mpgxsvcd: I think most people are missing the big picture here. This camera is a huge leap over its predecessors. It has great AF, excellent video features including very good 1080p @ 60 FPS, class leading 20 FPS burst, a very small size with a decent grip, a built-in flash, and most importantly a very reasonable initial price.
Sure everyone wants 4K @ 30 FPS, a hot shoe, a built-in EVF, and a faster aperture kit lens. However, those things all cost a lot of money. For this camera to be successful it has to appeal to customers who aren’t willing to shell out the money for an LX100, RX100 MK III, or a G7x.
This camera is meant for people that want a small interchangeable lens camera that takes better photos and videos than their phone. This camera will do that for a very reasonable price.
I wouldn't buy this camera myself because I have the LX100. However, I would recommend this camera to someone who isn’t willing to pay that price but insists on getting an interchangeable lens camera.
@ godspeaksThat's just means this isn't the right piece of equipment for your particular obsession with 4k. Not everyone sees 4k as being mandatory and for those that believe so, there are plenty of other choices. I don't want to pay for 4k in a camera like this and neither do most of the target audience.
BeaverTerror: The first as of yet unreleased products to become available will be the 90 and 16mm lenses, not the teleconverter. Did the writer of this article even look at the map?
My God ... The minutia....
Caudata: Now if they just make the XF120mmF2.8 R Macro a "WR" lens then I may just switch systems. I actually need the WR for when I am shooting wildlife photography and that lens would be a very nice option.
You shoot butterflies in the rain?
JhvaElohimMeth: I think that to compete in all aspect with micro 4/3 fuji would need a cheap and portable 56mm f/2...And maybe a small camera like x-m1 but with a decent electronic viewfinder...
So you can have Fuji quality and a very small set of good quality lenses:18mm f/227mm f/2.8and the 56mm f/2 (maybe they won't never produce it...).
Now I have GX1 with elec. viewfinder, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and sigma 60mm 2.8
I would like to try Fuji quality but I would be obliged to have a bigger body just to have finder, and there's no small fixed focal tele lens for that system...
@ crwl ... Nail on the head. The 60mm on an xe-1 or 2 is absolutely inexpensive and everything Jhva is looking for.
select: I think that actually Fujifilm is the one who's investing more in producing great lenses, small, light, high quality... the perfect match... good job guys! the other companies should learn from you
Yeah, but.....not everyone would agree that some of these latest lens releases are exactly "small" or "light" even though this is mirrorless APS- C. The latest 16-55, 50-140, and upcoming tele-prime and 140-400 are good-sized gear, albeit still small-ER and light-ER compared to FF. Still, good to have these in the lineup for anyone who needs them, but there can come a point in the telephoto realm where m4/3 starts to make Fuji gear look large and heavy comparatively speaking.
Anastigmat: Fuji is making the same mistake Olympus made with the 4/3 standard. They straight-jacketed themselves with a sensor smaller then FF, and therefore they will always have the disadvantage of fewer megapixels. Canon has just announced a 50mp FF camera. No micro 4/3 or APS-C sensor camera can come close to that many pixels for the foreseeable future. Canon can also increase pixel density further in the future because 50mp still has much larger pixels than their 24mp APS-C models. A FF sensor with the same size pixel as a 24mp APS-C sensor can pack 63mp.
Another "bigger", "more is better" forum fighter. Maybe Anastigmat should consider shooting LARGE FORMAT exclusively.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton coined the phrase, "it depends on what 'is' is" during congressional hearings. With regards to this particular matter of upgrading I would suggest that an upgrade in the photographic equipment realm doesn't mean just a bigger sensor or faster lens or sturdier tripod, etc. in other words, one can "upgrade" by selling his FF gear and going APS-C or m4/3 if it means the new gear will be used more, or for a different purpose that's appropriate.
The problem here is the ongoing perception that bigger and faster are "better", when in fact they're just different. You can dig a hole with a pick and shovel or use a backhoe. It will take longer to do manually versus mechanically, but has the benefit of physical exercise that the excavator cannot provide. If someone is a professional hole digger it would probably make sense to own a backhoe even though it costs much more than a pick and shovel but is necessary in the interest of production for income.
xsamie: If you are doing some woodwork at home you can pretty much use anything. If you do enough woodwork or if you like it enough, you may want to invest on some more equipment. Similarly, if your woodworking is a source of income and you only have a carving chisel, you might actually be losing money. A 10k machine might be a better deal if can get better quality in less time.
It is the same thing with photography, the camera is just a tool. You have to balance quality/price/use ... and size!
These days we have a broad range of prices and sizes to achieve amazing quality for any use.
Of all the comments made here, this is by far the most sensible.
I love shooting my nikon d600 with sigma 24-105 and 120-400 lenses. For the type of travel documentary stuff I do I find it to be fast and the results are Impressive as all get out.
I just returned from 3 days off on the central California coast, where I shot a couple hundred pics with my also-fantastic fuji xe-1 and 18-135 lens while on a holiday weekend. I shot video using my fantastic Sony RX100. I took those cameras because they're excellent at what they do, just like my FF Nikon and they take up less space and are less conspicuous.
There is no "better" .... There's just different. It's all good stuff. Just shoot and quit with the divisiveness about which format is better and why.
M.B.: Win what? Is it just going to be failed marketing plot to sell pricy low range and inadequate products? We have mass market full frame compact auto-focus film cameras 30 yrs ago. There was so little difference in image quality to mirrored counter parts back then. Since digital compact camera appeared in early 90's, consumers had been getting stone age quality stuffs unless you can afford premium price in R1. Like high resolution music and vinyl discs are now only enjoyed by privileged few. In the last 2 decades, consumers pay for update versions of camera housing nothing more than extra bits of computing power to cover up for the deficiency in smallish sensor. As we can see phone companies can do computing job better than camera companies. RIP for point and shoots until the firms do what they had done 30yrs. ago. Having been in the market since the very beginning of digital point and shoots, I stopped buying since 2010. There simply isn't anyone with quality that is reasonably priced.
Total nonsense. So don't buy new --- there are any number of excellent quality models that can be had at very reasonable cost (less than $1000) once they're 1-3 years old. If you're looking for a top model for $100 then stick with what you own.
brelip: interesting for sure, but a lens no one is asking for! They should have made this a DX and half the weight and cost!
I agree, but DX-specific lenses tend to be cheaper and use 100% of the glass rather than just the center on FX.
Zerixos: I've got both the 28 and the 85 1.8G what are great lenses to use, even on the D800. This will be a nice add to the bag for landscapes. If They come with a new 105 or 135G, my bag will be pretty much filled for the next coming years.
You might like the tokina 16-28 ... I certainly do.
Sannaborjeson: Got lost in Fuji's model range.Too many same-looking cameras with nearly identical features and IQ.
This is true -- they have released a dozen models that are all similar.
Hombrito: Any image stabilization data for Rx100 III? It is time image stabilization is tested on high end compact cameras as a standard review feature.
Poor image stabilization for Rx 100 I (Sony weakness which was not made clear in otherwise respectable reviews, including on this site) caused me to return Rx 100 in favor of Canon. I estimated Canon had 2-3 stops advantage vs. Sony, which partially compensated for Canon's smaller sensor.
I suspect no improvement.
Why no 1080p 30fps video mode?
Total horsehockey. The IS on the RX1 is very, very good. The IS on this M3 is even better.
Try getting the same IS from a DSLR compared to the RX1 -- you wont.
Robgo2: The covers of "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper" are almost certainly the most famous in the history of recorded music and are fitting icons for some of the greatest pop music ever.
I was thinking the same -- the operative word being "the" most famous.....
This lens is now $1099 US as of today. Tripod collar is still optional and extra cost.
Build quality is superior to Sigma and Tamron and certainly the same or better than canon and nikon equivalents.
Ergonomics and stabilization are as good as any competitor.
The REASON to buy Tokina is the "character" the glass renders over the competition at a similar or slightly lower price, while simultaneously offering incredible build quality (albeit at the expense of heft).
The FACT of the matter is that ALL of the direct-spec competition in this class offer excellent glass no matter who it is. And CERTAINLY no one who isn't comparing side-by-side shots between manufacturer models would ever see a tangible difference between them, so pick what you like and be good with it. I've shot this lens on my nikon d600 and it's terrific. The nikon f/4 version is slightly lighter but costs more and offers similar quality results. I've rented the tamron version before and can't say it was superior.
TheBaldEagle: All future Nikon high end (>$1200 on and Full frame) cameras should have 4K@30p or better Video feature at least for output for external recorders in order to Compete well with Panasonic 4K and other 4K cameras. 4K & 8K are the future for the next Ten years. When people invest in expensive cameras which should last several years before getting obsolete! That is the reality!
Sounds like another blanket statement that shouldn't be made. The draw for enthusiast and competent videographers to 4k today has more to do with the quality of the HD down-sampled output compared to shooting in HD from the start.
As far as other formats your friends in videography are shooting, that depends on WHAT they're filming and who the target audience is. If you're suggesting there's no tangible difference between low-fps and HD/4k then you're not looking at video on a modern-day monitor. Otherwise, quality differences are noticeable to those who know.
Having said that, are 4k/HD resolution REQUIRED for someone shooting video of their dog in the park to be shown on YouTube? Probably not, but then again the consumer looking to be able to do that is more likely filming with his smartphone anyway and not someone seeking cinematic quality output.
mpgxsvcd: This is a great camera for someone who doesn't know what a great camera is.
@ oselimg: Perfectly stated.
Scottelly: Thank you DPreview! I was amazed to see that the V3 has superior resolution to the Nikon D7100 in the corners of the image, especially as the center of the V3 image shows there is not as much resolving power as the D7100. It looks like the V3 lens produces better resolution in the corners than the lens that was used on the D7100, which indicates to me that it is not so much the camera's limitations as the lens limitations. I was very surprised to see how good the images from this little 18 MP camera seem to be. Now I KNOW I want a V3.
I think anyone who likes the model should be entitled to say so. May not be your cup if tea, but to tell someone else what they should buy instead is a bit arrogant.
AlexRuiz: Gotta love the whiners.
- But my [ insert brand here] did not get as good of a score- But the [ insert model here] has not been reviewed and came out first- But I read that [insert internet myth here ] so the rating should be lower
Some of you obviously have DPR as the one, only, and final review site for cameras like the K3. When DPR doesn't produce what you want, when you want it, for FREE mind you, then you open a browser and Google for reviews of your fav make and model. I actually think some of you guys make your decision to buy based entirely on third party reviews without ever experiencing this equipment first-hand and making your OWN decisions. Act like MEN instead of sheep.