StefanD: About " the new 7-14mm wideangle zoom (on the left in this picture) is considerable smaller and lighter than full-frame equivalents":
Compared to the Canon 16-35 F4, it isn't that much lighter or smaller:Weight: 534 g. vs 615 g.Diameter: 79 mm. vs 82.6 mm.Length: 106 mm. vs 112.8 mm.(a 7-14 2.8 on m43 is comparable to a 14-28 5.6 on FF)
Although I would love to see lenses that are much lighter and smaller than my full lframe Canon lenses, I don't see it happen yet...
it's a different angle of view (14mm equ. vs 16mm) and so a VERY different lens design. Just look at the front element.Everything from 15mm and longer can be built like a "normal" wideangle, everything from 14mm and smaller has that bulky front element (until now).
So imho both lenses are not really comparable.
neo_nights: On the High Res Mode, why are the RAW pictures much softer than the JPEGs?
If I capture a 16MP file and double the resolution by shifting at 0,5 pixels I assume that you get 16MP x 2 x 2 = 64MP of "data".
So I expect much better RAW conversion in the (near?) future...
Maybe you need a lens that is able to deliver the resolution that is needed to get good 64MP files...
Something like a macro lens at F=2.8 to 4.0
stevo23: Looking at the Imaging Resource comparison and other samples, I can only conclude that while you're apparently getting a 40Mp file, you're NOT getting the resolution of a 40Mp camera - nowhere close.
I see no reason for personal insults. Those are just cameras.
I do see better color resolution in the 40MP E-M5 II files and better luminescence resolution in the Nikon D810 files. I wouldn't call one better than the other (l leava this judgment to the experts, because it is of no relevance for me), they are slightly different.
The D810 can make this from single exposure, so it is much more versatile, but this doesn't make the E-M5 II a bad performer.
And so far we have not seen what a good converter can extract from the 64MP RAW files...
You take 8 different 16MP images, but if your lens resolves only 16MP (this is a bit simplifed of course) you gain nothing from those diferent images, because you add similar images to each other.
You can not get "extra resolution" from a shifting sensor, that the lens can not offer.
If it would be otherwise physical barriers in satlitte, astro and microphotography wouldn't matter anymore. Sadly they do.
I'm interested in those 64MP RAW files and expect to get significantly better performaance from them compared to the 40MP jpg output.(using an excellent mFT lens that is able to resolve up to 64MP, of course)
Juraj Lacko: That brushed aluminium will pick scratches like crazy.
I assume that the surface will be Aluminiumoxide and not Aluminium.
Aluminiumoxid is used in "ceramic plates" for military grade vests to stop rifle bullets (in combination with Aramid) because it is so hard.
Retzius: Only Leica has the balls to remove a feature like optical stabilization and tell you its a "feature" because it would degrade image quality and then charge you more for giving you less
At the same time they include scene modes like "fireworks"...
Gotta admire their hutzpah
Do you believe that a picture mode in the menu will degrade image quality?
a moveable lens does so (it's another question if this is a real problem/disadvantage)
PowerG9atBlackForest: Can you imagine how a naked, clinically dead metall piece milled down from a massive block of aluminum will feel in your hands. Warm and cosy? - Cold like ice!
A cool sensor because of a huge heat sink sounds like a good thing to have.
Aluminium is very easy to recycle. There will be no waste. In Germany a large amount of Aluminium used is already recycled (because of high energy costs.
If you car about the ecological footprint of your camera just don't buy new ones so often. the largest footprint most likely comes from the sensor and the microelectronics involved.
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)
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...