xmeda: No flash hot-shoe?
Not necessary in this camera class. What those interested in this kind of camera will miss more is an articulating screen.
No articulating screen? Not a good idea for such a camera.
exapixel: I don't know why DPR has to constantly bash Sony. Not a single Sony product was mentioned in this story even though all the cameras were mirrorless. You are all paid net shills for the doomed calotype vendors.
And besides the Sony issue, this photo strech once again proves that Pentax is doomed!
Whiz Bang: Just give a second card slot and headphone jack to EOS 70D, and it's perfect for me! (EOS 75D maybe?)
Lens stabilization: Yes, I can understand the reasoning. OTOH, I have some legacy glass I like to use (30 years old or even older). These lenses are all stabilized on a Pentax. And I am not that old that everything starts jittering at 200mm upwards (yet).;-)
Take a look at the Pentax K3;-)
I think that APS-C is the digital age's version of the film-era's "small format" (SLR format; German: Kleinbild). Small format is currently marketed as digital "full frame". But those cameras are just too HUGE compared to our old 35mm SLRs. Conclusion: "FF" is mainly a marketing gag that gets less exciting as smaller sensors (APS-C, 4/3, MFT) keep improving their IQ. "FF" is and will stay a niche market IMHO; just like "medium format" has been in the bygone film-days, and will stay a niche product in the future (ironically, medium format comes with a larger sensor than the ill-named "full format"; however fantastic the medium format Pentax 645 D might be - BTW anybody here who's going to buy Pentax' medium format IQ-beast?).
stern: Since there is so little difference in IQ especially between the best "full frames" and APS-Cs (even FT/MFT have now caught up), I see no need to pay some USD 2000,- for a heavy and bulky "full frame" camera (in the end FF is just the eqivalent to the film-camera-era "small film format", only in a much larger body). I just read a couple of articles comparing the IQ of Nikon FFs and the Pentax K3 (currently the best APS-C on the market): the difference is negligeable. But then again, I have friends who just crave for the biggest optical behemoth they can get hold of...;-)
Luminous Landscape about Fuji's IQ: "The X-Trans may be the best APS-C sensor out there, rivaled only by Pentax’s AA-filter free K3 and K5-DII." (luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fujis__x_t1___the_x_system_comes_of_age.shtml). I have both too. There is very little difference in real life between MFT-APS-C-FF (aka "small image format"). "Medium"-Format (Pentax 645) might be "better", but then: it was like this some 20 years ago… APS-C is the new film-"small image format" (also marketed as digital "full frame").
Gary Dean Mercer Clark: Been shooting with an APS-C sized sensor camera for the last three years nonstop, doing fashion/model photography, Art reproduction, landscapes. Even shot architectural stuff for a client. Why would I spend $3000 to $6000.00 on a full frame camera for my professional work when I can buy 2 Sony A77MK IIs, have a back up camera and have superb performance across the board?I have no intentions of going full frame in the near future. Don't want or need it.
a) Wouldn't the Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED do the model-job on APS-C?b) ...no experience with TS lenses.
Since there is so little difference in IQ especially between the best "full frames" and APS-Cs (even FT/MFT have now caught up), I see no need to pay some USD 2000,- for a heavy and bulky "full frame" camera (in the end FF is just the eqivalent to the film-camera-era "small film format", only in a much larger body). I just read a couple of articles comparing the IQ of Nikon FFs and the Pentax K3 (currently the best APS-C on the market): the difference is negligeable. But then again, I have friends who just crave for the biggest optical behemoth they can get hold of...;-)
stern: DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
@brendon "However as an APS-C user who has started using FF I would never want to stick to using APS-C if I can afford FF." I started with "full frame" (film) and prefer today's APS-C. I still have my "full frame" SLR. I also have a liking for the IQ-wise ever-improving M43, something unthinkable in Film-days. I think, "full frame" is a dinosaur, like "large format" that died out about a century ago. Extremely narrow DOF is nice, but certainly not limited to "FF", considering that you can achieve the desired result with dedicated lenses on smaller-sensor cameras than "FF" anyway (for a slight premium in cash of course.
@ Mr. Tharp"...other systems, also based around 135-format ... don't have legions of APS-C lenses. Here's a hint-they don't need to!"
Right, as long as you are willing to pay the price and carry the extra weight of so-called "full frame" cameras. For many of us "full frame" is just too bulky and offers little over modern APS-Cs. BTW, "FF" is just a marketing trick, actually FF is nothing else than the "small-size picture format"; the Pentax 645 being "medium format". Thus the (unquestionably expensive) upgrade path on Pentax from APS-C is to MF (neither Canon nor Nikon can offer this quality). My main argument is that Pentax' enthusiast offering (K3) is the only non-crippled machine out there. But in the end it boils down to what you need: if its extreme-minimum DOF, go FF, if not, choose APS-C. Using a 50/1.4 at 1.4 on my APS-C, DOF is so minimal, I see no need for the extra bulk and cost of FF. If Pentax offers FF one day, I won't go for it. But then, thats just my personal view.
DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
MostlyHarmless: 1. We need to stop taking this personally.2. We need to get a sense of proportion (we are not starving or in fear of our lives).3. Adobe are just doing what companies do.4. Limited functionality after you stop paying shouldn't change anything - it just means you can do what you should do *after* you stop paying instead of just before (migrate).5. Always have an exit strategy - no system is around forever.6. Mike Ronesia below has the right attitude:-)
Well, I am one of those customers who took this personally. I have been using a very old version of Bridge and PSE and decided to upgrade a couple of months ago. Lightroom was the most appealing path to take. But along came the subscription model for CC. Though LR was still excluded from this extremely customer-unfriendly subscription-scheme, I didn't trust Adobe to keep LR a normal piece of software. And right I was. My money went to DXO...Ad "no system is around forever": true, but no system is around shorter than a subscription system that ends abruptly when YOUR money stops flowing out to the company.
KAllen: So my 100,000 raw files will upload to iCloud. **ck you.
@KAllen: You have been cited online in the renowned German magazine "Spiegel"! Congrats! The only change: "Spiegel" decided to forego the "**".;-)
"'Ich habe über 100.000 Raw-Dateien. Werden sie die alle in der iCloud speichern? Idioten', schreibt ein Fotograf im Dpreview-Forum."
AbrasiveReducer: This is classic DPR. Your RX100 may exhibit some soft corners or a soft edge but heck, blame it on the 20 megapixels. And besides, we can point to lots of compact cameras that aren't any better.
This translates roughly, to "It's the best you're gonna get in this size body but if you care enough about image quality to spend $800, and you insist on a zoom lens in a camera this size, don't expect miracles."
@everlast66:its not about sensor size, its about image quality. as i have stated above, a handful of cameras less than half the price do an *almost* equal job: pentax mx1 and the oly zx which both come with lenses superior to the various sony rx iterations. as pertains to the sensor: yes, it is bigger, so what. if the lens doesn't do the job the camera output just won't be what it could be. especially when the sensor - although double in size - is packed with almost double as many pixels making sensor size differences more or less obsolete in real live). mobiles and tablets: come on, do you want to insult me? as i said before: do a side by side comparison on the "studio comparison" page just two clicks behind the "conclusions" page of this review. you will be astonished at how miniscule the differences are when it comes to iq, and how the pentax and oly exel especially in overall sharpness and detail for a fraction of the price.
Roughly EUR 260/GBP 220 will buy you the Pentax MX-1. Corner-2-corner sharpness is better than on the RX and IQ is hardly distinguishable (o.k. if you are a pixel peeper you will notice some very minor differences in favour of the Sony, and yes, the Sony's sensor has more pixels...). Potential buyers of a compact should check out the "Studio Comparison" for a side-by-side comparison. I wouldn't dish out 800,- for this compact, especially because I prefer sharp lenses and crisp images (something the Pentax or an Oly ZX can do for less than half the price). If the price of the RX were appr. half, things might be different though.
Biowizard: Apart from the niggling ongoing fees, the problem with CLOUD computing of ANY kind (not just Adobe, but let's include Facebook as an example) is that YOU, the USER, lose control of your environment.
For example, FB routinely "updates" its user experience. YOU, the USER have no say whether you want to take the update, or stick with what workds for you.
Again, Cloud services can go "down", whether for maintenance or system failure: not much help if YOU, the USER, is on a tight deadline and need cloud access to locate your work or re-authorise your software.
Then, as in the case of Adobe recently, a cloud service might suffer a successful hacking attempt, severely compromising YOUR, the USER'S security, IP and possibly financial details.
The WHOLE reason I (the USER) want the DESKTOP model is that I (...) can control my versions, I (...) can make sure I am secure.
Sorry, but CLOUD means that you CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING and HAVE NO CONTROL. Give me BLUE SKY ANY TIME: my DESKTOP.
@Just a Photographer :I think you are mixing things up... We all don't mind subscribing to *services* (phone, cable tv, newspapers...); but PS isn't a service. Its a stand-alone piece of software that would run perfectly without any subscription. Compare PS to any other tool - subscribing to PS is just as insane as subscribing to a screw driver or a drill. You buy these tools and use them as long as you desire, and upgrade to higher quality/newer tools when YOU feel the necessity to do so.
stern: The rip-offs at Adobe made me move to DXO last year. Was looking for decent and professional software for my RAW workflow (Apple is currently doing nothing ...), and Adobe's products were No. 1 on my list... but then - I was just about to make the move to their Creative Suite - came along this highway-robbery-like scheme and after some extra evaluation made me move to DXO. I am probably not the only one who said farewell to Adobe.
Its the bad example that Adobe and the like set (Office 365 for iPad: EUR 100,-/year!); that is what we are complaining about. If require a hammer to hammer a nail into a wall, I will buy the hammer and not subscribe to it (ending up paying a monthly fee for that tool). PS, Office etc. are tools for which subscriptions add no value (its completely different with photo hosting sites, video streaming, news sites etc. - I will gladly subscribe to those, but I won't pay a monthly fee for a hammer...).
The rip-offs at Adobe made me move to DXO last year. Was looking for decent and professional software for my RAW workflow (Apple is currently doing nothing ...), and Adobe's products were No. 1 on my list... but then - I was just about to make the move to their Creative Suite - came along this highway-robbery-like scheme and after some extra evaluation made me move to DXO. I am probably not the only one who said farewell to Adobe.
String: So half the names on here bitching about Adobe have no issue giving Canikon $2000 plus every time a new camera comes out but balk at subscribing to the most powerful/useful software out there at $10/month?
Look, I paid 99,- for DXO Optics. My first choice would have been LR, but due to the (obviously) upcoming subscription model I looked elsewhere, Why should I pay 300,- in 3 years, 400,- in 4 years and so on when I can have a similarily powerful tool for 99,- for as long as I want to use it? DXO is even more powerful in some respects than LR; and lags behind in other fileds, i.e. image organizer; but hey, what does an image organizer cost? Some of the best are freeware or shareware...). I am still using Adobe Bridge to manage my image library (must be some 5 years old or even older, still works for me WITHOUT monthly payments).