That watermark is infinitely tacky.
Smokymtnhiker: A Gold award for this camera while the A7 with same 80% got a Silver?
That's ridiculous. A6000 looks to be a far better deal. I couldn't care less about video.
DPR should either give two ratings for every camera which has video capability...
1.) Photographic 2.) Video
..or only rate cameras like the RX10 against camcorders since that is it's primary function.
Look at the lens graph.
Sony RX10 - $1300
Sony A6000 - $650Sony 18-105 f/4 - $600total: $1250
Wetzlarkid: The "T" ~ A lovely piece of workmanship, it would look terrific on my Bro's desk next to his Maserati keys! Me ~ Nah..my X1 hits my shutter wants & desires.........
@BeaverTerror the Fuji 18-55 is mediocre at best and only half a stop faster than the Leica. This is Fuji f-number cheating trickery at play. I wouldn't be surprised if the Leica smokes the Fuji zoom.
Jogger: Really makes the $1600 Panasonic "Leica" 42.5/1.2 look even less appealing and more of a rip-off. Is it $600 better than the Fuji?
The Panasonic Leica renders significantly better than this Fuji. Though for me neither seem good value for money. I find the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 a far better deal with far better images.
Doesn't really look better than a "cheap" Nikon 85mm 1.8G, whether you use it on APS-C or full frame.
whtchocla7e: It's funny that even Leica releases a serious mirror-less system to the market before Canon and Nikon do... The CaNikon boys are stuck in a time warp.
You are funny considering that this Leica is almost an exact clone of the Canon EOS M.
fakuryu: So what is special about this Leica compared to the rest of the mirrorless market?
IMHO Leica is a special camera as they are able to fit a 135 sensor in something as compact as a rangefinder and in tandem with their excellent FF lenses.
So how does this compare and differentiate itself to Sony, Fuji, Samsung (you can also throw a Pentax K01 in the mix) when it comes to IQ? None really, the competition is so tight it will be hard to differentiate what is what.
So how about the lenses now? Nothing also really since other manufacturers also produce top quality optics on par with any other company. Mostly it is ignorance and badge snobbery.
@Zohan: fast native primes, accurate autofocus. At least that's why I dumped my Nikon.
Gazeomon: I think there are more exciting 'entry level' cameras available than this lame plastic 'iteration of an iteration'. Look @ Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and Pentax.
Lenses LOL! If a person would want a nice (native) 35mm eq. walk around prime on Nikon DX, you can forget about it.
And that's quite a fundamental lens missing in this system.
The watercolor look from this camera is unacceptable (e.g. as shown by Steve Huff).
photo perzon: Have you seen zoom lens sizes for FF?
Have you seen the size of f/2 lenses for four thirds sensors? And those are just f/4 equivalent!
I'm surprised people are still so upset about this sensor spots non-issue. You can just wipe them off with a cleaning kit. It takes 2 seconds.
If I were to complain about the D600, I'd complain about the pathetic APS-C autofocus module, the hunting in low light, the constant missed focus, and how the focus points are all bundled in the middle (there might as well just be one focus point).
And I'd complain about the lack of decent lenses, first an foremost the complete lack of an even borderline decent 50mm Nikon prime.
nathondetroit: Angrily, the truck owner vents to his friend: “I’m so sick of these gas stations. Filthy equipment, rude employees, and I have to stop every 300 miles.”
To which the Nissan Leaf owner responds, “What gas stations?”
@yabokkie: for the same reason people switched to LCD displays instead of CRTs, and for the same reason people switch to solid state storage rather than magnetic discs. The same reason why bulky desktop PCs got replaced by laptops and tablets. The same reason we will all drive electric cars in the future. It's called progress. It's quite common in technology.
Richard3: Nikon you can kiss my Ass , i spent a lot of money on ur gear , and was slapped in the face many time with this camera . i was told that the D600 had no issues that you were aware of now that its a know fact you care about ur customers after so many have invested hard earned money .
I will never buy another nikon product again , not that you care .
I too am fed up with Nikon. Nikon and Canon deliberately cripple their products in order to force their customers to climb their product line. It's bad business practice.
Hubertus Bigend: A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.
This type of camera is aimed at the kind of people that don't care about that.
burnin: Actually, it reveals Olympus as being dickheads for leaving out 5-axis image stabilization in the OM-D E-M10.
That's just marketing. I wouldn't care to much about it. There's probably almost no difference between the 3-axis of the E-M10 and the 5-axis of the E-M5. They just need to differentiate the products...
GodSpeaks: Ohhhh, a 12mm f2 Samyang in MFT mount. And a 10mm f2.8.
@yabookie the troll: if you need a 24/1.4 then you are looking at the wrong system with m43. A lens of that size is just ridiculous on a compact system.
But until Sony releases a small 24mm for their A7/R (similar to their 35mm), the Olympus 12/2 is the best compact 24mm eq. out there.
Why anyone would buy the Samyang for m43 is beyond me. It is an APS-C lens. It's large and probably nowhere near as good as the Olympus.
Rmel26: This has just made me consider getting the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 lens for micro 4 3. Since I already have the micro 4 3 bodies, all I really need is a fast zoom in one body and my 20mm in another. I see the 35-100 now selling below 1000 in EBAY. I think this is a better approach for those with micro 4 3 system
The dirt-cheap (yet excellent) Olympus 40-150mm is equivalent to a f/2.8-4 on a 1" sensor like the RX10.
Nevertheless the RX10 is a really cool camera, and puts the entire Nikon 1 line to shame.
@yabookie: the m43 policy has been to make compact lenses. My favorites are the 12/2 and 75/1.8, which are 24/4 and 150/3.6 equivalent. You can't find anything that compact yet that sharp on full frame, let alone APS-C.
itsastickup: No bokeh no buy.
You have to pay a bomb to get anywhere near the bokeh of an APS-C 35/1.8.
m4/3 is fine for many purposes, but without affordable bokeh it's off many of our radars.
That 25/1.2 should be a maximum $200.
Who are they kidding. Grow up, Olympus. Get some cojones and do what you know you have to do.
If you are referring to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, that lens has the worst bokeh of all the lenses I've ever used.
itsastickup: It's a beautiful camera.
Show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh!!!
And not at $900, FFS. These clowns won't crack mirroless until they realise that the common man wants everything but his kid's face out of focus. And he gets it from APS-C for less than $200
More whining from people who don't know what they are talking about.
The cheap Olympus 45/1.8 provides the same amount of background blur as a Canikon 50/1.8 but the bokeh is far, far better. And I don't know a single APS-C lens that has bokeh as beautiful as the Olympus primes.
BBking83: So... 10 years ago when the first 4/3 camera came out, no one complained about the lack of bokeh. The Olympus E-1.
I can guarantee that all the "no bokeh, no buy" spokes people never knew this and will refuse to recognise or accept that it's the SAME SIZE (regarding sensor) as this.
And every other m4/3 camera.
My Leica 25/1.4, Olympus 45/1.8, Olympus 75/1.8 and Olympus 40-150mm all provide plenty of bokeh.
The 75/1.8 is competitive with full frame. It's like carrying a 150/3.6 IS. And it's tiny. It's awesome.