alexpaynter: Apple are patting themselves on the back for all this new technology and yet they have not been able to invent the lens cap yet. No camera without protection for the lens is serious.
The iphone 5 features a sapphire crystal lens cover.
alexpaynter: Apparently it is an accomplishment to make something small. Anybody can make something big. Why have a tablet then. Sometimes it is a choice to make something larger. I personally prefer a screen that is a little larger.
It is hard to see a difference between the 4S and 5 in photo quality. My feeling is that the Lumia 920 will be a superior camera especially in low light.
I think you missed the part where the screen size increased from 3.5" to 4". It is bigger where it matters and thinner and lighter where it matters.
LiSkynden: Just watched a video where Phil Schiller guy bragged about their new product and i dont know ... is it kind of sad that the main thing seems to be that "we made the thinest smartphone ever" and wow, its 18% thinner. I mean that is something. ... or is it?
He doesn't need to brag. Iphone 5 is expected outsell any smartphone ever sold.
mngphotog: smart phone cameras suck, sensor is to small, we all know that. thats it
The best camera is the one you have with you.
danaceb: I am sick an tired of these tablet phones that you need the thumb reach of a yeti to work with one hand, since Job's departure its clear that Apple has no qualms about copycatting back rather than innovating.
Oh an also good to know this thing has the floppy screen integrity of an eggshell, just like the Galaxy S III, way to go once again Apple. Not like the thing was tough before, but it would still work with a small crack unlike the Galaxy S phones which were done for on slight impact.
If length was the problem, use portait mode, genius. Or get a blackberry. There are many devices out there; use the right tool for the right job.
About the screen issue, Apple does not cater to clumsy people.
230 Shots per battery? That is much worse than the two year old NEX 5. No tilting screen. $1K price barrier. Too little too late.
ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.
His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.
Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.
Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.
Olympians are good role models for work ethic. Living in America, I notice that even as a rich nation, Americans are the most overweight and obese. Elevators instead of stairs . Fast food instead of home cooking. Somehow I doubt we are doing everything we can to survive.
Dimitri Khoz: Per-pixel noise characteristics of RX100 will be similar to Canon S95.
S95 sensor area/MP count = 42/10 = 4.2 = 100%RX100 sensor area/MP count = 116/20.9 = 5.55 = 132%
Comparing to the APS-C cameras RX100 will lose about 2 stops: 3200D sensor area/MP count = 358/24.7 = 14.49 = 345%G1X sensor area/MP count = 262/14.3 = 18.32 = 436%
Comparing to full frame one can see that per-pixel difference between G1X and RX100 will be bigger than between G1X and 5DMark3:Canon 5DMark3 sensor area/MP count = 864/23.5 = 36.92 = 879%
By your logic, my 8 year old 2MP camera has comparable image quality to the new RX100.
Stick your head out of viewing images at 100% crop and downsample to equivalent crops and tell me whether you think the S95 image quality is comparable to the RX100.
Marty4650: If this camera was around the same price as a Canon S100, then it will be a huge hit.
But Sony is planning to sell it for around the same price as a Nikon D5100 with lens, or twice as much as an S100, and that price just won't fly. It's a nice little camera but it just doesn't offer enough value for the money.
Apparently Marty subscribes to the antiquated notion that portability must equate to being cheap and mediocre and not exceptional with a corresponding premium price.
T3: People who so adamantly want to use a hotshoe flash with this camera, have you stopped to consider how the handling would be if you mounted a hotshoe flash onto such a compact camera? I think when people finally put this camera into their hands and realize who small/light it is, they'll realize who awkward it would be to mount a hotshoe flash onto this camera. Essentially, it's more or less the same size as a Canon S100, which is darn small. Even a compact two-battery hotshoe flash would be fairly large on a camera that is about the size of an S100. Forget about putting a four-battery flash on it.
Besides, of the enthusiast compacts that do have hotshoes, I wonder how many of those users actually use a hotshoe flash on those cameras. Probably not many. But at least those cameras, like the Fuji X10, Oly ZX-1, and Canon G-series, all have larger bodies where a hotshoe flash is a bit less awkward and off-balancing.
@Seagull By your logic, all cellphones should have a hotshoe on it.
Canon G1X = $800. Sony RX100 = $650.
Sony NEX and Panny GX shows you can have good image quality and good compact physical design. Even if the Pentax gets good IQ, does that justify a heavy/bulky design? Doesn't make sense.
Last time I checked, m4/3 also has sensor shift IS so that can't be the reason.
Yellow one looks like it was designed by Fisher Price. White one looks like a type of medical x-ray device. Sure, I don't mind a camera that attracts attention but not for the wrong reasons.
G Davidson: What a shame, so many sensor generations and still the poor noise level.
Pixel density does mean more noise because the smaller the pixel the less light absorbed.
Bokeh_freak: The Olympus SZ-30MR also has 24x zoom but in a pocketable body. Game over.
If you want image quality, the fuji HS20 EXR is better than the fz48 and has raw to boot.
The Olympus SZ-30MR also has 24x zoom but in a pocketable body. Game over.