munro harrap: I really wanted a NEX. I knew that the kit lens was not much good, and that the 24MP NEX 6 and now A6000 are a lot noisier than my Nikon D7100, surprisingly so (unusable above 800ISO), but the killer, what really sticks in the craw, was the fact that the only "good" standard zoom for these things, the 16-70 f4 OSS is neither sharp at the borders stopped down, nor free from variable performance depending on focal length, and has a lot of fringing. This "Zeiss" thingy costs $1000 or £770 roughly, for little improvement on what are not good kit lenses.
I found myself in the position therefore of being forced to reject it, and then with it the camera(s) as well. Or pay out around £1400 for a machine that cannot hope to better the Nikon D7100 with even a ten year old 18-70mm kit lens.
That buys TWO D7100 bodies at the moment, or any number of better full-frame cameras, and this new A6000 has lousy inaccurate popping orange dayglo reds, unlike the NEX 6 and NEX 7 which are better behaved
The empirical testing that DXO mark has done shows slightly better high ISO performance on the a6000 than on the D7100. And at least where I am the a6000 I just bought was barely more than 1/2 the price of a D7100 body. I will admit that the lens situation could be better on e mount, it's not as dire as you try to make it out, but there are a lot of lenses I would like to own that are not being made by Sony or Zeiss, and it feels like prices are higher than they should be on a lot of e mount lenses that are out there.
Just one thing has been bugging me about this review.
Based on the spec's I could find the GX1 and GX1 MK II have a 261.8 square mm sensor. APS-C for most brands is 370.5 square mm and for Cannon it's 328.5 square mm. I guess it's true that this is only a smidgen over 20% smaller than Cannon's APS-C, but wouldn't it be more accurate to pick a standard with out competing sensor sizes like say 4/3rds and describe the GX1 MX II's sensor as just over 15% larger?
cyuill2007: I am convinced that, in general, those who dis the Nikon 1 system have never shot pictures with a Nikon 1 camera, or even picked one up. I have a Nikon D7000, and I get great images from it. Good camera! I have owned and been shooting with a Nikon V1 for 3 weeks, and I can get shots with it, when used right, that approach those I get with the D7000. I much prefer the videos I can get with the V1. And if I have to carry around a camera for an entire day I'd much rather carry around a V1 than a D7000.
These very nice test shots (which I recognize as being taken in and around Victoria BC Canada) indicate to me that the V2 produces similar images to the V1. I doubt I'll pick one up as I'm satisfied with my V1. But I am convinced that Nikon created a very viable mirrorless system that will only improve with age.
I don't think the Nikon 1 cameras will be to everyone's taste. That's why it's good there are lots of good alternatives.
My $0.02 worth.
I looked at the J1, I bought an RX100, it's not so much that I am dissing the Nikon, but I do feel that the RX100 renders it largely irrelevant for many potential customers. IMHO the RX100 packs a better sensor (similar noise, better DR, better color depth, while having 2x the pixels) into a smaller body, with a lens that is as good as if not better, than the 10mm and the 10~30mm combined, at the time I made my purchase the prices were even similar, I think the Nikon fire sales were largely caused by the RX100 eroding their sales.
The J series makes more sense by adding the view finder which many find desirable. However even here you have the RX100 applying pressure from below, and similarly sized M4/3 and APS-C mirror less cameras pushing down from above, the market ends up very Narrow and honestly Nikon needs to do something more to make their products stand out.
I am about as far from Pro as you could want, I have played around pretty extensively with the Sony EVF cameras at the Sony store, and I have to say I personally like them and find them far more useful than an OVF, Having all the information you could want right there, is pretty powerful. I had an issue with strange glows where say a shiny floor would try to display through the legs of the person standing on it, and some other very strange artifacting when playing around, and I can see how that would be off putting to many, but truth be told I could see shooting just fine with a Sony EVF currently, and this tech is only going to get better over time.
fmian: "1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor""CX-format 1in sensor"
Wrong.It continually irks me how marketing companies can spin numbers and specs to make something seem what it is not. And then the number of people who fall for it.
These numbers like 1" or Micro 4/3rds or 2/3" or 1/2.3" are all standards based. I will admit that it's an ancient and outdated system that used to refer to the outside diameter of a vacuum tube instead of the size of the sensor it contained, and it should have been changed years ago. However it is used on pretty much all "small" sized sensors micro 4/3rds and down, across all brands, so it's not like Sony just pulled 1" out of their marketing department and chose to lie about it.
Franco8: Evidence that Sony must spend a fortune in advertising with this magazine.A compact camera with a zoom the new Canon 1GX is a leap above any other cameraOlympus Pen series cameras, with Nikon Canon Pentax etc all have dust issues and they a shutter protecting the sensor, with Olympus the sensor is fully exposed yet they do not have that issue due to there patented dust reduction system. this is a leap in technology.what about these new lenses on the market 18~200, 18~270 or 18~300 even though they are not pro lenses, they are pretty good quality, this would have been impossible to manufacture several years ago.all the above should be above the Sony.
The 1GX also has a significantly higher MSRP, a slow lens that results in worse DoF control, check with Camera Lab's tests if you don't believe me. Dog slow AF that it has been panned for at multiple review sites, and the added bonus of being nearly 3x larger than the Sony RX100 if you compare them by volume displaced.
Nathebeach: This camera is having the same impact that the Canon G10 did when it was introduced. Each has their flaws, BUT, each introduced/introduce a new dimension to compact point and shoots that never existed before. Well done.
If you go by volume the G1x is nearly 3x larger than the RX100, it has a slow lens which results in worse DoF control, extremely poor minimum focus distance, and has been panned for it's terrible auto focus performance by multiple review sites. And "Near APS-C", equates to slightly larger than micro 4/3rds. And all of this comes at a significantly higher MSRP than the Sony.Camera.
Vladik: Can someone explain to me why is this camera 200 dollars more than Nex F3?
Also better video with a 1920x1080 60p modem, The Wi-Fi will bring some cool features like smart phone control, and I believe the 3F is also lacking the touchscreen LCD.