0mega: It is a bumper that the new nexus 6 cost more than I wanted, best is to wait a few months that will likely get $50 drop and tax free, I won't go get one right away that included tax will surpass $700 mark. Or just wait till new android L if it can really help improve my nexus 5 battery, the main issue i had with nexus 5 is the horrible battery life can only last 4-6 hours in moderate usage.
Horrible battery life is probably because you use the stock email app (yellow icon) with some mail service which is not optimized for it (yahoo?). Use some other mail app, like Yahoo mail for yahoo account. I know 2 (TWO) people for whom it made a huge difference.
photophile: Still no mention of RAW support! I have had the Nexus 5 for a few months now. Great phone/gadget etc - but less than stellar camera output. Crunches 8MP worth of data down to sub 2MB - with fairly strong detail smearing. Was hoping RAW would offer a bit of headroom to PP my own pics.
Wait for Android 5.0, it is just a few days now...
Kiril Karaatanasov: The Nexus line is going from bad to worse. I have had all Nexus phones to date but just bought Xperia Z3 Dual to replace the Nexus 5. Nexus 6 is no starter except I may get one to use as debugging tool. Why Motorola? Sony, LG and may be HTC or even Huawei would have been better choice... Motorola are proving every year for past 5 years to be the worst Android brand.
What is so bad about it? Seems like a perfect thing for those who want its huge size. Sure, if you want bloatware and no updates (or very late update once et best), you might choose something else except Nexus. If you want low quality and no support, you may even choose Samsung or even Huawei.
Eric Calabros: "Though this kind of shot results in expected sensor noise"Sorry, I didn't expect that much
Sony 4/3 sensor in most Olympus m43 cameras, Panasonic GH3 and probably Kodak S-1 does not have a noise problem at ISO800. Not at all.As you can see from that comparison, more than 2 y/o Olympus E-PM2 beats Canon G1X Mk II in every category by a very good margin:http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-PowerShot-G1-X-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PM2___941_840Yes, it is maybe slightly smaller than the crop used in G1X2, but technology matters more.
"starting at $649"
Big departure from the value of previous Nexus phones, starting from $299 for Nexus 4 (initially, even before $100 drop) and $349 for Nexus 5.Still better than $850 for unlocked/off contract Samsung Note 4, and combined with much better software update support for any Nexus compared to what Samsung does, it is still a much better value for those who like the gigantic phones.
Kevin Coppalotti: Dynamic range.want.more. any thing coming?
Rishi, you base it on DxOMark score, right? But they score "Dynamic Range" on the normalized (to 8mpix) DR, not on on-pixel DR. If you look at the graph in "Screen" mode, you will see that base DR is within measurement error. Every pixel in A7s has 3 times of full well capacity of A7R, it needs 2 more bits of ADC to quantize that properly. I would not be surprised that A7s DR limiting is CAUSED by the same ADCs as used for A7R instead of using 16-bit ones (with 4 times higher resolution).
mpgxsvcd: For me the LX100 is an alternative to buying the 12-35mm F2.8 lens for my GH4. I compared the LX100 to the GH4 sample test images and the LX100 looks like a great match for the GH4 and my 35-100mm F2.8 lens.
The GH4 has slightly better RAW noise characteristics but I like the color reproduction and lens of the LX100 better than the 12-35mm F2.8 m4/3s lens.
I think the LX100 is a home run. The 1 inch sensor cameras don’t look so great next to it now that we have seen some RAW files.
Suntan, you missed the part "will not sell for many customers" in my post to which you answered.
"Actually, the "low" resolution of the LX100 is one of the things I am attracted to."
Suntan, YOU is not the only person in the market. To compete in the market, a manufacturer have to generate volume sales, and A LOT of people will chose 20mpix RX100 over 12mpix LX100.At least they could have provided the option of uncropped sensor readout, I am sure the black-rounded-corner look would become a signature look for the camera.
"The point is that you are not using that extra detail if you are using a 4K or less screen or printing at 8x10 or smaller."
Wrong, 3 mpix is not enough for 8x10. And on any screen, you or somebody with whom you shared the picture might want to zoom in into the picture to see more details, or crop just part of the picture.Again, 75mm-equivalent is very often not enough, and then all you have is crop. If it had been 200mm, I would not complain, 12mpix would be OK.
Simon97: Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".
It is not megapixel race, it is almost 2x sensor size advantage.
"Not that many people actually print large format pictures anymore. The highest resolution commercial display is only 4K(8 megapixels)."
Noise is not ALWAYS a limiting factor. Plenty of shots are done in good light. And yes, current tech EASILY allows to produce not only 24mpix 4/3 sensor but even gigapixel ones. Just scale all those smartphone 1/3.2" 13-mpix sensor and you are in gigapixel territory. Upscale Sony's excellent BSI-CMOS 1" to 4/3" size, and you got 40 mpix - as you should today. Sensor like this in LX100 body would be a game-changer, easily compensating for lack of reach of the lens (even 2x crop still gives you quality of Fuji X30 for example). Of course they would need to update their processors too from the ancient 65nm tech they use, Qualcomm Krait manufactured on 20nm, like in almost all smartphones today, would be what doctor ordered.
In 16:9 crop.And moderate 2x digital zoom in 16:9 ratio on LX100 is below 3 mpix. If it would be 8, it would be just fantastic. But they need to start with 32mpix+ for that.Again, on m43 it is not such a problem, lenses like Oly 40-150 can be had for $99, Pana 45-200 is not much more especially used. But for LX100, where not even all 16mpix of the sensor are used to begin with, higher res is very much necessary to compete.
"Right the ability to crop (a version of digital zooming) can be helpful."
So it does need it. And yes, with blight lenses like LX100 has, current pixel size on the 12mpix crop in LX100 is much bigger than Aire disk, there is plenty there to increase resolution, especially for digital zoom. It's not like you can change lens on LX100 for tele reach. And add even moderate 2x digital zoom (crop), and we are seeing 3mpix which is not nearly enough - at very very moderate 150mm reach.
But Panasonic desperately needs higher-res sensor, at least 24mpix to compete with 24-28mpix APS-C and 20mpix 1" - especially for digital zoom which is the only tele option for LX100. 12mpix crop will not sell for many customers, unfortunately.
Finally, some interesting and useful info, first in a month.Of course, testing a5100 with Sony FE55 is misleading, almost nobody will use this combination and almost all buyers will use Sony E 16-55PZ instead, which should have been used for testing.
bawbaw: Commercial use in the uk requires a CAA approved pilot to verify your ability to fly and operate it. Fly it without that anyone even seeing it in the sky on a commercial job can sue you, oh and the CAA can too.
Information like this needs to be in these reviews!
They should include the fact that 2+2=4 now too, right? After all, it is not hard. :)
"Information like this needs to be in these reviews!"
Right, full info about particulars of law in all 200 little countries.
peevee1: Why would you need a firmware for a connecting dock at all, let alone firmware added individually for each lens? Sounds like some terrible engineering.And instead of requiring the expensive dock different for each mount, couldn't they simply add a microUSB port on the side for lens firmware updates and calibration?
"Also what if you're in the field tweaking your lens and you yank the USB cord from the lens rendering it inoperable?"
Why would you do it? Why you update firmware in the field to begin with? But almost every phone out there connected and disconnected to microUSB at least daily - how many of them go "inoperable" because of yanking the cord?Sounds like a bad engineering or a case for selling you a pretty expensive connector, several of them if you happen to use more than one system.And now you have to bring the dock to "the field" - who does that? And what if you "yank" the cord out of the dock, rendering it "inoperable"?
Why would you need a firmware for a connecting dock at all, let alone firmware added individually for each lens? Sounds like some terrible engineering.And instead of requiring the expensive dock different for each mount, couldn't they simply add a microUSB port on the side for lens firmware updates and calibration?
peevee1: For $300, you can buy TG-3 or WG-3 GPS, not this joke. Unfortunately, they missed again.I want waterproof G7X, without any bulky underwater case.
Nikon AW1 with a zoom lens is nowhere near being pocketable, AND nowhere near quality of G7x (its slow lens and average non-BSI sensor put it into the same IQ category as TG-3, only bigger and more expensive).