chekist: I find this general recommendation a bit hard to interpret.
For instance "best all-rounder" sounds like the best all around... But probably has the worst image out of the bunch. RX100 which is quietly tacked at the bottom is a true gem, and its position misleads people to believe it is an afterthought. While Canon G15 is sitting in the top spot (I guess alphabetically) with meaningless comment like "fast lens, great ergonomics." Its lens is no faster than few others and ergonomics alone surely does not qualify a camera for such an endorsement.
Perhaps it would be better to have some table with types of features reviewers have been looking at and how each camera has scored. This would in a glance explain the criteria for each.
cannot see, and call themselves photographer?
Tape5: It was nice seeing RX100 at the end of the list which is what you expect if it is the best in the list right? Best IQ and smallest.
best of all and in tele you can go to 3200 iso. works great in RAw and as viewfinder you use the Clearfinder. RX100 fits in your pocket. The best camera is the one you can take with you.........
Jim: Why wasn'tt the G1X included?
slow and big as a brick
Slanicka Tomas: I can't believe my eyes. I have checked calendar. Today is not 1.april. Where is LX7, P7700, XF1 and other cameras which takes good pictures? If you define category which requires to choose between G15, LX7 or P7700, so I don't agree but accept that the G15 win. But the theme is Compact cameras. Compact. So why is FZ-200 between compact cameras? Is it possible to put this monster into pocket? No! Much more compact than FZ-200 is G1X.Boys, boys, I believe that you made this list of top 5 cameras with good intention but without description of your ideas we don't understand to you.
G1X is useless slow. RX100 is great with a Clearviewer as VF
RX100 is the best and with a clearviewer it works perfect
Ulfric M Douglas: As a 'plus' for the olympus XZ-2 I'm surprised DPReview hasn't mentioned the VF-2 (and VF-3) optional EVF viewfinders. On a recent sunlit woodland event the Vf-2 proved a great bonus for some photos on the XZ-1 ... just saying.Expensive but EXISTS.
or a clearviewer, works perfect
PedroMZ: Sony. What you don't like should include ..no viewfinder and no option to fit one, you say yourselves that the screen is difficult to see in poor light. How much would it have cost Sony to add a slot to plug in an additional EVF,as found on the Olympus and the Panasonic LX 7 ?
just buy a clearviewer, works perfect
SergeyMS: Absolutely disagree with such camera choice. Fuji X-10, Leica X-2, Sony Nex-7 (it have size of compact) are the best compact cameras.
and NO compact
Hubertus Bigend: I wonder why nobody seems to feel that the lack of a viewfinder is something to not like. Especially with travel zooms reaching up to 480 mm (eq.) or more, I cannot believe even half-serious telephoto shooting is possible at all; without a finder it is already improbable to even, well, /find/ a subject like, say, a bird in a tree.
If miniaturization will produce a travel zoom including a viewfinder at some point in time, that will probably be the first time I'll see myself inclined to perhaps replace my old Olympus C-70Z...
buy a clearviewer, works perfect
Aleksandr Pishchik: I am yet to see a Pro who is using NEX system. I am not sure if it is possible to produce a high quality work without good optical viewfinder. NEX in my humble opinion is a good pocket camera to carry around, but Iphone, if is not a match yet, but will be pretty soon. It is very difficult to compare a DSLR with multitude of lenses and a handy pocket camera. They are intended for different markets I guess.
I'm a pro and why an optical viewfinder? The NEX has perfect viewfinders available.
mjkerpan: I hope that their lenses aren't m4/3 only. I'd LOVE a nice 21mm equivalent for the NEX...
Take a Voigtländer 12mm or 15mm with adapter.
REDred Photo: My favorite street lens has always been the 35mm. I really would love to see a 17mm f1.4 in a fairly small form factor for micro 4/3.
@ Valentinian Great for making movies.
Leica? Pathetic. When you like manual focus buy a NEX-5n with a viewfinder, a M-mount adapter and Zeiss lenses. Till 6400 ISO you have a good useable image in RAW. In PS you can decide how your B&W will look like. For 1700 dollars.
tkpenalty: sensor clearly outresolving the lens here. Still obscene amounts of detail!
So you can see the lens is bad?
69chevy: Tell the model to take his X-Pro1 out of Auto mode. He looks like Ken Rockwell. J/K
What are you talking about....? Fuji? Amateurs...
marike6: Now that it is confirmed that the 5D Mk III will be 22 mp for $3,500, the D800 is looking even more like an obvious choice for many. And contrary to what many seem to think, high ISO images from the D800 will be as good, or better than the D700 with 3 times the resolution and better DR. If it's not the camera for you that's fine, but all the comments asserting that video is useless, or it's not a "real video camera" or more megapixels are just marketing are totally missing an important point. That is, Nikon has listened to what professional photographers like in this article had requested. And this D800, especially it this really fair price, will be difficult for Nikon to keep up with demand for.
@ Rusticus: It's your money! Or don't you have it?
rusticus: Look at this video of the HX9V for $ 300
and compares with the "proffessional" videos of the D800 for $ 3000 or the D4 for $ 6000: BullSh** for too much money - sorry
And with a superb zoom lens hahaha
rusticus: yes, BPJosh - that's better than the crappy video quality of the Nikon to discuss
An amateur who does not like expensive Nikons? What's wrong with you. Bad pills?