Is it just me or is the P7700 only 1 stop worse than the Nikon J1/ Sony RX100 in RAW?
Try putting the P7700 in ISO 800 and the J1/RX100 in ISO 1600.
Camediadude: While 250 seconds of exposure is simply awesome, and few others seem to get anywhere near to this, I still am a little saddened to see no remote and no bulb. Ah well .. why are these cameras always just SO close to perfection seeming in handling and features, and then you find one glaring omission or another. Perhaps that is where the competition can come in ... are you listening, Sonoly, Nikon, Samsung, Canon, and company?? There is an opening yet, to make that one knockout camera, the one 'ring' to rule them all :P
The Olympus XZ-1 and XZ-2 has a remote cable release and bulb mode (up to 16 minutes).
Stephen_C: Before the RX100 this would have been a great camera.
I think the LX7 has a 24mm lens and a multi-aspect ratio as an advantage compared to the RX100.
Both are pretty good so it is just a matter of preference IMO.
logbi77: Interesting to see how the XZ-2/P7700/EX2F compares to the old XZ-1/P7100/EX1.
Wow. I'll be waiting for that!
Interesting to see how the XZ-2/P7700/EX2F compares to the old XZ-1/P7100/EX1.
Antonio Rojilla: Between the Sony EX100 (mainly for the sensor) and the Fuji XF1 (partly for the sensor, partly for the host of features and the nice design in a smaller package) this camera is DOA.
I think you meant the RX100, not EX100.
logbi77: No built-in ND filter?
Thank you very much. Hopefully this will clarify things.
iudex: So downgrading from 1/1,63" sensor to 1/1,7" sensor and asking 600 bucks for it? Hmmm, what a progress...
Found a quote from the DPR review of the XZ-1
"Rather than expanding to use different regions of the sensor, the Olympus crops into the 4:3 image size. The result is that it is exposing an area very similar to the 1/1.7" sensor used by many of its peers."
Where does it say it retains the ND filter?
It's not listed in the Olympus America website.
AFAIK, the XZ-1 did not use the whole 1/1.63" sensor area and only uses a crop of around 1/1.7" area from the sensor.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
No built-in ND filter?
TheEye: The Mini has the new sensor, but the E-PL5 has the old sensor? What?
Must be an error on DPR's part. E-PL5 sample images show 4608x3456 pixels with the original image size.
bradleyg5: The Ferrari of cameras. This is like the ultimate rich mans social camera.
The Ferrari of cameras belongs to Hasselblad
logbi77: Low light test:"Here it's fairly close. The XZ-1 lens is much much faster. The E-PM1 can push ISO higher safely (1600 vs 400). The 2 advantages basically cancel each other out. "
The bike photo of the XZ-1 according to the EXIF data is at ISO 200, which is why I think it is darker than the E-PM1, not the intended ISO 400 that was written in the article.
Oh, okay then. Understood.
But one more question.
How come when I check the EXIF data with EXIF viewer add-on from firefox, it shows that the XZ-1 photo is taken at ISO 200? Did I miss something?
Anyway, this is a very useful article so props for that.
Low light test:"Here it's fairly close. The XZ-1 lens is much much faster. The E-PM1 can push ISO higher safely (1600 vs 400). The 2 advantages basically cancel each other out. "