These interviews, as with so many reviews and opinions, highlight the cameras' performance in areas other than image quality for still photography at low (native or near-native) ISO. That's all well and good, because a camera's performance under extreme conditions or when creating videos is important to some segments of the market. But for those who, for example, photograph landscapes, architecture or products, and who must differentiate their work from the competition on the basis of the technical and artist quality of their images, low-ISO performance for still photography merits equal coverage. I hope this concern is addressed in DPReview's full review of the D4 and D800.
Roland Karlsson: We are a bit spoiled. Every new camera must be better than all previous cameras. And the number of features must increase all the time. etc etc etc
So - maybe the G12 is better. Or maybe not. I think the review said that it was a comfortable camera that generally takes very good images. Who cares whats better if it is a good camera?
And - if you want a tiny one you can put in your small trouser pockets - get another one. I can assure you though. Its not as comfortable to use. And the lens is probably way worse.
I agree. The P7100 is an excellent camera, better than the P7000 in many significant ways (I own both). Where the P7000 was rather tedious to use, the P7100 is just fine, in my opinion. As a pro photographer accustomed to using much bulkier gear, I find it a real pleasure to carry the P7100 with me for casual shots. No camera is perfect; for those situations where the P7100 would be appropriate, it does a truly excellent job. I could probably say the same about the G12, although I often appreciate the P7100's greater zoom range. But there's little sense in splitting hairs over this. If the functionality and features of the P7100 appeal to you, and if you know how to take advantage of its manual settings, I would highly recommend it for you.