ambercool: I have to get this!
what sold you on it?
Menneisyys: The lens is definitely not as good as the 12-32, albeit seems to be better than the 16-50PZ.
24mm equiv at f/6.3 (that is, not even wide open): particularly the upper left corner is pretty bad: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2952027/101_0062?inalbum=kodak-pixpro-s-1-preview-samples
After zooming in to 48mm, the corner / border sharpness gets better but they remain somewhat bad; see for example the entire left border of http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2952025/101_0050?inalbum=kodak-pixpro-s-1-preview-samples . This is a F5.6 shot; that is, not even full wide open.
All in all, I don't see much point in preferring it to the GM1 with the kit lens at the current, for the kit IQ, IMHO high price ($599 at amazon), unless you do need the tiltable (but, unlike with the GM1, non-touch) screen / hotshoe / additional reach.
Ignoring the fact that the 400/5.6L is expensive and HUGE, sure, why not.
stratplaya: Is Kodak still "Kodak"? I wonder if the company sold the brand the same way Polaroid did.
Thanks for the correction, I did not know that main license holder was an American company.
Ben O Connor: Dear Olympus
Please put XZ-2's lens on E-PL5, and update it by EM-10's specs. and make this Sony history!
(how easy is that!!! :) )
peevee, he said XZ-2 lens on Epl-5, so the size of the RX100 sensor is not relevant.
Marty4650: This might be the best Kodak branded ILC camera since the DCS-14n SLR over 12 years ago.
And that was an $8,000 camera!
It also might be the only one.... :)
Richard Schumer: Want a REAL bargain m43? I bought a Oly E-PM2 for $206 delivered.
So do Olympus and Panasonic kits after about 9 months. It would be hard to gamble on a new Kodak when a well-known 2 year old Olympus is the same price.
They did. It's owned by a Chinese low-cost electronics company.
The main problem for this camera is that Panasonic and Olympus overproduced their early models enough that they have 3-4 years of old cameras filling the "low cost" 4/3 market.
tkbslc: Seems like the viewfinder on this camera is as much of a curse as it is a blessing due to the implementation.
There just seems to be a lot of negative comments regarding its operational quirks, including a few in this review. That's all.
What's funny is that Back to the Future II took place in 2015. The future is nigh.
By my math, it's a lot worse than that, peevee. XZ-2 is a 4.7x crop sensor, so using that lens on a 2x sensor gives a 2.3x crop. You'd have about 1/5 the area and 2/5 the diagonal. Although that's a rough estimate since it would actually illuminate a circle.
Either that, or you could just call it the worst vignetting known to mankind!
Jerry Pruce: Finally a review. It's been nearly a month and a half since the last product review. With all the cameras/lenses out there still to be reviewed, you'd think DPR would be on it. Their way slow......
You should ask for a refund.
Seems like the viewfinder on this camera is as much of a curse as it is a blessing due to the implementation.
SushiEater: How do you get same exact crops on three different resolution cameras?
I don't think anyone agrees with that interesting theory, sorry.
Your assumptions are just as invalid when you hold it to 300 DPI print at 36MP. That's why I said depends on print size. I don't print large, personally. So this is very relevant. I shoot my Canon on mRAW. I wouldn't ever use a 36MP or 24MP image full size, so this is exactly what I'd rather see.
To be honest, more realistic for me would be normalizing at 8MP. Never have needed more resolution that the old 30D I used to have.
Depends what size you normally print.
And exposure settings are listed as the same, so any exposure difference are sensor sensitivity or lens light transmission.
foto guy: Who cares? These and other cameras can shoot a decent pic at quite high ISOs. Do you think you folks could focus on something important for a change? Perhaps photography, for instance.
Don't feel like that Simon, this was a cool feature article that lots of us appreciated reading.
tkbslc: Obviously 409600 looks like junk, but up to 51200 and even 102400 look pretty usable. Probably 2 stops better than any other FF competitor.
Don't know why that was relevant, and addressed to me, but OK.
starwolfy: Before talking about isos people should learn what a correct exposure is. I shoot iso400 film hand held at night with no tripod on a 55 years old film camera. Look at my results on my gallery (just night examples of what I do, me who is just an amateur).
iso 400.000. Is it what you guys need ? Really ? Really ???
What a joke.
This was just a test comparison not a recommendation to shoot night- scapes at ISO 51200. Most people would obviously use long exposure for a shot like this at low ISO.
Seems like the only advantage comes at 51200+ and then really it's not that usable anyway. It's like bad vs worse, so it doesn't really matter who wins.