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.
juanpgonzales: What'S the minimum apperture?F8? I hope, it's better (F20)
f/20.0 would be too small. You would not gain additional depth of field, but you would get diffraction.
fg888: Put an adult size sensor chip (aps-c?) inside and a vf (keeping the articulated display) and i will buy.
So why haven't you bought a Canon G1-X?
Valentinian: The sensor is great (at least in principle - let's wait for the review), the 22mm lens seems also very good; too bad Canon didn't make a camera to compete with the E-M5, GH3...(are they afraid it would compete with their own DSLR ?)
This new Canon is much more akin to a NEX-5N than the high-end M4/3.
coastcontact: Even granting that there are some improvements in this model compared to the FZ150, the total weight of the camera is an issue! Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V weighs 1.29 lb and now so does this camera. It becomes no fun when the camera gets heavier. I have my camera around my neck all day. Weight DOES matter! I have the FZ150 (1.16 lb) and also the FZ28 that weighs 14.71 oz. You think I can feel the difference?
The brighter lens means more glass; that is surely the reason why the FZ200 weighs more.
Aputra: Video DSLR is the future so they say. How about non-video DSLR with better low light performance, better AF, and lower price?
Maybe they should release the 650D special edition without video?
There is virtually no cost to adding video to a camera, so making the same camera without it would be stupid.
trekkeruss: I want to know how much; the specs are pretty impressive.
I see the price now. Thanks. Looks like a winner.
I want to know how much; the specs are pretty impressive.
Stanny1: Whoopee! Because of the 2x crop factor, you pay a fortune for only a 24mm equivalent. If that lens was on my Sony NEX-3, I would have my 18mm true wide angle. Wait. I have the Sony Wide-Angle adapter on my 16mm NEX-3 from the factory. So I got my 18mm for only $90.00! Nothing like having an APS-C sensor instead of the point and shoot sized one in the 4/3 system!
I have no dog in this fight, but from multiple reviews, the Sony 16mm lens has tested quite poorly. Good thing it is cheap.