yoyokal: Definitely will be my main camera. I can accept my S100 image quality, so this is too. I'm tired holding my 6D and sold it, eventhough the IQ is superb. But I'll wait the price come down.
The funny thing is many people do it like you do: go fullframe and then find out the gear is too big and heavy and make a jump back to something tiny like M4/3 or 1". I guess if you guys stayed with APSC you wouldn´t face such problems. APSC DSLRs offer decent image quality, still have the perfect handling (grip, ergonomics) typical for DSLRs but are smaller and lighter than FF.
haiiyaa: Why would anyone want a larger size? Isn't the whole point or mirrorless, and ESPPECIALLY m43 to have a small camera? I was going to buy this but now I'm not so sure
haiiyaa: I dare to disagree, E-M5 si not for large hands, it is still small and most importantly lacking handgrip (yes, you can buy an attachable one, but this is not the way).
@haiiyaa: I agree, GX7 is also good, with decent handgrip; basically for me anything smaller than a GX7 is unecceptably small. Of course you can stick with the kit zoom and never buy a f2,8 zoom, which partially solves the problem, but the missing grip and small buttons on a camera like GM1 still will be a problem for big-handed shooters.
Try handling a large fast lens mounted on a tiny body like the GM1: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Bildschirmfoto-2014-11-15-um-09.25.27.pngWouldn´t you prefer a larger body with proper grip?
Mateus1: Many great improvements... but only 1/3 better DR RAW vs GX-7 - I exoected at least 1 stop, no EFC shutter and bigger body size (it's now bigger than APS-C)... not easy decision for me if to buy it...
You have to realize the increase in resolution: 20 MPx vs. 16 MPx, this is 25% more, so even if the DR stayed the same it would mean progress (for example the 24 MPx sensor in Pentax K-3 had slightly worse DR than ist 16 MPx predecessor). So despite significant resolution increase you still get some DR increase. So it means the new sensor is much better than the previous one.
garyknrd: I am waiting for the review... This thing is the first m4/3 to tick all the boxes for me... Amazing.
Exactly, there were always some things M4/3 CSCs missed, but now it seems everything is included (new sensor, IBIS, high-res EVF, fully articulating, touch sensitive screen, 4K, weather sealing...). If only the price was a bit lower; however the GX8 delivers the same (or more) than Oly top CSC - the E-M1 which MRSP at launch was even higher.
timo: Shame about the size, although I understand the reasons, and it's probably a worthwhile trade-off. I'll probably get one, but I'll keep the GX7, which works very well, for its compactness and lightness. I know that in marketing terms one is probably replacing the other. In reality I think one could consider them complementary.
P.S. One picture tells more than thousand words: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Bildschirmfoto-2014-11-15-um-09.25.27.png
I appreciate the size, finally a rangefinder style Panasonic that can be held comfortably. Just as the last slide said there are enough CSCs from Pana that offer the smallest physical proportions but a tiny body is not for everyone, it mostly suits women and men with small hands, but normal grown-up requires something to hold firmly and seemingly the GX8 is the case. Plus a high-end camera like this expects usage of fast, i.e. bigger and heavier lenses and a proper grip is inevitable to handle bigger lenses comfortably.
xoio: I know it's premium spec, but a launch price of over a GRAND for a point-n-shoot pocket cam!!!? Hmmmmmmm
Just as Richard wrote: Sony dominates in this segment, has actually very little competition, evolved a great reputation and now it is using its market position to price its product really high.Of course we can think of it purely from the price point of view, arguing that we can get a decent APSC DSLR with decent lens (Nikon D5500 plus Sigma 17-70mm will definitely outperform the RX100), however it´s no competition to a small pocketable compact.As I wrote below, RX100 is small for the hands of average grown-up man but many people appreciate the small size and portability and want nothing bigger than a compact camera.
A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to put my hands on many recent cameras in one time and to compare them. Like many readers here I had the RX100 high on a pedestal. But when I handled it I realized that it is not for me. Yes, it is surprisingly small and really pocketable, but this is also it´s course. People with bigger hands have really nowhere to put their fingers, there is almost no space for holding the camera, you accidentaly press buttons at the back with your thumb and in front there is only spippery flat surface. The buttons are so tiny it is a problem to know which one are you pressing. And the highlight of Mk III - the EVF is so tiny it is hardly usable (the screen itself is small plus the light is entering from all sides). After trying almost all enthusiast compacts and CSSs I came to the conclusion the smallest acceptable camera is Pana LX100, which is reasonably big and comfortable to hold.
johnsaxon: Won't fit in the pocket so it might as well be larger. I just bought a Canon S110 refurb on their website for $129 that does 90% of what this camera does, all while fitting very easily and comfortably in my jeans pocket.
S110 is in a different league, actually two leagues below the Sony (I owned the S100 and while I agree it was a nice and small camera, it had it´s limitations both in picture quality as well as handling, basically it was still a small sensored compact, whereas the RX100 competes with M4/3 cameras).
VREN: Nice to see, but conservative speed for not so conservative price.
You can critisize Pentax for "conservative speed", since it´s 16-85mm has only f3,5-5,6. This Nikon is much faster (2/3 to 1 EV, i.e. letting twice as much light at the tele end), so hardly you can say it is too slow. Actually it´s the fastest 5x zoom; all lenses that have constant f2,8 are much shorter (usually max. 3x zoom). So there is no problem with the speed, the only problem with this lens is its exorbitant price.
brownie314: Why Nikon! Why make a lens that already exists for DX. The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is an excellent lens that can be had for less than half the price of this Nikon lens. Why not give us a nice, compact 24mm 2.8 (or 2.4) prime! It would make the D3300 and D5500 very compact. But no.
brownie: you are wrong, 78mm vs. 80mm is something you don´t notice. It´s about angle of view, which changes significantly between 16 and 17mm, whereas between 78 and 80mm it is negligible.
Btw. the discussion here made me order the Sigma 17-70 C today. :-)
16mm vs. 17mm is a visibe difference. Not dramatic, but visible. I would say this 1mm at wide end is more important than 10mm at tele end.
oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.
16-80mm DX lens is obviously not a wedding or portrait lens. It is an universal walkaround lens that can also be used for casual portraits. Btw. the background blur of 80mm f4 is pretty similar to 50mm f2,8 so partially the length substitutes for luminosity.
I dare to disagree, 85mm at f4 and at f5,6 makes visible difference. You can check this at Fujifilm X mount lens site here: http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/
iudex: One thing I noticed immediately is the weight of this lens: it is pretty lightweight given the FR and the luminosity: only 480g. The Pentax 16-85mm is 2/3 to 1 EV slower, but weighs even a bit more (488g). The Sigma 17-70mm is bit shorter on both ends, but weighs only a fraction less (465g). And most importantly this new Nikkor weighs even less than it´s much slower predecessor the 16-85mm/3,5-5,6. I remember people here arguing that the Pentax 16-85mm couldn´t have been faste since it would have been much bigger and heavier. Now it is clear it is possible to make a lens with similar FR, that is faster without being heavier. Good job Nikon.
And it costs 1100 EUR in my country, what is even more crazy. 700 EUR is adequate for what it is (DX-only, variable aperture, non-weather sealed lens).
One thing I noticed immediately is the weight of this lens: it is pretty lightweight given the FR and the luminosity: only 480g. The Pentax 16-85mm is 2/3 to 1 EV slower, but weighs even a bit more (488g). The Sigma 17-70mm is bit shorter on both ends, but weighs only a fraction less (465g). And most importantly this new Nikkor weighs even less than it´s much slower predecessor the 16-85mm/3,5-5,6. I remember people here arguing that the Pentax 16-85mm couldn´t have been faste since it would have been much bigger and heavier. Now it is clear it is possible to make a lens with similar FR, that is faster without being heavier. Good job Nikon.
fireplace33: anyone know what the max aperture would be at 50 mm?In such non constant aperture lenses, the F2.8 is sometimes lost very quickly as one zooms in.
I'd like to see a comparison of this lens in its 17-50 range to my Sigma 17-50
Well 50mm will be something on the edge; maybe f3,5, maybe f4. You can compare the apetrure course of similar lenses here and make a guess as regards this new Nikkor: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/construction-and-handling.html