11 hours ago
 |
Greynerd
Lives in
United Kingdom
Joined on
Jul 18, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Combatmedic870: Costing more then the LX7 is a non starter(LX7 is $299). I dont see the point.
I would take the LX7 over this anyday, unless it really is that significantly smaller.
The sensor on the LX7 is a 1/2.0 vs 1/2.3, so not much a difference. but the lens is much faster.
The list price of the LX7 is $499 but the market price has dropped over time, but only in the USA, it is currently £350 in the UK. The list price of the XZ-10 is $400. Why is it that people just never get that you cannot compare hot off the press new product prices with mature product prices. In the UK the XZ-10 starting list price matches the current LX7 price.
There seems to a bit of a fire sale going on with the LX7 so whilst it is good for the US customer I wonder how healthy it is for Panasonic. Possibly they may be making money and the competition is well over priced. I must say I am looking forward to a price war between all these similar cameras but I suspect in Britain we will have to wait until they dump them for the the next model. The only affordable UK top end camera is the Samsung EX2f at £250 in established dealers which I may go for as the competition is just too expensive.
neroangelo: Not one in Scotland?! The quicker Scotland gets independence and gets out of this 'UK' that never includes us the better!
The thing is in Scotland they would have to be given away free like everything else or there would be no interest. The idea of having to give them back would not be a concept understood in Scotland.
mpgxsvcd: With the Panasonic LX7 selling for $279 I am not sure who would pick this camera over the LX7?
The current UK price of the LX7 in the non grey market is pretty much the same if not more than the XZ-10 list price at £350. So in the Uk the xz-10 will be likely be cheaper than the LX7. Do not forget you only get these offers in the states. I would certainly consider an LX7 if I could buy one at $279 but there seems little chance.
Rachotilko: I want this ! This device utilizes the advantages of small sensor digicam in the best possible way.
It makes one wonder why devices like this one have been so rare ? Why the myriads of f/3.1-f/6 point&shoots and none of f/1.8-f/2.7 ?
@tkbslc
Actually not cheaper as the EX2f is going for £260 on Amazon in UK so probably is the best buy at the moment in the UK anyway. Brian has the EX1 and posts some very nice pictures with it and I believe he likes the wider 24mm which you can get only with the EX's and LX's.
HowaboutRAW: The problem is the elephant in the room, albeit a pricy, very small and very powerful elephant: The Sony RX100.
That's an amazing camera, and with fewer pixels v2 could probably produce useable raws at ISO 10,000.
The lens of the RX100 is so slow though unless it is fully wide open and looking at the DPR comparison vs the XZ-2 there does not seem to be any great ISO performance to offset this. Of course with Sony they are more interested in the Megapixels showing on the box than IQ.
It is interesting that they have left so much of the functionality of its big brother intact. Quite an interesting change from the usual marketing trick of keeping a large differential between the models. I think Olympus should be commended for that. It looks a very capable little machine and I hope the IQ turns out well. Probably most prospective buyers are probably well aware of the DOF or relative FF aperture or whatever, though I presume we will have to batten down the hatches against interminable detailed lectures on this as noted already.
How do you know someone has an expensive watch?
They have to ask someone with a Casio what the time is.
dpfan32: Funny no one is discussing the XZ-10 :)
IMHO they took a too small sensor.
To provide better quality than an iPhone 5 they need something like 1/1.7" or bigger. 1/2.3" can't shoot significant better photos than a good smartphone camera (not to mention the 808 PureView)
With the XZ-10 they have put the tiny 1/2.3" sensor instead of the massive 1/1.7" sensor. The 1/2.3" sensor is like a micro dot you know and in the spying days you could put 30 of them on top of the end of a pin. The XZ-10 is half the size of the XZ-2 but you could easily fit a 1/1.7" sensor in it.
Like the bridge cameras which easily have aps-c sensor and that would be awesome man, they only do not use them like because they want to keep their DSLR sales up you know.
To have the same aperture on a 1/2.3 sensor as a aps-c would need a lens half a mile wide you know.
This is not like a Samsung NX roadmap is it? I presume there is a chance these lenses will actually exist one day unlike the NX 16-80, 55mm and anything hinted at over 200mm.
Timmbits: Don't let the f1.8 number fool you! For all you guys who think that f1.8 is a big deal with a 1/2.3" sensor, it is equivalent to only f6.4 on an aps-c sensor camera.
According to the link below, you would need a f0.5 on a 1/2,3" sensor like this one in order to compete with an f1.8 on an aps-c sensor.
And we're not even comparing to FF (which is the more common reference).
Here is a very useful link for everyone in this forum:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Anyways, I realize that this is a high-end in the low-end cameras, and these comparisons aren't really relevant to it't target consumer market.
Just putting things into proper perspective here, so we can all understand what we are looking at.
I do love Timmbits completely pointless comparisons between entirely different types of cameras. Keep them coming Timmbits. We all need to be constantly reminded that enormous cameras perform better than tiny cameras.
D1N0: Put this right next to the polaroids. It's just businessmen trying to make a buck (or a yuan). No interest in real photography whatsoever. (just my prejudice, educated guess, enlightened vision, take your pick).
Presumably all the other manufacturers make cameras just for the love of it. All the directors of the existing camera companies are just a band of dedicated photographers without any interest in making money and just wanting to give us all cameras because they care. That is nice to know.
chopsteeks: So with the wi-fi, could I surf the internet with this ?
Not if it is a mock up.
jimoyer: I see it still has that ridiculous bundled flash that Oly insists on using. God I hate that flash on my E-Pl5 and prefer the pop up of my E-PL2.
+1 . All the inconvenience of a separate flash coupled with the low power and inflexiblity of a built in flash. The EPL-2 flash is great and will make me reluctant to upgrade.
munro harrap: It is about the same body size as a Nikon D series APS-C SLR- only the lens stops them being pocketable, but the IQ will be garbage in comparison. Do we hate our wives and children this much that we buy them these baubles, this bling, these trinkets??!!
They now ALL only last 10 years max as to cheat the rich guys with their full-frame machines and lenses these products are being made with lead-free solder that degrades growing whiskers that short-circuit everything. Irrepairable too.
Your CHOICE??
Egad , these commom cameras sound absolutely ghastly and not even good enough for the memsahib and children. Fare makes you swoon. Pass me the smelling salts. These rich chaps have probably made their money in trade and are not true gentlemen. Degrades your growing whiskers as well, sounds utterly appalling if a chap cannot grow his moustaches to a point.
Cane: Wha, wha, wha! OMG! I have never seen such a set of cry babies in my life. Could you all whine any more about every little thing? It's comical if not sad. Get a life people. It's just a camera, not your heart valve replacement. Why do old men complain about everything? If it doesn't look retro they complain, if it does they complain, if there a tilt screen they complain, if their isn't they complain, if there a hot shoe they complain, if there isn't they complain. Did your cats not find their liter box this morning?
Does whining on a forum about other people whining on the forum constitute a meaningful life then?
SeeRoy: " classic looks should become even more pronounced as it ages"
Yeah? I thought cameras had a life expectancy of about 18 months these days so it'll have to brass up quickly.
I expect you will be able to get a special edition distressed model, which means you can experience that well worn look before it reaches its time to self destruct.
jonikon: I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design.
Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
First Sony RX100 replaces all other cameras posting. I think we all get the message so please give it a rest.
Cal22: This camera looks so good and its screen is a real improvement. But it lacks an EVF as an option, which is essential for serious composing!
It is a pity they did not just leave the capability to put the EVF10 on. It was not exactly the height of resolution but it was far better than the NX100's screen in sunlight and perfectly useable. I hope these new crop of NX's have better screens as I have found that OLED screens are worse outdoors than LCD's and that includes the Olympus XZ-1. I can see some logic in their approach as dropping the accessory port saves money and they do do a viewfinder option camera and for many people it is not an issue but it does rather restrict your options.
thewhitehawk: I find the lack of wheels on this camera body... disturbing.
On a more serious note, this camera looks more comfortable to hold than most mirrorless cameras, however, I have to say that that large pixel count raises a few yellow flags in my head. Over the years I have observed that whenever Samsung tries to compete with other companies in terms of megapixel count, they tend to sacrifice many other things (see their old Ultra range for reference).
I hope they can prove me wrong, as Samsung tends to be one of the most disruptive companies when it comes to mobile devices, and it would be great to see more competition in the mirrorless camera market. But it will take more than a 3D lens and 20 megapixels to convince me, that's just my opinion.
@HowaboutRAW
That was along time ago and the warranty repair I had done on my NX100 was fine and I never read of any repaired camera failing again. I am sure they have sorted that out by now. It failed probably because of a design flaw which I am sure is sorted by now.
The camera will be a fine bit of equipment until you need to update the firmware or even find the firmware for the lens. On the UK site you have to know the lens software is on the NX10 page and people often ask directions to find it as many current owners will not know the NX10 existed. Samsung make very good equipment but the idea of longevity is still a bit of a mystery to them and coding standards, version control and release systems of firmware are pretty abysmal IMHO.