Boss of Sony: This could be a pretty decent camera if it had a 14-600mm f2.8 constant aperture Zoom lens on it.
And then the sensor would have to be tiny or the camera huge. Either way there are rubbish cameras like that if you want one.
obsolescence: I don't think this camera merits the same 81% rating as the Olympus E-M5 II, especially due to the lack of interchangeable lens.
The design is single fixed lens and in that role it performs well enough to be rated at 81%. The fact it is not the camera you want or desire does not effect its rating. It does not have an in built coffee machine but I'm not making it down because of that.
zsedcft: Don't tell anybody, but number 5 is doing it wrong. Maybe they are doing some kind of epic back-header.
Of course you have.
Clearly you are a world expert in back headers so I bow to your vastly superior knowledge. Now that's sarcasm.
It may not be a good picture but the original comment was about football players technique which clearly is not understood. I have seen a lot more football then 4 games in a world cup. By the way the world governing body is Fédération Internationale de Football Association. You might notice the word soccer is missing because the game is called football.
Macist: What's with all of these superzooms without GPS?
Who uses these things, other than people who travel? And unless you travel to the most predictable tourist spots, a GPS is a must nowadays.
I find a memory and map works very well and costs nothing.
Lack of understanding normally means you should keep quiet. Seen many a goal come from that.
onlooker: Some of the comments here like "have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then" drive me crazy. It is not about THE human, it is about A human in a given situation. It is about human condition.
This reaction may be partly because this site is polluted by portraits of grinning street kids. It may be because, despite protests, DPR condones sick photo challenges like "A file I would like to punch".
Look at the work of many of the photographers whose names I posted earlier, and you may understand. Do you think Henri Cartier-Bresson should have chased some of his subjects? Really?
Or perhaps it is because you think that someone wants a photo of your face and wants to stare at you later? Then you need to get over yourself. It's not about you.
What are you talking about?
G3User: I know it's nearly dead but services like this are finishing it off a little faster than I hoped it would. Dpreview, please give us who make a living off of this activity a break and stop promoting these services.
Why do you get special treatment these people are aslo making a living off this.
Its not always about you, get over it.
I mean that just because you don't have a law it does not mean that law is wrong or dumb.
leno: But he is not stealing the copyright picture, he is making a copy of the sample tester photo. If he modified it and put a smily face on it nobody would say a thing.
Lets not start name calling. It has been proven I am far from stupid. You are not following the logic. He has not taken the original copyrighted image that is so presous, he only has access to a poor copy of that image. He has taken that poor image which was freely avalible on the internet and modified it. The rule is there is no security on the internet and if you want to keep things you don't put them there. The phographer understands this and that is why he only put the poor copy up.
You don't have data protection laws either
But he is not stealing the copyright picture, he is making a copy of the sample tester photo. If he modified it and put a smily face on it nobody would say a thing.
Many laws are dumb but they still exist and you don't get to choose which ones to ignore.
peter12345: I'm really having problems with this. Making a commercial video and telling people on how to make sneaky pictures. Especially in a islamic country where pictures of any kind might be a offense to peoples believes. In the end who knows if the people he is taking pictures of might get in trouble for that.
Having been there the main problem is everybody wants paying.
BubbaHotepUK: Oh no! No touchscreen!Why not Sony, why not? I've been using the Panasonic GM1 recently and touchscreens on small cameras is definitely the way to go.
Still, it looks to be a super camera nonetheless, addressing most of my complaints about the RX100 I & II. Now that summer is here in the UK, that EVF may just swing it my way :)
Say what you like but I like the nice big focus ring around the lens, I notice that it is becoming more popular now on quality compacts. And no I hate my smart phone and my nano.
I'm going to record my life and then when I die I'll play it back for eternity.
Touch screen = gimic which does not improve IQ
Is it legal to shot them with shotguns.