deep7

They were horrible and annoying then and they're horrible and annoying now. Nothing has changed. Yes, I know a lot of people like them. What will be properly revolutionary will be when a...

ozturet: Every photographer has a specific need. If you open your eyes and look for opportunities, having an option of a longer lens offers up many more of them. Likewise a macro.

I'd argue...

More than half my photos are taken at an effective focal length of 400mm or more. There are plenty of people like me who Sony/Canon/Panasonic are considering when they make cameras like this. You...

ozturet: You'd need two of those gorgeous gx85 bodies on you, so no weight or price saving there - plus the lenses you mentioned don't really match the quality of the RX10/3-4 lens overall (though...

It might be much less arduous in some situations! (The advantages of an electronic viewfinder, much less weight etc.)

Strange negativity in the comments. This is the closest we have EVER had to that legendary "perfect" all-in-one camera and it's not massive and the price is, frankly, amazing for what it has. No...

A professional will learn how to use his/her tools and will make the camera work. In this case, the tool will be more restricted by limited light than the need to spend an hour or two learning...

I'm not sure if you understand - it seems likely the stronger Bayer colour filters are behind the better colour reproduction (assuming that is what has happened). Allowing a lower base ISO just...

Plus the g3X.

The weakness of my FZ1000 too, sigh. Miles better at 390mm/f5 though...

Yes, because the colour filters are stronger, less compromised. The customer can choose.

Affinity is great for most things but not as a RAW converter.

I have a six year old MacBook Pro that runs pretty much like this in edit. Still takes a long time (~8 seconds for 16/20Mp image) to make a full preview once the editing is done though. Because...

Carey explained further down that that was, indeed, the case, even though the camera was shooting RAW.

If they are boosting shadows, it's going to be noisy. It's a lot to ask with all those pixels. You really need careful processing in such a situation.

Thanks, Carey. That will explain why the shadows are so bad too! No worries, though, it's a great gallery otherwise!

On my six year old MacBook Pro, the noise (and blotchiness in the shadows) is terribly distracting. Considering the shutter speeds on many of the pics, shooting at 400 was completely unnecessary.

Why are most of these taken at ISO 400? All grainy (typical for dpreview-processings, sadly) and not very nice when you zoom in to look at the sharpness, yet some have super-high shutter speeds. ...

Karroly - Thank you for the clarification. I'll be happy to remove the dots, though still not the quotation marks!

tbcass - Ridiculous comment. He/she clarified something, which was helpful. You were simply rude and unhelpful. Go away.