dpLarry: Full Frame sensor in a compact body is cool and unique and have great low light but it is not a huge technical breakthrough.
There have been 35mm film compact cameras decades ago and those even have to have space for the film canister and rewind mechanism and AA batteries. Some of them even have zoom lenses. And most of them only a couple hundred dollars. The RX1 have a fixed lens..
It's not a bad thing it got camera of the year award. They won't sell that many of it because of the price and limitations. But it is not a big technical achievement putting a FF sensor inside a compact body.
FF in "Digital" sensor buddy not film. So who has done FF digital sensor in a compact lately? Leica? yes kind of..Which brings me to the point. It won b/c it is FF digital compact at $3k 1/3 of m9. When you say "not a big technical achievement" I know you base that on ridiculous guess work but at least factor in the price. Making the same thing at 1/3 a price is always a big achievement. Here is what you said. $45k Ferrari...meh ferrari already made those it has been done before no big deal.
EP3 for $350 on sale now that is what I'm talking about. This is why I love m43, budget friendly. Except the 75mm 1.8 (but worth it, sharpest lens in the system by far) and the Black limited edition 12mm can go f themselves but the rest, very budget friendly.
kadardr: WE tend to forget that there is a sony nex 7 which is a much better camera ( with the new lenses it IS fact). A bit stealthy though. Pretty against 'profi"??
Yeah, his trolling but you m4/3 owners are sensitive must be the small sensor lol. Lenses his talking about are the new primes and wide zoom, and of coarse the 3 ZEISS!!! Point is there are plenty of reasons people dig the nex-7 (focus peaking, grip, weight) over the OMD/Ep3 get over it.
@happypoppeye, Tim F 101 HA NO, his talking about the 4 Zeiss. Yes they are all over 1k but IQ in unmatched in mirrorless market. NO I take that back. My Fuji primes are right there with them. M4/3? the 75mm 1.8 is amazing. others are sub par compared to the Zeissessss.
Rocky ID Olympian: Olympus E-M5 has:- great IBIS- just the right size- touch tilting screen. If only it has swivel like E-3/E-5- Live Time/BULB (cant believe not mentioned yet). Groundbreaking technology for long exposures- one key success is the new Sony sensor. It nullified the gap between 4/3 size and APSC. OM-D would never be as popular with Old 12 MP Pana sensor that Olympus was "forced to use liked it or not" for years.- the availability of m4/3 lens is just right in 2012. just only this year we have a wide selection of HQ prime lenses, and the 2 f2.8 zooms from Panasonic.- the classic look is the icing on top.
Timing is just right for Olympus.
I've been an Oly user for quiet some time, and I have accepted the compromises of (m)4/3. Some image quality for portability. Its just this time the sacrificed IQ is the smallest ever, since I used Oly cameras! I guess this is why FF and APSC users tempted to use OM-D as their daily camera or even ditched their bigger cameras all the way.
@ texinwienWOW I took the time to educate you and you give me this crap? "You need to get out a little more and educate yourself. You're coming across as mighty ignorant at the moment. maybe that's just how you roll?" <-Ad hominem (A little guilt of it myself right now) Point is, a lot of things might go over your head, no need to call names.
@IrishhAndy I really don't care who your favorite blogger is or who he aspires to be. I'm sorry if your authority figure in photography don't mean squat to me. I like to have arguments stand alone, appealing to authority is a fallacy that i can not remember the name of.
BTW I'm pretty sure the digital camera was invented by Steven something, from Kodak, who graduated from Polytechnic Institute (NY). Not some landscape photographer in Yosemite.
@ texinwienIs this some kind of shameless plug for Thomwhoisthisblabla.com?
As for the quote. He first states "it is the over all evaluation (I think he means "feel") is what matters". To which I have to ask, what is overall evaluation if not the summation and evaluation of the specifics? Anyways, he then states "It's ...individual traits." <-- That trail redundancy is just regurgitating his first illogical point.
Now, the only truthful part is " All cameras have compromises...". Un hun, so we find the crust of his BS. Basically the compromises made and flaws within the OMD are things he does not care about. Fine, no problem. It is the best camera for him then. Subjective opinion at best, no more creditable than my reasons for labeling it so so. Difference is I gave you facts regarding its feature, ergonomics and weight. Not sophomoric gibberish. "It's the sum of the parts that we're looking at here, not a summation of points assigned to individual traits" <-HA!
I'm surprised at all the love for OMD E-M5. I'm not a fan of any particular brand. For compacts, I own the E-M5, RX-100, X-E1, Nex-5n and just got my Rx1. Let me tell you for every plus (most I agree with) you listed for the OMD I can list minus. Here is some features missing but found in other brands.1. Focus peaking!! (my CV lenses never leaves Sony bodies)2. GRIP! ($300 for extra grip? GTFO)3. Heavy! (Wasn't m 4/3 suppose to be micro?)4. Skin tone (have you seen the fuji skin tone?)5. Inferior Evf resolution/frame rate compared to Sony's 2.4M
Anyways, point is it is not a clear winner of anything. And definitely not groundbreaking? They finally refreshed the 10 year old 12mp Sensor??!! About god dam time!!
I think it is clear only Sony is trying new things. Rx100, jean pocket-able 1" sensor is giving equal if not better results than my Epm-1. Rx-1, full frame compact at $3k with Zeiss f2? Good bye Leica.
Hans Bolte: I would bet money that Canon fanboy Garyjp does NOT own an RX100.
" it's no DSLR beater and it's no G1 X beater, as long as IQ is your primary consideration." Trying a little too hard to add value to a prior purchase? Anyways, Why are you comparing G1 X or a DSLR to the RX100. They are not pocket-able.
All cameras and indeed many electronics are about compromises and priorities. Rx100's priorities seems to be 1. Pocket ability 2. Price (explains the lens quality) 3. IQ and so on. With that order of priorities it is the best camera out there. G1-X obviously have other priorities (ugly been one of them), so no point comparing apple and oranges. Seriously just be happy with what you have and stop trolling. Now I'm gonna go check on who is winning the presidency.
GaryJP: Nice sensor. Too much noise reduction on JPEGS. Not a great lens. I don't buy an f1.8 in order to have to reduce it to f5.6 to get sharp images.
Overall my G1X (even bigger sensor and better optics) gives me better pictures.
And I think it's worth the effort of carrying it around to get them. You see, I actually LIKE photography.
I had a dream once that Time magazine spent as much on journalism as they do on marketing and trying to drum up subscriptions.
Overall my M9, D800E, Nex-7, E-m5, Xpro-1, X100 (even bigger sensor and better optics) gives me better pictures.
bobbarber: I would not buy the RX-100 if I were in the market for a compact camera.
I just looked at raw and jpeg comparison with XZ-1 (I'm an Oly fanboy) and GH2 (different class, I know, but it's my current camera). The edges of the RX-100 lens suck, and not just a little bit. Look at the watch, the hair next to the watch, etc. The IQ of the RX-100 camera is HORRIBLE at the edges of the frame, and not just at the outermost edges, but quite a ways in!!
I will admit, there will be a high ISO advantage for the RX-100 over the XZ-1 (I didn't check), as well as shallow DOF, and that does help the RX-100's case.
Here's where I think the RX-100 failed. The RX-100 has a top-notch sensor and electronics, no doubt, but the lens is too small for sharpness edge-to-edge at the given apertures and focal lengths. So the quality of the lens in relation to sensor size will be much higher for cameras like the XZ-1, XZ-2, LX-7, etc.
If you want to buy the XZ-1 and save $400 in difference, just do it. Stop justifying a purchase with you subjective BS. What? you trying to add some value to your purchase here?
Ray Sachs: Big step forward, but evolutionary, not revolutionary. I had one and hated the handling and slow lens enough to get rid of it for an X-10. If pocketable is your only criteria, its pretty amazing, but if you like a slightly larger camera, its very very good but far from an "invention".
1) "Big step forward, but evolutionary, not revolutionary." Agreed, personally I would of picked the Sony RX1 instead, for ushering in a new FF compact era. 2) "I had one and hated the handling and slow lens enough to get rid of it for an X-10." That is great, but doesn't mean nothing, don't care. 3) " If pocketable is your only criteria..." Following that logic I would stick with my 1995 Nokia cell phone with back camera. It is SOOO small!! Obviously rx100 got other things going for it. 4) Far from a invention?? Hun? you mean it is a evolutionary invention not a revolutionary one right? but still a invention...stay consistent.
Octane: Time Magazine is so much better and more knowledgeable than DPReview, DxO Labs and experiences photographers combined. LOL
LOL What? Have you seen some of the work by the Time magazine photography staff over the decades? WTH do you even mean by Dpreview,dxo, and experiences (experienced?) photographer? Are they a cult of something that I am not aware of? Now if you were going to say something about the article and its writer, that is different.