jtan163: Oly and Sony's partner ship pays off for Sony.This will be a total monster for adapting lenses.When the A7sII comes out it will be an even more incredible video camera.
It's pretty clear looking at the thing that it's an Olympus design.
hypo: What a wonderful juxtaposition DPR came up with. Side by side were the first Hasselblad in space up for auction and the golden Nikon.
Both fabulously exotic and expensive.
Neither good value for money (as a camera).
But if you could win one of them in a competition, which would you want to have?
It's a historical item, no one who buys this will use it as a walk around camera.
mpgxsvcd: What makes the LX100 a "Point and Shoot" camera. Yes it has an Auto mode. However, all cameras including Full Frame DSLRs have an Auto mode.
The term "Point and Shoot" is what should die. There is no such thing as a point and shoot camera. All cameras have some sort of camera control now.
The more appropriate term is compact or more specifically you can say small sensor compact or large sensor compact.
Oohhhh, internet tough guy here!
You're the one hung up on terminology.
Because it is a point and shoot camera. I chalk it up to anything that isn't an interchangeable lens camera.
ZhanMInG12: People here complaining about the F4 should note that no other major mirrorless system has a UW zoom faster than F4 in equivalent DOF. The Fuji 10-24mm is F4 and also rather big and heavy.
If you absolutely need F2.8 there is the much revered Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM. True German optics at the lowly price of $4600...
iso is what it is. At a low base iso, not too much of a diff. Putting it up high, then there's a large difference, though in a lot of cases (for me at any rate) I'm not exactly going to use a UWA lens in the middle of the night.
burnymeister: The GM series m43 cameras are the first in that line that really made sense to me. The promise of m43 was always size and weight reductions no? The inclusion of an EVF and slightly larger form factor makes this an attractive option. I've used the GM1 with lenses like the 12mm f/2, 15mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/1.8 and it's a very nice combo.
Unfortunately for me, Sony proved more innovative with their RX100III and it's popup EVF and their FF line of A7 cameras. But if I was in the market for m43, this would be it.
Sony is a great electronics company. As an optics company, they suck.
I'm always tempted by the A7, but their lens line up is horrible. Sure I have a ton of manual focus lenses, but I don't want to use those, as I'll see all of the flaws in the lens etc not to mention using an adapter increases the bulk where I'm looking for more compactness.
sjredo: And still, no portrait option after what? 6 years? Damn you Sony.
35mm isn't a portrait lens in the traditional sense.
"no other major mirrorless system has a UW zoom faster than F4 in equivalent DOF"
That's a pretty useless statement. It's about exposure, not shallow dof with UW.
Jogger: $950 is a lot of monies for a 50/2.. the excellent Nikkor 50/1.8 can be had for less than $200.
"excellent" is always relative.
historianx: Where's Yabokkie?
I think he went back on his meds.
StevenMajor: I understand the image having value but not the camera. The buyer will be someone's vain moneyed attempt to associate themselves with greatness. Or maybe an investor who will seek a similar client.
Seriously? It's a historical item.
Jogger: Not going anywhere near Android, iOS, or Windows Phone... they are basically NSA data collection devices.
But you computer on the internet isn't?
forpetessake: "12-45mm f/3.5-6.3" -- really? Making such a dim lens with such a small sensor makes no sense. It's f/12.6 FF equivalent! Even the old film days P&S Olympus soap boxes were brighter. This Chinese company is nuttier than a fruitcake.
equivalent dof does not equal exposure. There is no film/sensor size format switch on the side of a light meter.
Black Box: My grampa was a vynil records collector for 5 decades. His collection comprised thousands of records and was worth A LOT of money. But when the CD arrived, he bought a CD player and loved the crunch-free sound. When MP3 and AC3 arrived, he embraced those as well.
For a long time, I thought that the only people who cling to an old technology are those who are simply too lazy to learn or too dead to want to. But recently I realized something.
30 years ago creative photography was an exclusive art accessible only by those "chosen" who had The Equipment. They were the elite that could do "magic". Then digital photography arrived and all of a sudden the magic was in everyone's hands!
The dethrowning was painful. And THIS is the manifestation of that pain. Both for Kodak and for the photographer.
I'm sorry for your loss.
Ironically, it was Kodak that put easy access cameras into the hands of the masses. IT's just that they totally failed in changing their business model with cheap cameras and making money from film.
davidjlee: Which venue denied this camera? The Showbox?
Always the Showbox. I'd rather have some superzooms in there than the tons of cellphones being held up.
W5JCK: Bridge cameras like this one and the RX10 or still what I consider to be sub-enthusiast level. The 1" sensor is too small to deliver quality IQ at any low light level. That f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/5.0 lens on an APC-S camera. Pretty darn slow for wide open, and thus rather lacking in low light capability. A f/4.0 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/7.1 lens on an APC-S camera. So this camera basically has a f/4--f/7.1 zoom lens compared to APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Meh! For the price of the RX10 you would be better off with a a6000 and a few good lenses. This one is cheaper, but still not worth the price for anyone who wants an enthusiasts level and above IQ. This is a mom/dad camera used to take little pictures to post on the internet. Again, meh!
f stop is a lens property, and just a formula at that. f2.8 is f2.8 no matter what. Is there a "1", µ4/3, APS-C, FF" switch on the side of your light meter? No there isn't.
Maklike Tier: I love the 'concept' of this camera, but if you have to stick a $1000 prime onto it to get quality shots from it, then you're looking at a $1600 package....with only one lens. For that sort of money you could get an EM5/10 with THREE f1.8 primes, or the EM5 Elite with the Pro 2.8 zoom.
I think Sony is an incredibly innovative and adventurous company, but they really do lack the 'X-Factor' that companies like Fuji and Olympus have.
Sony is a fabulous electronic company... not so much in the lens dept.
That's only a f2-2.8 ff equivelent- pffft ;)
My girlfriends sister is on one of those teams, and I bring my E-M5 with me on occasion, and I always spot a guy that I *think* has a µ4/3 camera- heh confirmed!
Kevin Omura: Yikes, first lets take one component out of the equation. The wealth of one of the participants... Then we clearly see that this is basically an issue of who owns the copyright to the images. Once you get past this it's pretty straight forward, Mrs Huff does.
The other component of this mess is somewhat hidden in this story and that is that Walmart used one of these images though unclear how and that seems to be how this ball got rolling.
The importance of this case is that if Mrs Huff should somehow loose then it signals that the photographers ownership of the images is being removed and that the persons depicted in the images are the owners to the photographs. Which would have far reaching effects on every portrait/school photographer/ studio in the country.
And yes it is morally reprehensible that a large corporation should bully some little old lady whose family owned a photo studio. Would be interesting to see what Sam Walton's take on this would be if he were still alive.
"It sickens me that you actually know little facts about the case, yet choose sides based on stereotypical liberal bs." Agenda much?