Glen Barrington: The X series started out so 'right' but it has steadily gone in the wrong direction. They are turning it into an Oly Pen. If I wanted a Pen, I would have bought one.
I want more QUALITY, not another 'me too' camera.
@Essai: those are not my words. Read some reviews, many praised outcome of this sensor with specific technology and compared it to FF.
peevee1: Good kit zoom. That is what all APC-S and m43 makers must do to retain their "kit-zoom-only" part of market from RX100 and it's future copycats. Nikon1... probably nothing will help it, short of f/0.95-f/2 kit.
Totally agree. If Fuji can make an f2,8-4 zoom lens for APS-C, why Nikon cannot make anything better than f3,5-5,6 for small 1" sensor? But as you wrote, even fast zoom would not help Nikon 1 to be taken seriously; not in this competition.
Do you have a PEN with 2,4M EVF? Or with a sensor that can match FF? ;-)
Gothmoth: to expensive for a camera where all raw converters suck.
i don´t pay 1300 euro for a camera i have to shoot JPG with....
that´s why i sold my x pro 1 after three month.
My DSLR has an in-camera RAW converter, but it is sufficient for basic adjustments only, not mentioning that the effect of changes are hard to assess on 3" LCD. Despite using cheap software (Zoner Photo Studio 14) in-camera converter is no match to it.
DafO: Any idea on UK / European price?
As usual, for european pricing 1 USD = 1 EUR, so 999 EUR/body and 1399 EUR/kit. :-(
iudex: Every other producer should have a look at how a kit lens should look like. Significantly faster than standard f3,5-5,6, equalling to fast zooms at the wide end and although loosing 1 EV at the tele end, still has 1 EV advantage comared to kit lenses. And what is important, it is equally big as usual slow kit lenses.
@ Esa: I was talking about the zoom only (the primes are no different from average, just as you wrote). But looking at the side-by-side picture with NEX7 and OM-D it looks to me the Fuji zoom lens is not bigger (and I know the Sony kit zoom is not big at all). With such a zoom lens there´s no need to buy a faster zoom (what is a necessity for most ILCs, where you usually have a choice between f3,5-5,6 kit lens and expensive f2,8 zoom).
Every other producer should have a look at how a kit lens should look like. Significantly faster than standard f3,5-5,6, equalling to fast zooms at the wide end and although loosing 1 EV at the tele end, still has 1 EV advantage comared to kit lenses. And what is important, it is equally big as usual slow kit lenses.
Considering that the XE1 has almost everything the X-Pro1 does, the price is fine and I see no reason to buy a X-Pro1 instead of X-E1. The lack of hybrid VF is not an issue, especially since the resolution of the EVF is higher (2,4 vs. 1,4M). Samse sensor, same (or better) AF speed, smaller body but almost identical controls, I guess this will make the much more expensive X-Pro1 sort of a "Sigma SD1". On the other hand the price for the kit could have been lower; the difference of 400 USD is pretty big.
And one more issue with Sigmas was the (in)ability to process RAWs in usual RAW converters. Is it still a problem?
Miguel Teotonio: Slow AF, strange noises when focusing, weird focal lenght for a one lens camera, drains batteries like hell but ... has foveon sensor? Fail!!!
Sure, the DP2m. ;-)Btw. 30-35 mm on APS-C is the ideal and most universal focal length. I wonder why this FL is not more common (there are more 50mm lenses on APSC cameras, which is not as useful as 35 mm).
Because it is too wide; to be universal it should have been cca. 35-45 mm eq. (23-30 mm). So basically a DP2. ;-)
A very specific camera for very specific customers. It´s definitely not for everyone, because as far as value for money is concerned, it is the worst camera on the market. However if you have a DSLR (which is able to shoot nice pics at ISO 6400 and is fast) but need something small and travel-friendly without any compromise in picture quality (e.g. nature where high ISO is not an issue), Sigma may be the right choice.
Charlie Jin: Whenever I see NEX attached with such a big lens,I just cannot help laughing... What a big joke...Why don't they make some nice quality pancake lens?
@T3: I did not say smaller size is not an advantage. I just mentioned that proportion of body size to lens size is funny and that such a small body makes the best out of this advantage only with pancake lens. I of course see the difference between NEX+18-55 lens and 60D+18-55 lens, but there are smaller APSC DSLR´s where the difference is not that big (e.g. D3100). I can still fit my K-r to my briefcase if I separate the lens. I don´t fit the camera with attached lens and for NEX it is the same. So I have to carry either of these cameras on my neck or in the camera bag.
When I first saw the NEX camera in hands of my japanese client (It wasn´t available in Europe those days) my first thout was just the same: what a funny camera, tiny body and huge lens! Now I understand the lens is even smaller than lenses for APSC DSLR´s and that the sensor size matters, but I still see a NEX camera making the most sense with a small pancake. I understand that a combination of NEX + 18-55 lens is considerably smaller than a DSLR + 18-55 lens, bu neither of them is pocketable, so the size advantage is not that crucial (as for example is for the RX100 compared to Nikon 1).
jon404: No built-in flash; won't work for me. Shame you can't use it's wi-fi to set off a slave flash.
It might be true that with a built-in flash the camera would be bigger; on the other hand Sony should have provided better external flash than just a funny flash with GN7. I repeat, guide number 7. Most built-in flashes are much stronger (at least GN 10), so if Sony decided to rely on external flash, they should have made it much stronger.
fberns: It was a good decision to stay with 16MP!Thank you Pentax for designing USEFUL cameras and not just being after numbers that your MARKETING department would love!
Looks even slightly better than its peers and K-5 and K-01. It even pleases me best in APS.C sensors, except maybe for the X-Pro1.
I think the number of cases are low where you'd wish for the increased resolution of 24MP against when you'd be glad about the increased IQ from 1600ISO onwards.And - lower file sizes are a good thing too. Here - like often - less is more!
Less is more: i definitely agree. And also therefore I am happy with my 12 MPix K-r. However the improvement of K-30 is clearly visible and when my K-r will be full of dust I wil definitely switch to K-30.
After brief comparison it looks on par with the competitors. And if I put K-30´s real peers (D5100 instead of D7000 and D650 instead of D60), K-30 is clearly better. Great job, Pentax! Looks I found a successor for my K-r!
Heie2: DPR - Please do the correct thing of classifying this as the same category as the Canon T4i. While the K-30 has significantly better IQ and will compare to the K-5 and D7000 for overall IQ, classifying it at those levels will cause it to be improperly scored compared to the T4i - it's main competition.
I completely agree. K-30 is a entry-level DSLR for Pentax. Just because Pentax does not have a peer to 1100D does not mean it is a mid-level camera like D60. That it has some features of these cameras and in some aspects outperforms them is just the advantage of Pentax but it should not handicap K-30 by comparing it to middle class DSLR´s. (Not only) in my opinion K-30 is competitor to D5100 or 650D and it should be assessed relatively to these cameras. Putting K-30 alongside D7000 or D60 is unfair fot Pentax and the score may not be as high as it should be.
iudex: If this is what the crowd desires, so let the crowd have it. If ultrazooms are so popular, why shouldn´t Pentax offer one?We can look at the camera from the perspective that it has no RAW, has slow lens, low-res (read useless) EVF. On the other hand it offers DSLR ergonomics, ultra-wide angle, PASM modes and all this for a nice price.I believe it deserves the right to exist.
Ergonomics involves more than just number of dials (and as you wrote, most entry-level DSLR´s have only one mode dial). Important is also the grip and ease of handling and this seems to be good.
PatMann: Very good effort, but not quite there for me. With a 24-120 equivalent and an optical finder or EVF, this would be very tempting. I shoot pictures in daylight outdoors, and that requires a finder. After shooting for quite a while with the 16-85 on DX cameras, I'm sold on that focal range, but starting at 28 makes it too limiting as a 1-lens solution for me.
I'm still waiting for a compact camera that's good enough compared to my current DSLR to be worth the investment and allow me to leave the big clunker at home once in a while. Haven't had one since I gave up my Coolpix 5000 for the D70.
Yaeah, there´s always some "but..."LX7: great fast lens, but a bit short (the same goes for EX2)S100: really small and thin, the only pocketable one, but awful f5,9 on the long endRX100: big sensor, nice fast lens, but a bit short and not sufficiently wide (plus no hot shoe, tilting screen)G1x: slow lens, bulky.P77OO. great focal length, fast lens, nice controls, but bulkyThe ideal pro compact would be small like RX100, with 1" sensor, 24-120 mm f1,8-4 lens and (at least optional) EVF. Will there ever be one?