disraeli demon: Really like the look of this - there's a whole load of features (silent shutter, tilting LCD, 1/320 flash sync) that have been on my wish list for years. If there are no nasty surprises when we see the thing in action, this looks like the logical eventual replacement for my trusty GF1.
One request for the final review - under manual focussing, could you tell us if the GX7 has a useable distance scale and also if it can hold on to a focus distance in MF when powered of and on again? My GF1 and G2 always reset focus to near infinity when powered down/power saving in MF, which is a pain when you're trying to use depth focussing. My Olympus E-PL3, on the other hand, can be set to resume focus.
To second that request - one of my biggest gripes about the GF2 is that the correct manual focus at infinity actually shows at about 4/5 of the scale on the LCD. I have two GF2s and they both do this. It's a PITA to focus on stars, you have to find a bright star on the LCD to focus on.
Mark B.: I was curious until I saw this: •MicroSD card slot supports up to 64GB
I don't even like SD cards because of the small size. Sure hope this won't be the future of DSLRs.
I doubt any new devices will be introduced that will not use SD or micro SD, or in the future whatever their even-smaller successors will be.
Is that just a fake EVF, or what?
Looks OK for a 1st gen attempt at this, though. Need to be able to use it as a phone!
tinternaut: For Samsung, this could be important. I think this could be an ideal second camera for journalists. Imagine capturing a critical moment and being able to get it to an editor immediately (well, immediately if in dual channel HSPA+ or LTE coverage :)).
Unfortunately, your comment may be prescient, now that full time photojournalists are getting sacked and news gathering is being put in the hands of underpaid interns with cell phone cameras.
Kinda goes with: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9242360526/photos/2587690/885524_10200376462789722_1978036527_o
Bill Rees: I think the new cards act as WiFi access points whereas the older and Pro cards are WiFi clients. One thing that the older card is lacking is simply the ability to browse it remotely which I believe cards like the Toshiba FlashAir can do. Not sure if the new EyeFi cards can do this.
The Connect X2 works in "direct mode" and sets up as an ad-hoc access point as well. However, the app has to be awake and running (at least on the iPhone) and the phone can't be connected to another WiFi network for it to work. The connection drops when the iPhone goes to standby. I have found the card more or less useless in the field.
Whassamatta. GH2 not heavy enough for ya?
Fun project! To really take it to the next level, get a huge astro-camera size CCD sensor and use the lens as a prime!
Think it would be fairly trivial to write an android app that triggers your $10,000 worth of Speedotrons when you take a picture with your Samsung.
I am not sure which would be a bigger PITA, lugging $10,000 worth of Speedotrons around everywhere, or the nuisance lawsuit from Apple that would follow.
Potential for fighting crime? LOL, first thing a thief will do is steal your pricey Google Glasses.
Perfect use for my POS A510 - throw it in the ocean and see where it ends up.
Marty4650: Is the lens hood standard, or do you have to pay extra to get one?
If you don't like the lens hood, you'll really be unhappy with the bokeh.
Do I need to sell my house to get these, or will merely selling my boat be sufficient?
Ed Gill: How depressing. I have been waiting four years for the MFT market to catch on with lenses but it seems like these cameras and lenses are designed by the junior engineers with no imagination. Three major area of still photography that are perfect for MFT. 1. Long lens telephoto - is a 250/300/350mm REALLLY that hard - with a tripod ring mount please. 2. Macro - 75mm f2 and 100 f2.8 marco with tripod ring please or a 50-100 f2.8 macro/micro zoom. 3. TRAVEL, how about some alternate power sources like AA battery packs/grips. Yes you can take spare expensive batteries but spare chargers(?) if the fry? I really don't need to comment on the lens prices either do I - 20mm f1.7 at $350 - really?? Great potential poorly executed, the blunders in this industry are breath taking.
If I'm going to need a three pound lens I might as well use a DSLR. The 14-140mm 10x zooms are clunky enough that I'm not interested.
I'm in the "wanting fast m4/3 tele primes" clique, a 100 / 2.8 would be perfect.
The Olympus 75/1.8 is close - but not sure if it autofocuses with Panasonics.
Timmbits: Quote: "This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced."
I am sure, that if any serious tests are done, this will turn out to be a crock of BS. It is a known fact that adapters with a lens increase chromatic aberrations. This is obviously more marketing spin than science. Maybe I'm sounding a bit harsh... but for $600, which is the price of an apsc camera body, there is no excuse for marketing hype substituting physics!
I use a $20 adapter with no optics in it, and my 50mm f1.4 retains all it's glory in the results it produces.
But this isn't that kind of an adapter, it matches the focal length almost 1:1. Doesn't solve the problem I think most people need solved, which is the lack of long fast teles for m4/3, but hey.
I've tried a $20 adapter with my Panasonic GF bodies and my old twist on Canon lenses and the pictures look like crap. My theory is that internal reflections inside the body "fog" the image. Some lenses work better than others, and stopping the lens down helps cut the fog, which is exactly not the point when using a long tele.
I have an iPhone and it is teh envy of all around me. I would much rather pay $80 than have its immaculateness sullied by taking pictures through a hole in the bottom of a bucket.
WhiteBeard: About pricing... A long time ago, lenses were made with a lot of metal and glass - not polycarbonate - and 70-200mm zooms (35mm eq.) were the most popular and mostly least expensive zooms available. Now, Panasonic wants to make us believe that putting an O-ring, less glass (polished by much more precise and efficient automated means than before) and putting back some aluminum instead of the usual polycarbonate is sufficient to warrant a 1500$ price tag... Anybody out there familiar about Marketing Theory and the expression "Whatever the Market can bear"?
The price for modern autofocus, image stabilized lenses is high because all of the autofocus and image stabilization machinery is usually in the lens.
Feel free to switch to a full frame format like Canon EF where non-AF lenses are available; the "IS" capable lenses are still 1.5X to twice as expensive as their non-IS counterparts.
I can't imaging using a non-AF tele on a m4/3 camera for regular work, the viewfinder on my GF-2s is not up to the task. I occasionally use my old full frame Canon teles with them, and manual focusing is nearly impossible. AF overcomes this limitation.
snow14: they should made it F2.0 instead of F2.8 yes that will make the lens little larger but it will be much more useful .
It's expensive enough as is without adding another zero to the price!
carlgt1: the problem I've found with these cards is they're pretty damn slow, so transferring 16GB would probably take at best close to an hour? I mean say you can get 50 mbps (6.25megaBYTES per second) out of the fastest '.11n' network, that's 2560 seconds for 16MB (and typically you'd probably get 1MB/sec rates not 6+).
Why would you wait until your card was full to upload your pictures? You could get three or four regular cards for the price of the Eyefi and just swap them out to your PC.
I think the idea is to upload your pictures one at a time as they are taken, and/or upload only JPEGs and keep the RAWs on the camera.
Jekyll: Gentlemen, I was at the Photokina yesterday, Sunday 23rd. We were 5 Photoenthusiasts, friends altogether. We stumbled upon this Lunar prototype at Hasselblad's phenomenal stand - which by the way displayed a nice black Ferrari cabriolet in it's center - giving a hint about their target group I guess.
Whatever - an interrested customer approached the Hasselblad's representative standing right next to us and asked him "Why should I chose a Hasselblad over the original Sony?".
The Hasselblad's guy responded the following - hold your breath;1. Well our camera is better looking than the Sony, since we added a fancy grip and fancy colours to it2. If you buy it you will own a "real" Hasselblad3. And you have to spend more money on this as for the Sony
I swear to God (and I have 4 witnesses with me) that this was the original response of the Hasselblad guy. If I was younger I would write *facepalm* to comment this :o).
B the same token, more Porsches are sold with automatic than mnaual transmissions. Time change, brands change,
brunobarolo: So including a simple viewfinder and a lens hood this fixed lens camera is beyond $ 3,500??? Why would I prefer this over the Fuji X-E1 that has a built in EVF, has interchangeable lenses, and is much less costly?
Yes, the RX1 has a larger sensor. But as Lars Rehm and Richard Butler have pointed out, the X-E1 with the 23mm f1.4 will allow very similar results because the faster lens compensates for the smaller sensor.
$ 3,500 can buy you a nice little Fuji X-E1 system, including wide angle, standard, and tele lens. This Sony fixed lens camera is grossly overpriced.
Full disclosure: I don't own any Fuji camera, and I'm not planning to buy one.
There are those of us who are farsighted and need the optical viewfinder - for $600! Yipes!
When I need full frame I'll stick with a huge clunker DSLR for now.