to see the best from this sensor sans AA filter you would need better glass, so I'd say unless it's the same cost, get the RX1, and even then if the IQ is basically a wash I'd get the RX1 and have to deal with moire less often.
D800E on the other hand shows real improvement over D800, but you can select the best glass freely.
Obviously, the NEX 7 w/50-f1.8 is far superior and half the price, including an EVF.
Full frame sensors in compact cameras are long overdue. 1" and m4/3 are band aids. We had 35mm film in little cameras like my Chinon Bon Ami. Miniaturisation is not a problem. Having space for human sized controls is. 1" and m4/3 are just a way for the industry to gradually introduce larger sensors and milk as much money along the way.
Looks to me like the type is much smaller,like this here, not larger, and some of it with poor contrast. Why fix something that isn't 'broke'? How many of us wear glasses, d'you think? Perhaps you don't think!
garyknrd: Wow, what is the name of that martian bird in the first pic.
That's definitely an oozling bird, flies backwards to keep the sand out of its eyes. Very common on Mars.
What we do notice is that the site is frequently a mess, giving constant error messages. Obviously, some competent and EXPERIENCED IT people should be hired. It was much better in the old days. And, no, it isn't amusing at all. Perhaps you could do a pre-emptive strike at whoever is responsible.
Why do we have to click three times to get to this stupid review? A 150mm equivalent is NOT a portrait lens anyway, 85 is quite enough, any more and you're stopping down too far to get depth of focus, into the diffraction range.
Why no viewfinder built-in? The old Leicas had one, complete with full frame sensors called film.
We had apochromats decades ago. Leica lenses are superb, but $8,000? I don't think so. I'd say they're making money out of pros who can write these prices off.
I guess that the inference is that Leica cherry pick the best lenses. I certainly wouldn't buy either, due to no uncompressed files and no viewfinder.