Valentinian: The sensor is great (at least in principle - let's wait for the review), the 22mm lens seems also very good; too bad Canon didn't make a camera to compete with the E-M5, GH3...(are they afraid it would compete with their own DSLR ?)
5N? It is more like Oly E-PM1 or Pana GF5.
Nikonworks: Canon blew it with no articulating lcd.
They could have grabbed a large part of the market.
Also the 22 mm kit lens is not for newbies.
They will not be satisfied with 33 mm equiv fixed outlook on things.
This prime will make enthusiasts happy but the body it is attached to is quite simple ( as Canon puts in their press release ).
Kudos to Canon for serving photographer's needs with the APS-C sensor size , not worrying about cutting into DSLR sales as Nikon did with the V1.
I won't buy it but it is good news for all of us photographers.
It is actually heavier than NEX-C3.
EOS M with the adapter seems like a good backup camera for a professional with 7D, not taking too much space and weight (although I don't know how much the adapter weighs). But as an only system in your home, there are much, MUCH better choices from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung.
Koulang: 12MP hardly satisfies the users. I would be excellent if it features 16PM like its younger brother FZ60. 12PM was good if it came out 3 years ago, but now it is the lowest.
Even adjusting for the resolution loss of Bayer-filtered sensor, 1Mpx or even 0.5Mpx on a sensor this size is maximum which can provide any benefit.Please realize that at 12mpix the distance between two adjusting sensors is already less than 2 wavelengths of red light. It is ridiculous.
The lens does not have the resolution for 12Mpix, let alone 16Mpix. Let's see, even if it is good (which I doubt, there are no such things as good superzooms) it's MTF80 is about 50lp/mm (or, in less technical terms, 100 ideal black-and-white lines per mm which are "only" 80% blurred together, details in less contrasty real world disappear much earlier). On the 6.08 x 4.56 mm sensor in this thing it gives 608x456 pixels (with the adjusting ones 80% blurred together), or 0.27 Mpix. As you can see, lens quality war is long overdue, and these kinds of megapixels on tiny sensors are just pure marketing ploy.
peevee1: The second not-_totally_-junk bridge after X-S1. Still junk, just not _totally_. :)
Strange thing that the weight is listed at 588g, just as FZ60. Must be an error, the lens in FZ200 should be significantly heavier.
It is easy to know even from specs alone. For example, on FZ60 (not a worst bridge camera, and brand new) maximum aperture goes to f/5.2 at the long end over 1/2.33" (27 mm2) sensor. The FF sensor is 840 mm2, or 31 times (about 5 stops) bigger. I.e. the equivalent aperture is f/29, or WAY beyond diffraction limit. You just cannot fool physics, the pictures WILL be blurred even at bright light (not to mention that at anything below sunlight amount of light reaching the tiny sensor at f/5.2 will be so low it will be mostly noise and noise-reduction artifacts).Another thing, if you ever seen MTF graphs, you know how hard it is to make a good zoom, even 3x, working well at all apertures (esp. wide open) and at all focal lengths. 24x-36x in a cheap camera? Please. And the smallest possible sensor.About the cost - E-PM1+14-42+40-150 (28-300eq) is cheaper (when bought together), lighter in the hands and way better. Not to mention E-PL1 ($190 with 14-42 refurb, +$100-$200 for 40-150).
kodachromeguy: Does anyone use "scene modes?" "Sweet Child's Face" - seriously? I would think the level of photographer using a G5 would not be interested. For that matter, I cannot recall seeing point-and-shoot users selecting the modes, either; most of them just point and shoot.
No, they are actually convenient sometimes as a shortcut for a lot of settings in time-constrained situations.
peevee1: "The Extra Tele Conversion function extends zoom range Max 4.8x without deterioration of image quality."
Either their video is very bad at the normal mode, or it is just false advertisement. You understand, for 4.8x digital teleconversion you need to use 1/23 part of the sensor. In could not possibly be as good as video from the whole sensor unless it is a complete junk to begin with. Starting with 4/3, it is like 1/4" sensor, it is not that small even in tiny cheap consumer camcorders.
And without IBIS, you still can use only a handful on Pana zooms for video, or have to shoot from a tripod, if you want something better than a shaky-blurry. The same for stills in low light.
The 16:9 ratio from that sensor is about 13-14 mpixels to begin with. 4.8x teleconversion uses 1/23 part of the sensor, so it could not use more than about 0.7 mpixels. It is pretty terrible to make 2mpix video from 0.7 mpixels, but even at if at normal mode they use only 2 mpixels of the sensor instead of full 14, they lose A LOT of light to begin with. Almost 4 stops of light. In terms of quality, it is like shooting at ISO 25600 instead of 1600 - i.e. lots noise and color blotching everywhere instead of a clean image.
His memory card performance database was (and I think still is) the best out there.
One good thing about RX100 that it's surface is smooth and rounded, no hot shoe, all lugs and buttons and dials are recessed, nothing except the reasonably-sized lens barrel in the middle to catch in your pockets. Seems like this grip might add one more point which can make it not so easy to slip in a tight pocket.The camera is very light and the shutter release is on top, I don't think a user is supposed to grip it as a DSLR, it should rest on top of a ring finger (or even a pinky if you have a small hand), with middle finger just giving it balance.
px1: I'm mystified. The Sony RX100 claims to have a 1.0" sensor, then further specifies it as "13.2mm X 8.8MM". Maybe my math is all wrong but that is nowhere near 1 inch.In fact what I calc is a diagonal of about 16mm, which is about 2/3 inch.In area comparison to a 1/1.7 inch square (a rough estimate of LX7's sensor size, I get the RX100's sensor area at 251 sq mm and LX7 at 223 sq mm.
Could someone else give it a try and see what you calc. I'll admit an error on my part if I'm shown it.
"1/1.7" is measured by the same old stick as 1", a "diameter of outer tube" bla bla bla.To get real, the diagonal of the sensor in LX7 is also not 1/1.7", which would be 25.4/1.7=15mm. It is sqrt(7.44^2+5.58^2)=9mm.LX7's sensor's area is 7.44*5.58=41.5 MM2.It is 251/41.5=6 times smaller, or ln(6)/ln(2)=2.6 stops smaller.To match the amount of light RX100 gets at f/1.8, LX7 would require 1.8/(1.41^2.6) = f/0.74 lens.
ALERT!!!The specifications are deceptive. The weight of 294g is WITHOUT battery (and SD card I presume):http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=20206The depth of 29mm is just a lie (probably is measured in the thinnest point and not at thickest as required and reported by other manufacturers).I would not be surprised if they report width without the protruding lugs etc.They think if they are not a Japanese company they can avoid following CIPA standards? But it is just a fraud. Buyer beware!
I should say I don't quite get the value proposition of Pana LX7 and Samsung EX2F at $500 price point. Neither are truely jeans-or-shirt pocketable (unless you like to carry 300g bricks with protruding lenses and hot shoes and lugs in your pants). And if we are talking about 300g (with lens) and coat-pocketable, Panasonic GF3 ($366 now on Amazon with kit lens) or Oly E-PM1 give you that, are cheaper and allow you to install a different lens if the very limited abilities of their kits (similar to the built-in lenses of EX2 and LX7) will constrain you (not to mention E-PL1 etc which are dirt-cheap).
As they are, both EX2F and LX7 should be around $300-$350.
RX100 is the different case though - it is truly pocketable (although pushing it) and yet able to provide better image quality than the 12mpx m43rds with kit lenses, at least at the wide end. $650 seems overpriced too - it is a territory of entry-level DSLRs and good mirrorless - but none of them are pocketable, so no competition.
John Koch: The FX200 may be the most remarkable of the three Panasonics making their debut. The others have competition from Sony, Samsung, or Olympus. SFAIK, no one, but no one, offers a zoom model with constant F/2.8 aperture or anything close. Yes, the sensor is small (no other way to make such a zoom compact), but I'd be curious to see whether it matches or even outperforms large sensor cameras at the long end, since the aperture of a 600mm FF camera lens would probably have to be F/8 or narrower, or else be huge and fabulously expensive.
Yet among bridge cameras Fuji X-S1 is still better in the most usable focal lengths, as much as 1.5 stops better at wide angle. FX200 is only better roughly above 300mm eq, and only significantly better by the 600mm long end. Shooting wildlife in the dusk?
ybizzle: This could very well be the greatest camera of all time...Until the 1DX MK2 comes out that is...
Might be, if your definition of greatest does not include small size, light weight or high resolution. Everybody gives different weights to different parameters, and at some point every parameter, even Number One on one's list, becomes "good enough", giving way to importance of other things.
26081989: Although I really like the idea of video tutorials, I can't really understand why one would want to play these back on the camera itself. When I watch photo related tutorials I try out the given tips or settings on my camera. This would be hard to do if you need the camera itself to watch these files. Or would this be aimed at people who go out on the field and watch the videos?
Imagine a photographer new to 1D X wants to try out a new feature in the field. Having it on youtube is no help at all, while seeing it right on the camera, when you can immediately find and try all the buttons/dials/switches etc referred, is useful.
peevee1: How big is the sensor - 1/2.33"?
I mean if it is, f/6.3 at the long end is worse than f/24 on FF, i.e. will produce such a massive diffraction blur that the camera is very bad even in bright sunlight (not to mention the behavior of such sensors in dusk/indoors).$350? They must be dreaming.Although they will probably find some market among lonely narcissists shooting their own faces at 25mm. :)
How big is the sensor - 1/2.33"?
Greynerd: I note the way in just announcing a price decrease they emphasis that the lens slows to 2.7. As most cameras drop to far worst apertures it is interesting why the fairly wide maximum aperture on the Samsung is described as slow.
It is not "described as slow", it is described as quote: "slowing down to F2.7 at the 80mm equiv end", which it is. Lens of Pana LX7 has it bet, slowing down only to 2.3, and not at 80 but at 90mm eq (meaning that at 80mm it is 2-2.2). So the decision comes down to what do you need more:1) 80-90mm range+better quality (2/3 stop) at longer lengths+shallower DoF.2) WiFi+articulated screen.
Good to have a choice.
"The Extra Tele Conversion function extends zoom range Max 4.8x without deterioration of image quality."