This might be the best/cheapest 4k camcorder on the market.
neil holmes: Wonder if Canon lenses will work better on this with a Kipon AF adapter than on the Gx7?
I'd try the E-M1 since it has Phase detect AF modules and most Canon lenses are designed around that.
Way too big for the GX naming.
Panasonic is playing a game to see how many primes they can fit between 14 and 45mm. Another prime a bit wider or longer would have been nice.
megafolie: Who cares about 4K. How many here have a 4K tv at home. Even then, true 4k content is nearly non-existent. Finally, the difference between 1080P and 4K on a 40" or 50" display is not that visible to the normal human being.
That said, nice camera.
Many photographers care because you can use it as an 8MP still mode that does 30fps bursts of (essentially) infinite length
For pure video features, I agree that most of us aren't there yet.
FrankS009: The RX100 is not that light. It is heavier than a Panasonic GM1 with a 12-32mm lens (and a much bigger sensor) , and only 100g less than a GX7.
GM1 has a max shutter speed of 1/16,000 using the electonic shutter.
joelakeland: Many of the pictures look great, even at 6400, for snap shots with such a small camera. I think though, that the Panasonic GM5 sporting a 12-32 lens would give it quite a good go.
I think you are right, however the f1.8-2.8 lens still gives the RX100 about a stop of advantage. Of course for the price of the RX100, you could get a GM5 kit plus another prime lens.
bzanchet: Original RX100 is still the best of the 4 four cameras for stills, much less noise, more natural, organic.
How's the noise when you are 2 stops down at the long end?
Only 100g less than a GX7 with no lens! Keep it real, man.
I can only take this severely nit-picking review to mean that cameras are getting so good that there is really nothing meaningful to complain about.
So is the govt going to require gigantic copyright symbols on all these buildings so I know which ones are protected by law?
fireplace33: anyone know what the max aperture would be at 50 mm?In such non constant aperture lenses, the F2.8 is sometimes lost very quickly as one zooms in.
I'd like to see a comparison of this lens in its 17-50 range to my Sigma 17-50
I don't know, but the Sigma 17-70 hits f4 at about 50mm. I would presume this wouldn't be much better.
eno2: Everything is very nice about this lens, except the outrageous price.
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 contemporary is $399 right now.
about 50% more than I would pay, but looks like a nice lens.
wootpile: These samples make me buy Ricoh GR
Let me know how your 2.5MP crops to 70mm equiv. turn out.
pako: 1/20 f1.8 at 6400 ISO? are you sure?
Looks like an outdoor shot at night, so probably. Looks very usable!
Fri13: 1:1 reproduction ratio is the requirement for "Macro". But with this 15mm for 36x24mm sensor it would really require to be far more closer than 12cm from the front element, more like a 3-4cm maybe? But how if the front lens is already wider than the 36x24mm, how can you get it to be 1:1?
It's not a constant, it is a ratio. Which means the minimum focus area gets larger or smaller depending on the sensor size. If I'm shooting 1:1 on 4/3, I'm focusing on an area that is 1/4 the size of the smallest area that 1:1 represents on a FF camera. 1:1 might mean something as small as a blueberry on one camera and something as large as an apple on another.
So acting like 1:1 means macro and only 1:1 can be a bit misleading. A small point and shoot might be into macro territory at 1:8.
1:1 is an arbitrary magnification that isn't even a constant across all systems.
tkbslc: I understand there is skill involved with concert photography, however you are recording a show put together by other people. They created the set, scene, ambiance, provided the models and lighting. It's not like you are creating art organically when you photograph it. The musician and her concert team did the bulk of the work and the photo would have no value if not for the musician. It's more of a collaborative work, for which both parties must compromise.
There is no such condition when Apple plays a song on a music service. They did nothing and contributed nothing to that work of art. The should not use it for profit (or promotion) without permission and/or payment.
I don't think that is relevant. The song exists whether it is streamed on iTunes or played from a CD.