What the layman will hear is "shot with a Sony A7s," and he will think that just by purchasing an A7s, they will get pro video...not realizing that quite often there's a whole lot more involved than just the camera body.
Michael Piziak: Those 5 tripods look very similar - almost as though they were made by the same company.
They're tripods with ball heads...how different can they look?
Gonini: What a coward and cheap move by Sony! So all of their cameras are overpriced? Proof that the company does not stand behind their products. Those defending the price cut (and sony) probably did not buy this camera at its overpriced original price!
Cowardly and cheap? Sony is a business. They name the price and people decide if it is worth it or not. All camera get cheaper as you own them; in five years you be able to buy an RX10 for even less. The point is, if you buy a new-to-the-market camera, you will pay more. Almost no one absolutely needs a camera, so don't chase after the state of the art, because you will always pay the "overpriced" price.
Richard Franiec: I was about to order the X-T1 but now I rather wait for the porcupine foreskin covered version. Leica's paper edition does not appeal to me anymore.
I guess that it is about time to create new segment of cameras clearly dedicated for fashion freaks, not photographers. DPR - be the first, surely, others will follow.
Not only does he drive a grey car, wears grey clothes, lives in a grey house with grey furniture, he only shoots B&W photos. :P
MarkByland: Still no legitimate, justifiable reason why camera companies are dropping the optical viewfinder. It all just sounds like cheaper, faster, more production units mojo to me.
I think camera companies could stand a few minutes behind the counter listening to customers complain for a day. Perhaps they'd see things differently. Not every one enjoys holding a camera at an obtuse parallax in relation to what the eye is seeing. People also can't stand not being able to use LCD in bright sunlight, yet another reason a finder was essential.
Don't make it sound like Canon is the only manufacturer not include a viewfinder on a compact camera. Viewfinders are NOT the norm, and most people don't care about one. If they did, they would all stop using the cell phone and buy a 'real" camera with a supposedly necessary viewfinder.
photofan1986: Impressive quality, I must say!
The photos are flat and lifeless because the lighting itself is flat and lifeless.
rrr_hhh: "and a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec "
Isn't that the maximum shutter speed, being the fastest one ?
Depends on how you look at it. Shutter speed is a time value (hence Canon marking their shutter speed as Tv instead of S), and 1/8000 is less time than 1/4000, 1/2000, etc. So in that respect, it is the minimum speed.
BrianK: One of the appeals of this class of camera is the ability to shoot in crappy weather conditions, which one would think might also be associated with less than ideal lighting. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, none of these cameras offer the option to save in uncompressed RAW format which would give one the most flexibility to make corrections to color balance, etc., i.e., the kinds of corrections one might want to be able to make when shooting in less than ideal conditions.
Makes no sense to me.
I hope that when DPReview gets around to its next round-up review of this class of camera that they raise at least a bit of a stink about this omission.
The manufacturers probably figure the target market doesn't even know what RAW is.
IMO the 5-axis IS is not the news here, but the fact that RAW is offered. I do not know if the target consumer cares about RAW, but as far as I know, this is the only travel zoom to offer it.
vapentaxuser: Raising the starting price over its predecessor by $100 is a risky move on Sony's part. I guess they're operating on the assumption that any other enthusiast compacts coming out later in the Summer/Fall will still have 1/1.7" sensors. It might be worthwhile to wait a few months to see what else comes out before buying this camera.
Since the new mode is not a replacement but an addition, it is hardly a risky move. Those that want the new sensor, articulated LCD, and hot shoe can pay the $100 more, and those that don't can save $100 and buy the original.
historianx: What Oly should do is develop and release a bridge s/z similar to the Pannie FZ200 but with a 1" or 4/3 sensor and some sorta sweet 25-600 or higher constant 2.8 Zuiko Digital lens. Take that, Panny AND Leica.
Like Mario, fantasy. The sensor and lens combination you suggest would be huge, and not cheap, to the point that most would probably just buy a DSLR.
joe1512: Why so expensive? An SX260 is less than 200 bucks now. This buys you more zoom (30x), more unnecessary pixels and um... yeah I dunno. Wifi maybe?
Oh...but I can totally pay double and put that huge freaking Viewfinder on the top of my compact camera. Score!!Or maybe that freaking Flash thats bigger than the camera itself and probably drains half the battery. I hear those are really awesome on 30x zoom cameras!
You need to be able to daisy chain the peripherals so I can have a huge flash, a monster microphone AND the gigantic viewfinder all piled on top of my little camera.
FWIW, the accessory flash has its own internal power from batteries.
Sony's HX cameras have always been the most expensive travel zoom cameras.
Vinc T: Same sensor as that in the GH2? I am really disappointed.
According to the specifications, the multi-aspect ratio feature is retained.
Is that an LED chip between the flash and the lens?
Sam Carriere: That camera phones can take pretty pictures is undeniable; that does not make them cameras. This site's treatment of them as such has virtually ruined its credibility as a resource for serious photographers.I would place cell phones right up there with nuclear weapons and landmines as among the most evil inventions of the 20th century. They have destroyed effective communication between individuals (texting and tweeting are anything but effective communication) and destroyed common good manners among people.
Spoken like a true snob. LOL.
mauijohn: No EVF and No FLIP UP LCD and Pricy too... never mind.buyers are not getting dumber aren't we?
Umm, Olympus already makes a compact with an EFV option and articulated LCD. It's called the XZ-2.
sonictooth: As a primarily fine art photographer I have ZERO interest in anything automatic, so my ideal camera would be something along the lines of a fm-2 body with a d800 or d600 sensor. Get rid of all the BS and just give me a sturdy weather sealed FULLY MANUAL dslr WITH A REAL FOCUSING SCREEN! It would be an instant classic. Getting rid of all the BS the manufacturer could make this camera very affordable. Every enthusiast would own one and it wouldn't cut into the sales of the auto cameras much because there is a true need for the beasts. I just don't have one and I'm sick of paying more than I think I need to for features that are utterly useless to me. I know your saying just shoot film you moron, and maybe I should but I have come to really like digital and not having to build darkrooms wherever I move. It also just seems a bit more environmentally friendly, digital that is.
I seriously doubt automatic controls on cameras add much if anything to the cost of cameras.
A manual-only camera would not be cheaper, but merely a lousy seller.
Amateurbob: The sample pictures have to be looked at with the caveat that they are from a pre-production model. They do not compare well with sample pictures from a newer camera less than a third the price, the Nikon D3200. My first criterion in a camera is dynamic range. From the samples it appears that the dynamic range of the RX1 is not as broad as that of the D3200, albeit the D3200 is one of the best in this category. Improvements in the production model will be interesting but of academic interest only. $2800 for a fixed lens camera without an articulated screen is for the 1%. Put a removable lens on it, and articulated screen and a price of $1000 (an APS-C sensor would be fine) then I will emulate the 1% and buy it depending on what dpreview finds for its dynamic range. Or I will not wait and buy a NEX camera now.
The Sony sensor is more than twice as large, and its pixels are larger as well. So there is virtually no way the RX1 is going to have less dynamic range than the D3200.
trekkeruss: I don't know what all the commotion is about. OK, I do. Geeks want a better camera than this one. But it's cameras like this one that, at least in theory, that make companies like Pentax money so they can build and sell the more enthusiast cameras.
So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused), that would be pretty cool for an inexpensive superzoom, and certainly a differentiating selling point. I'd expect that from Pentax.
EDIT: examining the product photos closer, it appears the grip is just for show. All bling and no zing. Too bad.
I know it has a W/T zoom toggle switch; I was just wondering if it had manual zoom as a option.
The lens barrel could also have been a manual focus ring. But since it appears stationary, I'm sure manual focus is achieved using a button and the rear dial.
I don't know what all the commotion is about. OK, I do. Geeks want a better camera than this one. But it's cameras like this one that, at least in theory, that make companies like Pentax money so they can build and sell the more enthusiast cameras.