micahmedia: This STM focus business sounds like an excellent idea for the type of people who are into hacking mirroless cams to make compelling cinema-esque film.
Otherwise, it seems like a pisspoor decision to put slow AF on an expensive camera aimed at the low end of the market.
STM is designed mainly for filming though.
If you want fast AF you can always use a lens with USM.
topstuff: All the months, years of waiting.
All of the benefit of not being first, and being able to watch and learn as your competitors go to market before you do.
And then, after all this, the end result is utterly boring and utterly predictable.
There is no innovation here.
Very disappointing. Canon have become very, very conservative and in the long term I think this will hurt them.
Lol most people probably use innovate as a synonym for "new".
In truth it IS a synonym for new but I think innovation goes beyond just new things.
Carlos AF Costa: LX7 with a smaller sensor than LX5? Is this an upgrade? Not for me, thanks.I expected a bigger sensor that provide better image with more resolution
But with equivalent f-numbers you would only be comparing the depth of field for cameras with different sensor sizes. You would still set the aperture and shutter speed according to the f-number on the lens, as with the iso speed and everything else, doesn't that make the equivalent f-number useless instead? Not to mention confusing.
I just don't get it ~.~
Oh, I see where your coming from...
But I agree with NGC, I think it's pointless comparing DOF on a compact camera, if you want shallow DOF for portrait wouldn't you normally go with a DSLR? I just don't see much logic in using "relative" F number to calculate DOF, as writing something like... f/7.0-11.5 for LX-7 while it says f/1.4-2.3 on the LX7 as it will confuse the crap out of many people (me included).
Why in the world would you want to calculate equivalent F-number? Are they not constant?
na01: Is it possible to estimate the aperture that I have to use at the end of the zoom range of the xz-1 (112mm) to have the same DOF of the rx100 at 100mm f4.9 ?I'd like to estimate how much DOF I'm going to loose of the already weak DOF of the xz-1. on the examples of techrada it seems that at 28mm has degree of control on the DOF.thanks
Yabokkie, for your comment "35mm format equivalent ofRX100 is 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9," that is not how f-stops work. You're not suppose to multiply f-stop like you do with the focal length to get the equivalent of 35mm format. F-stops values are set and not relative depending on the sensor size. If it were relative, then f2.8 lenses on APS-C would become f4.48(using your formula for calculating the "relative" f-stop, by multiplying the f-stop number by the same number used to get the equivalent focal length) which would make every fast zoom lenses on the APS-C slow, not to mention making some compact cameras have "relative" f-stops of 15 or more wide open(Canon Ixus 120 with f2.8 multiplied by 5.6(value for 35mm equivalent) to get 15.68), which is clearly impossible. I was surprised no one bothered to inform yabokkie of his mistake.