zodiacfml: It's only now I realized why it is isn't APSC sized sensor. They don't want to compete with their NEX line.
APS-c sensor would require a 16-135mm f/2.8 lens, or even f/4 if you want to consider matching high iso noise performance. Such lens would be big, heavy and more expensive.
Another way to look at it: consider NEX-6 ($850 body only at launch). And Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 Vario-Elmar lens ($1000). You're already $500 over.
Artistico: Looks like a fine camera on paper, though one of my pet peeves is the unnecessary pixel count of the RX cameras as 12 megapixels would have given the same amount of detail with reduced noise, better dynamic range and smaller file sizes.
The sensor is excellent on RX100 and in fact matches well with m43 sensors which are larger. Noise is also practically a non-issue in the price class, especially when shooting RAW. And this, with 20 MP to play with (which can also help extend reach via cropping, or clear image zoom, or similar features if they are included).
thx1138: Wow, this is a beautiful camera IMO and is that a first, a compact with a top mount LCD just like a full size DSLR?
A very good travel companion for a DSLR, but what's with the slow min shutter speed of 1/3220 on an f/2.8 lens.
The LCD on top was also on Sony F828 (a predecessor to RX10). The F828 had similar reach (28-200 equiv. in that case) with a bright lens (f/2-2.8) but the sensor was much smaller. And I still use my ten year old Sony F828 as the third option and if not for the small sensor with limited ISO performance, it still remains a great camera especially due to its lens and features (including the option to shoot in IR mode, and silent shutter).
The F828 was limited to 1/2000s and with f/2-2.8, even at ISO 64, it was easy to exceed the shutter speed limit. The RX10 is actually better if it can handle 1/3200s as the typical DSLR about 1/4000s (including some FF DSLRs).
ric63: Long awaited succesor to the amazing and ground breaking camera the R1Sony is the only company that keeps trying, some things are good, some things are simply bad, and things like this are stunning.They dont keep punching out face lifted same old same old.Well done Sony for having a go.Expensive yes, but also an instant classic. Will be nice next to my R1.
FZ10 was contemporary to Sony F828, a camera I still have and use as a third option. The F828 came with a larger sensor and 28-200 equiv. f/2-2.8 Vario-Sonnar. The RX10 goes for 24-200 equiv f/2.8 but on a much larger sensor (4x the size of F828). It should be quite a practical camera.
YiannisPP: The only thing that could stop me from buying this is the thought that a year later they could release the RX20 with 300mm reach, constant F2.8 and only slightly bigger. Now that would be annoying!
The ten year old F828 doesn't, and it had 28-200 equiv Vario-Sonnar (f/2-2.8). The sensor on F828 was, however, much smaller.
micksh6: 200mm F2.8 lens should have 71.4 mm entrance pupil. How come this has 62mm filter (about 50mm front element diameter)?
FL is 73.3mm, so 26mm entrance pupil.
While the article speaks of really simple lenses, even regular lenses are already receiving a substantial boost via software (sometimes, corrections being applied even to RAW). Optical designs have already begun to give way to software corrections.
Pritzl: They could have at least tested with a halfway decent lens. That 40mm is not a speed demon by all accounts. I have a hard time believing they did not have access to better lenses.
@tkbslc:If they can't handle a kit lens being called a kit lens because it is weather sealed, premium option on a premium weather sealed body, the least you could do is present facts.
And peevee is right. STM lenses are the perfect choice for the Canon. It would have been injustice to 70D if Canon 17-55/2.8 were pitted against the A77+16-50/2.8 combo.
Suave: Doesn't Sony have a 18-55 lens similar to Canon's kit lens?
"That's like calling the 24-105L a kit lens."
Except that A77 was offered only with 16-50/2.8 SSM as the kit lens. A65 was matched to 18-55/3.5-5.6 SAM.
Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM is the kit lens for A77.
ianimal: Ain't the Sony SLT auto-focus limited to only f/3.5 aperture? And the Canon can in theory use any aperture? I just asking, don't blame me :)
Likely a choice made as a compromise between AF accuracy and light gathering. Continuous AF may be better optimized at these apertures.
I personally prefer MF for video.
16-50/2.8 SSM is the kit zoom for A77 ($500 over body-only). The weather-sealed combination was launched as such two years ago.
"Our concern is that while it was designed to appeal to those who want the perception of professional quality offered by the SLRs of other manufacturers, despite its appearance the A3000 fails in two key ways: it neither feels like an SLR nor does it function like an SLR"
Ahem. Pathetic review. Please do not make a habit out of it. Unless you can really prove that professional quality for images cannot be taken with this camera but can be with competing DSLRs. Seriously? Looks? Feel? Or, perhaps I'm trailing recent advancements in photography reviews where color of lipstick takes a higher priority.
qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...can't people just get a grip?
Which DSLR weighs 222g (280g with battery)? This NEX is an option for those who whine about not getting a grip with RF form of the NEX bodies offered so far.
ProfHankD: "In the default Face-detection + tracking mode, pointing the camera at 'faceless' scenes can take about a second to focus on just about anything you point it at. " ... "What's sure is that live view and video phase-detect autofocus has a new champion in Canon's new Dual Pixel AF."
Really? I mean, it's not like anybody else has been making cameras with fast(er) PDAF live view... well, Sony's had it since 2008 (in the A350 and every DSLR and SLT since then) and Nikon has had a fast on-sensor PDAF since 2011 (in the Nikon 1 line), but hey, they're not Canon. Amazon sell a lot of Canons, do they? ;-)
None of the arguments presented address the point. DPR's claim has validity only if it can beat AF performance of SLTs, and I will bet it doesn't.
BTW, am I the only one who notices sharpness of images being rescued with high degree of sharpening of RAW?
Glenn: No comparison with Sony dslrs? Why would that be? Is the af netter worse or on par with the current SLT's
You're being vague. Have you used either?
That would require either more objectivity or a simple awareness of products available in the market.
mpgxsvcd: I find it interesting that mirrorless solutions are chastised for not being able to focus on a subject running directly at the camera all the way up to the minimum focus distance. While the 70D is hailed as the next great camera for shooting at the hyperfocal distance.
Let’s see how this camera does tracking a specific object that is moving amongst other objects all while the camera is trying to just keep it in the field of view and not necessarily in the center. This is the standard that m4/3s is measured against. It should be the same for the 70D.
I seriously doubt that 70D's DPAF system is aimed at anything but faster AF for video only, as opposed to action photography that is possible on Live View with Sony's SLT.
rrccad, that would be how all DSLR PDAF system works. And I doubt DPAF can keep up with its own PDAF much less that of an SLT like A77 which is one of the fastest AF DSLR/DSLT out there. But, I look forward to DPR actually performing an objective comparison.
The Lotus Eater: Canon chickened out putting an EVF into this camera. The obvious reason is that they would have upset a lot of people, and that's fair enough, but how much more can they improve their APS-C OVFs? EVFs are getting better and better, and many EVFs already surpass APS-C OVFs in terms of both view and functionality.
How good is Canon's on-sensor PDAF? If it is as fast as the off-sensor PDAF module, then Canon should have removed the OVF, mirror and PDAF module. Does the fact that they haven't indicate that it isn't as fast, or is it purely for the reason of avoiding alienation? If the latter, then one could argue that it is a compromised design.
OVF and advancements in LiveView AF are mutually exclusive.