Martin87: In other words: These cameras will cost you an arm and a leg :-)
Normally those guys, who can afford such cameras, make sure that is somebody else's arm and leg.
Marty4650: I think there is a popular myth that cell phone users all want an outstanding camera. The truth is, almost all of them are very happy with a "pretty good camera for snapshots, email attachments, and for web blog and facebook photos."
There is probably another myth that serious photo enthusiasts would pay any price to own a good camera that can make phone calls too.
There are probably a few people who will want one of these, but not very many who will be willing to pay the very high price for one. Most photo enthusiasts would rather spend that much money for a high grade lens or a photo trip than for a cell phone that can take better photos.
Bottom line... the cell phone fans won't need it, and the camera geeks won't want it, leaving very few customers left.
This makes it an interesting exercise, but an epic commercial failure.
What stops me using my smartphone for taking pictures is the lengthy procedure to get the camera app up and working. If I have my LX3 in my pocket pulling that out and getting it to take photographs is just so much quicker.
DStudio: This way only 77 idiots can buy it.
If you can afford it, you sure didn't get there by making poor financial decisions. Its intrinsic value is barely higher than the Nikon it's based on, so unless you can find some gimmicky way to make money off it ...
Or your parents, your family, your clan made that money and you came by it by winning the parental lottery. Just because some ancestor of yours had some business or other acumen does not necessarily mean that you have as well.
Photoman: It makes the LX100 better value, if your happy not to change lenses. What more could you want out of the LX100 ;)
Not me, I preferred the Panasonic cameras in my hand. Just subjective off course.
I think I'll miss this upgrade iteration. Doesn't offer me anything I really want.
lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.
Its not about "professional", its about rounding errors when altering tonal curves etc. Anyone who knows anything about scientific, engineering or other calculations knows, that while you are doing your calculations you will use as much accuracy as you can get, rounding to a sensible degree of accuracy as you finish. So ideally a graphics programme would allow 32bit floating point accuracy whilst adjusting the colours, saturation and brightness. You can go back to 8bit as you prepare your final display copy as normal displays and printouts realistically cannot display more than 8bits per channel. 32bits floating point is a bit much asked, but 16bit should be possible.
This is rather amusing, after seeing both at the Photokina I came to quite the oppasite conclusion, I may be getting the GN5 with a collapsible zoom lens instead of the RX100. This will have the benefit, that I can change the lens if I want to.
Petroglyph: You didn't see any Pentax 645Z there?
The desk with the 645Z was off to the side. If you want a large viewfinder, well that's the one.
See you tomorrow.
JackM: Shamless copy of a Leica III
I don't see it as copying. Every car manufacturer today takes apart products of the competitors to see how they have done it, to learn. Thats not copying. There are two things which the Japanese contributed to the photographic development and how they managed to beat the Germans: producing quality in quantity and that way reducing the cost to the consumer, and by creating a market of the enthusiast. The Leicas served the well to do and the likes of Kodak and Agfa served the happy snapper. The Japanese served the market inbetween.
electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?
don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...
Sponsored by Sony?
I have three tripods and a monopod in actual use. One hefty carbon of Calumet own brand. That is mainly for 4x5 work. A small light one for compact and G2 use - the G2 using primes. My main tripod for outside use is a Gitzo series 1 Traveller but with an Arca-Swiss P0 head. (the Arcs Swiss shop in Germany sold that as a bundle). I don't use it for 4x5 but it will do for my SLR film cameras, my digital cameras and my film 6x4.5 and 6x6 cameras. I do not have any heavy telephoto lenses, so I am very happy with the stability. I am not sure that combination would be able to hold a heavy telephoto lens. I use a Calumet-brand tripod case to carry it.
Mikael Risedal: why not give some alternative ?
www.qpcard.com is easier, faster and better and was also cheaper when I tested different ways to generate a own profile for my Canon and Nikon cameras
Yes, I agree with the article, but I would like to see a serius comparison of the different options available. Xrite, Datacolor, now which was new to me qpcard, any other options? Which work with Lightroom, which work with other software options such as aftershot, RawTherapee, ACDSee, just to mention three.
Of all American cities I have visited, Boston is perhaps my favourite. I am very glad that that city has come through the terrible attack with so much strenght and courage.
Hassleblad? A Freudian slip? I, personally, have not had much hassle with my Hasselblad.
So what if they have bought the name? I can think of several cases where one company bought out another only to get the name and the market presence. There was very little left of the camera business of Kodak. As others have written – if they manage to sell reasonable cameras at an attractive price – why not. Micro4/3 is a good size for cameras. Perhaps these cameras will be tested and reviewed some time?
Nukunukoo: Do they have one that fits inside my purse?
Depends on the size of your purse ... I had a colleague at college who kept a spanner in her purse :)
Fantastic! Is the Company a subsidary of the NSA? What better way to open up your PC to the Internet.
My vote went to the K-3. It was a tough decision between the Omd-1 and the K-3, the K-3 won with me as I prefer OVF. Purely subjective. But lets face it - ether cameras are not really revolutionary, more an evolution over what has existed before. I like the handling of the K-3 when I had the chance to hold one in my hand. I have not handled the OMD-1 but I hope it handles better than the OMD-5 - wchich I did not like without the additionla grip. As I said purely subjective.
The only new camera this year was the Sony A7. But somehow it doesn't do it for me. And it did not make it into the finals.
Congratulations to Olympus. To me a worthy winner.
I like reading subjective articles, because they sometimes mention points worth noting subjectively although the can not objectively graded: is the layout of the controls of Nikons better than that of Canons: you can discuss that till the cows come home at your camera club's annual dinner or until the last waiter stops serving you your beer or beverage of preference. But being subjective you can disagree. And being subjective a piece like that sometimes says more about the writer than about the camera. For me this Canon is not my choice of the year. For me it is too much of a me-too camera: there are other cameras which embrace the compact a lot better and without forcing you to look down a dimly lit 95% pentamirror viewfinder. A camera which to me has a tacky cheap feel. Had Canon really wanted to, they could have built a really good compact camera with a similar form factor. But obviously they did not want to and so they didn't. Not my camera of the year, not by a long shot.