Yes, OM-D sensor is great but OM-D was announced 15 months ago! Why don't we see any improvements in sensor? And when we'll finally see, I pray it would still have 16MP.
Timmbits: I'd much rather have a camera like this with a 45mm/50mm equivalent lens on it. Less distortion, more natural look to the photos. Recently, the attitude has been adopted also with the RX1, that if you want 50mm-equivalent all you have to do is crop your photos, especially with it's resolution. But I beg to differ: what is being overlooked is that with digital technology we can do panorama now... so why not have a wide-angle mode too, where only two images are stitched together? The advantages would be obvious: you have your wide-angle view, yet the less distortion of a 50mm lens.
For this reason, I'm eyeing the X-E1 with the 35mm f1.4 lens.
@alzurzin. The whole point of making and buying small cameras with large sensors is to have them with you everywhere and always - and in 90% of being outdoors or traveling people shoot landscapes or on-street portraits with quite a bit of background. In all these cases one needs wide angle lens. If you want standard studio portrait, just buy a regular DSLR - why bother with compromises of a small camera?
Andrella: New X100s Sample Pictures.I have just got an e-mail from What Digital camera where they announced their first sample pictures of the X100s. I've read lots of reviews about this camera and was thinking to get one when it comes on sale but...The pictures shown are not of a good quality IMO. I am just curious whether this is the camera or a person behind it who does not know how to properly use it? Just want to hear other photographer's opinion and owners of the current X100 model. IMHO the pictures look overexposed and there is lack of details overall. The gallery is here:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/34937/1/fujifilm-x100s-sample-image-gallery.html
The only image with noticeable clipped highlights I see is the one shot through a dark ark - which is understandable considering difficult light conditions (half image is very dark, the other half is very bright). For this image, it would be very interesting to see the work of DR expander. And comparison with normal mode of, say, Canon 650D or Sony NEX-7.
Peiasdf: I said this before and I'll say it again. I want a RX100 merged with an iPhone5. Why put a 21x zoom on a "compact" camera "phone" is beyond me.
Just because it's the only good this one can say about this p.o.s. - big zoom number. And because super zoom is the easiest to make for tiny sensors.
What is missing here is downscaling comparison when downscaled images are the same size. I.e. comparison of downsizing engines.
TS and FT? Are these guys crazy? Do they think TS sounds offensive outside of North America? Or they think FT sounds offensive inside?
And please don't tell me this is because of different video specs. To change language is more difficult but cameras support several dozen of languages now. Changing video specs should be just one simple menu item. Or I missed something?
ybai011: ISO is embedded in the JPEG file. ISO 6400 for this one.
Where in EXIF did you find number 6400?
EXIF says "ISO - ISO 1". How smart, Nikon! :))
As I see it aims for the market of enthusiast compact cameras which currently have 10-12MP 1/1.7 sensor. Nikon 1 should deliver better IQ. But:
1. Due to much slower lens, for low light conditions it has to use higher ISO by 2 stops, e.g. 3200 against 800 for Panasonic Lumix LX5 or Canon S95/S100. Is its pixel size 4 times bigger? No. Hence, IQ will be worse despite bigger sensor.
2. Including lens, it's 2 times bigger and heavier.
3. Including lens, it's 2 times more expansive.
In total: my big doubts.
amscmu: power zoom and power focus are crap esp power focus.
They cannot match with the precision from mechanical focus.
powerzoom is another story, if you don't mind with precision, PZ is ok. However, PF is unacceptable.
Long ago when I first bought my first AF SLR, the minolta 3xi was on my top list. however, when I tried power focus. I just put it down. Unacceptable.
However, if you mean to use AF all the time, i think this lens is great (for its size).
Just to rephrase a bit...
...Digital cameras are crap, especially digital cameras with not full frame sensor. They cannot match the image quality of film cameras. Long ago (in 1999) I bought my first 1.5M pixel digital camera. However, when I tried to shoot I just put it down. Unacceptable.;)
Well, photos at ISO 3200 look exactly like TL500 photos at 800 (blotchy), and worse than similar from DSLRs. Samsung has to improve their noise reduction software, that's for sure.
astigmate: I still wonder why do people buy such cameras... iso 100 look like cr@p, like all other compact theses days. Go get an entry level DSLR or mirrorless 4/3 / aps-c
For me it's not the price, it's weight and size which is the main factor.
Realll: Come on...It sounds like FZ35 upgraded with 1080p and creative options! No RAW? Big deal... I own FZ35 and never shoot RAWs. Why do post process if the JPEGs are good? :)
The water is good, I'm fine! - kept telling itself chicken when it was put in boiling water for broth. ;)