iudex: There were 4 issues with the G1x:1. it was too bulky 2. the VF was useless3. the lens was slow4. the AF was poorThis successor solves 2 problems completely and partially (possibly) the other 2.First I applaud for the lens: the improvement in speed is enermous, f2-3,9 is much better than most of the competition, only Fuji with 18-55/2,8-4 can compete, however it looses in range. Getting rid of some external controls, OVF and articulated screen helped make the body smaller (however getting rid of some controls is controversial). While I do not regret dropping the OVF, I hoped for a built-in EVF. Possibility to buy external EVF is fine, bue a built-in one would be better and more pocketable.The improvement in AF speed is yet to be checked, but it will problably not be amazing.So generally a lot has been improved and I like the nex G1x very much, but there is still space for improvements, most importantly putting a built-in EVF.
I believe a "serious compact" costing over 500 eur should have an EVF. The camera would not be much bigger with the EVF in the corner á la NEX-6/a6000. Sony a6000 has APSC sensor and an EVF and costs the same.
Richt2000: Nice for family snaps / low light / high ISO.
But only 12mp? Is it still 2004?
I am grateful for 13 MPx only. I do not need 24 MPx compact.Btw. newer Sony 20 MPx sensor has lower DR than older 16 MPx.
jcmarfilph: MP is not enough considering the sensor size. 20MP should be fine with this one to allow cropping of distant subject.
On the contrary, I appreciate that at least come new cameras do not raise the MPx. I have never made bigger than A4 prints and for this I need cca. 6 MPx. 20 or 24 MPx pictures are just waste of HD space.
Domo P1000: I like the look of this. I am one who appreciates a fully articulated screen - very useful when photographing with arms stretched above head height, but may adapt to cope with the less manoverable screen supplied.However I do have one on-going bugbear: in the US this will cost just under £500 ($799) in the UK it will cost £750 (almost $1200) – why? WHY?!
Naveed Akhtar: Now could someone explain, why canon announces T5 alongside this much improved G1x camera!!
Bigger sensor? Better handling and ergonomics? Built-in VF? Possibility to change lenses? ;-)
ericsan: Sony RX10 is a better package with integrated EVF,bigger zoom range and constant 2,8 aperture, and its price will start to decrease with increasing competition...Ok sensor size is smaller than G1X II but IQ is outstanding anyway...
Bigger body, smaller sensor, higher price. It has it´s appeal, but it surely is not better for everyone.
There were 4 issues with the G1x:1. it was too bulky 2. the VF was useless3. the lens was slow4. the AF was poorThis successor solves 2 problems completely and partially (possibly) the other 2.First I applaud for the lens: the improvement in speed is enermous, f2-3,9 is much better than most of the competition, only Fuji with 18-55/2,8-4 can compete, however it looses in range. Getting rid of some external controls, OVF and articulated screen helped make the body smaller (however getting rid of some controls is controversial). While I do not regret dropping the OVF, I hoped for a built-in EVF. Possibility to buy external EVF is fine, bue a built-in one would be better and more pocketable.The improvement in AF speed is yet to be checked, but it will problably not be amazing.So generally a lot has been improved and I like the nex G1x very much, but there is still space for improvements, most importantly putting a built-in EVF.
iudex: I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
Antony: it does not have to be midday, the sun in central Africa sets quite rapidly, so there is enough light say at 7:00 PM and dark at 8:00 PM. Have a look at some safari pictures and what time they were taken.
Henry Richardson: I normally don't make predictions, but I will this time. I predict that there will be some people who will buy this lens and make photos that are much better with it than the people who look down on them for using it and who post on dpreview. :-)
There are situations when a superzoom lens (even mediocre) can serve better than a dozen of excellent primes in your bag, that you cannot put to your camera (because you don´t have time, space or simply carry too many stuff that you have no opposrunity to switch lenses). You are talking about places where you go often: but in majority of situations you travel to places only once and one picture you really take is better than an ideal picture you never took, because you had no appropriate prime with you.
Shunda77: This lens could be a game changer for those wanting an all in one lens on a DSLR to replace a superzoom bridge cam, it could also be a fantastic walk around lens as it is remarkably light weight for its range.
Obviously there will be optical compromises, but some of the recent lens developments have been pretty well engineered for the range they cover.
In short, if this lens can provide reasonable image quality without too many quirks, it will become very popular.
Watch this space......
Yabokkie: you declare you live in Japan. I have seen may people from Nippon in european cities running through historical sites with many different ILCs, but I have not seen a single one switching lenses there. Majority of them had zooms, either wide-angle, normal or superzooms. Why is that? Obviously for convenience of having one universal lens that can cover most of the situations. It is really not too comfortable to switch lenses on the Athens Acropolis with all the dust flying in the air. And I was also carrying only one standard zoom (17-50/2,8), so that I was able to carry the camera all day long in my hand.
I don´t think so. I think 99% of DLSR owners have more than one lens, even if it is only a cheap 50mm prime. But for travelling it is a huge advantage if you don´t have to switch lenses constantly. I know many people who travel only with one single lens (not because they don´t have more lenses, but just because they know there will be no time to change lenses or no space to carry a bag full of different lenses.
I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
Exactly, this is an answer for those ultrazoom fans claiming they would switch to DSLR, but that there is no superzoom lens to cover the focal lengths they are accustomed to. So here they are: 24-450mm is pretty much everything you can ever need, from wideangle shots of landscape up to wildife sooting. Yes, there are compromises in quality, but still it exceeds quality you can get from any ultrazoom.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
If I had a possibility to buy moderate zoom like 16-85 for my Pentax, I would already have it; unfortunately nobody makes such a lens for K-mount. My ideal lens set is 18-35/1,8 for low light situations and 16-85/4 for travelling. However the Sigma 18-35/1,8 is still not available for Pentax and nobody makes 16-85 zoom for K-mount.
ashokvashisht: Why are superzooms not coming out with bigger sensors, say, 2/3" instead of the normal 1/2.3". Ideally priced at about US$550-600 and having a fixed focal lenght zoom ( f2.8) of 25-600 mm. That would be a good camera!
There laready is one ultrazoom with 2/3 sensor (Fuji X-S1), but did not make big sales. The reason is that ultrazoom (let´s say 25-600 mm) with this sensor size would need considerably big lens. The X-S1 is just as big and heavy as a mid-sized DSLR. Imagine it has constant aperture lens: it would be even bigger; who would buy it instead of DSLR? What advantages woud it have?
LukeDuciel: Iti'll be tough choice between Sony A7(R) and Fuji XT1 for me.
A7:+ FF- Operation & Ergonomics; Lens choice and quality.
XT1:+ Design and operation- not FF
the IQ should be on par between the two.
I use D800 (same sensor as A7R) for work and own X100S (same sensor as XT1) Both of them can produce image that turns into amazing prints. The dynamic range and low light capability is definitely on par (kudos to Fuji, fighting FF with APS). I have not used A7, but from the reviews, the IQ is sufficient for me.
Sony's logic is always bizarre. I used to use NEX, sold because of the stupid design. RX100 is a keeper, but still leaving a lot of improvement wanted. On the other hand, I picked up the X100s naturally without hitch
From what I heve seen so far the image quality from Fuji XE-2 (same sensor as this new X-T1) is on par with Sony A7. Which is actually a victory for Fuji, since it is "only" APSC. So if there is no visible advantage of A7 in picture quality, why wanting a fullframe that does not offer enough lenses? I applaud Sony for bringing FF mirrorless this small and for this price and would choose it over equaly priced E-M1, but Fuji is (at least in my opinion) closer to FF and seemingly the winner of these three.
Richard Murdey: The collapsible lens is a tradeoff. Smaller, but you have to press a button and twist to unlock it before its ready to use. In addition to turning on the camera.
I agree. I bought an Olympus E-PL3 to my dad and he still struggles with the collapsible kit zoom. It is not pancake-type and small like the Sony 16-50, so I really see no reason to use this principle.
Shamael: Why this mini sensor? This is ridiculous, as if Fuji was not able to produce a 1" or put an apsc in such a box.
That´s why the RX10 looks like a great compromise.APSC with longer than 5x zoom is nonsense, since it would be big just like DSLR with lens and who would buy a camera as big as a DSLR without the possibility of changing lenses?
Well done Fuji. Especially the fast standard zoom is very useful. With 16mm it can well serve for landscapes (and with f2,8 also for interior shots), as well as for portraits (55mm at f2,8 enables sufficiently shallow DOF). Paired with expected decent optical quality os XF lenses this looks like the perfect lens for Fuji CSC users.
OliverGlass: whoa! That 16 to 55 2.8 is looking pretty attractive to me. The 18-55 is nice but the 16-55 is likely a better landscape and travel lens for those who want something wider.
Exactly. I have a 17-50/2,8, but I would apreciate both a bit wider and longer ends and this Fujinon gives it both. Well done!