peevee1: " To access it, you have have to go to the Custom menu in order to make the Custom menu visible"
I also don't fancy "orientated" very much. You used it twice in the intro. Just saying.
Cheng Bao: "Why does the screen flip down instead of up? Olympus says it's to keep your hand from getting in the way of the lens or flash."
I don't think it regards your hands position, instead, because e-pl7 has to use an external flash, there is no room for flip up when bundled flash is attached.
flip-up, no external flash, no central positioned EVFflip-down, no tripod for traditional selfie.
"Self Portrait Monopod" and "Upside-Down Bean Bag" should be modes, like PASM. Or maybe scenes, like snow or fireworks. Yeah that's the ticket.
joe6pack: flip-down is only good for hand holding. You cannot put the camera on a table and take group-photos like flip-up cameras.
Wouldn't you have to rotate the picture? Maybe I'm missing something, or you're pulling my leg. Maybe Olympus could ship the camera with a bean bag.
Henry Falkner: The PL7 looks like an attractive upgrade from my SH-50 and SH-1 pocket P&S jobs. I could do crops printed to 23x33 inch (now I must use the entire frame). The PL7 is small and light enough to be with me all the time. I find 3-axis IS adequate for stills, but for video I prefer 5-axis IS on both the SH-50 and SH-1. A larger battery capacity is always appreciated.But why have they placed the video start/stop button right next to the menu button? A similar placement, above the display button on the SZ-30MR pocket P&S, led to mistakes on unrepeatable occasions! Olympus had the video button well spaced away from any others on the PL5 - so why re-invent the design failures of 2011?
@ Richard ButlerThat's why it's called "footage".
kociasek: The caption under the photograph of the four lenses seems to be wrong. It says:"These four lenses are all 85mm equivalent F1.2s. However, this does not mean they're all 85mm F1.2 equivalent."Unless I'm mistaken, "equivalent" should be dropped from the first sentence.
@NigelhtYou're introducing another element, exposure time. Those equivalences are stated for the benefit of comparing DOF. Your argument, while valid, is a bit off the intended scope of the current " equivalent" f stop discussion.
Richard Butler: It's been suggested to me that people would be happier if we used the term 'Equivalent F-number' rather than 'Equivalent Aperture.' Is this the case?
Equivalent f number is fine. Why sweat it and argue semantics.
Sven44: Heh, I've just spotted the following on a review of Fuji's new lens (which I'm just a little bit excited by....):
"We've been shooting with the Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R - the fast 85mm equivalent prime lens for Fujifilm's X mount mirrorless cameras. Its F1.2 aperture means it gives similarly shallow depth-of-field to an 85mm F1.8 lens on a full frame body, making it an useful portrait lens"
Makes 100% perfect sense to me, and a great opening paragraph to the review. Does anyone not see it that way? How else should hey have described it?
Nigelht? Maybe a "56mm 1.2 lens which you're going to mount on a normal camera but then you're going to take a crop of it so you have the FOV of an 85mm lens, but let's not talk about the depth of field or sensor gain for that matter because no-one wants to have to multiply anything by 1.5..."?
Good point. Still, no harm in spelling out the "equivalence". So I really don't see why object to it.
Alejandro del Pielago: I´m putting the eye on the A7, but the news are not very well :(((((
You'll have to give up the eye, to buy this.
The only thing I get from this is that ten race for full frame is on.
For me this is right on the money. Great camera and pix but not photographer centric. I sold my rx100 because I never enjoyed using it. It felt like a bar of soap, amongst other annoying traits.
Sosua: Is this a new kit lens? Looks tiny?
That's the new 20mm f1.7
I'm coming to dp less and less. Cell phones? Really? What a shame, you used to best the best photo site in the world.
pentaxfun: The second I saw the news item for this camera on the front page, I instantly perked up and got all excited and clicked on it, hoping that maybe this one would finally break the trend, and actually be a RAW-capable underwater cam, for once.
So I clicked it open immediately and was quickly scanning through the paragraph, and seeing how it was having a high quality fast lens and various high quality features and whatnot, and I'm thinking like AWWWW YEAAAA baby, this is gonna be the one, there's no way they are gonna be idiotic with this one and STILL somehow not give this one RAW ability.
I feverishly, sweaty-palms-ishly scroll down to the specs, like a rabid animal, just waiting to erupt into celebration when I feel sure I am inevitably about to see those three beautiful white letters on black backgroun of "R" "A" and "W".
My eyes scan from left to right, and it hits me almost as if in slow motion:
::instantly starts sobbing passionately::
Get a life
Pedro Caminante: Well... I can only say that I have had the RX100 since September and apart from no optical veiwfinder I really cannot fault this amazing machine. Getting used to managing without veiwfinder and it really doesn't bother me at all now. Size and build quality are superb, perfect even ! The image quality is fantastic, even low light high ISO shots come out brilliantly. A friend of mine has the Nikon and he is considering changing. This is my first Sony camera ( Nikon DSLR ) and it is an ongoing great experience, still learning from it and I love it !! For me it is the perfect combo, pocket size and DSLR image quality, and with a zeiss lens and great build.... well ! I did a lot of research before parting with my cash.... and I am not dissapointed at all, money v well spent ! Get one !
Just sold mine. Hated it.
Nikguy: I can understand the two leading cameras excellant and state of the art. However as we all dream of a pocket camera that can statisfy 80% of the needs of a big camera heavy (I know the Oly is somewhat small) my vote is with my RX100 the fun begins with pocketabilty and great photos. There are no losers to me in the list but we keep trying to pit one system against another, That keeps them all making better equipment and WE enjoy the results. Isn't the free market great!
I'm selling mine. Sony has no photography DNA. Can't seem to get to enjoy using it. Even the rounded corner shape bothers me.
It's like cooking a chicken in the microwave.
justmeMN: As for the physical appearance of the camera, at least they didn't follow the lame retro-look design cliche.
Retro look is nice. It has buttons.
Bryan Costin: Gads, that's a horrible decision. When I create an image, I have certain rights regarding the image I created. Not the image you create. It's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever if you set out to make a new photo which looks somewhat like someone else's photo. Because what you have created is not, in fact, someone else's photo. It's your photo.
No rational claim of copyright can grant Justin Fielder, whoever he is, some magical monopoly on pictures of buses or buildings or any combination thereof. That's just idiocy.
I agree. Just Google Big Ben Red Bus, see what you get. Hundreds of defendants.
remeife: This is the most stupid I'v ever heard
OleThorsen: So basically Mr. Butler tells the family father who's a photography beginner: "We at dpreview firmly believe it's perfectly OK that your only solution to capture your playing children is to shout: Stand still children - father want to take a picture of you!", instead of learning to use Shutter Priority.
This sites IQ has gone downhill since Askey left the business.
I agree. This site has changed dramatically since Phil left. In small increments, to be sure, but the "sharp photographic edge" is gone.