thx1138: I think the slow tele end of the zoom range should have been mentioned as a weakness and the rapid drop in aperture. It goes from f/1.8 to f/2 just changing from 28mm to 29mm, which is a joke. To really standout form the first version, it should have been f/4 at tele end, 24mm at wide end, placed more emphasis on improving lens quality as it's clearly soft at the edges and corners of the test scene, had 1/4000 shutter speed, at least allowed monochrome filters in RAW+jpg, kept the RAW files used for the HDR mode, bundled it with an EVF at a good discount.
Still a great little camera, but I'm not really seeing much reason to get this over the original
What a "joke" is that they put some an impressively large sensor in an impressively small body, and yet some people (you) try to find something to complain about.
Is it a problem that it doesn't cook eggs? Perhaps you'd like to complain that you can't change the lenses on it. Or that it doesn't have a full frame sensor in it.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest that it's physically possible to make a faster lens, with that sensor size, in that size of camera body. Have you? What would you suggest, that they make the camera bigger? If you want that, you can buy an lx7 (with a smaller sensor), or a m43rds, or a dslr.
Neodp: A cell phone camera is generally not the real threat to camera sales; but it is to these, small sensor cams.
You would think, the manufactures know how to put together a balanced benefits camera, including a value price. Why don't they?
howardroark, lol, you're going around and around rambling on and contradicting yourself trying to cover up that what I said obviously contradicts what you said in the part I quoted. People are willing to spend more money on a camera if it provides improvements to their photos. The technology exists for cameras to do that. Camera companies simply don't do it, then act like they don't know why their market is plummeting.
They're like AOL, wanting to keep selling dial-up services because they used to be able to make an unbelievable amount of profit off of it, and act dumbfounded that people aren't willing to pay for dial-up service any more.
Or the phone company that wants to try to charge you $30/month for a landline, when you can get basically the same thing from Skype for $5/month.
Or Blackberry or Palm, continuing crappy releases and halfassed phones while the iPhone comes out and provides people with what they actually want.
"Most people who use their phone as their primary camera are those who wouldn't spend money on a camera in the first place."
I've known girls who have bought a seperate camera because they couldn't get decent pics with their phone inside. When they find that their new camera isn't actually any better, they often return it and get their money back.
Before the Nokia 1020 at least, no camera phones could take decent pics of people in indoor lighting. People were still looking for cameras to fill that need.
" The market for p&s cameras may already be saturated but they still seem to sell like hotcakes."
What do you base this on other than wishful thinking? Not only are compact cameras not selling like hotcakes, they're not even selling like boring and reliable products - their sales are going down not up. Here's the first article that came up in a search -
Nikon Sees Smartphones as Answer to Declining Compact Camera Saleshttp://hothardware.com/News/Nikon-Sees-Smartphones-as-Answer-to-Declining-Compact-Camera-Sales/
PaulRivers: This is so lame.
Sony came out with the rx100 which put a much larger sensor in a slightly larger body.
Nikon came out with a phone camera that puts a slightly larger sensor (than the s100/s120) is a much smaller body.
Canon...once again makes petty updates to it's cameras. Oh - and they actually **raise** the retail price for their camera as well. The s120 is now $450? The s95 was $400. They haven't made improvements of any real significance since then.
Seriously, it's no wonder everyone just uses their phone cameras.
"It's a great camera but I'd sure love to have the sensor size your G1X has."
The closest you can get right now is either the Sony rx100m II, or a m43rds camera.
No one knows for sure if Canon will announce more stuff, but at the moment it seems unlikely.
"Not everyone needs a large sensor camera. 99% of users just post to the web. I'll take the 24mm FOV over big pixels."
That's actually true. What's also true is that they're using the camera in their phone to do it.
It's like selling a car that goes the same speed as a bike, then claiming people don't need more than that anyways. Whether that's true or not, why would anyone buy a car that isn't better than their cheaper, smaller bike?
I think he's saying that that difference in size (and the additional burden of carrying a camera) is not worth $450 to most people. And from what I've seen, I agree.
Oh, and as others mentioned, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 has the same body size, same sensor size, f2.0 lens, and zooms to 200mm.
This is so lame.
jl_smith: So all of this camera "innovation" -- are manual controls of the camera one of them? I use iphone 5 and havent used android since my Droid X, so unsire if they let you actually control SS and aperture, ISO now...
Yeah, I think the same thing - a bunch of useless camera and swipe tricks I'll never use, but no control over the shutter speed - which I would actually use a fair amount. *sigh*
TB Rich: Will it still feel like a cheap plastic piece of junk?- I expect so.I was gobsmacked when I first picked up an S3 after all the hype. Perhaps the consumers of today have no need for build quality and things of a tactile nature.Happy with my decision to go for an HTC One, although had the Xperia Z had a more ergonomic feel to it I would probably have plumped for that, very solid.
If you want a phone that's big enough that you never forget you're carrying your phone, and want to call that "build quality", there's plenty of options out there for you.
**Most** people want a phone that's light enough that they forget that they're even carrying it, which is one of the reasons why the galaxy 3 sold so well. Something that's so thin you don't even notice in your pocket.
That sounds really cool, but - has Sony come up with an f2.0 or better **compact** pancake lens **yet**? Like m43rds has, or the Canon mirrorless...
If they have, please post it, and I'll be wrong. But the lack of this kind of lens keeps making the NEX far less useful. Sure, they have a pancake f2.8 - but that's 2 stops behind the lx7, making the low light difference pretty small (especially when others *do* make a compact f2.0 lens). They make an f2.0 prime that's relatively huge for the NEX, negating the advantages of it's small size.
Still seems like the best low light camera with a large sensor is either the Canon EOS-M, or one of the m43rds with the f1.7 prime lens.
Unfortunately, I sounds like this still isn't s100 sized though. The biggest factor in a "jeans pocketable" camera is it's depth.
If the specs are right -s100 - 26.7 mmxz-10 - 34 mmrx100 - 36 mmlx7 - 46 mm
I'm not saying "omg it's useless" - it still has a niche in that it's *much* cheaper than the rx100, and it's low light performance *after* you start zooming will probably be about the same because of it's better apertures when you zoom. And it costs half as much.
It's just (unfortunately) not as jeans-pocketable as an s100, and doesn't have the f1.4 performance of the lens on the lx7.
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.
You gain the ability to blur the background more - but you also get one more factor that can go wrong in your photos and ruin them.
Hand a full frame camera to a an experienced user who's fiddling with all the settings, and you get beautifully blurred backgrounds.
Hand the same camera to someone just trying to take pics of their kids, or an experienced user who just wants to take pics without getting in their head about where exactly the depth of field and focus point is for each and every shot, and you end up with a lot of truly awful images where some people are in focus and others are not, or bizarre looking focus problems where edges of tables go from being in focus to looking unnaturally out of focus and blurry.
Having both wide apertures and a large sensor is like driving a car with a manual trasmission - if you're willing to pay attention to it *all the time*, it gives you more control, but if you don't want to constantly pay attention to it it will seriously screw things up.
It seems to me like you're just using deliberately confusing language to be sensationalistic.
Depth of field is not the primary reason why people buy a compact with better aperture values. Better low light performance is. It is true that because of the sensor size differences, a dslr or larger sensored camera with an f1.8 lens will absolutely perform better than a compact with a an f1.8 lens. s100 vs "crop" dslr comparisons are usually around a 2 stop advantage to the dslr.
But this still does not change that you are getting better low light performance out of a compact with a better lens than you are out of a compact with a worse lens.
The secondary characteristic of aperture and sensor size is depth of field. However, "more depth of field" is a double edged sword in that it brings in as many problems as it provides advantages.
I've been looking for a mountain bike vacation destination, and was wondering - does anyone know where the mountain bike video in the review - was shot?
It's this one -https://vimeo.com/48844018
It's killing me, this looks like exactly what I was looking for...but comments on the video are disabled, and it doesn't say where (as far as I can tell) it was shot...
PaulRivers: I know this has been mentioned in other comments here, that I don't see why this camera gets a "Gold" award when other more deserving cameras did not.
1. Canon removes the articulating screen, assumably for their "take stuff off, add it back on a year later" cycle.2. They put a faster lens on it - but a lens spec that's a year out of date, f1.8 when other cameras come with f1.4.3. Same smaller sensor, rx100 has a sensor 2x as big.
The rx100 is actually innovative, with a sensor that's 2x as large. And iit gets a Silver award? The lx7 is also innovative with it's f1.4 lens (it also got Silver). But Canon's recycled, removed-some-features g15 gets Gold??
I don't know how the rx100 - which is the physically smaller camera - is in a different category that makes it get Silver, while the g15 - which is larger - gets Gold, but that is messed up.
That's not really a review, it's a 3 paragraph bit on "I'm not giving up my rx100, but I guess the g15 is a good camera to".
To be clear, the point isn't that the g15 is a "bad" camera - it's that it's nothing remarkable, or a noteable step forward. In fact Canon deliberately takes features like the articulating screen off of it.
It just doesn't seem at all balanced that cameras that make *actual* steps forward - like the rx100 and the lx7 - get Silver awards, while the g15 which is a "one step forward, one step back, and an incremental (and long overdue) update to the previous version" camera somehow gets a gold.
I could see them all getting gold awards, or them all getting silver awards...