I don't see what advantage this really offers over say a OMD, or NEX-6 since this the lenses on this camera are still going to bigger. While the aforementioned mirrorless cameras maybe around the same size, the offer smaller lenses. Sure, in the case of the Sony the lens selection is a bit lacking(at least in the E-Mount since you can uses adapted A-mount).
Shutter speed needs to a bit faster at 1/3200, but otherwise this looks to be a pretty good upgrade.
zaurus: All compact cameras just got killed.
The only thing I can agree here on is the display. It should have been at least 720p. The cpu is acceptable enough for pretty much everything as it is a pretty recent dual core cpu.
inlawbiker: All they've done is create the single best camera-in-a-phone combination ever made. The trend has to begin somewhere, I'm glad it's finally moving forward.
Except for maybe the Nokia 808, which has a sensor size almost 1in. Sure the software could be a little better, and I think optical zoom is only like 2x, with digital doing the rest, it is the sensor size and glass that is key here when it comes to quality.
They should have at least given it a 1/2" sensor and a 720p display, non of which would affect size. Then make the aperture at least start at f2.5 to make it a bit more competitive with the competition(i.e. allow it to shoot at a lower ISO, even it is 500 vs 640). At least it has IS, which is nice. Maybe they can release a more advanced model with 1/2" sensor, raw support and say 7x zoom(f2.5-3.8), 720p display, and release it on every carrier, and you'd have a real hit, specially with DSLC/mirrorless owners looking for a more compact camera.
ArchSaturn: Why do I cynically expect this to turn out to be a Panasonic GX1 with a red dot on it and an inflated price tag. (or maybe the new GX2)
Vadimka well at least not fully. There is the awful 25mm Panasonic lens with a Leica name on and also the 45mm macro too.
Sensor sounds a bit disappointing at 1/2.5''. Why can't we get a rugged camera with a sensor that is 1/2" paired with a f2.8, or if possible f2.5?
Thank you for posting this. The only challenge worth looking and voting on.
Make sense, since it an over priced camera with no real redeeming features.
Should have been an F2.5-f4 lens. It would have made this camera a bit more compelling.
tbaker: This is really disappointing news. M4/3 mount, really? Even Panasonic will admit(in closed doors) that they only have m4/3 just to take your money, because the kit lens options are average at best(even the 14mm f2.5). What they should have done/do was/is take the amazingly perfect Panasonic FZ200 lens+glass and pair it with a 1/2" or even 2/3" Forven like sensor(to keep size down) to make the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation. People will be quickly dropping their DSLC and other similar cameras in a second for this. But, alas Kodak is setting themselves up for big failure, again. Sad to see.
I had the 40-150mm and it was a bit soft at 150mm. Can't say I used the 45mma(either model), but from what I have seen that lens wasn't for me or worth the price of entry for portraits. With the background, the FZ200 I can guarantee you will take better portraits than the a m4/3 camera with the 45mm 1.8. Hell, just look at all the former DSLC owners who are extremely happy with their FZ, and taking better pictures than they ever were with their DSLC camera.
tbaker: They need to increase the min shutter speed to something like 1/4000, and make the aperture range from F2-4.5, while keeping the zoom range the same.
That should have said max shutter.
@sean000 just use the FZ150 or better yet FZ200(for that amazing constant f2.8) then compare it with 100-300mm or the highly talked about 40-150mm and you will see what quality glass and lens is. Even the 35-100mm won't come close, cause the FZ lens is using Panasonic's best lens and glass combo, and they won't tell you that because they want to get more money out of you for lenses.
Sadly DXO has not tested yet(FZ200), but even the Canon SX50(which isn't as good as the FZ, nor offers the lens quality), gets a DXO score about the same as your typical m4/3 camera(hell DR and low ISO noise are pretty close enough according to DXO and the samples I have seen). The FZ200 surely will get a DXO score better than SX50, and paired with it's soaring lens better IQ than your m43 camera. Hell most FZ200 low ISO shots are better than what I have seen out of a m4/3 camera in all lighting situations.
No, I get it that it has something like 5.something crop factor. But, I still prefer the images I get out of my FZ than my GF2 ever really gave me. Even at 1/2" sensor Kodak and Panasonic could still keep the F2.8 lens as crop factor would be in the 4.x range, which still means that excellent lens will still be compact.
As for the cake and eating it. I am already doing that with my FZ150, and I am sure with the FZ200, or what ever the next gen brings I will be getting a even better slice. That's what Kodak here is failing to realize, and Panasonic refuses to market. No, Panasonic wants you buy lenses that at best a little better than average just to make more money off you instead of telling users the FZ200 is the king of their cameras!
Why do I need to pair it to legacy glass just to get the max out of the IQ? Shouldn't the lens I had do that? Like I said I am more happier with my FZ150 than I ever was with my m4/3 camera. It was a dumb purchasing mistake I made in order to have a compact camera with my, but it turns out the best compact camera for me was and is the FZ150 I already had.
@caver3d I had a GF2 with the 14-42mm lens, Olymps 40-150mm, and the 14mm prime. My FZ150 was consistently producing better shots for my taste than the GF2 was. Even from the pictures I have seen of the GX1 and Sony sensor m4/3 camera weren't much better than the GF2, and still lacks that something the FZ lines images produce.
@mchnz Fuji showed us you can make a superzoom with a 1/2" and even 2/3" sensor. Sure they have problems, like ORB issues, and IQ isn't as clean or sharp as the FZ line, but point is they made it. They(Kodak/Panasonic) could keep it small-ish by keeping it a power zoom, vs the manual zoom of the Fuji cameras.
This is really disappointing news. M4/3 mount, really? Even Panasonic will admit(in closed doors) that they only have m4/3 just to take your money, because the kit lens options are average at best(even the 14mm f2.5). What they should have done/do was/is take the amazingly perfect Panasonic FZ200 lens+glass and pair it with a 1/2" or even 2/3" Forven like sensor(to keep size down) to make the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation. People will be quickly dropping their DSLC and other similar cameras in a second for this. But, alas Kodak is setting themselves up for big failure, again. Sad to see.
They need to increase the min shutter speed to something like 1/4000, and make the aperture range from F2-4.5, while keeping the zoom range the same.
The lack of a f2.8(or better yet f2.5) like the FZ200 is a bit disappointing. The bigger disappointment is the Leica glass and that something special they put in the FZ to make it an excellent camera.