photoholiko: What does it do that the NEX-5N can't for $700 less?
Better all round build quality, a more thoughtful design, a faster kit zoom lens, and of course a more logical user interface.
If Nikon release a $1,500 FF DSLR then Canon's existing business model, product line up and pricing model is toast.
Canon have just released the 5D Mk III at $3,500 body only (!#!), and its near starter DSLR, the 650D at $950.
As someone who has always felt Canon are one of the more cynical manufacturers our there I can't but help feeling a touch of schadenfreude as I witness the increasingly tightening stranglehold Nikon and Sony have got them in. That even as I see the value of my Canon kit falling by the day on Ebay.
I'm selling and moving on, Canon have been offering too little for too much, for too long.
IcyVeins: This lens costs $600. Therefore, the D600 will cost $2000 and the D600 + 24-85mm kit will cost $2500.
The inside rumours have the D600 body costing around $1,500, which makes more sense. Take the D600 to close to the D800 in price and it loses its point.
It looks like a winner!
I think some people are missing the point here, namely that the RX100 is offering a quality build camera with 1 inch sensor and Carl Zeiss zoom lens in a body not really much bigger or heavier than Canon's 1/1.7" sensor S100.
That's some achievement and for me that makes the RX100 a game changer.
Yes like others I would have preferred less MP (14-16 MP is more than enough), and would trade 30 mm at the long end of the zoom range for an extra 5 mm at the wide end (ie 24-75mm), but this camera still gets my vote as the most interesting compact camera of the year, so far!
simon65: Surely it would be far better if Fujifilm, rather than faithfully replicating all Leica's bad mistakes were to think for themselves, and produce a zoom lens version of the X100.
That would be an APS-C compact camera with a 28-70 equivalent zoom, not the two thirds X10, or the brick sized X1-Pro.
@topstuff and @slncezgsi
I'm not at all sure that a zoom for the X100 would have to be large. Ok I know it wouldn't have to be.
For years I listened to people saying that it would be impossible to produce a small camera with a large sensor. Then of course Olympus did just that, and now we have APS-C cameras the size and weight of the tiny Sony NEX-C3.
Then I had, and still have (!) people telling me that any zoom lens for a large sensor camera must invariably - due to the laws of physics etc etc - "be huge". Everyone who claims this must I presume, be totally unaware of Panasonic's diminutive and high performing pancake 28-84 equivalent power zoom.
So I'm sorry but I no longer believe a word of these "it would have to be huge" posts.
And I ask Fujifilm again to please get on and produce an APS-C compact camera with a pancake zoom. Thanks.
Surely it would be far better if Fujifilm, rather than faithfully replicating all Leica's bad mistakes were to think for themselves, and produce a zoom lens version of the X100.
Hmm, a black and white only camera costing 8,000 usd.
This isn't about "authenticity" its about photography snobbery, and parting those with more cash than brains from their money.
For everyone else you'll find a black and white option in your camera's menu.
I look forward to Leica launching a gold plated diamond studded Leica, only for the Russian, Chinese and Middle Eastern markets. Doubtless that too will be luanched in the name of "authenticity", as in "authentically rich".
Fixed non zoom lens = no sale.
When will Leica wake up?
I hear what DPR are saying about most users sticking with the kit lens, most probably will, but a significant number would also opt for the 16-80 mm or other upgraded lens. And many would also have a 50 mm in their bag.
The problem with this review sample is that apart from the high ISO shots its only really showing us how good Nikon's kit 18-55 lens is, for which the answer is of course not really that good, and definitely not up to doing justice to a 24 mp sensor.
I think weaving in some 50 mm or 85 mm shots would have been a good idea, and of course we all know by now that you have copies in the DPR lens cupboard! Other than that thanks for the swift samples.
Does anyone know if this is the same 24 mp sensor Sony is using in the NEX-7?
Yes but the problem is the NEX-7 is here now, and there isn't a decent zoom to pair with it now. How did a company of Sony's size end up making such a huge cock-up as that?
"I can remember when a good quality film camera cost $2400"
Wow really? Please name that camera?
I recall the very high quality Nikon FM 2 selling for years at around £250 in the UK (around USD 500 at the time).
"You numb skulls will never except that quality craftsmanship has a price"
Come on, its going to mass produced in Japan/Thailand not carefully assembled by an artisan in a workshop somewhere in the Swiss Alps.
Ultimately the market will decide, but I'll wager that in these straightened times Fuji have got it wrong and pitched too high. There're fools. I would have gone in at a lower price to build market momentum, and establish share.
The camera market is in a state of flux and is up for grabs. There's absolutely no reason why Fuji can't be a major player, but not with pricing like this. They're being greedy and shortsighted.
Ultimately the comparison with film cameras is false. Time, and different materials (the FM 2 was built of Titanium even if it was a dark box), and improved productivity make it so.
What's important is the range of cameras on offer today. Fuji are fixated on Leica, and in being so are missing a wider opportunity. Some people will pay anything for "classic" looks. Its a shame if Fuji can't see beyond that kind of marketing wheeze. The cameras innards look good. They should be aiming higher.
I think Fuji could become a major player, but not if they're going to price themselves in as a upmarket niche Leica only rival. That's my point.
"The new PENTAX K-01 is another bold effort from the manufacturer that is known for pushing camera size, color, durability, and now, design, to the limit"
You have got to be kidding me Pentax! It's enormous, and weighs more than many DSLRs! What is the point?
Canon EOS 1100D 495 gNikon D3100 505 g Canon 550D 530 g Nikon D5100 560 gPentax K-01 561 g
Here's the new strap line for it:
"The K-01. All the size and weight of a DSLR without the benefit of a proper viewfinder"
simon65: Incredible, a 1/2.3" sensor, so Nikon still don't have a rival to Canon's S90/95/100 series.
These days if you want a compact sub 200g camera to be taken at all seriously it has to have at least a 1/1.7" sensor. Denial is going to make that fact go away Nikon.
Just as if you want your new sub 400 g compact camera to be taken seriously, it has to have an APS-C sized or at least four thirds sized sensor. But heh lets not go there.
@ Francis Carver
Yes size and weight are the first things I look at. And I think you'll find both play a major part in everyones choice of camera, otherwise we'd all be walking around with Nikon D4s. No?
So yes, please hand me that APS-C sub 400 g camera to have a look at, and leave the 1.4 kg one on the shelf. Thanks.
Incredible, a 1/2.3" sensor, so Nikon still don't have a rival to Canon's S90/95/100 series.
I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
Tiny sensor 1/2.33"+Relatively large 111 x 61 x 38 mm+and heavy (235 g) for such a tiny sensor
What part of 'at this end of the market you have to at least match the S95' don't Pentax understand? The S95 is now selling on Amazon for not much more than this.
simon65: Death of the Dino DSLR
My old Olympus OM-2N was a full frame, (ie 35mm), with a large viewfinder, and small body.
For years I've wondered why the newer DSLRs had to be the size and weight of a Dino in comparison. And the arguments put forward by the "I like 'em Big" brigade have never added up:
- 'you need a huge body to house the mirror system''Really? Except the OM-2N mirror system didn't.
-'You need a huge body to fit all the electronics in'Unless of course you're Sony with the NEX-5N.
-'You need a huge body for the motor drive'Except of course the NEX-7 which manages 10 fps.
I'm glad that the hocus pocus around huge unwieldly DSLRs has finally been shown up for the fraud it always was. They don't need to be so big, and most users don't want them so big.
As for Canon and Nikon they will either adapt or go the way of Tyrannosaurus Kodak-is. So far they're showing alarming signs of being in denial over the direction the market has taken.
Dino DSLRs are History.
"If you open of a modern AF DSLR, you'll find that every square centimeter of the body is packed with electronics"
Yep and the NEX 3C still packs all that in, an APS-C sensor, a full auto focusing system, auto drive, and an articulated screen, and weighs just 225 g.
That's not ignorance I'm afraid, its a fact. You dinos and your clunking heavyweight Canon DSLRs are in for a really tough introduction to market-technology Darwinism.
Cy Cheze: A $130k fine for a $1.7B fraud, which management disguised by a series of fake expenditures over the course of 15+ years. $130k is barely one year's bonus for a junior CFO. Kikukawa's travel and entertainment expenses (golf membership, worldwide conferences, contributions to "corporate governance" boards) probably exceeded that.
Meanwhile, civil suits brought by the shareholders or creditors against the ex CEO and Board will be mired in a search for documents that never existed or were carefully obliterated over the years. The defendants will shake their heads and say, "Well, the CPA said the books were OK, all those years, and we always provided whatever they requested." Civil charges of "maliign incompetence" may be difficult to bring to judgment. Criminal charges, whose burden of proof is higher, may fail or result in brief sentences (which could be cheaper and shorter for the accused than to prolong the litigation).
Can there be any wonder why white collar crime thrives?
"A $130k fine for a $1.7B fraud"
Agreed, it's a joke.
Corporate boardroom crime and featherweight regulators are killing capitalism. I'm on Olympus purchase strike until I see a proper boardroom clear-out at the company.