I like the weather-sealing, and we already know the 20MP sensor in this camera is an excellent performer based on its performance in the RX100 II. But the question mark for me is the lens...is the performance consistently good throughout its entire focal range? Past Vario Sonnar T* Sony/Zeiss have all been good performers (based on my experience with the 16-80 A mount lens and the one on the RX100 II)...I would spend $1300 on this camera if I had confirmation that the lens is all its cracked up to be.
That said, I applaud Sony for putting out a camera like this despite the price being a little steep. It probably comes the closest to "having it all" in a fixed lens camera.
Menneisyys: $449.00? Is it some kind of a joke? I can get the RX100 for $50 more... the only advantage the S120 has over the RX100 is the wider lens and the Wi-Fi...
Also, the capacitive touch screen.
samhain: Nice camera, great ergonomics. Too bad it's not a FF. aps-c dslr's are so 2009.:)
I see more people using APS-C DSLRs in 2013 than I did in 2009, so your argument is flawed.
I would like to point out, in defense of the dpreview guys, that the lighting conditions here in Seattle this weekend were about as bad as you can get for photography. So just keep that in mind when looking at the photos.
There is no question in my mind that this is going to be a stellar DSLR. One that could approach full-frame quality provided you put the right glass on it. But I just hope they (Ricoh) just have enough sense this time around to properly market this camera and increase the number of places where you can see the camera in the flesh and try it out. Maybe broker a deal with the one of the large outdoor retailers to sell K-3s in their stores. They are sitting on a potential gold mine with all of these affordable (and excellent) weather-sealed cameras and lenses and its like no one realizes it.
Despite my concerns on the price...I bought this camera and got it from Amazon last night. I am not so sure the AF has improved in low light over the G15. But the image quality is impressive. The rounded handgrip up front makes it more comfortable to hold but the thumb grip on the back is slightly smaller.
paragrapher: One question to the reviewer: does the new grip make the camera more comfortable to hold?
I can answer that because I just got the camera last night...up front it does but the thumb grip on back is slightly smaller and less comfortable than on the G15...so it's pretty much a wash between the two.
Image quality looks almost exactly the same as the P7700..not that that's a bad thing. But I guess if you can do without the viewfinder, you can save yourself almost $300 and get the same level of imaging performance with the P7700.
The starting price should stay the same as last year. I have no problem with Canon continuing on using a 1/1.7" sensor but the Sony RX line should be putting downward price pressure on cameras like the G16 and the P7800 as they represent the low end of the enthusiast compact market now. The G15 started at $500 but settled to $450 and has sold at that price for most of its lifespan. And that's the pricepoint I think the G16 should be sold at as well.
I remember when the Olympus XZ-2 came out last year, Olympus had the nerve to charge $600 for that camera to start out and I don't think that camera has sold very well as a result.
This looks like a very solid camera, but Canon needs to be a little more realistic with the MSRP.
I personally won't be buying one right now but this is a great way for Nikon to breathe new life into the 1 series. Hopefully we will see more ruggedized lenses in the near future.
I think Nikon has a better understanding than Sony does when it comes to making cameras with a more well-rounded shooting experience. Yes, the RX100 beats the P series cameras in ultimate IQ hands-down. But with the P7800 you get an actual camera strap, a nice grip, 3 dials, a phyiscal dial for adjusting exposure compensation, a large battery, a versatile lens, an articulating LCD, and a decent EVF. And on top of that, it's no slouch in the image quality department either. And IMO, the IQ difference will only be realized if you are shooting at higher ISOs and blowing your pictures up to larger sizes. Most of the rest of it comes down to a person's skills as a photographer.
NCB: Potentially a great camera. Potentially. I picked up a P7100 cheap when the price dropped, and in many ways that's a very nice camera. Loads of well -organised controls of the type which are useful, and an excellent lens. Initial thoughts about the P7800, based mainly on experience with the P7100.
1) Pity the quick settings control wheel button has gone. It makes access the main setting very quick and easy.
2) How good is the EFV? If it's a good one it'll be an improvement. The P7100 optical vf is OK , but framing is a problem.
3) The P7100 colour out of the box is dire. Starts with two Auto WBs, Standard and Warm. Both are too cool. Took a lot of fiddling to get what I want.
4) Speed, or alleged lack of it, doesn't worry me. It's not a factor in the type of shooting I do.
Summary; going on the P7100, the lens in the P7800 should be a cracker, and it's a nice design. Worth a close look.
You have to take into account that the P7100 uses an older 10MP CCD sensor vs. the newer 12MP BSI CMOS sensor found in the P7700 and P7800. I have shot with both the P7100 and P7700 and found the P7700 had a noticeable improvement over its predecessor when it comes to image quality, especially with regards to lens sharpness and color reproduction.
The P7800 uses the exact same sensor/processor/lens as the P7700 so it too should be an improvement over the P7100.
I think it was a good choice for Sony to pair it with the 16-50 as the kit lens. It's a much neater package than having a small camera with some big metal dong attached to it. Not to say that the 18-55 was a bad lens...but it just looked strange attached to such a small body.
Anadrol: They could have at least put the new 20MP sensor in !
Yes because the 16MP sensor is just awful. It has reputation for producing terrible image quality in all the cameras it has been in.
Seriously, though, Sony probably thought if it aint broke, don't fix it. They can use that same sensor in lots and lots of camera for years to come and you won't hear any complaints from me.
I think what Sony did here is great. You get an APS-C camera at a very affordable price. Granted, there are some compromises made...but still it's a wonderful idea to have a camera like this whose price tag is not completely out of reach for a person who wants to get into photography as a hobby but is on a tighter budget.
vapentaxuser: It would be interesting if you were able to take the G15 out at the same time and do some comparison shots between the two. Based on the sample shots, one thing that the G16 is still doing is overexposing and blowing out highlights just like the G15 did. You might as well just set the exposure comp dial to -1EV and leave it there.
That said, I'll bet it was an enjoyable camera to shoot with. Especially if the Canon claims of increased speed are true. The color performance is also very nice.
I also have to say...looking closer at IMG_480, an ISO3200 shot...very impressive for a 1/1.7" sensor. There is some visible noise but it's mostly finely grained and still a lot of detail retained.
It would be interesting if you were able to take the G15 out at the same time and do some comparison shots between the two. Based on the sample shots, one thing that the G16 is still doing is overexposing and blowing out highlights just like the G15 did. You might as well just set the exposure comp dial to -1EV and leave it there.
For what it's worth...it appears that the G16 has a new sensor over the G15. Both sensors have 12.1MP effective megapixels but the G15's has a total of 13.3MP and the G16 has a slightly lower 12.8 total MP count. This might mean that the G16 has slightly better ISO performance and overall image quality but probably not enough of a difference for the average person to notice.
dwl017: These models are dead on arrival. Are you kidding me the S120 price point = Fail M4/3 eat this trash for lunch in 2013 and beyond!
@KariIceland That's the thing...I haven't seen a person carrying a Micro 4/3rds camera in over a year. And yes, I get out, and I live in a city with a high tourist population in the summertime where everybody is carrying a camera (I see very little mirrorless cameras in general). I also see some stores stop carrying them or reducing their offerings. I am not saying Micro 4/3rds is dead...but in the US it is in a slump right now. And as such, even an uninspiring upgrade like this one from Canon will outsell it. Maybe the situation is different over there in Iceland. Micro 4/3rds is a great system, I am not biased at all towards it. It has a better chance at surviving than the camera brand which is included in my username. I also get what you're saying about smaller sensor = less light but still you can't get that type of lens versatility (or as compact) at a similar price.
It's ironic that you call these cameras "trash" and "dead on arrival" because they will probably handily outsell any of the Micro 4/3rds cameras out there over the next year or so. And in the case of the G16, I've made this argument before, find me a Micro 4/3rds camera with a 28-140mm F1.8-2.8 lens with the same form factor as the G16 at the same price. I think the Micro 4/3rds system is great, but it's not exactly setting the world on fire either right now. As a matter of fact, the Micro 4/3rds cameras are getting harder and harder to find.