Jr: If this had the dual pixel focus.. I'd be all over it. Bla.
It does seem curious that they have already identified the drastic improvement in AF required for sensor based setups with the 70D and then purposely chosen to NOT put it into the M.
My only thought is they want to keep the M2 near the M's super cut pricepoint and couldn't afford to give you a mirrorless 70D at that price.
mosc: I have a smartphone, like everyone else, and I wish these things worked with just the camera, card, and smartphone. Seems like they all require a wifi network to connect through, nothing direct camera card to phone. NFC seems to address this but my phone lacks it (yay apple) and I can't imagine them stuffing that into a memory card to rescue my "non-wifi" RX100. Am I missing some obvious way to get files from RX100 to Iphone 4S when out and about in non-wifi land?
That's cool Jethro10 but just too bulky. I'm not likely to carry that.If I was, I would have a bigger camera than the RX100 ;)
I prefer 25mm to 35mm. I don't think they could make f2.0 though at 25mm in anywhere near that size class.
I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?
I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?
Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.
I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?
Another topic: Flange distance! The heart of the mirrorless sales pitch is removing the space between lens and sensor (along with it's bulky optical viewfinder). We've seen the advantages in size and weight (as long as your in the EVF >= OVF camp) but it does have a pretty big impact on lens design as well. What are the positives and negatives of shorter flange distances on lens design? Are there reasons why today's mirror less cameras are at a disadvantage due to a shorter flange distance? If not, might we see even shorter flange distances to further cut size/weight?
There is a lot of discussion about sensor size. We like to assume that image quality is fairly proportional to sensor area. That said, it seems like every new generation of sensor shrinks the gaps in image quality. The gap between FF vs APS-C, APS-C vs 4/3, 4/3 vs 1", etc. What do the experts think is happening? Will we be in a world where sensor area is less important or equally important in the future?
If sensor size becomes significantly less important, it makes sense that we go with smaller systems like 4/3rds. If sensor size is not diminishing as a direct link to image quality then "full frame" systems will continue to justify their size and price.
On one hand, we've seen an increase in the number of FF products on the market (D600/6D/A7) specifically reducing cost but on the other hand there's been some good pieces on 1" sensors and 4/3" sensors swinging more than their size alone would indicate.
I have a smartphone, like everyone else, and I wish these things worked with just the camera, card, and smartphone. Seems like they all require a wifi network to connect through, nothing direct camera card to phone. NFC seems to address this but my phone lacks it (yay apple) and I can't imagine them stuffing that into a memory card to rescue my "non-wifi" RX100. Am I missing some obvious way to get files from RX100 to Iphone 4S when out and about in non-wifi land?
davids8560: I dunno. That new waterproof compact from Coleman camping goods looks like it might have the edge on Sony's new dynamic duo, most notably in terms of size and functionality. And hey, I'm no rocket scientist, but, I mean, with that many pixels, how could the A7r's output NOT be pixelated? Once again, those Sony guys appear to be one or two french fries short of a happy meal.
You know, I think it was Groucho Marx who once said, "This is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw."
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this whole A7 thing leads to some sort of nasty congressional inquisition of some kind. Like that steroid thing with Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte.
Great, now how many years do I have to wait for a 24mm f2.8 IS USM equivalent for ~$500??
Am I just completely uninformed? I thought the D800 sensor was completely superior to the D4. The main reason the D4 had so few MP is the sensor is older, sold in too small a volume to bother upgrading frequently, and showing some crazy burst numbers with that massive shutter apparatus requires processing a lot of data very quickly so keeping MP down helps.
The A7 seems like a real winner and even a good value. APS-C cameras sometimes get into that pricerange let alone full featured FF options. I love the high-end Sony EVF. Beats everything but a proper rangefinder OVF to me.
All that said, what the hell am I going to mount to it? Get myself an SLT adapter that ruins the value proposition and mount up a bunch of old FF Minolta lenses? Really?
Sony, you win at making cameras, we concede. But ICL cameras are about the LENSES! Try making some, won't ya?
Don't film Nikons go 1/8000s like the D4 this thing's guts are supposedly from?
marike6: Having already seen some RX10 JPEGs on another website, I knew what to expect. These samples won't please all pixel peepers, but viewed normally they generally look fine.
I'm having a hard time understanding why someone would prefer this camera over a DSLR or MILC considering it doesn't seem to provide a lot of chances for subject isolation, and at over 800 g, the weight of most DSLRs, it doesn't seem to offer portability that some favor. But everybody has different needs I suppose.
NowHearThis, why would you lock ISO at 200 on all 4 cameras? That makes no sense it can be easily adjusted. If everyone had to shoot the same ISO, we'd all be using cell phone sensors. F0.8 in front of a cell phone is still slow as hell because at ISO100 it's a piece of crap. If you buy a FF and shoot it at ISO200 only, you wasted your money.
X axis in the equivalent aperture vs focal length graph should be log2, like the Y axis.
mosc: Stop using aperture charts with mm delimited X axises! It should be logarithmic. 24-48 is the same distance as 150-300.
The chart goes 12.5x zoom in range from 24 to 300. If you gave it 10 equally spaced delimiters they'd be:
Also, it'd be nice is you put on a dotted line extending at the equivalent telephoto aperture from cropping. The fact that the Stylus goes to 300 and the RX-10 only goes to 200 may appear a range where the olympus has an advantage. It of course doesn't as simply cropping the 200mm image from an RX-10 still provides an advantage all the way out to 300mm.
Probably better still to establish a more consistent graph X axis for this increasingly nessisary equivalent aperture chart. Starting at 20mm and going to 320mm gives a cleaner 16x zoom range, 9 hashes give more familiar focal hashes:
Stop using aperture charts with mm delimited X axises! It should be logarithmic. 24-48 is the same distance as 150-300.
Dear DPR: When you show equivalent apertures, you should use a logarithmic X axis.
...which will stop slamming all wide angle and standard focal length values into the fringe so we can all see a lot less of 100-200mm irrelevance.
Congratulations on beating the G1-X at it's own game... but then you priced it out of that competition altogether. Why??
Gesture: $900 is MORE than enough.
exactly my thoughts.
This would be great if Sony offered some <$500 18-270 that's similar in weight to the camera...