Dougbm_2: Apart from the frumpy looks could be a good general purpose camera.As it's a 1" sensor with 2.7 crop factor the lenses are smaller than DSLRs so I wonder how hard it would have been to make the zoom longer (say to 300mm).Would you prefer 24-200mm or 28 to 300mm?
@ Orion1983.Ha. yes. But the Oly seems to have too large a body and too small a sensor. Will we ever be satisfied? Be interesting to see the reviews.
Jeff Greenberg: Have been using Canon EF 17-55mm f2.8 on 7D bodyfor almost 4 years. (yeah, as if it was fixed lens)And as a stock shooter with very limited processingskills, never went above ISO 1000. Nearest camera store told me they'll sell ALL their RX10s as new & won't have floor model, so don't know how I'll test RX10 IQ in advance.
Obviouly increased zoom range would open upamazing amount of new photo opps.BUT ANY OPINIONS ON WHETHER THIS WOULDBE STEP UP IN IQ APPRECIATED. Also, I take afair number of wide angle f2.8 images usingonboard fill flash. Will RX10 at 24mm + shadecast lens shadow when using its onboard flash?
Am also surprised no one here reports they are conflicted between RX10 vs. A7r + fast lightweight zoom? I am...
Main difference for you will be if you need shallow DOF as the Sony's f2.8 is f8 FF equivalent (or f5 on your 7D).
JJLMD: I recently had Canon 60D with same lens. That lens is very sharp with low distortion but I found the contrast and colors to be rather flat. This is probably a nonissue if you routinely PP, but I mostly like the convenience of JPEG. In terms of outright resolution, the Sony RX100m2 will shock you. I've compared it with the Nikon D5200 with 35mm f1.8 prime and the Sony was sharper! With the RX100m2's lens, it's hard to isolate subjects...the RX10 should be better with a fixed 2.8 lens but cannot compare to 2.8 + APS-C sensor. Also, the 60D went to ISO 2500 really clean but noise becomes a major problem with higher iSOs. With RX100m2 , its IQ is clean to 1600 but images at 3200 and 6400 less objectionable. The RX10 reportedly has a better processor and the lens is likely to be better...and Sony's making a big deal about its IQ so stay tuned...
Yes and the constant f2.8 will enable you to keep ISO low most of the time. In fact the deeper DOF will help out a bit when you have to open up the aperture but don't want shallow DOF in low light.I experienced this with an OLY X-Z1.
Dougbm_2: Could be quite interested in this but then again I could just buy an 18-135 for my 50D for about $400 (or 15-85 for about $500). Sure they are not as bright but depth of field will be better.
A 15-85mm zoom on an APSC Canon camera is the equivalent of 24-136mm FF (Full Frame eg Canon 5D) which is why it is a popular walk-around lens with very good IQ (I actually have one). It is the closest to the RX10 with a wide 24mm. The 18-135mm is equal to 28-216mm FF so arguably is closer still. The RX10 actually has an 8.8mm to 73.3mm lens.
And yes I meant depth of field will be more shallow at the equivalent aperture on an SLR. The f3.5 on the short end of the Canon lenses equals f5.6 FF. At the long end the f5.6 of the Canon lens would be f9 on FF. The f2.8 Sony lens equals f8 FF. Not much difference and not what you would choose for really shallow DOF either way.
No taking away from the fact that a constant f2.8 will enable better low light shooting than you get with an SLR and a 'slow' zoom.
Only negative I can see with this camera are it's reportedly slow fly by wire zoom and perhaps its almost SLR size and weight.
JJLMD: Looked at pics in Imaging Resource and Cameraegg...wow
Less wow at 100% but no doubt they are jpgs with NR on.
Apparently the fly by wire zoom is slow. It all sounds good otherwise but this will put some (including me) off.
This does seem overshadowed by the RX10 and even bridge zooms such as the FZ200. I wonder who will buy this?
"The Olympus TCON-17X isn't a new product, but it's compatible with the Stylus 1 and when attached using the CLA-12 adapter it boosts the camera's telephoto reach to 510mm (equivalent) without effecting the maximum aperture of F2.8. That's the good thing…"
You mean "without affecting…"
My X100 cost me about $1500 new and this will be a bit cheaper so at $1300 the price is right.
Could be quite interested in this but then again I could just buy an 18-135 for my 50D for about $400 (or 15-85 for about $500). Sure they are not as bright but depth of field will be better.
mosc: Congratulations on beating the G1-X at it's own game... but then you priced it out of that competition altogether. Why??
It must be about the lens. A constant f2.8 24-200 lens for this size sensor would be costly to make.
24-200 is an 8.3 times lens and a 28-300 is a 10.7 times lens. So yes it probably would be a bit larger. How about 27 to 270mm?
Apart from the frumpy looks could be a good general purpose camera.As it's a 1" sensor with 2.7 crop factor the lenses are smaller than DSLRs so I wonder how hard it would have been to make the zoom longer (say to 300mm).Would you prefer 24-200mm or 28 to 300mm?
Seems odd having exactly the same range and aperture as the popular Canon L lens. I would have thought they would have differentiated somehow. Maybe they will with the price. Why not just 25-100 or 25 -135. It would have been better perhaps if it was f2.8 - f4.5 or similar.
chooflaki: Well Nikon Rumours now say it will be a with a pentaprism, so still a DSLR of sorts. I wonder about the motive of Fuji with all this. Perhaps shoring up the confidence of users to lead up to an all new Xpro 1 replacement coming soon. With a lot of new high end cameras coming out, Fuji will be left behind if they don't act. The x100 firmware update has been welcome for me. Like having a new camera.
Hmm. Sure the manual focusing is much better but I never use that and it focuses slightly closer and af is probably faster. New camera..hardly.
I have to say my X100 has never been "Dead". I have used it extensively for the last two and a half years. The camera really came alive though a couple of firmwares ago when the af improved and the RAW button became assignable.I have no plans on buying anything else. There is nothing really like it. Not the Sony RX1, Nikon Coolpix A etc nor the rest of the X series.
Timmbits: Could someone please tell me if I understood this correctly?
They've given the XF1 a cosmetic facelift, to make it's looks closer to those of the cheap and boring Canon's s110.
Heck, in the graphic, they've even bridged the gap between the s110 and the next worse camera, so the s110 doesn't look as bad as it did before, and the previous second-worse camera now looks better.
They've kept most things the same from the XF1 - even the slow zoomed lens. They may have moved a few buttons around.
So basically, it's the same thing, but with marketing's "new and improved" stamp on it.
What do you call this thing, when someone does the same thing over and over again, but expects different results?
Their efforts (and money) would have been better spent shrinking the X20, so it's actually smaller than a mirrorless ILC (it's the size of an NX300 for God's sake!) and can have a hope of competing with the RX100 despite the smaller sensor.
It's more than that. No more zoom by manually turning the lens or start up by turning the lens. Plus xtrans etc
bafford: Great job Fuji.
I am going to buy into a fullframe mirrorless system soon. With that kind of customer support you made my decision easy which company will have my business. Can't wait till Fuji announces their fullframe camera.
@slackjawgaze1.Thanks for that.
laimbert3270: Hi Pros, this can be a good match to canon 6D? Im planning to buy 24-70mm tamron lens but its costly
I have the 24-105 f4 L for my 5D and it is a good lens. Yes the 24-70 2.8 will be a bit brighter and probably a bit sharper but as a general lens for Canon FF I have been very happy.
Maybe the photographer doesn't know that you can rotate the camera and take a portrait shot! Just saying!
Actually I don't understand why photographers go to so much trouble with multiple shots unless they plan to print extra large. Also the reflection in the water seems to not actually reflect the night sky.