Jorgen K H Knudsen: I certainly miss Panasonic GH3 as option
Wasn't the GH3 available in 2012?
MGJA: This is silver, but Canon 70D is gold. Heh.
Really, I am ever more convinced that dpr just hands those out in order to maximize page reloads as irate fangurls battle it out in the comments. Fine, whatever puts food on their tables is a-ok with me.
I liked the GX7 a LOT, despite mostly being an Oly user since I got into m43 a few years ago (I really liked the GF1, didn't much like the GH2 or G3, and haven't spent much time with a Pany since until the GX7). But the stabilized viewfinder is a pretty big deal with longer lenses. When I first used the EM5 with the 100-300, this was a revelation. The whole view calms down and lets you much more easily pick out a focus point and lock focus on it. Before this, working at extremely long focal lengths was often more bother than it was worth unless you were using a tripod and a relatively stationary subject. I never got how great BIF shooters did what they did. The EM5, EP5, and EM1 all have this feature and it's an awesome feature. And when I had a GX7 for a month, the lack of EVF stabilization was the one negative I immediately noticed and was bothered by. This is a pretty big deal with long lenses...
Any idea how auto-ISO works? Can you set a minimum shutter speed in aperture priority mode? If so, how high can you set it? Does exposure comp work with auto-ISO in manual mode?
Auto-ISO implementation has become one of the key things I look for with sensors getting better and better and it becoming a more and more useful tool, but it's often a tough thing to really get a handle on without using the camera yourself.
"Auto ISO is available when using manual exposure, but disappointingly it doesn't respect the exposure compensation setting in this mode, which reduces its usefulness...........(Pentax Ricoh is the only company to explicitly offer such a Shutter + Aperture priority mode)"
This may be strictly true but the reality is that other manufacturers offer the same functionality in manual mode - they don't give it a separate mode with its own place on the mode dial, but you can do the very same thing. I have an RX1 and a Nikon Coolpix A that both have that functionality incorporated into the M mode (the Nikon has the most overall useful auto-ISO setup I've ever used).
But the basic point is right that Fuji falls down (hard!) by omitting this function. And a top minimum shutter speed of 1/125 is better than not being able to set it, but just barely. Ricoh's 1/250 and Nikon's 1/1000 are both far more useful...
Wow. I just saw this announcement. Live and let live, for sure, as long as its not hurting anyone else. But I gotta admit an inability to get why anyone would spend $1300 for this when the EXACT same camera is $300 in an LX7. But, its their money - mine sure wouldn't go in that direction.
Cailean Gallimore: I'll buy the Ricoh, but the Nikon doesn't seem to have any special appeal... It's a decent camera, but nothing special. The Ricoh is driven by incredibly photographer friendly software, and in that lies it's special appeal.
Marike6 - I'm also a long time Ricoh user who's had a chance to shoot pretty extensively with both of these. And I personally find plenty to like about the Nikon, some things more than the Ricoh. I, too, really like the focus ring, I like the auto-ISO implementation better, and blasphemous as it might be, I even prefer the less complex but still flexible interface. But I really don't know where you get "far better high ISO ability"? DXO shows a marginal difference of about a third of a stop IIRC, and I could never see a difference in actual low light shooting. They're both excellent, and as equally so as my eye could determine. Measurably better, maybe. But far better? I don't think so.
winkalman: Does this have snap focus like the previous GRs? Being able to set a fixed focus distance could make this a street shooter's dream!
sadwitch: Really hope DPreview will have sigma DP merrills images to compare.
Comparing something like this or the Coolpix A with the DP Merrill is the clearest case of apples and oranges I can imagine given the similar focal length. The Sigma will have the best image quality of the class and it won't even be close. But that's only for shooting in good light at base ISO when you're in absolutely NO hurry to get the shot. The Ricoh and Nikon will not have nearly as good IQ at base ISO, but they can both shoot quickly and do back to back to back shots and can also shoot very effectively at high ISO. They're just for totally different kinds of photography and have very clear tradeoffs. If you're a daytime landscape shooter or architectural shooter, you'd almost certainly want the Merrill. If you're a street shooter or someone who really enjoys low light photography (without using a tripod), you'd probably steer completely clear of the Merrill and go with the Ricoh or Nikon.
The Merrill is a different category of camera...
Ray Sachs: So, Richard, the question everyone is dying to know the answer to - or at least half a dozen of us: how do you change snap focus distance? Is it the quick and easy way like the GRD3 and GXR where you hold down one button and turn the front dial? Or is it the horrible way they switched to with the GRD4 where you have to change it in the menus? This is actually pretty critical for those of us who use snap focus a lot. The GRD4 was a total fail in this regard while the previous models were great.
I suppose making the snap distance one of the adjustments accessible via the "ADJ" rocker switch would be better than nothing. I still don't know why they changed from the GRD3 and GXR method, which couldn't have been quicker or easier.
The question isn't how to GET TO snap focus, but how to change the snap distance. On the GRD3 and GXR, you held down one rear button and turned the front dial and it would scroll through the snap distances. On the GRD4, you actually had to go into the menus to change the snap distance. The only workaround was using the "MY" custom settings on the mode dial for different distances. HUGE difference if you use snap focus a lot. I use it almost exclusively, just occasionally using auto-focus...
tkbslc: I wonder if this wouldn't have been better as a GXR module. The body is nearly the same.
Its actually a lot smaller than the GXR-28.
So, Richard, the question everyone is dying to know the answer to - or at least half a dozen of us: how do you change snap focus distance? Is it the quick and easy way like the GRD3 and GXR where you hold down one button and turn the front dial? Or is it the horrible way they switched to with the GRD4 where you have to change it in the menus? This is actually pretty critical for those of us who use snap focus a lot. The GRD4 was a total fail in this regard while the previous models were great.
marike6: Same exact size as the RX100, but should have significantly better IQ/high ISO ability and $1100 USD sounds expensive, but it's really only $450 more expensive than the Sony, and well over half the price of the RX1.
28mm is the classical street photography focal length, IMHO. Think Ricoh GRD. There's a reason Ricoh chose 28mm for the legendary GRD, the prototypical street shooter. Many say 35mm is, but shooting in close quarters, Manhattan, Paris or Athens for example, you quickly realize that 35mm and 50mm are not nearly wide enough, especially in the small streets of Europe.
Should be of interest to landscape and architectural photographers because of the high IQ, and lack of AA filter. f2 like the X100 would have been better, but f2.8 on a wide is in no way a deal breaker for me. This camera is significantly smaller than the X100 and smaller than the DP2 Merrill as well.
It's not perfect, but has the potential to be great, and with the VF it sure it pretty.
You mean well UNDER half the price of the RX1?
I agree with you on this camera, BTW. F 2.0 would have been nice, but not with the likely size tradeoff. And if the sensor will handle ISO 6400 and beyond, it'll still do fine in low light...
Looks like better image quality than the Ricoh GXR-28mm module in a package as small as the GRD. And yeah, 28mm is perfect for some of us - 35 is a compromise I can live with but 28 is my sweet spot...
joshxiv: I could live with an external 'dumb' finder on an APS-C camera, if it had controls and snap focus function similar to the Ricoh GRD series; or a useful DOF scale on the lens or on the screen (like the X1 or the Fuji X's) or a focus wheel like the Sigma DP series.
But as it is, an X100 with the 28mm adapter is simply a much better buy. Or wait and see what the GRD V may bring.
It has a pretty decent distance scale on the right side of the screen, clearly seen in this video. No DOF scale, but I don't trust those anyway. And there's a configuration for quick AF while in MF, so it ends up being about as useful as snap focus. Looks like a winner to me. A little over priced, but I'll probably pay the freight...
Ray Sachs: I assume there's a distance scale associated with manual focus controls for zone focussing? Seems pretty critical on a camera like this.
I saw a video - it definitely has a reasonably precise distance scale on the right side. No DOF scale, but I rarely trust those anyway. A distance scale is all I need to work with.
I assume there's a distance scale associated with manual focus controls for zone focussing? Seems pretty critical on a camera like this.
fastlass: I have never seen you guys praise a camera's jpegs as with this one. Does this Fuji have the best jpeg output ever? Or in its class?
Well, jpegs are always sort of in the eye of the beholder. But, even with the X100 (which had pretty good raw support from very early), I've always shot jpegs with the Fujis and raw with everything else I've shot with. I just haven't been able to do better with raw and the jpegs are not only very nice, but they're also quite malleable to further processing with stuff like Silver or Color Efex and a fair amount of latitude in Lightroom.
Whether they're the best ever is a matter of opinion, but they're real good!
Ray Sachs: So the X-Pro got the same score but silver a while back. I wonder if there would be any revision to that now that some of the bugs have been worked out through firmware, decent raw support is now available, and more lenses (the zoom and 14mm are now on the menu). It doesn't matter one way or the other, of course, but I'm sort of curious if the good folks at DPR actually find this camera somehow better than its older brother, or maybe give the award due to its lower price???
Got it, but I seem to remember you folks re-examined and maybe re-rated the X100 after many of its early quirks were worked out in firmware. Which made me wonder whether you'd take the same approach with the X-Pro. Doesn't matter obviously, it is what it is today - but a prospective buyer might do a quick comparison and conclude that the XE1 is actually a more functional camera than the X-Pro, which its not. Similarly functional without an OVF and with a flash seems to be the story.
Shawn - understood. Thanks. Sir Seth - true, but it was also sorted on the X-Pro, which is part of what raised the question. It's academic anyway. Two great cameras - pay more for the OVF or pay less without it.
So the X-Pro got the same score but silver a while back. I wonder if there would be any revision to that now that some of the bugs have been worked out through firmware, decent raw support is now available, and more lenses (the zoom and 14mm are now on the menu). It doesn't matter one way or the other, of course, but I'm sort of curious if the good folks at DPR actually find this camera somehow better than its older brother, or maybe give the award due to its lower price???