Pffff A6000 fast focus? It can't even get correct focus on a person at a party!
Looks very promising. Much better layout than the Sony A6000: bigger screen, dedicated exp. compensation dial, integrated flash... More of a photographers camera. Now if only it would focus! The A6000 was hopeless at focussing, not sure the M3 will do better.And where is the Canon compact 16-50 kit lens?
Just wait till DPR tests the dynamic range enhancers. I switched on DR correction and Shadow correction: the concerned areas turned to a complete mush.What probably happens is the iso is pushed way up and the resulting noise is then wiped out by agressive NR.
alexeckersley: I've previously owned the RX100 and upgraded to the G7X when I was recently in Singapore as the RX100 had died on me. In the flickr link below are some photos from dusk to almost dark in Fort Canning Park and more recently at Arakoon in NSW Australia. Untouched full size... mostly on auto range of zoom as I familiarise myself with the cameras strengths. I find them in general more natural with the interpretation of colour and light compared to the Sony and am very happy with the detail.https://www.flickr.com/photos/127776580@N06/sets/72157648566961065/
Only the lack of wide angle (24mm)
My wife hates the colours of her G7X. She wants her RX100 back!
lacikuss: I just noted from a comparison between the RX100III and the G7x that the G7X appears to be wider @24mmm than the RX100III by a good 5%.
See the Temple pictures and count the number of lamps in the frame in this site:
I would like DPReview to compare both cameras to se if 24mm, 70mm and 100mm are actually accurate or just marketing bs
Thanks to @bernardly for this link.
Yes please DPR. For me the wider, the better. And I also noticed the Sony 1650 kitlens goes even wider...@lacikuss: the G7X goes wider than the the RX1003, but IQ is worse
Great pictures! This is definitely better than my LX5. Would I pay 800 euro for this camera? No.
A GM1 has better quality with the kitlens.
mcolvin1: Not sure I would get this camera when for the exact same price I can purchase a Sony a5100 with kit lens that has an APS-C sensor and probably better image quality (about the same as the Sony a6000), and is not all that much bigger than the Canon G7 X even with the kit lens attached. While the Canon has a longer zoom reach, with cropping on the a5100, which the sensor will accommodate, I can "reach" just as far. And I can later get a longer zoom lens if needed. I look forward to seeing comparison tests of the two cameras. Neither has yet to receive a full review.
Not correct. The A6000 at 70mm was equal to my LX5 at 90mm. The G7X is way better at 100mm than my LX5.
telefunk: "I'm probably in a minority here, but I don't really use the EVFs on these small cameras. In a way it is making it too big. Used to have the LX3 and LX5, which I loved."
Same here. Love my LX5. Would rather have flash and a flipscreen. Viewfinders intimidate your subject. Makes you look like you're serious about photography. People don't mind if you look casual like, shooting from the hip.
No, I certainly don't want to be noticed. This a street photography camera after all.
"I'm probably in a minority here, but I don't really use the EVFs on these small cameras. In a way it is making it too big. Used to have the LX3 and LX5, which I loved."
Tony Ellis: Finally a decent counter to the RX100 III - evf or 100mm - hmmm - but why oh why does the canon have to be so basta*d ugly!
Yup, they get the award for most ugly camera design. They just don't want to budge from their soapbar look. Head of design should get psychoanalysed. Something to do, I suspect, with their compact range being aimed towards casual family snappers.
Did it occur to anyone (reviewers included) that the sensor might be from the first generation RX100? Would make sense for Sony to sell old tech... But plenty good for my needs.
uzevla: Seriously, what's this trend with using low-end EVFs just to satisfy some "pro" wannabees ?0.46x magnification and 1.1K dots - who needs that ?
Compact camera like this one needs good LCD. 3.3" would be good, yet they gave us 16:9 LCD which is more like 2.5". Hopefully, they didn't do what Sony is doing as their 921K 16:9 LCD on Nex6 is extremely dim - Samsung OLED w/ 230K looks better than that.
On top of this, flash sync speed stays 1/50.
Who is buying this crap ?
This is so true and it frustrates me no end too. Had to get rid of the Nex7 and A6000 in a hurry for precisely that reason.
Deleted78792: As a happy detour from size debates of GM1 with RX100 & NEX-5T, these two sites have some pre-production samples, and they look pretty good-
All cameras are a compromise in the end, but the GM1 sounds (and so far looks) like quite a happy one.
To be fair, the IQ does look a step up from the RX100 sensor/imaging-pipeline. Exciting week this for photo enthusiasts.
Please don't mention the Sony SELP 1650. It is a crap lens. My LX5 gives much sharper pictures and most german test sites say the same.
mausta: Yeah you are right as always YaBOOKIE, we have had sensors on cameras for 100 years. LMFAO! Oh yeah you forgot to mention that it will never be as good as a full frame camera.
Nex 3n sucks IQ wise. So no contest. The RX100 is waaaaaaaaaaay better! And I hope this little guy even better than the RX100...
OneGuy: Now is a good time to put in a wish for dpr's full review of this cam. (Dear Santa. I was very good most of the time and) Could you tell me how big of a hi quality print I can make with F1.7/20mm lens? With GF1 I go to 30x40 cm and routinely get good comments. So, how about 40x60 with GM1? More? Less? (Hello to elfs.)
That's a big criterium for me too. I blow up pictures from my LX5 to maximum 1 meter, and it looks very good. Hopefully this little marvel will do even better. 16MP is not very ambitious though when you consider the quality of Sony's 20MP RX100.
Picture DSCF6996 of the sample gallery really makes me scared. Look at the bleached colour of the foilage in the background. And the way the artwork in the pond is overexposed and glowing.
http://www.instructables.com/id/3D-Printed-Camera-OpenReflex/?ALLSTEPSis the site with building instructions. The guy is Belgian and looking for a job.Anyway: bravo!
Hugo808: Sooner or later someone else here will have the bright idea of checking pics from different cameras side by side. Then the astonishing truth becomes apparent - there aint hardly any difference between these products. Especially at base ISO in bright sunlight.
Sorry you had to hear that from an amateur and one who has used the same digital camera for 5 years and honestly can't get his friends with their regularly upgraded super duper stuff to show him the difference pictorially.
Exactly my feelings. I take a picture at 100 iso of the same spot in my garden with every camera that comes into this house. The results have been disquieting. Some cheap tiny cameras take better pictures than Sony Nex. Why 100 iso? Because I hardly need to use anything else, even in dark buildings (steady hand, good stabilization...). And yes, I agree the dark areas come out better with bigger sensors.