Daniel Clune: Humm looking at the images from these it looks like the Nikon is better yet you say its one of the worst? I downloaded the pic of the clock for the Nikon and the TG-2 and the Nikon is clearer, sharper and has more detail. I also noticed both pics were taken on the same day almost same time. 5-31-13 aw110 at 5:16 and TG-2 at 4:16. So there fair to compare. Then if you use your image compare thing on the review of the TG-2 going through the various iso ratings again the Nikon sure looks like it has more detail throughout the whole iso range. So confused about image quality rating in this comparison. I found a review on yotube that also thought the Nikon had best image quality. What am I missing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btcljWkpg5U
The Nikon apply more default sharpening, giving the impression of more detail.
jamesbm: Wouldn't it be a bolder editorial stance to not give awards when basically none of the cameras seem to take good pictures and all have fitness for purpose flaws - displays that cannot be viewed outdoors, poor battery life, badly thought out controls etc?
Good point! However, if someone is in the market for a rugged compact, you can only recommend one of the existing cameras.Best in class isn't necessarily good, it just have to be better than its rivals.
mpgxsvcd: Why is it that when some company does something really weird it becomes News?
Probably for the same reason it becomes news when celebrities get drunk and embarrass themselves in public.
Digital Keen: I have to say that I wish Nikon would focus more on manufacturing premium DSLRs for the professional and enthusiast. I recently switched from Nikon D7100 and D600 to Canon EOS 6D for two reasons. 1) Stellar low light performance over 3200 ISO and, 2) ability to focus at -3 EV using the center focus point.
Now, I realize that Nikon wants to capitalize on the entire market - professional to idiot camera phone user who knows absolutely nothing about photography. Nikon employs thousands and has zero interest in downsizing for multiple reasons that I need not discuss here. However, they lost me, a semi-pro, because Canon was able to provide a wedding photographer with features I wanted in a DSLR.
I worry that Canikon may lose sight of the pros in lieu of the sheeple (idiot point and shooter). Camera phones will only improve with time and it will close the gap. For me, that's bad. I need for Canikon to widen that gap. I pay the BIG bucks so that I can provide a much better quality of image than an point and shooter.
I won't pretend to have all the answers. I don't. However, I will provide a voice of concern for the professionals. I will spend thousands upon thousands of American dollars throughout the span of my career. Please, don't lose me, again.
"Idiot point and shooter". Enjoying a hobby for fun, without being particularly good at what you do, or without being able to afford the best equipment, doesn't necessarily make you an idiot.
Like it or not, entry-level users far outnumber enthusiasts and pros, and any company that cares about market share (and they all do, except Leica), can't afford to ignore that part of the market. I doubt Canon and Nikon would have so much money to spend on developing premium DSLRs, if it weren't for the massive sales of Rebels and D3xxx/D5xxx.
Marvol: I have no axe to grind in this Q review, but after reading the posters below I agree that comparing it to "entry-level ILC" cameras completely misses the point of this camera. Even I can see that the camera is not aimed to compete against other ILCs. It actually makes a big effort to be quite different from these cameras.
Generally, I'd tend to think that if you're looking to buy a system camera, then you won't be considering a compact with fixed lens, and vice versa. However, in the case of the Q system, I think that it's more fair to treat them as enthusiast compacts with interchangeable lenses as an added feature, rather than treating them as mirrorless ILCs.
fakuryu: I guess only a few knows that the Q7 does not have an AA filter, like the old Q. That's why even with a small sensor then paired with 01 or 06 lenses makes sharp photos.
I have no idea if it's true, but I've been told that most small-sensor cameras lack an AA filter, because diffraction blur makes it unnecessary to blur the image even more. Maybe there are some sensor experts here, who could enlighten us?
wayoutwest: I bought a Nikon 1 V1, when the price plummeted. I really like it but the V2 looks bigger and uglier. Surely the point of having a small sensor is to make the camera smaller? Sony did a better job with the same size sensor.
Its not surprising that the 1 system isn't doing well but I don't think that means that mirrorless cameras are unappealing. They just have to use the advantages of mirrorless instead of making something that looks like a DSLR.
V2 may look bigger, but it really isn't. It just has a different form factor.
Louschro: Reading the description my understanding of the 5-axis-stabilisation is, that the claimed 5 stops advantage is gained from a combination of optical stabilisation (2 stops) and combining multiple shots from a burst (3 stops). There is no stabilization by sensor shift like mentioned in the specifications. The website of casio proofs this.
What can we expect from this new technology?
That's what I thought. Olympus and Panasonic already have released travel zooms with that kind of "false" 5-axis IS. No idea if it works well, though.
tkbslc: Casio? Are they still around?
"Does Casino make a calculator/camera combo?"
The equivalence people would have a field day with that!
trekkeruss: IMO the 5-axis IS is not the news here, but the fact that RAW is offered. I do not know if the target consumer cares about RAW, but as far as I know, this is the only travel zoom to offer it.
No, Fuji's travel zooms (F900EXR and several of its predecessors) have RAW. Casio have had it in several models too, including ZR700 and ZR1000. Unfortunately, DPR's database says that they haven't, but that's wrong. Casio's own product pages states that they have RAW.
SirSeth: I would have thought Olympus had patented the 5-axis IS through the roof. Do you think they are sharing with Casio in some joint venture?
Of course this is better than a cell phone, and the super zoom lens dictates a small sensor. There are trade offs for all cameras.
The question is if this is "true" 5-axis IS. Both Olympus and Panasonic have released compacts with 5-axis IS, and neither implemented it in the same way as E-M5 and E-P5. It was just regular stabilization enhanced by some digital wizardry. Casio is known for just that kind of image processing, so I think this is similar. Seriously doubt that this camera has a floating sensor like the E-M5.
Mikhail Tal: Another tiny sensor camera. Will these idiots ever learn? It can't even beat the image quality of a cellphone.
One of the features that many people want, and which smartphones don't offer, is a long zoom range in a small format. You can't have that with a large sensor, at least not without making the lens ridiculously slow.
The manufacturers are just trying to exploit those parts of the compact market, that the smartphones can't yet compete with, like long zooms, rugged cams, enthusiast compacts.
utomo99: Why Casio did not try the Compact Camera with Big sensor ?The trend now is Compact Camera with Big Sensor and fast lens
Large sensor compacts is also a trend (not just RX100, but Canon G1 X, Ricoh GR, Nikon A, Fuji X100S, Leica X2, Leica X Vario, Sigma DP Merrills, Sony RX1), but not in the long zoom category, to which this camera belong.
You can't easily have both large sensor/fast lens and long zoom/pocketability. At least one of those four features will have to be compromised.
xmeda: F3.5-5.9? 1/2.33?
Create the same with 1/1.7", 12Mpix, 25-150/2.8-4 and I'll buy another Casio to my two older.
I guess this replaces ZR700, which was below ZR1000. We'll probably get a new "flagship" too.
Mikhail Tal: Note to Simon Joinson: The Panasonic GX7 preview still has 40% more comments than the Canon 70D preview, even though the 70D preview has been up longer and been updated with sample images while the GX7 hasn't yet. Time to reevaluate your decision to skip reviewing many m4/3 cameras.
You specifically mentioned m4/3 cameras in your original post, but now you are talking about mirrorless cameras in general.
Anyway, DPR has stated many times, that they simply don't have the time to review every single camera, so they have to prioritize. DSLRs still sell in much larger numbers than mirrorless cameras, so more people are likely to be interested in those reviews. The fact that mirrorless reviews get less traffic is evidence of that. And the fact that the GX7 preview has generated more comments than the 70D preview, can't be taken as evidence that the actual review will be read by more people. Many commenters are obviously not very interested in the camera they are commenting on, and many comments are made by the same commenters.
Given that DPR are unable to review all cameras, how would you have prioritized? Would you choose to review every mirrorless camera at the expense of DSLRs? Would that be more fair?
Of the 27 m4/3 cameras announced to date, DPR have reviewed 20. We can be pretty sure that they will review the high-end GX7 and E-P5, and perhaps the G6 and GF6 too, if time permits.That leaves us with three definitively skipped models: GF5, G5 and E-PL5. Hardly many, I think, and hardly evidence of a decision to skip reviewing m4/3 cameras.
rrccad: Quite impressive that canon managed to split the PD into two, add in all the extra wiring for phase detection from the sensor over the entire sensor area - and still manage to be very competitive with it's peers on the ISO front.
APS sensors are into the realms of diminishing returns - people are smoking something if they really expected something dramatically better than the competition or even older sensors.
If NR or other processing are employed in raw, then it's something you can't by-pass, so it doesn't matter how the images would look without it. The raw, unprocessed sensor data is photographically irrelevant, if you aren't given access to it.
And the test results from DxO and others, who test unconverted raw files, are affected if the files are 'cooked'. DxO usually notes when they suspect 'smoothing', as they call it, but they can't show you what the sensor would be capable of if the files were unprocessed. They only have access to the same raw files that we do.
William5719: A 3.0 inch LCD screen when Nikon is using 3.2's now? Only one cardslot? No 100% viewfinder? Less than half the AF points of the D7100? Another featureless camera from Canon. There better be more in the production cameras or this will end up being a bigger joke than the 6D. Canon seems to be saving money by using old technology to pay for the implementation of better video. That's a mistake. It doesn't help anyone if Canon stops competing in the DSLR market.
So a 3-inch screen is old technology, while a 3.2-inch screen is new? You'd have to be a real gearhead or spec-fetishist, and not very interested in actual photography, if you're bothered by a slightly smaller, but still perfectly good LCD.
mpgxsvcd: It looks better than any of the Rebel cameras but I am struggling to see how it is any better than the 7D at high ISO.
I love the idea that its AFC is excellent in video mode. However, you have to buy new lenses for that and those lenses are few and far between.
I think that this update will sell a ton of cameras. However, I am not so sure that it is actually a step forward.
The Rebels, 60D and the 7D use variants of the same sensor, and the IQ differences are marginal. The 70D is better than them all; look at the shadow noise in raw, for example.
It's a real upgrade when it comes to the weather sealing too. It is sealed to the same standard as 7D, 6D and 5D3, wheras 60D only had a sealed battery compartment.