Its hard not to see it as a fraudulent publicity trick, in which case it would be nice if the tax department dropped in on him for their cut of the non-existent sale. No name for an owner is sus, how about the underbidders come forward ? But there is the smallest chance that some lonely simpleton heiress suffering from depression, or someone trying to demonstrate that they had so much money they could buy a useless peacocks tail painting without flinching, or a narcissist needing to own the worlds most expensive painting etc did actually buy it. It that is the case, I hope they stop for a moment and think of some alternatives for the next time, like giving 65 photographers $100k each to work for a year to get "the" shot on some theme ....... or 650 thirdworld photographers to do the same ...... a little bit of imagination .......
Mike FL: The price is the same but "The Sony mount does not include the VC image stabilization functionality".
Yeah, that is so wierd. Bordering on a conspiracy ........ lets hope sony e mount does not need stabilization soon ...... 5 axis in next apsc ?
Big loss not having a flash with you all the time, even in day time for backlit shots. Essential for an all purpose camera. Good for triggering other flashes too. Not sure why someone doesn't come up with a flash which slides on the side of the camera ....... it could either pop up from there, or be demountable and move to the hot shoe when you need it - at least it is can be with you, not in your bag. A bit of styling and it could double as a grip. Good idea for someone on kick starter .........
Should use the same system at the Olympics, if a country looks like it is too good and will win too many medals, split the event with a "mid range" Olympics, and an "enthusiasts" Olympics - send the over performer down to the midranger, to compete with Andorra and Guatemala, and leave the real Olympics to the ones who deserve it.
Reinhard136: Looks like if Nikon rebadged the Pentax Q, and upped the price to $1600, it would have been in contention too ........ and if Sony make the A7 ii too cheap it will be chucked in with the beginners cameras ..... hmmm someone asleep at the wheel ?
My mistake, maybe if canon re-badge it, it will slot in under the Pro cat.
Looks like if Nikon rebadged the Pentax Q, and upped the price to $1600, it would have been in contention too ........ and if Sony make the A7 ii too cheap it will be chucked in with the beginners cameras ..... hmmm someone asleep at the wheel ?
Reinhard136: come on sony, blow them out of the water, stretch a 100 m3 by 20 mm make it 3 mm thicker and include a phone in it .........
Thanks for the review, it seemed well done and relevant. One thing my kzoom has taught me though is that the argument of carrying a good camera in the other pocket is not for me - it is just never there when you need it. Owning the r100 taught me, there is still a big gap between cameras and phones ...... the kzoom is fine resolution wise, but it has pocket camera faults on delay, shake, dynamic range, metering. As poor as the kZoom can be, it still takes most of my fotos now. I had not though seriously about the CM1, but I am wondering if loss of zoom might be an acceptable compromise now - once the price settles down.
I think your 35.4 should read 135 . ....... but, I was saying even if you make the r100 a bit bigger, not smaller, to accommodate the phone too - it would be a bit chunky, but still a lot less than a camera and a phone. You get used to it, had the note and the kzoom, annoying for about a day, then you forget . I would sign up for one now :-)
come on sony, blow them out of the water, stretch a 100 m3 by 20 mm make it 3 mm thicker and include a phone in it .........
srados: It has been done already with K-zoom from Samsung...(no 4k video)
........ and 10 X zoom, which largely makes up for the small sensor for many shots.
Reinhard136: Any way of doing an adapter for k lenses ? a few bits of glass to bend everything in the right direction and distance ? Going to iso 204 k means it could afford to lose a bit of light. That might bring it in from the cold.
.......... in the new world of specific in camera corrections maybe not too much loss ? and then you only need one or two main 645 lenses, and are covered for the other few percent of uses with your k lenses ?
40daystogo: Once the LX series ceases to be a true pocketable camera, then it is up against cameras that are fairly small but not quite pocketable, such as the Sony A6000 which has an APS-C sensor. If you use the stuido-compare function of the above review, you'll see the A600 blows the LX100 out of the water.
the a 6000 fits in some of my pockets, but normally to get free hands, rarely long term carrying, the r100 you forget is there .... no idea why they made the lx as big as the larger sensor 6000 ....was not necessary, cut 15 mm in each direction, and pick up a lot of market.
The only genuine problem with the E system was lens availability - that is basically solved now. The gap is so big now to Canikon, they will have to do something very clever, very quickly or fight over second place.
........ my thoughts exactly, and the sony has a flash too. As far as lenses go, the sony may actually be ahead when you realise the larger sensor means that a sony zoom lens with less range will still have a greater effective range than a 4/3. Disappointed, had LX's when they were class leaders.
I reckon what is behind this idea has huge ramifications, well beyond the seemingly trivial application ...... the combination of using camera to see what is not otherwise clearly visible, specialised analysis, cheapness etc is likely to bob up in some pretty significant ways, ........... and open new markets for photography ......
Any way of doing an adapter for k lenses ? a few bits of glass to bend everything in the right direction and distance ? Going to iso 204 k means it could afford to lose a bit of light. That might bring it in from the cold.
Reinhard136: is it just my imagination or do canons always seem to do faces well ? even a photo of a photo of a face ........ do they have some face recognition software in there that tweeks anything it thinks is a face ...... maybe just dreaming ....... rest of images always seem a bit ordinary .
well I had no idea, thanks for that, pretty clever, maybe I was not imagining it, and might explain how canon overcomes the otherwise ordinariness of its sensors ...... it is a potential worry though about the "authenticity" of the photo if they do more than control exposure ..... a sort of built in photo-shop, the temptation is always to make things prettier than they are, like adding sugar to food, or antifreeze to wine ......
.......... or so one would hope
yes, but I was thinking along the lines that they might use that software to identify faces and then tweek the output by matching against standard skin tones, or reducing the jpeg compression in that area, or interpolating to std face curves etc ...... depending on what is done, they may be moving into questionable territory as far as authenticity goes ..........
is it just my imagination or do canons always seem to do faces well ? even a photo of a photo of a face ........ do they have some face recognition software in there that tweeks anything it thinks is a face ...... maybe just dreaming ....... rest of images always seem a bit ordinary .