tedolf: I don't understand this camera. It is larger and heavier than an E-pl7 with the Panny 20mm f/1.7 lens. The sensor isn't as good and it doesn't cost much less.
What is the point?
"The X30 does a tricky thing, which is to make the experience of shooting with a compact camera feel more like shooting with a 'real camera.'"
This camera is an affordable faux Leica rangefinder. It's for people with nostalgia for film days, either because they lived it, or they fantasize about it. They care as much or more about the shooting experience than the output. people who buy it have money to spare.
I see more luma noise in the shadows than I would have expected at ISO 400 on a u4/3 sensor, recognizing that's easily tunable to taste. Doesn't really bother me, personally, just an observation that, as a Nikon CX and DX user, noise profile seems closer to what I see in my CX than DX.
I will put you in time out if you keep taking my picture!
This shot with the excellent 30-110 zoom shows off the capabilities of a 1" sensor in fairly good light indoors; also potential for some background blur. Color and contrast are IMO quite good, even at ISO4500. There's noise but great detail is the reward. RAW is easily manageable to taste.
I don't know why the camera was set to 1/200s here. Should have shot this at 1/30s or 1/40s. Anyway, ISO 6400 is quite noisy (even with quite a bit of NR applied) but still quite good detail - fine for 8x10" print.
kit lens 10-30mm - 14.5mm 1/125s f4.0 - ISO3600
Nice shot! Beautiful bird.
Cane: I love to see all the old people grab for their oxygen masks when a camera is released without a viewfinder.
@ANAYV Your explanation makes sense. I'm still "young" at 40 and still have my near sightedness so while I appreciate an OVF/EVF in the harshest of harsh daylight, I get by fine without one 99.5% of the time. But your comment makes sense why so many older people like to take pictures with iPads. If you're going to use an LCD at arms length in daylight - might as well be the biggest one you can find!
dgeugene1: I know this comment will provoke howls from the Sony RX100 fans but my experience is that a very good 1/1.7" sensor, in this case the Nikon P7800, is an excellent performer and only begins to diverge from all the 1" sensors at very high ISO's. The smaller sensor, of course, has the benefits of better lenses, lighter cameras, etc.
Where the 'jump' in quality occurs, in my opinion of course, is at 4/3. My LX100 resembles the IQ of my Canon 70D and is a huge 'jump' over the 1" sensors I have tried.
This will now provoke howls from Canon owners but my technical interests do not extend beyond making good pictures.
Interesting to hear, @dgeugene1.
I had a Panasonic LX7 (1/1.7") but went for a Nikon 1 J3 (1") on fire sale late last year. Although the LX7 was actually pretty good, I've been impressed with bump in image quality. I find a major difference with landscapes (much better detail) and high ISO. In fact, I'd say my Nikon 1 delivers RAW IQ quality that's fairly on par with my old Nikon D60 DSLR (except in shadow DR) - of course, in a much more compact package. I recently printed an 8x10" ISO6400 print that looked remarkably good after tinkering in LR.
So I'm not surprised to hear that the modern 4/3" sensors are even better in this regard, and given the longer focal lengths of their lenses, are also a bit closer to DSLR-like bokeh all other things being equal.
Overall, I think we're now in a great position in terms of compact cameras with high IQ.
@Cane - you made me LOL with that comment. Harsh, but funny and true.
@ Txoni - I've somehow managed to shoot thousands and thousands of outdoor photos on cameras without a viewfinder (a few thousand on cameras with a viewfinder, too). In maybe 1% of cases, my framing isn't as exact as I'd like, and yes, I do have to trust the camera to handle the exposure. But Cane is right - this is how 99.9% of the world shoot cameras (i.e., phones) nowadays. EVF/OVF is really for DSLRs and prosumer-focused models - it's just not a mainstream feature requirement however loudly pros and traditional users wish this weren't the case.
That said, this does appear to be a super-zoom type model and shooting long zooms does - in my experience - benefit tremendously from having an EVF/OVF.
@Kawika Nui - The conditions you describe make an EVF/OVF a requirement for <1% of the market (pros) probably less than 10% of the time they shoot. That's simply not requirement on a consumer model.
marc petzold: What keeps me away from LT for ages: That damn catalogue everything thing, and then it's way sluggish from operation & behaviour, Adobe should really speed things up.
How many images do you have, and on what computer?
I have about 110,000 and have no complaints about catalog performance slowing me down. I have a 2012 Mac Mini i5 with 4GB RAM and an SSD hard drive (where I keep the catalog). Most of my photos are on an external HD over USB 3.
I think having a catalog stored on an SSD makes app and catalog loading really fast.
Cane: Pixel peeping a p&s and complaining about the results is like whining on the Mini Cooper car forum about its towing capacity. I mean really, what do you want? And the fanboy comments in this thread are epic. I have been laughing for 10 minutes.
Try thinking of it as a $700 camera (instead of a $150 P&S throwaway). If I'm going to spend that much on a camera to upgrade from, say, a competent but now dated Canon S90 , yes, I am going to care about pixel-level results in as much as it affects my ability to get a higher-quality 13x19 print.
It's like arguing that truck owners shouldn't care about gas mileage. Who cares, it's a truck - it gets terrible mileage anyway.
eliaskyo: For me, these samples make the decision to purchase this camera far more complicated than I wanted it to be. On paper and in theory, it was a home run. I hope the full review provides deeper "clarity."
Agreed. I'm a Panasonic LX-7 owner and fan. I was hoping the initial images I'd see here would be unambiguously superior, especially at higher ISO. But I'm very disappointed with what I'm seeing so far. Hopefully we'll learn more from a detailed review.
I'm definitely not pre-ordering.
Matt1645f4: Can you please stop with the lower marks for bloody poor video!!! this site is called Digital Photography review, it you insist on scoring cameras down because of video make it a totally different section or start a Digital Video Review Site, i'm bored about the lengthy failings a camera has in its lack of video......
Fair enough! Actually that might help me out, too, come to think of it. Happy shooting.
I come from a different camp of user and have different expectations. I want excellent still and excellent video and don't want to carry separate specialized devices in order to do both well. It's very relevant for me to know how well a device can do both tasks.
So I'd say to you (politely), please ignore the video section if it's irrelevant to you. It's certainly useful and relevant to me and, quite likely, many others as well.
Why F8 in this situation for such a small sensor camera? Seems a poor choice (whether by auto or manual setting) for this shot.
I enjoyed the review and, as a Moto X owner, thought you were thorough, accurate and fair in your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses.
I did want to point out, though, that I think you might have been a little bit harsher on the overexposure issues with the Moto X than you were in your Nexus 5 review. For example, look at your caption on page 6 of your Nexus 5 review: "In good light, the Nexus 5 delivers pleasant, balanced images." But the right half of the image is basically overexposed building. You were also a bit more apologetic for the Nexus 5 blowing highlights in the fruit stand still life, saying "Blown highlights remain a constant of mobile photography" rather than "With the Nexus 5, you can expect some blown highlights in high contrast scenes."
For any who read this, and are curious, overall I'm satisfied with the Moto X camera (having come from a Nexus 4 as my last phone). It's got weaknesses but overall it's not too shabby.
peevee1: Who cares, the review is at least half a year too late anyway.
DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.
Wow, cranky much? You know, no one is forcing you to read ancient reviews.
Elyharbour: I wonder what these votes really mean? Most will just end up voting for the one they bought (or lusted after). Doesn't make it the best. And how do any of us know whether the ones we didn't buy or try, are better or worse. Ah well, harmless enough I suppose...
I had the same thought! Agree - it's (probably) harmless fun, that will probably reflect camera sales volume more than anything.
Lightly boosted sat, contrast, and sharpening to allow comparison with straight OOC jpeg. This was shot through thick glass with maximum iZoom (Panasonic's optimized 2x digital zoom).