HubertChen: What am I missing? The X-T1 has the viewfinder in middle of the camera, which is ergonomically bad, as now my nose is colliding with the display. The previous X-Models have the viewfinder in the corner of he camera, which is way better.
Other then than the bad placement of the EVF, what is the difference?
And do not get me wrong. I love the Fuji X-Cameras. They are very well designed and work like a charm. Just do not see the excitement of bad placement of the EVF and why to create a new camera family? If they want to increase sales, work on cost down of the wonderful X-Gestalt.
I couldn't disagree with you more. To me, there is no better place for a viewfinder than in line with the lens.
Is it different? Yes. Is it "bad"? Surely not.
@RichRMA: it's the video capability. Panasonic is cutting edge here with 4k video - giving it an advantage over the competition. For stills alone it is overpriced in my estimation.
Francis Carver: The heck is this?
Whoops! Yes, I used sensor diagonal times width, not width times height. Damn ipad late at night. Next time I'll wait until the morning. Thanks for the correction!
locke42: With the RX100 at practically the same price point, what's the point of this thing?
@plastekI'm not joking in any way. I have carried a pocket camera with me for as long as I can remember. The s95 was a revelation for me. The image quality was noticeably better than the competition. The RX100 is another step up in image quality to be sure. The problem is that it is large enough that I notice it's presence in my pocket. Whereas my s95 went unnoticed and was there when I needed it, the RX100 I consider if I want to take. The RX100 IQ is unquestionably better, but ultimate IQ isn't the most important aspect of a pocket cam for me. In my case, the better camera is the one I have with me, and lately that hasn't been the RX100.
1" Sensor: 16mm x 12.8mm = 204.8sqmm2/3" Sensor: 11mm x 8.8mm = 96.8sqmm1/1.7" Sensor: 9.5mm x 7.6mm = 72.2sqmm
The RX100 is a little over twice the size, while the 2/3" sensor is ~35% larger than the 1/1.7" sensor.
I think it might be a nice jeans pocket camera. The RX100 is too large and heavy for my own use as a pocket cam. I know that this may seem odd to some people, but I come from using a Canon S95, and I've found myself using the RX100 less and less due to the size. It just isn't comfortable to carry in my pocket. I would like the best IQ possible with a camera that l don't mind carrying. It looks like this camera might just be small and light enough to fit the bill.
One other point that is intriguing is the PDAF on sensor. That also has the potential to be helpful in the field.
One last thing, starting at 28mm is a bit maddening for me. 24 would be even better, but starting at 25mm is a plus.
So, does the 12-32 have a metal mount, or a plastic mount?
Trollshavethebestcandy: Is it just me or was this born for the 12 mm Oly?
looking forward to that combination!
manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.
Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.
2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)
@ Bart Hickman. It actually only shows the equivalent values at the extremes. It does not display anything relevant in between. Aperture values are generally not linear, and definitely not for the RX100. I have no idea what the 12-32 will offer, but the progression for the RX100 is roughly (in 35mm equivalent):
28: 1.8=4.931: 2.2=5.934: 2.8=7.642: 3.2=8.654: 3.5=9.565: 4.0=10.876: 4.5=12.196: 4.9=13.2
At the end of the day, the RX100 may still have the lower equivalent F-values for DOF, but until it is filled in, the graph is not very telling...
@Richard Butler:Thanks for the quick response!!! I will look forward to seeing the updated graph when you all have the capability to chart this information. It would be great to have a resource that indicated the relevant aperture for a given focal length. I regret being so negative sounding in my post. You guys work hard to get us this information. Thank you!
This is truly horrible.
If they had at least put their ugly cladding on an RX1, it would at least have stellar IQ, and may have sold - but a NEX-7 with the kit lens, really!?
What a waste!
Low Battery: Jif makes it sound like a cleaning product.....
...or peanut butter...
yabokkie: a 42.5mm f/1.2 FourThirds is a 83mm f/2.4 equivalent on 35mm format (bring you every result the same) and thus worth about 60% of popular 85/1.8 ones, about 300 dollars compared with Nikon G.
You have no knowledge of power. Value is in the eye of the beholder. For you, you won't purchase either of these lenses because you don't perceive their value. For those of us who are involved in the system - these lenses fill holes in the lens lineup - to us the value is different. It is obvious that you have little understanding of the trade offs that are inherent with different systems. Equivalence is largely irrelevant. Stop calculating and go shoot a crop sensor camera - you might actually start to understand why folks are switching to them.
It will probably be priced with a premium, but your logic is flawed. Not everyone has the same "equivalent value" you suggest...
marike6: I'd like to see Panasonic get rid of the ribbed, knurled focus ring. They are dust magnets. In three days, my new PL 25 1.4 had so much lint on the focus ring, it looked like a used lens. Even the 42.5 1.2 prototype seems covered in lint. The tight ribbing of the AF ring just collects it.
Yep. I couldn't agree more.
yabokkie: a 150mm f/2.8 FourThirds is a 294mm f/5.5 equivalent on 35mm format. compared with Canon and Nikon 300mm f/4 ones, this lens should worth about 750 dollars.
Considering Sigma's 150/2.8 is $1100 and the least expensive 300mm SLR lens is $1300, I can hardly see where you get your $750 price.
Z10 is a stupid name...I can't believe they haven't introduced a BlackBerry Pi model to help resurrect the company.
Mike Ronesia: " Panasonic's second constant aperture zoom for Micro Four Thirds"
Isn't it the 3rd?
Looks like this one might be on my list before the 12-35. I've been liking what I've been seeing from it so far.
Yup 7-14 @ F4 and the 12-35 and 35-100 at F2.8.
filipe brandao: I really don't understand why dpreview is clinging on to a marketing catch word ("mirrorless") instead of promoting a more clear classification of cameras. Classifying these cameras as "mirrorless" is the same as saying a pencil is a inkless pen. Its confusing and forsakes a hole history of photography in which most of the cameras didn't have mirrors in their system. One should ask why isn't leica m9 included in this group. Cameras have always been classified by how they allow the photographer to view/focus on the subject and their format. Any effort in this direction would help to clear the marketing confusion in which we roam.
This argument about the name mirrorless is senseless...
CannonO: Sooo.... Sony seems to be best across the board from what I gather here and on other sites.
I strongly disagree with you Zader. Sony has some strong-suits but it is hardly better across the board. Although sony's IQ is at or near the top, their lens selection is middle of the pack at best. While they have 8 lenses now, micro four thirds has 24 distinct lenses. Outside of the NEX7, Sony's 3 and 5 series cameras have limited tactile controls, and a touch screen does not cut it if you are routinely adjusting settings. NEX does have some nice attributes: focus peaking, PDAF adapter for Alpha lenses, but it is hardly better across the board.