Lin Evans: "the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."
I guess you haven't seen Sigma DP Merrill cameras then....
I´d say RX100 III and DPm is like VW Golf GTI vs. Caterham Super 7: it is obvious Caterham is faster, provides much more driving pleasure and involvement... on sunny days on dry road. Since it has no roof it is a car you cannot really use anytime but only in good weather. Wheras Golf is a universal car without any caveats. Of course it is not so fast, not so fun to drive, but it is still very fast and what is more, it is usable all year long.Sigma DP with its usable ISO 400 maximum and f2,8 is only a camera for the sunny days. When there is lets say 3 EV of light on the scene your Sigma is useless, unlike the RX100. So Sigma is just like the Caterham: unbeatable in ideal conditions, unusable in any other.
iudex: The thing that I noticed right after the new body design was the lens: this classic/oldschool design does not match to the modern body design at all. I think the combo would look much better it the lens barrel was designed in the same way as the body, i.e. cleaner, simpler, without rubberized grip.
I have seen this: http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/articles/0d775907b69b37781efa19cd1c00eedca38d7db6_big.jpg and there are many body colours, but only black and white versions of the kit zoom. I agree that the white version looks quite good, but all the others do not and especially the blue version here at DPR looks bad with its noticeably unmatching black lens.
Rooru S: I'm curious about the sensor. I think this is the first time I have seen one of those 20Mpx modules with ISO102800.
You are right, Canon has moved only in higher-end cameras (70D) and their enty and medium level cameras still use the aged 18 MPx sensor, but Nikon switched from 16 MPx to 24 MPx completely and also Sony uses 20 or 24 MPx sensors (and that are basically all DSLR/SLT producers - Sigma is kinda out of play).Anyhow if I could build a perfect DSLR for me it would have a Fuji X-Trans 16 MPx sensor in a Pentax K-3 body with Nikon D4s autofocusing. ;-)
The thing that I noticed right after the new body design was the lens: this classic/oldschool design does not match to the modern body design at all. I think the combo would look much better it the lens barrel was designed in the same way as the body, i.e. cleaner, simpler, without rubberized grip.
Well apart from it's atrocious looks and body colours.
It seems like a very capable though expensive camera.The Viewfinder spec is very impressive. Larger then the Canon 7D same size as the K3 and D7100.
The 20mp sensor probably from sony has been proven to be very good as well.And then it shares the AA simulator from the K3.
Framerate of 5,3 Fps is decent in it's class. And so is the rear LCD.
So all in all probably a good camera in a stupidly desgned body.
BarnET: Totally agree.
kecajkerugo: I still own Pentax K-x, I bought it for it good , high-ISO capable sensor (that time). Controls are still good, menu is clear, logical. But there is one single thing which made my life with this camera terrible: autofocus.Pentax was known for very poor autofocus accuracy. The basic model K-x is a disaster in this field. I am afraid that this one will be similar. On paper everything looks promising but in action acts like a cheap piece of crap.Ad still no real mirror-less camera from Ricoh .....waiting too long.So I am switching to the Fuji X system soon.
Long time has gone since K-x times, heve you tried newest Pentax cameras like the K-3? The AF is very good now (no D4s competitor of course, but similar to the competition like D7100). And if you expect super-fast AF from Fuji cameras, well, you might be disappointed. For fast AF better go for Olympus.
Well I meant new sensor for Pentax; I am aware that also the previous 16 MPx CMOS is made by Sony (and basically was used in previous Nikon models as well - like the D7000). And as you say, it is not a bad news (although for me 16 MPx is more than enough I understand that others have moved forward and so needs Pentax).
Exactly. The form takes all the attention and the most important thing: a new sensor remains unnoticed. The 16MPx sensor of K-50 (and K-5, K-5 II and K-30 earlier) is pretty capable and even the newest 24 MPx sensor from K-3 does not outperform it in some aspects, so I am curious.
Pentax (oh sorry, Ricoh) tries to bring something different, attention-grabbing that will attract new customers. While I understand the goal, the outcome is rather awkward. To me it seems like a mixture of DSLR and CSC, unfortulately a mixture of their negatives: bad ergonomy and handling of a entry-level CSC (i.e. poor grip, few control dials) with the bulk of a regular DSLR (big mirror box). I want to believe there will be customers who find regular DSLR boring and will reflect the sparkles and LEDs and then find out how much there is inside the K-S1, because actually K-S1 offers a lot: completely new 20 MPx sensor with amazing ISO 102000, big and clear OVF etc. Me as an K-30 owner would appreciate more if these specs are put to a classic DSLR body (K-50 successor).
Rainer2022: The unique selling point of the cam against the Sony RX100... is the Electrical View Finder.
If you don't need it: buy Sony. If you need it, buy Fuji or other cams with EVF.
If you miss the EVF on RX100, well, buy an RX100 Mk III. ;-)
monkeybrain: Does anyone else suspect that this model is really to introduce the new slightly larger design that can later accommodate a larger sensor more easily?
Well it´s not a suspition, it is the only way how to keep this model line alive. I understand that that making a larger sensor would be complicated and costly, but this is what the customers want, this is the trend and when the future X40 does not bring a bigger sensor, customers probably choose from ather large sensor compacts (and next year there are gonna be plenty of them).
D1N0: This looks pretty good, though I rue the loss of the ovf. The camera looks better with one on it because of the retro styling. The evf will probably be better, but it's not retro. They probably should have gotten rid of some real estate on the front though, because of the missing OVF. Understandably they did not use a 1" sensor. It would have required a new lens design. Much larger. The RX100 III has a 24-70 equivalent lens, this is 28-112. The camera would cost at least $200 more lifting it out of it's price class.
Definitely agree with the looks. Previous models used the OVF to create a nice retro looks, similar to rangefinders. Now the transition to modern EVF ruined the retro image and the retro look and the camera does not look attractive any more.
I praise Fuji for using top-notch 2,4M EVF and take this anytime instead of inaccurate tunnel type OVF, but with giving the OVF away X30 lost some of it´s appeal and uniqueness (of the front view). Now the front look too plain and dull, with too big empty plastic area.
iudex: A lens (for CSC) this slow should definitely be smaller; e.g. a similar Pentax 18-135/3,5-5,6 is smaller and lighter (405g, 76mm vs. 490g, 98mm), just as is the Sigma 18-200 with longer reach; not mentioning the fact these are DSLR lenses, i.e. built for bigger flange distance. With the biggest X-mount camera (X-T1) it is so-so and for all the others the lens is too big.
Yes, the comparative Canon and Nikon lenses are probably the same size or even bigger; I sometimes forget that Pentax is quiete unique in making really small lenses, smaller that the big two. Yesterday a friend stopped at my place for a glass of wine and when handling my Pentax 100mm/2,8 Macro he was amazed just how small the lens was in comparison to his Canon 100mm Macro. So it´s maybe up to what gear you are accustomed to.
Kim Letkeman: Fuji's doing some nice work in this series of bodies ... so why on earth is this not a constant f/4? What a stroke of design that would have been ...
Yes, but it is supposed to be supplemented by the new zoom from the roadmap (DA zoom, cca. 16-85mm, i.e. both wider and longer): http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pentax-K-mount-lens-roadmap-2014.png
BarnET: I am aware of this lens but I would sacrifise those 35mm at tele for 2mm at wideangle, so 16-70 mathes my criteria more. I am dreaming of 16-85mm f4 for Pentax, which would nicely complement my 18-35/1,8 (and the Pentax lens roadmap gives me some hope).
Why f11 for a portrait shot?
Completely agree. I have been waiting for something like 16-85mm f4, but only Sony came close to this with it´s 16-70mm/4.
I was comapring solely the size, not quality, but generally I am willing to accept bigger lens only if there is a reason for it (better luminosity, bigger zoom etc.). Sharpness does not have to influence the lens size (unlike luminosity).