Sony F717 and Olympus E-1
manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.
Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.
2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)
I doubt this.
The RX100 lens aperture gets smaller very soon, the chart is cleary misleading here.
A great idea, but (currently) so badly done that it does more harm than good and most likely gives wrong information (which is worse than no information)
Henry M. Hertz: m43 is as good as dead.
it´s not pocketable as P&S or mobile phones.so why not buy the real deal, a DSLR, if you want good image quality.or some of the small APS-C cameras.
that is what the normal customer .. the majority... thinks.
and EVF are still crap... no breakthrough on that front.
It's not a question of "better", but a question of "good enough".
For me the Sony 1" 20MP sensor is good enough, the Sony 16MP 4/3" Sensor is also good enough.I do not need better quality.
I said 10 years ago that I need something around 20MP to be happy and obviously you can have good 20MP in a 1" sensor now.
Others have higher expectations, but I assume that the market for those "premium buyers" is very low.
So I bought a Sony RX100 a year ago and I will most likely buy another (mFT) system camera (or the Canon D70) to replace my 10 year old Olympus E-1 and after that I will not buy another camera for the next xx years...
The market for those, that are willing to pay huge money and schlepp around large cameras systems is shrinking dramatically in the western world, the times are over, that you can use your (full frame) DSLR as a status symbol...
More ordinary people spending thousands of US$ to make cat pictures are starting to stop that stupid shopping fetish...
AdamScot: Re. weather sealing: once again you've shown Canon's diagram without any explanation or key. If it's the same colour scheme used in the past, then the red areas are sealing material - although it doesn't explain whether these are proper rubber gaskets/O'rings, or just the absorbent sponge used on 60D/7D. The green areas are not sealed - just 'tighter tolerances' - whatever that means.
Could you not do some journalism and ask what things mean before you put them on the site? - you surely have enough clout with Canon by now to get an answer out of them. As it is, your diagram is very misleading, and doesn't show people that they have to be careful, for example, with the unsealed shutter button and other areas on this camera.
This stuff's important to some of us - a minority apparently - but still, it's nice to know what you're buying, and DPreview ought to be able to check things out and to realise that a colour-coded diagram needs a key.
I didn't know that Canon isn't using "real" sealing.
Yanko Kitanov: At higher ISO BIS is clearly better - but is high ISO what you buy a pocket cam for? What do you use more often - low ISO or high ISO? If you have your answers, please note that at low ISO the older non BIS sensor is BETTER, the BIS architecture has some clear drawbacks at low ISO, fact.
I need high ISO in a pocket camera much more often than in a systems camera, but this is just my opinion, of course.
I use systesm camera when I know that I want to make some photographs and usually I do so when there is (good) light. My pocket camera is mostly for keeping memories and so good light is not always available...
What does "40% more sensitive" translate to?
In my opnion 140% does mean 1/2 ISO step. Correct?
Timmbits: To me, this is an XZ-1.1 - not xz-2, here's why:
It has welcome improvements in the looks department. Love the handle, love the moving away from the s95-like anonymity - very nice over all design. Love that Olympus continues to set the pace with beautiful retro-like designs.
But the lens is similar. Very similar: nice, bright, reasonable zoom range.
And despite the sensor being a BSI, it is slightly smaller (1/1,7" versus 1/1,6") and with a higher pixel count - so the pixels are either the same size (at best) or may even be slightly smaller than on the previous model... which leads to the obvious question: are the images better? Or have things stayed much the same?
Definitely, it's a welcome rejuvenation as an XZ-1.1, getting an update in the marketing-hype department (12MP bsi), but... ...I can't wait to see the REAL XZ-2 (whatever they are going to call a "real" successor to the XZ-1/2).
the XZ-1 has an excellent lens and an outdated sensor.
Now the XZ-2 keeps the lens and adds a sensor that is 2-3 generations younger,it adds faster processing power (see video for example) and a tilting screen.
How much differentiation do you need?
Do you really want a new lens, when the old one is superb?
On the other side the camera got significantly larger, so for those searching the most compact camera the XZ-2 will probably not fit...
Fotogeneticist: Until an EVF has the same refresh rate and dynamic range that matches my eye, it will never replace OVFs for me. What does an EVF give me except for battery drain and shadows you can't see into? And to the poster that said an EVF needs 2MP to out-resolve an OVF, if you out resolve what your eye can see anyways, what good would that do?
to see in the dark an EVF is much better than an OVF (in theory) as many military applications already proof. Who would try to see in the dark with a pure optical device ?
Joe0Bloggs: I was going to calculate the equivalent apertures of a few recent wide aperture compacts and compare them--cool that dpreview has already calculated the whole lot for me!
"*Effective aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account."
Pity they didn't go on to point out that given equivalent sensor technologies, having a larger (smaller number) effective aperture also gives you better low light performance no matter what the size of the sensor or the actual f-number on the lens is. So e.g. we can expect the RX100 to do better in low light than the G1X, Nikon 1 with f/3.5-5.6 lens or even m4/3rds and even 1.5 crop with kit f/3.5 lenses.
on the other hand the RX100 falls behind cameras like the XZ-1 or X-10 on the longer end of the zoom range.
techmine: That CZ lens makes this camera really hot!
Imaging ressource reportrs 3,8% distortion on the wide end (ok, corrected via software) and imho very, very unsharp corners at the wide end wide open.
Macro performance is also nothing to rave about.
They still call it a "good performance", so expectations on a good lens are different. Soft corners will not bother many people, but it bothers me who wants to take landscape shots with a camera like that.
jonikon: This Sony RX100 is a BIG improvement over all the other truly pocketable cameras and should be well received by many. Cameras like this should have been made years ago, as the demand has been there for some time now. Although the RX100 is definitely a Canon G1X killer, it is not perfect however. I would like to see Sony add:1. an EVF2. Phase detection auto focus for acceptable continuous AF of moving subjects.3. Less megapixels. 10MP is enough, but 20MP is unnecessary and results some IQ issues (like color accuracy and diffraction limiting, noise reduction smearing), that could have been avoided with a 10 or 12 MP sensor.4. A way to remove the lens for sensor cleaning.5. Lower price.
That said, I think the RX100 is good enough to take away a lot of sales from their NEX line of cameras that are definitely NOT pocketable with a zoom lens attached, and offer little more than lens interchangeability over the RX100.
The 20MP RX100 will make better 10MP pictures than any 10MP camera (with 1" sensor) and it will also make better 20MP pictures.
Did you ask also for bigger grain when shooting film?
imho the RX100 is a nice camera. It has the greatest light gathering on the wide end, but Olympus XZ-1 and Fuji X10 are better at the long end of the zoom despite the smaller sensors because of their much "faster" lenses.
I'm not sure about macro capabilities, a hot shoe is missing for some and also the ability to mount accessories like the XZ-1 (macro light, external microphone, EVF, etc...)
And finally there is the price difference.
On the other hand you gain sensor quality and most likely also video quality.
I don't think that cameras like X-10 or XZ-1 are obsolete now (I assume that there will be an XZ-2 sooner or later anyway) and cameras like the EX-1 or LX-5 offer a wider view which could also be a big factor for some, but the new Sony definitely is a nice addition.
AnHund: Even the best EVF will never be as good as an OVF as they are implemented in the current FF DSLRs. Period.
"Digital sensors will NEVER be better than film."
Nothing new with these kind of arguments.
panman55: How about a range of ultra-fast Fujinon lenses please? like f1.2, 1.4 20mm tilt/shift and f2 300mm lenses? No-one else seems interested, and the quality of Fuji was always excellent.
Also, could we please have a 'basic' high-end digital camera with NO silly 'scene' settings, just aperture and shutter-speed controls along with high-speed autofocus? Don't need all the other expensive techno stuff, just high-quality basics - most pro photographers could cope with that couldn't they?
I'd really like a stripped-down basic camera with TOP-end quality chip, and top-end lenses please, and leave out the retro styling too, we don't need to look backwards any more - go on, you know you can!
I would be interested in a f2 300mm lens (if it is only to show it to friends on the cardboard) if someone gives me 30,000 US$ to buy one...
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review