DPJoe2: Apple, are you listening? Wake up! Open your eyes. If you are as serious about media as you claim, buy Sony and Nikon. Disrupt the world!
Apple phones consistently win "real world" photo comparisons, so I disagree. Many, many people buy iphones because it's got a good point and shoot camera along with lots of apps for editing and sharing.
1/10000 are actually going to shoot RAW on a phone. Carrying lenses defeats the purpose of a camera phone. The more you try to turn it into a "Real" camera, the less appeal it has as an always in your pocket device.
I wouldn't argue with a microSD slot and some manual controls in menu that you could enable, though. Although, again, prob 99% of apple's customers love that you just mash a circle button and the pictures turn out great most of the time.
tompabes2: Two turkeys don't make an eagle.
Ironic calling the biggest imaging company and the biggest software company "turkeys".
Those supposed "iphone problems" don't mean anything to the average consumer. If you want to argue enthusiast camera phones, well that's a tiny niche. Apple's too busy making money hand over fist providing consumers with mass-appeal products with a touch of status thrown in.
Juandante: In 2 years : Microsoft bought Canon for 0.9 billion $$ !!!
Canon is worth 37 billion today, so they probably aren't going to drop 97% in two years.
Why? Apple is already the #1 camera company.
I was wondering when a camera company was going to partner with a cell phone maker. Seems like a smart move. Maybe the next Lumias will have Canon L lenses (instead of zeiss) and shoot CR2 files.
saralecaire: Still more expensive than the brand new and 4K capable Panasonic FZ1000.
like .005% of the population has a 4K TV and computer. It's a marketing gimmick.
Excellent and unique.
Matches the 100-400L at 400mm and gives you another 50% more zoom range. Well worth the price.
Even for owners of other m4/3 bodies, the kit lenses might be fun to pick up for (presumably) peanuts on ebay.
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.