Some of the designs are fine, and what some segments of the market want. I'm sure the market will sort them out. And NEX-7 is a good camera to base a product on, even if actually bettered by NEX-6 in Sony's own lineup.
Firmware releases with real improvements are some of the best ways to improve brand reputation. And they are not expensive if they are just backports of some features of new cameras (like in this case). Not nearly as expensive as marketing campaigns or massive returns.
Why would anybody buy this?
Good conclusions in the preview. This marketing-driven design, when products are deliberately worsened not to save cost, but for additional cost, just to segment market, is really long in the tooth.
jhinkey: Ugh - no true 16:9 ratio with a multi-aspect ratio sensor. As someone who shoots a lot of landscapes and is looking for something more compact than my FX DSLR this camera just became much less desirable.
Perhaps, since they say this is "video optimized" they will release some other m43 camera that keeps the multi-aspect sensor capability?
A GH2 may be the way to go or the OM-D just became much more attractive.
There is VERY little difference between the 16:9 crop of 4:3 sensor and 16:9 crop of multiaspect sensor. Just a few percent of sensor area. You will never see a difference in an HD movie or even still picture. Just marketing.
Now when XZ-2 is so much heavier than its predecessor and G15 lighter, they are direct competitors.DPR, I really hope for the article about epic real-world shootout - P7700 vs G15 vs XZ-2 vs X10 vs LX7 vs EX2F - shooting the same scenes at the same time. All kinds of them, from the restaurant to nighttime sports.That would be the most interesting article ever. Much better than studio scenes at the same ISO, because ISO will not be the same. Keeper rate is one of the most interesting metrics.And while IQ of best shots in all cases will be practically the same (until digital zoom kicks in), operational differences will come to light. And I think G15 will lose on the speed alone.
tutek: After 80-100 zoom sony loses the advantage larger sensor (2.89 x larger surface area) because the 3.1 to 3.7 times slower lens. So G15 gives less noise in the telephoto area. Even G1X is not much better with a larger surface area 6.5 sensor (in the end, only 1.6 to 2.7 times). So where should the G15 ISO 100 to sony 300-400, G1X should 250-400ASA.
But how often do you use 100 mm+ vs the rest of the range in the dark?
DPR, it would be interesting to see a combined shoot-out - G15 vs P7700 vs Fuji X10 (if there is no replacement yet) - in natural real-life conditions - night city, a soccer game etc.
peevee1: S110 sucks even more than S100. Same sensor, same processor, same lens, same display, not GPS, and shoots even slower (2.1 fps vs 2.3 fps). Canon has not produced a single competitive camera this year short of 1D X.
Well, in comparison to RX100 S100 certainly sucked. It could certainly be explained by their release dates, but S110 does not have that advantage already.
Kitamura: Got an S90 when it first came out. It has served me well and although I've dropped it many times and it's died and come back to life and I still love it, I think it's time for me to start looking for a new compact. Like the article says, its a great time to be in the market since we're spoilt for choice in this category.
The RX-100 looked like exactly what i need, until I saw the price. If it came down a couple hundred bucks I would reconsider. Then I considered the LX-7 with it's F1.4 lens. Could be great fun. The G15 is also an attractive camera, although I'm disappointed they took away the flipout screen. The new Fujifilm XF-1 is interesting too. I even considered the new Olympus TG-1.
But then I remembered why I bought the S90 in the first place. It's the size. Not sensor size, but the body size. It was the only camera in this class that actually fit in my trouser pocket comfortably. Again, there is some tough competition, but none beat the S110 for pocketability.
Both S110 and RX100 are pocketable. But S110 is still a P&S, in terms of image quality, speed of operation, video, number of shots per charge etc, while RX100 matches or beats any APC-S or smaller-sensored DSLR or mirrorless with their 3.5-5.6 kit lenses (the only exception seems to be Fuji X-E1 because the kit is 2.8-4 and the sensor and JPEG are good).
Michael Doleman: Is it just me, or is Canon's output in anything except their DSLR line increasingly yawn-worthy? As a former S-series owner & fan, this is disheartening. I'm now a Sony RX100 owner and have to say (hopefully without going too far down the road with the hype bandwagon) that it's now difficult to view these tiny-sensor enthusiast compacts as anything but irrelevant. My assumption was that Sony just happened to be lucky enough to be first to market with a large(ish) sensor in a pocketable form factor. I expected the next round of compacts from Canon, Samsung, and Panasonic to all sport larger sensors and be very significant upgrades to each respective model series... Instead: minor refreshes only, right across the board.
Their current DSLR line also sucks, with the lonely exception of 1D X.
Marcin Moscicki: Size of a K-5 (even slightly larger). I guess it's great for those doing video, but I'll pass.
And heavier than A37 and D3200 too. And why it is 82mm deep? It must be a mistake, there is no pentaprism there...
"and shares that model's key features; a super-fast F1.4-2.3 24-90mm equivalent lens in front of a 10.1MP 1/1.7" CMOS sensor. "
Isn't it really a 12Mpix 1/1.7" sensor, and it is just the lens illuminates and the camera uses a smaller 10Mpix part of it? Meaning it has faster lens only because the used area of the sensor is smaller than for other 1/1.7" cameras (kind of like Oly XZ-1 did not use the whole 1/1.63" sensor).
James A Rinner: Interesting statement they made when they compared it to other cameras. "and only lags (in image quality) behind the very impressive Micro Four Thirds Olympus OM-D E-M5." What is Olympus doing so well that the smaller sensor out performs this larger one?
And it does not rob the light with the translucent mirror which is always in the way.
tom1027: You can tell by the comments on this camera there are lots of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.. So many complaints about the sensor size and comparisons to the RX100. If this camera had a larger sensor, they could not have this lens. Sure the RX100 has a big sensor, but at what cost? F/4.9 at 100mm? I'd take the LX7's or XZ-2's sensor and lens combination any day over the RX100. Unless your pixel peeping or printing poster size pics, you're not gonna notice a difference from that big sensor.For those who get hard over big sensors, why wouldn't something like the GF5? The sensor's twice as big as the RX100 and the cam isn't much bigger with the power zoom lens...Bottom line is, it just doesn't make that much sense to put a huge sensor in a camera this small. They will definitely sell lots of them, because so many fools think all that matters is a bigger sensor, but I wouldn't want one until they figure out how to build a better lens for it.
"I'd take the LX7's or XZ-2's sensor and lens combination any day over the RX100. Unless your pixel peeping or printing poster size pics, you're not gonna notice a difference from that big sensor."
You don't need "pixel peeping or printing poster size" to see 2 stop difference in high ISO performance in low light. And indoors or in the evening you will be pushing 6400 or even 12800 in no time even with f/1.8, especially if there is some movement in the frame you want to freeze.
Some people are going for the "X"es. Those who graduated from chasing megapixels. ;)SX50 is definitely for them. Who cares you cannot use 1200mm (let alone 2400 with their digital 100x) handheld, IS or not, and the camera is useless in anything but bright sunlight, and even them a zoom this long must be terrible at ALL focal lengths. And the customers will not bring tripod and remote. "My lens is longer than yours" segment.
Francis Carver: Canon PowerShot SX50: who would actually be BUYING something this awful?
Canon's listed specs for the "new lens" conveniently "forgot" to say anything about aperture. But we can see this by looking at the photos. With an F3.4-6.5 range, this new Canon SX50 is considerably darker than even the darkest days of the Middle Ages.
A 1/2.3-inch sensor coupled with this awfully dark lens means that your video shooting days with this PowerShot SX50 will be restricted to bright sunny days outdoors.
Also, I can't believe Canon is using the same old, same old awfully low-end LCD and EVF for this allegedly "new" camera that they have been using for many years now.
Canon never ceases to amaze/amuse me, and not in a particularly good way, either.
Well, it is cheaper to make inferior products: you don't have to put nearly as much into R&D, don't need to build new production lines if you can reuse old components etc. And if the brand reputation earned by previous efforts still allows you to sell those inferior products to ignorant customers at high prices, you automatically have higher profits for a few years.Yes, it is like selling your assets - after all brand power is an asset. But on the books it looks like genuine profit. Good for manager's bonuses.The pattern is all too familiar. Looks like Canon camera division got themselves an American-tought MBA in management.
DPR - why in the specs of SX50 there is "None" for viewfinder? I see it in the picture.
halc: How about just abandoning the whole line, canon?
Sony is walking over you in terms of ergonomic, image quality, lens, speed, video, everything...
What has Canon left to fight with? Lower price. That's a road to ruin...
They have brand. Making inferior products, they sell it piece by piece, but still something is left for people go ahead and buy Canon by default.
This thing is just A LITTLE bigger than RX100 and just 1 stop worse. Big difference with all the others, who are 2 stops short and, with exception of S110, lose true pocketability too. Style and price might sell this one.