What a surprise: enthusiast compact from Pentax! Good to know Ricoh keeps pushing Pentax in various areas. The specs looks good, however not amazing (the lens looks similar to Oly XZ), but fnally something from Pentax worth noticing apart from DSLR. Thumbs up!
happypoppeye: The one thing that immediately strikes me with this list is that it includes a lot of "rich man" cameras. There are a lot of cheap cameras that are producing spectacular images in the right hands and to put only 14 cameras on the list is to only include 14% of the potential winners. I know ...it would be a bit time consuming to write one in, but, with what is included, I would have to say the OM-D EM-5 ...knowing this is a horiible camera for most users.
Of course, this question makes other participants than FF cameras pointless, a lowend APS-C cannot be obviously the best. That is why I think we schould consider also the category and the relative improvement in their respective segment.
@william: I guess because K-5 II is not a big step from K-5, it´s "just" an improvement, not a completely new camera. K-30 however is a truly new camera, pushing lowend camera (it´s predecessor the K-r) to a higher level and adding features from high-end cameras to entry-level for the fisrt time (waterproof, 100% OVF, pentaprism...). It really stands out in it´s league and considering value for money it is unbeatable.
My list of winners:D800: picture quality without compromise in an ergonomically perfect body, making much more expensive D4 almost obsolete.RX100: a true revolution in enthusiast compact segment, putting big sensor in a body equal to compact point&shoots.OM-D: a dream of many CSC users, combining picture quality (of bigger sensored APS-C cameras) in a small, ergonomic body with EVF.Pentax K-30: entryl-level packed with features that are common only in much more expensive cameras for a truly affordable priceRX1: one-of-a-kind camera, same principle as RX100 put to a higher level.Not considering my prejudice (I have a K-30) I believe the RX100 deserves the victory.
zinedi: For this price I would expect:- build-in hybrid viewfinder- much better AF- better sharpness - X-trans without AA filter beat this even in APS-C- better ISO performance - X-trans beat it even in APS-C- leaf shutter - it's a one way to future problems
Sony - you should drop the price 3x to even start to think of this product - thanks.
If you were the one in SOny deciding on price of the new RX1, where would you put it, taking the price of "competitors" into account?Fuji X100: 1200 $Fuji X-Pro1: 1400 $ body, 2000 $ with 35 mm lens,Nikon D600: 2000 $ body, 3500 $ with 35 mm lensSony A99: 2800 $ body.So would you really decide to sell a full frame camera for 900 $? ;-)
Rachotilko: Guys, stop the RX100 BS, please !
With its f/4.9 at tele end, it has to resort to ISO1600 when these small-sensor marvels can use ISO400 to keep the same shutter time for the same scene.
This ISO1600 vs IS0400 handicap can not be offset by the advantage provided by its larger sensor.
So: enjoy your "invention", and let the rest of us enjoy the fast lens.
You are absolutely right (the slow lens of S100 is what I keep critisizing) and S100 will have to use higher ISO under similar light conditions, but the thing is, at equal ISO the outcome from S100 and from G15 will be equal. And it means ISO1000 will be the limit also for G15.P.S. Keď už je to debata len nás dvoch, to už môžme kľudne po slovensky.;-)
Just to correct you: G15 could have f2,8 at best at tele end, not f2,4. But yeah, I know what you mean to say. I like the lens speed of G15 and would choose it from all enthusiast compact nowadays.On the other hand I have S100 with the same 12 MPix CMOS sensor and according to my experience the borderline for good pictures from this sensor in low light iis ISO1000.
iudex: When comparing RAWs at ISO1600, G15 delivers decent quality, no other competitor is noticeably better. Unlike many others I do not see the omission of articulated screen as a big problem; it enabled to make the G15 thinner and more pocketable.
@Rachotilko: no I should not. Even if the lenses were wide open, on that focal length DPR shot the pic the G15 would have f2,3 (my guess) at best and the RX100 would have f3,2 (measured) at best. So the difference is cca. 1 EV, in your example RX100´s ISO 1600 vs. G15´s ISO 800.
When comparing RAWs at ISO1600, G15 delivers decent quality, no other competitor is noticeably better. Unlike many others I do not see the omission of articulated screen as a big problem; it enabled to make the G15 thinner and more pocketable.
FartIng: I returned teh G15 last week and swapped with G1X awaiting delivery today. The articulated screen is a great invention -Is Canon pushing buyers to the G1X for the articulated screen? - looks like it.
The video quality is improved on G15, but once again, a lot of noise above even 400 ISO - especially video footage in HD - The same happened with my G12. It must be due to the small sensor? It has more video features than my old G12 - 90% of them never used. Also, the G15 feels very rough, plasticky and cheap compared to the solid G12. Are these camera's weather sealed??
I hope the G1X fares better - or I will be dumping Canon for compacts.
IMO there are 2 reasons for the G15 not having articulated screen:1. the camera became much smaller and more pocketable. When you compare the thickness of G15 and it´s peers (P7700, G12, LX7), it is fairly narrower. While the G12 was almost as big as the G1x, the G15 is noticeably more pocketable.2. Canon has something to give to the successor (G16) and praise how they upgraded the G15. ;-)
The test pics are not taken at the long end. DPR always uses the middle of focal range for (theoterically) best outcome. Likewise they stop down every lens to achieve optimal sharpness.You can check this by pointing at the symbol in the bottom right corner of every picture. E.g. the RX100 was set to 50 mm eq. and f6,3.
iudex: I have a 55-300/4-5,8 telezoom and made a brief comparison of lens speed at different focal distances (I know the lenses are not competitors, just for info):Nikon 18-300/3,5-5,6:18mm: f3,5, 28mm: f4, 50mm: f5,3, 105mm: f5,6, 200mm: f5,6, 300mm: f5,6Pentax DA 55-300:55mm: f4, 107 mm: f4, 120mm: f4,5, 190mm: f4,5, 210mm: f5,6, 260mm: f5,6, 300mm: f5,8.So the biggest difference is in the middle of the focal range: while the Nikon has f5,6 from 105mm, the Pentax has f4 (a whole 1 EV better) on that focal length and retains reasonable f4,5 (i.e. 2/3 EV advantage) up to cca. 200mm.
That´s what I wanted to say: the aperture border figures may be similar, but the course may differ significantly. When shooting with the telezoom, I use mainly the lengths with best aperture value (relative to focal length), i.e. 107mm (f4) and 190mm (f4,5).
I have a 55-300/4-5,8 telezoom and made a brief comparison of lens speed at different focal distances (I know the lenses are not competitors, just for info):Nikon 18-300/3,5-5,6:18mm: f3,5, 28mm: f4, 50mm: f5,3, 105mm: f5,6, 200mm: f5,6, 300mm: f5,6Pentax DA 55-300:55mm: f4, 107 mm: f4, 120mm: f4,5, 190mm: f4,5, 210mm: f5,6, 260mm: f5,6, 300mm: f5,8.So the biggest difference is in the middle of the focal range: while the Nikon has f5,6 from 105mm, the Pentax has f4 (a whole 1 EV better) on that focal length and retains reasonable f4,5 (i.e. 2/3 EV advantage) up to cca. 200mm.
harry: Dinosaur! Even it is a brand new lens, I felt it like a dinosaur for yesteryears.. Let me explain.
A short years ago when the mirrorless and compact superzoom digicams were not available, the 18-300mm would have made ome sense for people with DSLRs. I would not argue the potential IQ for a DSLR/18-300mm combo, when compared to such compact superzooms such as the Nikon P510 or Sony HX20V, would be better. But the compact superzooms are much more likely to be used because of their sizes, and let's be honest, more practical to be used for all occasions.
I seriously doubt the user of 18-300mm would have many successful shots at 300mm; and for those who know how to shoot, probably would be disappointed at its soft IQ at the long end. So basically, one is to carry an extra dead weight for the "reach" of, say 150-300mm.
It's kind of like thinking of our presidentail candidates: one one hand, we wish for a person who is more than a superman.
@Andy: the question is, how many succesful shots will you have on 300mm when stopped down (with lets say f8 and acceptable ISO the times will be too slow for a decently sharp picture). I know what I am saying, I have a 55-300/f4-5,8 telezoom and even during a sunny day the times are sufiicient only to have f5,8.
bills_pix: Looking forward to using the P7700. FYI, after several failed attempts to fix my wife's P7100 for the lens cover issue, they replaced it with a brand new P7700. First shots seem sharper with impressive detail.
Having a newer model for no surcharge, that is what I call great customer care! (be glad you live in Canada).
Rachotilko: There's only one thing missing in this package: attachable EVF. That would've made it spotless !
I definitely agree. The OVF in previous model was considered a big advantage by many (although the usableness of optical tunnel with hardly 80% coverage was questionable). Having a decent EVF with 100% coverage would be perfect.
I must agree with others saying this a is a great performance by a 1/1,7" sensor camera. Considerably better than my Canon S100, especially at higher ISO (3200 looks much better than on S100). Long focal length with reasonably fast lens compensate for the small sensor size as regards the bokeh.Well done (especially when I think of the questionable outcome of Sony NEX-6 with the new lenses).
mapgraphs: Obviously the 1 V1 sold well enough for Nikon to think about upgrading the 1 line.
It's a Nikon.It fits in your hand.You can take photos of the kids at the soccer match.The lenses are interchangeable.It's a Nikon.
(You can swap out "Canon" for Nikon and get the same effect)
It isn't going to replace my e-pm1 but if it takes 14mp photos with decent glass, what's to complain about?
The thing is you can buy thE-PM1 for 299 USD or this "beauty" for 899 USD. Or having the NEX-6 for the same money.
iudex: First of all I must say I do not mind the look of V2; I do not buy cameras because they look nice, but because they take good pictures.But...The V2 is as big as mirrorless competition with APS-C.The V2 is as expensive as mirrorless competition with APS-C.I don´t get such good pictures from 1" sensor that I get from the APS-C.So why the he.l should I buy a V2 instead of an APS-C camera?
Just to compare the size: V1 with 10-30mm vs. Sony NEX-6 with 16-50mm: http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.360,123.41,ha,tSo where is the size advantage?
First of all I must say I do not mind the look of V2; I do not buy cameras because they look nice, but because they take good pictures.But...The V2 is as big as mirrorless competition with APS-C.The V2 is as expensive as mirrorless competition with APS-C.I don´t get such good pictures from 1" sensor that I get from the APS-C.So why the he.l should I buy a V2 instead of an APS-C camera?