Dyun27: As amazing as this camera sounds, the 28 megapixel crop sensor would worry me. It's already challenging not to introduce motion blur to the 16 megapixel D7000 sensor with longer lenses, it's definitely challenging with the 36 megapixel full frame sensor of the D800 and the D7100 24 megapixel sensor.
At 28 megapixels with a crop sensor it means having to use higher ISO settings, faster shutter speeds and using VR whenever possible. At that point I'd have to start taking a monopod or tripod wherever I go. Only the shorter lenses would be easy to use.
@Dyun27Why get any camera with more than 4 MP? Unless you have a 4K monitor, all your images viewed on a computer will be downsized to 4 MP anyway. And unless you manually create copies of your images, there is zero need to every manually do any downsizing. You just open the image and whatever application is opening the image will do the downsizing in real-time for you, without you even having to think about it.
In regard to motion blur: A 28 MP sensor has only twice the linear resolution of a 7 MP sensor. Thus, compared to taking an image with a 7 MP sensor, you only need to shorten the shutter speed by one stop to get the same amount of blur when viewed at 100%.
Paul Guba: Not that familiar with Samsung DSLR cameras. Is it a proprietary lens mount? What other lenses would one be able to get? I am actually surprised as the market has to decreasing so to invest money in developing a new camera system seems a bit out there.
This ain't no DSLR, this is a mirrorless camera, comparable to the Sony A6000 or Fuji X-T1. And yes, like everybody except (m)4/3, it has a proprietary lens mount. They have quite a number of lenses but they are essentially shut out of the third-party lens market (except probably some MF options). But then no mirrorless system has really received many lenses from the big thirdparty lens makers (still to small a market compared to DSLRs).
James Booba: As a 7D owner the 7DII is for me the reason to say goodbye to this company for a while (after 16 years).
There is the inevitable rule that those who are unhappy will drown out the ones that are happy. Thus you hear the Canon users that are unhappy that Canon released an APS-C instead of a FF camera as Nikon did. And you hear the Nikon users unhappy that Nikon has released a FF instead of a APS-C camera as Canon did.
forpetessake: There is already largely improved alternative to QX1, with similar weight, size and a bit more expensive, but a lot more functional -- A5100.
Still smaller but not significantly bulkier. Carrying the QX1 or the A5000 in jacket pocket is not a big difference. And once assembled, the A5000 is much nicer shooting experience.
TheWhiteDog: I just noticed the QX1 has a 1.5 multiplier so that loses me, no wide angles(except extreme ones that would be too big for this rig and would give at most an equivalent 24mm) Might appeal though for remote use with long teles but that would be cumbersome and I wouldn't trust the security of the setup. Too bad. But I am sure the concept will be refined in the future, SONY is always pushing the boundaries and that is no bad thing.
Weld an A to E mount adaptor to this module and you have a unit that can accept A-mount lens. A dedicated module for A-mount lenses cannot really be smaller than this module+adaptor as the physical length from lens mount to sensor plane is fixed.
If assembling this module (incl. lens) with a smartphone (stored in separate pockets) is acceptable, then assembling a lens and A5000 (stored in different pockets) isn't too much of a difference.
sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.
@GaryJPBut the G1X is size-wise no competitor to the RX100, 66 mm thick vs. 36/38/41 mm, that is more than 60/80% thicker. 60 to 80% is very noticeable difference.
ObelixCMM: Compact?Lumix FZ1000 is bigger than Canon T5i, Nikon D5300, Pentax K-3....
On the APS-C cameras Treeshade mentions, a 16.5-270 mm would cover the FZ1000 AOV. We have a Nikon 18-300 mm, a Tamron 18-270 mm, a Tamron 16-300 mm and a Sigma 18-250 mm that come close or even slightly exceed that.
Ido S: And just as you published that, the Fujifilm X30 is announced.
What is the average life-cycle time for these six (or seven counting the RX100) cameras? One two two years max. Which means at any given time, on average one of the cameras is between one to two months away from its replacement. Seeing that between camera announcement and full-production model shipping one month might pass + testing will take some time, such a review will likely be out-of-date within one month or so.
@GaryJP1/1.7" sensors are noisy at base ISO, the RX100 isn't. That is enough reason to get a larger-sensored camera if one is available in a pocketable size.
And I also own cameras from a number of vendors: Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Ricoh, and Sony (though the Ricoh and Panasonic are currently retired). This is not about being a fan of one particular brand.
noirdesir: Is this large-sensor compacts? Or viewfinder compacts? Or also 1/1.7", raw-capable compacts? Or compacts above a certain physical size? And why exclude the elephant in the room, the RX100?
It seems this is a collection of cameras that stand out in some way or another. Or maybe it was to have one or two contenders in each interesting category. (a) compact, 200 mm, viewfinder, but 1/1.7" (P7800)(b) compact, fast-ish lens, 1/1.7" (G16)(c) compact-ish, 200+ mm, viewfinder, 1/1.7" (Stylus)(d) compact, large-ish sensor (X-20)(e) smaller than a ILC+superzoom, 200+ mm, large sensor (FZ1000+RX10)(f) smaller than a superzoom + Large sensor (G1-X)
I guess the G16 trumps the LX7 because it has a longer zoom? And the G16 trumps the RX100 because it is cheaper? And the X-20 trumps the RX100 again because it is cheaper? And the G1-X trumps the GR and Coolpix A because it has a zoom.
As it is probably obvious, I posted the above without having read the conclusion page. Whey the RX100 didn't get its own page (even if it were a copy and paste from previous RX100 reviews) in this group review, remains unclear to me.
Maybe category was larger than compacts but smaller than superzooms (+larger travelzooms).
Is this large-sensor compacts? Or viewfinder compacts? Or also 1/1.7", raw-capable compacts? Or compacts above a certain physical size? And why exclude the elephant in the room, the RX100?
Leandros S: It wants to be a Foveon when it grows up.
I'm not sure how stationary subject and camera co-occur with high-ISO usage.
johnbandry: At what point would the resolution of the captured image outdo the (current technology) limits of ability of printers to print it? In other words, what is the maximum number of pixels a high-end printer (of any technology) can output onto a single sheet of paper?
That's in one go, without chopping the image into pieces to be printed separately and then reassembled, as in a billboard.
Printers work like scanners, one line a time. Which means you can already print a long a print as you want (limited by paper length and ink cartridge capacity). And instead of keeping the paper stationary and moving the printer head, it is not too difficult to move the paper. You'll only be limited by the maximum paper size.
In a sense, this is like weaving a carpet. What is the maximum carpet size that could be woven?
Johannes Zander: What! No PSAM dial... No articulated screen... No hot shoe to mount standart flashes... I think I keep my D800, also the pohone part is very badly implemented.
Not that the D800 would have a PSAM dial or articulated screen.
Why would they limit the unit to 9.5 mm drives. It is not that a six millimetre thicker unit (allowing two 12.5 mm units on top of each) would alter the nature of such a device much. In a laptop that can matter but not in an external enclosure.
deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.
There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!
Mark, can you name any consumer-facing photo application that once offered and has now ceased raw support?
Apple knows how many iPhoto users shoot raw. Since Photos is not more consumer-oriented than iPhoto, I don't see that ratio going down much (I'd rather expect it go up somewhat as some Aperture users will choose to use Photos). As long as that ratio stays at a certain level, I don't see why Apple should discontinue 3rd party raw support. What would they gain except for saving a small amount of money? There are clear technical and feature advantages of Apple merging iPhoto and Aperture, most importantly allowing them to create a library designed from the ground up to be syncable. I don't see a similar big application shift that would be helped by removing third-party raw support while keeping first-party raw support (and expanding it with plugin access to raw data).
I can see them drop raw support if it brings them clear benefits but I don't see those benefits.
So, Apple is adding raw support to 'Photo Stream' because they plan to abandon raw support?
The update is also available in Mountain Lion.http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1757