2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras

No sample pics from the Ricoh at all??

3 weeks agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

If I had to pick one, I'd probably say the X100F for me, but then again, I don't have much use for a fixed lens camera. The Sony just looks too bulky, despite being a fixed lens (you might as well get a Sony a6000-series camera with a pancake lens). At least you could swap out the lenses if you wanted to, or just keep the pancake on there and treat it as a "Fixed" lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

except the RX1R is Full Frame, so not really comparable to the a6000 line.

3 weeks agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

True I guess. I don't know why DPR throws in some odd-balls in some of the round-ups. I mean, from a size standpoint, it may be similar, but as you pointed out, one is a FF the other is not. But I guess this round up is a fixed lens roundup so as long as the lens is fixed, it was considered I guess.

2 weeks agopermalink

DejavuLT

I had X70 half year ago. IQ - amazing, design - superb, but in low light it's totally useless and that's why i sold it. Lacking of OIS and slow, hunting auto-focus in low light was just unacceptable.

Now i have Sony RX100 IV and it's 10 times better all-round camera than Fuji X70.

3 weeks agopermalink

GjB

Within a few more years this discussion is moot. With the exception of working pros and a declining number of enthusiasts - smartphone will reign supreme in image capture.

I thought that the optical lens quality and optical zoom would be the moat defending the SLR and MILC segments. Wrong.

Imagine an iPhone 9 or 10 with FIVE fixed focal length lenses of (equivalent)

24===35
50
70===105

Software will do the rest including (through image processing algorithms) effective infinite zoom within range as well as probably some interesting depth and re-focusing effects. Game over.

Software eats hardware.

The "real" camera market will decline. And the economies of scale in reverse will see a declining number of players and reduced revenues for innovation.

Roll on the iPhone 10.

3 weeks agopermalink

No going to happen as the phone would be too thick and big with all those lenses and sensors. There is no digital zoom or upsampling software which can match a photo taken at that actual focal length or resolution. But if you are happy with "good enough" smartphones will make you very happy.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Physics is physics. Larger sensors and lenses will always outperform smaller ones.

3 weeks agopermalink

Dave Oddie

@JackM "Physics is physics. Larger sensors and lenses will always outperform smaller ones."

Well that is indeed the theory but check out virtually any new m43 or aps/c camera at low iso and spot the noise. It's a futile exercise because from a practical point of view in the real world, you can't see any.

Sure a 42mp m43 sensor would be noisier and then some than a FF sensor of the same resolution but how many people are truly in need of such high resolution?

Theories are fine but often they don't stack up or have an impact in the real world. I am not saying I agree smartphones are the future for the serious hobbyist or pro but for many they are already good enough to negate the need for compact camera.

3 weeks agopermalink

You are correct about good light, but as soon as the ISO moves north of 1600 APSC, and FF by extension, outperforms m4/3 noticeably.

3 weeks agopermalink

Dave, who said anything about m4/3? We are talking about real cameras vs. smartphones. Insecure much?

2 weeks agopermalink

Robje

I love my Ricoh GR II! Nothing else comes close for the amount of value you're getting. I compared some of the images from my Leica M9 and 240 with the same focal length and it's mighty comparable and sometimes I prefer the GR just because it's that good! It's hard to find a great partner to compliment the GR's IQ. It needs like a Nikon D810 or a Canon 5DSr with Zeiss Otus glass in able to dance together in unison.

3 weeks agopermalink

I used to have an X100 and loved it for its IQ and features but found it too bulky for a backup camera. I now have the X70 and with an optical VF attached, and it is still small enough to slip in my pants pocket, although for the sake of the camera I prefer to carry it in a small LowePro belt loop case. I considered the highly praised Ricoh GRII, but I felt that the sensor is now a little long in the tooth, the excellent Ricoh lens is a little too slow and the FujiX sensor simply performs better at medium high ISO's (400 to 1600) and in low light.

3 weeks agopermalink

zeratulmrye

only because fuji cheated on the ISO value, you thought it's 1600 but it's actually lower than 800. The sensor is the same in GRII.

3 weeks agopermalink

Incorrectly. DPR has stated that the difference in ISO is closer to 1/3 of a stop.

2 weeks agopermalink

Absolutely incorrect on all points. 1. as darngooddesign pointed out, and
2. the X70 has an XTrans instead of a Bayer filter enabling it to go to high ISO values where the excellent GRII poops out above ISO800. As for the actual sensor which lies beneath the filter, I believe most are made by Sony for various camera manufacturers and may have individual variations, unless zeratulmrye has inside information that no one else has outside of the closely held manufacturing information.

2 weeks agopermalink

zeratulmrye

Funny. So here is DPR's XT1 review: "ISO6400 on the X-T1 is closer to ISO4000 on most other cameras"

Also: "By our tests, the X-E2′s measured sensitivities are around 1/2 – 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera."

Of course there is cheating. Also Fuji pre-cooked their RAW.

There is nothing fancy about the X-Trans, just cheating and cheating. I'm not a Sony employee so I don't have any "insider information", but I am a sensor engineer who's more educated on this subject.

2 weeks agopermalink

If you were a sensor engineer you would know that Fuji rates their ISO according to one of the accepted standards and is not cheating anything. Just look at your posts, first you say 1600 is actually lower than 800 which would give a difference more than one stop, then you pull a quote from DPR that the difference is closer to 2/3 stops. Can't be both ways.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Zeratulmryre is just trolling. What is my first clue? Only trolls use terms like cheating when they have no facts to back up their claims. I have used and owned Fuji XTrans cameras an have never had to resort to chimping on the ISO value to get a good exposure. On the other hand, I have had to shoot -1/3 stop on several of my Leica's to get a normally exposed image. I don't complain because I know that manufacturers use their own standards to calibrate their cameras and one may not always agree with another. As far as nothing fancy about XTrans, it is very different from a Bayer sensor as you would know if you had the capacity to inquire. It was designed to avoid moire because it has no IR filter over the sensor unlike most Bayer sensors. Therefore, by eliminating the filter, sharpness is improved over the typical Bayer. Not fancy, what ever that means. Just different.

2 weeks ago*permalink

zeratulmrye

You guys are being funny again

Fuji claimed that they use the SOS standard instead of REI. REI allows the manufacturers to set their own ISO standard while SOS does NOT. And if Fuji is really complying to the SOS, their ISO should actually be lower that other manufacturers which is clearly not the reality.

Also, as an irregular sampling pattern, X-trans is actually an AA filter itself (not IR filter, IR doesn't affect sharpness), which is clearly stated in Fuji's own academic publications :-). You can easily see that Fuji's own bayer camera actually does a better job on sharpness than their x-trans camera, especially in green area. Of course Fuji will never put that fact into their advertisement.

Overall, there was a time when people had no clue about overstated ISO, pre-cooked RAW or different ISO standard, so they wrongly believe that Fuji has some special tricks about noise. As I said, nothing fancy, just the most dishonest company in the industry with tons of fanboys

2 weeks agopermalink

So no real answer on how you went from 1 1/2 stops to 1/2 stop...but Fuji is the dishonest one. Ok troll.

2 weeks agopermalink

zeratulmrye said:
"..I'm not a Sony employee so I don't have any "insider information", but I am a sensor engineer who's more educated on this subject...." Now I have heard of EE's,ME's, Chem E's, etc. But Sensor E's is a new one for me.

Now isn't that special. So, as a 'sensor engineer' you are qualified to call a manufacturer a 'liar', a cheat and 'dishonest' ? Well as one who is blinded by the brilliance of his own thought, should we assume that yours is the final word on the subject? Well , I am indeed humbled and should say no more on the subject
except to suggest that you avoid any store that sells Fuji products since it may have been infected by the same adjectives you applied to this manufacturer.

2 weeks agopermalink

okanb

I remember when I first bought my XM1 after seeing the comparison tool in dpreview. I was blown away by the high iso performance. Amazing, clean pictures even at iso6400. After couple of months of usage, and comparing it to other cameras reality hit hard. Fuji's baked raw files, soft mushy details, less light sensitivity at same settings compared to even MFT was a slap on my face. So, i think yes, it is cheating! especially if they use it to their marketing advantage. Xtrans magic, great high iso performance as good as FF bla bla are all a result of this and part of a Fuji dream. @Jim, if you actually owned Ricoh and X70, you would know their ISO performance is identical as long as you shoot RAW. So, this is why people say Fuji cheats..to make you think that they are better...

3 days agopermalink

uhoh07

Another bizarre roundup. LOL

Let's see the RX1rii untouchable in image quality, legendary among pros, and is actually in many pro bags, but Fuji is spending more ad money at DPI?

OK the Fuji is probably more fun to use and does fine. But cmon.

3 weeks ago*permalink

lesnapanda

Actually the Sigma lineup would have the best IQ as long as ISO100-200 can be maintained.

3 weeks agopermalink

Its really hard to keep track of which manufacturer is bribing DPR the most. According to comments in the A9 articles it is Sony, but apparently it is Fuji now.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Calvin Chann

Don't forget Canon after Barney's EOS 1DII teasing memories.

3 weeks agopermalink

tedolf

So help me out here. What am I getting with one of these that I don't get with a Fuji rangefinder style camera and a 23mm f/2 lens?

Tedolph

3 weeks agopermalink

Leaf shutter, tilt screen, built in ND filter, high speeds flash sync, smaller size, lower price (except the Sony), and lighter weight. If you have the Pro2, get the 23mm and be happy.

3 weeks agopermalink

X100F can go in a loose pants pocket.

3 weeks agopermalink

maciek sz

I'm using X70 for almost 2 months now, and I'm very happy with the results. Yes, the AF is not the fastest there, but it is sufficient for street and landscape. Street is no problem at all with f8 and zone focusing.

Also the battery life is not so bad, it lasts for me for around 400 - 450 shots.

I've chosen that over X100F for two reasons mainly: the money and size. X70 is pocketable and very small form factor lets me carry it around everywhere.

Only drawback is the screen, that is unreadable in bright sunlight.

I would prefer such camera with 23mm (35mm equiv.) but well, X100F too expensive and too big for me.

Cheers

3 weeks agopermalink

Have you tried a matte, anti-reflective screen cover?

3 weeks agopermalink

Max Ander

I turned up the default screen brightness. Not been s problem since.

3 weeks agopermalink

Duckie

Why no Nikon A?

3 weeks agopermalink

Is that a currently sold camera?

3 weeks agopermalink

Why wasn't the Leica X-U included in this roundup?

3 weeks agopermalink

It is an underwater camera and internally the same as the X which they reviewed last year or the year before, except the water sealing and ruggedizing features make it larger and heavier. I'd use it for trekking through a rain forest but for little else.

3 weeks agopermalink

paul simon king

"*Obviously it isn't the same as actually zooming."

lol

I guess you had to put that in though, not so much for its comic value, but rather to duck 'incoming' from the deadly nitpickers

3 weeks agopermalink

Zeegee

$188.00 /oz or $3009.00 /lb ...........absurd.......buy a X100F and donate the remaining amount to those in need.

3 weeks agopermalink

stevenjames

Heheh, agreed. You just can't beat the looks, design and performance of the Fuji X100F. Having owned the original X100, then the X100S and now the X100F I have never found it lacking (well the original X100 had a few "quirks").

2 weeks ago*permalink

GDMitchell

The problem with all of these cameras is one thing alone. They are fearfully over priced and don't represent good value for money. Why anyone would pay over $1000 for any of these, unless money is no object to then, is beyond me. each one represents a massive compromise in that they attempt to fit a really high technical spec into a smallish case and really represent poor value for money. The large apsc sensors are welcome but 2.8 equivallent is not impressive. They weigh in quite highly too meaning that even though some fit in your pocket you really wouldnt want to carry them that way, maybe the Ricoh being the exception there. Too much development is being wasted on gimmicks when faster lenses would be more useful. I read about micro 4/3rd standard being possibly dead. If people are wasting money on these overpriced point and shoot models, then that could be true, but really there is so much good gear out there already, all formats could become obsolete unless we all realise an expensive camera alone doesn't produce a good shot.

3 weeks agopermalink

noirdesir

Why anybody would pay over $1000 for a FF camera is really beyond me.

Or wait, did you mean that you don't understand why anybody would buy a fixed lens camera unless it was cheaper than than an equivalent ILC (where equivalent means same sensor size, focal length and f-stop)?

BTW, I also read about some people possibly thinking that a stagnation in sales and no profits is the same as a system being dead. I always thought that 'dead' meant no new development ...

3 weeks ago*permalink

wolfloid

This argument betrays an unwillingness to understand what a buyer of such a camera might find very attractive. Some examples:

1. Small and portable.
2. Not having to concern themselves with lens changing or lens lugging.
3. Fast, quiet, intuitive operation while remaining relatively discrete.
4. Excellent image quality.
5. In the case of the Fuji - a silent leaf-shutter with excellent fill-flash and great B&W.
6. Leica - blisteringly fast, intuitive operation and superb lens.
7. Sony - a 42MP excellent sensor, plus leaf shutter and the best 35/2 FF lens that money can buy.
8. All of them are far more likely to be carried than almost all system cameras and their clutter and parephenalia, which is often too tempting to leave behind.

Images are the most important thing - Cartier Bresson captured thousands of memorable images using a small, portable camera, typically using one lens. For some, a 35/2 is all they ever need - they are focused and adept and can produce excellent work.

3 weeks ago*permalink

voiceoverguy

(Part one of my response)

First, "...fearfully over priced." I'm not sure that cameras or people are full of fear over camera prices. Perhaps you mean that, in your opinion, these cameras are priced higher than you feel they should be. Value, like color and composition, is highly subjective.

Second, the Fujifilm X100f (for one) is •not• a 2.8 maximum aperture, but rather 2.0. Compared to some lenses that are "faster", 2.0 has historically been regarded as a nearly perfect aperture for most situations, at least in the 35mm (and equivalent) photography world. In fact, one the finest lens offered then and now by E. Leitz, is the 2.0 Summicron. I'd put that lens up against any lens in the world for sharpness and color/black & white contrast. Fujifilm's 2.0 lenses, while not quite as good as "Leica" glass, are almost as good in most respects, and at •much• lower price.

(Continued in part 2 of my response)

3 weeks ago*permalink

voiceoverguy

(Part two of my response)

Finally, I don't understand why you are concerned with what you consider "gimmicks", and about the possible obsolesce of certain formats because "people are wasting money on these overpriced point and shoot models." In a free-market economy, people buy what they wish, for whatever reason they wish, often regardless of price or even quality.

You may regard these fixed-lens cameras as merely overly-expensive, sub-standard point-and-shoot cameras, but I feel that view is elitist. Many photographers find these cameras, pocketable or not (another of your highly questionable standards), to be either a useful single photographic solution, a welcome addition to their existing gear, or often, both.

3 weeks agopermalink

I wonder how durable is the pop up viewfinder. For that reason I gave up my Sony hx90v

3 weeks agopermalink

I also agree with you about the unbelievable price.

3 weeks agopermalink

lesnapanda

Some of these cost less than an equivalend quality lens alone. So I'd say there is some reason for considering buying them.

3 weeks agopermalink

KristinnK

> For some, a 35/2 is all they ever need

> the Fujifilm X100f (for one) is •not• a 2.8 maximum aperture, but rather 2.0.

A 23mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera takes the same pictures (in terms of how much light is gathered and depth of field) as a 35mm f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera (roughly). So while the lens obviously is f/2, OP is completely correct in stating it is a "2.8 equivalent".

4 days agopermalink

obscurelines

For me it would be helpful to know how robust and weather resistant the cameras are. It's a different category but I took an rx100 m4 up a mountain last year and it didn't survive, much to my disappointment. I like the idea of a pocketable camera that can endure, and have good iq. And have good focussing. And look good. And cost less than a thousand.

3 weeks agopermalink

I totally agree. Like I replied earlier the pop up viewfinder worry mr and slows me down to shoot the bird.

3 weeks agopermalink

I totally agree. Like I replied earlier the pop up viewfinder worry mr and slows me down to shoot the bird.

3 weeks agopermalink

Semperfed

There seems to be an echo in this room.....

3 weeks agopermalink

mmr

I dropped my dp2q off of a ski lift two years ago from a height of about 30 feet into some snow. It still takes great photos, despite the back screen being thoroughly cracked. I use it as my main camera, with an oly om-d em-1 as a backup or when I know I want something the dp2q can't give me (like anything shot with the 75mm f/1.8, for instance).

3 weeks ago*permalink

Aguilar

When shopping this category a few years ago, I liked both the X100S and RX1; to find my value point, I bought a used RX1 and have been thrilled with the results and portability - it's so easy to carry around. The RX1 is amazing, and I love 35mm.
Battery life: 1. You'll get more than 36 shots per charge ;) if you're the "spray and pray" type, this camera isn't for you anyway. 2. Carry a couple spares - they're tiny, and it only takes 10 seconds to change one.

3 weeks ago*permalink

rsjoberg

Sounds like my Rollei 35!

3 weeks agopermalink

barb_s

I feel the same way about my Q. Quality and portability (along with trying out the Leica experience) in a full frame were what I was after.

3 weeks agopermalink

DYOC

Any of these cameras will make you suffer ....
either by the lack of
lens coverage
lens speed
AF speed
AF accuracy
focusing scale
infinity hard stop
close focus hard stop
EVF
touch screen

or simply the lack of sufficient funding

3 weeks agopermalink

calte

Hhmm 'what we don't like about X70: Lens performance is lacking' ... strange as it has the same lens as the X100F as far as I know.

3 weeks agopermalink

PaulDavis

It's similar but it's a wider angle lens. It isn't the same. I would guess the quality would be close though.

3 weeks agopermalink

john Clinch

Really it has a different field of view and a different max aperture. Try this...

www.google.com

3 weeks agopermalink

maciek sz

X70 has 18.5mm with f2.8 and X100F has 23mm f2, those are two completely different lenses.

3 weeks agopermalink

Phily

No mention of my fixed lens setup: EOS M3 + 22mm

Oh well ...

3 weeks ago*permalink

TheWintermute

In this case by "fixed" they meant non-removable. That's why they also added "prime" to indicate fixed focal length.
So in this context your setup does not have a fixed prime lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

Max Ander

No mention of most other non fixed lens cameras either. Funny that.

3 weeks agopermalink

Phily

It's good you liked my humor. That said, the X100F retails for $1300. My fixed lens setup is broadly equivalent (resolution, focal length) and can be found for less than $700

3 weeks agopermalink

nmazur

It's a "fixed lens camera" roundup, not an "interchangeable lens camera with prime lens" roundup.

3 weeks agopermalink

peterpainter

All the same, I reckon a round-up of small ILCs with (small?) primes that would do a similar job would make interesting reading. I guess that would require a fair amount of research on the part of DPR and probably meet with 'why didn't you try...' comments, but it could be rather useful.

3 weeks agopermalink

I wouldn't compare the ones m3 with the Fuji no. The Fuji gives you faster AF. Best jpeg engine. Better DR. Better ISO and the unique optical/hybrid view finder plus manual focus and aperture rings.

Not the same thing at all.

3 weeks agopermalink

guyfawkes

@ peterpainter. Whilst I understand the remit of the article, I also agree with your sentiments. For my money, if there were cameras of roughly similar price/performance ratio why would one need to be restricted by a fixed lens model? I do like the look of the optical v/f equipped Fuji's though.

3 weeks agopermalink

Once you open it up to ILCs with a lens attached, every camera is applicable.

3 weeks ago*permalink

In tune with the "niche"ness of fixed prime compacts, why not the SeaLife DC2000 as the only tough cam with a fast prime and a decent 1 inch sensor?

3 weeks agopermalink

Ribbit74

I want to love it, as it's the only prime lens 1-inch camera I know of (other than the DxO One, which barely counts). Not sure how much of an all-rounder it is, but a review on B&H mentions it takes 5 full seconds to process a single shot if you're shooting RAW. Still worth considering if it was available without the housing for a cheaper price. You don't need the housing if it's just a vacation/beach/pool camera.

For that purpose, I'm still rocking an Olympus TG-1 which refuses to die.

3 weeks ago*permalink

The Leica X-U is a touch cam with an APSC sensor.

3 weeks agopermalink

Leica X-U retails for 500% more than a DC200 (at least in NZ) with a old sensor design and a slower lens - the price alone will cut 99% people out of the potential buying pool ... but wouldn't mind trying one but that's a chance in a million.

3 weeks agopermalink

That being said, I love my Nikon Coolpix A. It was ahead of its time. I'm never selling it. You can bury me with it, I don't mean to be rude, but the rest of you can do whatever you want. I don't care. Put on some smooth jazz. Light aromatic candles. Bathe in a bathtub full of cherry jello. My money says you're wrong. My mom says you're wrong. I'm not listening anymore!

3 weeks ago*permalink

rds

Yes. I got one on the cheap a couple of years ago. Excellent camera. I'd like to see a firmware update so the camera would remember a manual focus setting, but overall it's a fine piece.

3 weeks agopermalink

davesurrey

I must agree. I bought an almost new one a few months ago for a snip and it has become a real favourite. I too will never get rid of it and none of these in this review would encoure me to.

3 weeks agopermalink

captura

Me too. Tha Coolpix A has been very reliable and produced amazingly detailed images. Although sometimes I prefer to take the Fuji X10 for it's zoom.

3 weeks agopermalink

rsjoberg

I wanted one when then came out, but they were just too much dough. I ended up with a Lumix LX7 with the EVF. I still may pick up a Nikon Cp A when B&H get's a good one in.

3 weeks agopermalink

DJS 531

Great sense of humor !!

3 weeks agopermalink

mcshan

The low light must be good if you want it buried with you.

3 days agopermalink

People talk a lot about these cameras. They have fixed focal length lenses. Each one is made by a different manufacturer. They can be expensive. Which one would Lois Lane pick? Deepak Chopra? Johnny Unitas? Kanye West? How would they fare in destabilized regions? Would you think twice about placing yours on a table at a sidewalk cafe while you sip espresso and leaf distractedly through the morning paper?

3 weeks agopermalink

what. the. hell.
your comment leaves me puzzled.
and a quick question: WHO CARES ABOUT KANYE WEST???

3 weeks ago*permalink

Don't be puzzled! Just think of me as the old timer in "Blazing Saddles" who the town elders point to with pride for his superlative examples of authentic frontier jibberish!

3 weeks ago*permalink

MyReality

I have placed my Leica Minilux on a sidewalk café table. There are risks to everything. If they steal it, you lose an object. If they shoot you, you might die. The biggest risk of dying, is driving in your car. Don't worry about your camera being stolen. Nice post though.

3 weeks agopermalink

there is no place on earth where they would shoot you for a $400 Leica Minilux except maybe Portland

3 weeks agopermalink

MyReality

@kreislauf - Nice sarcasm. Most likely true, since they would not know what a Minilux is or it's value.

3 weeks agopermalink

Mike FL

Only Leica Q has OIS.

3 weeks agopermalink

kodachromeguy

OK, so that leads to what conclusion?

3 weeks agopermalink

That the only camera here with OIS is the Leica Q!

3 weeks agopermalink

Mike FL

@kodachromeguy,

My OP is conclusion. Is it not?

3 weeks agopermalink

Under The Sun

The Leica Q has IBIS.

3 weeks agopermalink

oh, has it indeed?

3 weeks agopermalink

Even if both the Sony RX1R II and the Fujifilm X100F have 35mm (35mm equivalent for the Fujifilm) lenses, it is difficult to compare an APSC sensor with a FF sensor... Obviously the RX1R II camera is much more expensive, but if you want to do very serious (or professional) phoography, this camera is the only option... The RX1R II has the best existing FF sensor... It also has a central shutter (no vibrations when taking your photo), and should be declared Winner.

3 weeks agopermalink

I agree, it's a difficult call to make.

Yes, a good full frame sensor will significantly outperform an APS-C one. The difference will usually be in the realms of 1.3EV and, in this case, maybe a bit more, since the RX1R II is BSI, whereas the X100F's chip is FSI. We wouldn't for a moment suggest the Fujifilm's IQ is better than the Sony's.

Should we, then, automatically say: 'it wins, regardless of cost or shooting experience'? I'd say no.

For me, the X100F is a more polished, more engaging and much more affordable camera. This, along with not having to worry about the battery every thirty seconds, is enough for the Fujifilm to edge it. However, we did call out that the RX1R II's IQ is better, in our conclusion.

3 weeks agopermalink

Yes Richard, the RX1R II's battery life is bad... I tried to use the camera for long exposure shots, it's then even more complicated. I bought an external USB power bank, but haven't tried it yet...

3 weeks agopermalink

Saying the RX1Rii is the only option for "very serious or pro" photography for being FFis a ridiculous argument. It's been easily demonstrated Pros using cameras with smaller sensor to do Pro work - because - it's no coincidence it's the photographer who creates the photographs- not the camera.

That doesn't mean less than FF may work for your needs and or wants but that's a different point.

3 weeks agopermalink

Well I should have specified what I meant by "serious" photography... My needs are to be able to print photos in large format, in order to sell them in a gallery... For these specific needs a "less than FF" sensor isn't just enough... I normally shoot with a Pentax 645z, but sometimes use my RX1R II that gives some very impressive results...

3 weeks agopermalink

Serious photographers only use large format cameras.

3 weeks agopermalink

dansclic

The Sony has also serious drawbacks : (very) poor battery life, shutter button extremely disagreeable, plasticy battery door, slippery body. So lens and sensor quality are not all the question.....
I also disliked the Fuji x100 because it has no stabilized lens and because of too high moire.
Fuji is told to issue a pro x100, wait and see...

3 weeks agopermalink

@ldm - your needs are not the same as "serious photography". There's a wide range of "serious photography" done with many cameras of different sensor sizes. For you it doesn't work. And that's fine.

But like I said - there's gallery work done with smaller sensors. And seroous photography too. It really all depends on needs and wants.

I am exhibiting work that includes a picture taken with an original Pentax Q and Nikon 1 J4s. I had the San Francisco Symphony license one of my photos for full poster printed for the streets, cd cover , book cover of a music production taken with an old 4/3 system camera - which did worse sensor wise than current m43.

It's hard to make blanket statements. I am sure Fuji Apsc is quite fine for a lot of serious uses.

3 weeks ago*permalink

worldcup1982

Serious photographers stay away from dpreview endless gear discussions

3 weeks agopermalink

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fa/61/4b/fa614b0834c4547df0bc8402ab12ae06.jpg

@raist3d yes, the needs are individual. Congrats for these achievements.

@worldcup1982 You did't stay away from this endless discussion, but I fully agree that time is best spend shooting :)

3 weeks agopermalink

peppermill

3 weeks agopermalink

@peppermill :-)

3 weeks agopermalink

spatz

Richard, since you've tested both, how would you compare the X100f to the original RX1 or RX1R? They're years apart, obviously, but now similar pricewise, and have equal resolution sensors. The RX1 and RX1R2 share the same excellent lens, but presumably, some of the image quality edge of the RX1R2 is due to its sensor. At equal prices (~1000$), what would you recommend as a second, compact 35mm camera for travel and "casual" indoor shooting, some in low light (commonly around ISO 3200, f/2, 1/50)?

3 weeks agopermalink

sts2

I'd argue no pro would "seriously" use any of these cameras.
Pros use the right tool for the job and probably wouldn't want to limit themselves to one focal length.

3 weeks agopermalink

worldcup1982

@IdM photography ...who said i am serious? :)

3 weeks agopermalink

mcshan

Medium format or nothing. The rest have small sensors. I'm really serious.

3 days agopermalink

@mcshan but there are no medium format fixed prime lens cameras yet ;)

3 days agopermalink

mcshan

Hi Idm, My comment was related to being even more serious than other serious photographers here. This is serious!

3 days ago*permalink

Impulses

I wish Fuji would make a sealed X100, I'd be all over that...

3 weeks agopermalink

Yes! Count me in!

3 weeks agopermalink

Until then the closest option is a SeaLife DC2000 with 1 inch sensor (Sony), a f1.8 wide-ish prime and tough cam construction.

3 weeks agopermalink

CosminMunteanu

there is a Leica X-U ... with a 23mm f:1.7 lens and a APSC 16Mpx sensor and also waterproof (not sealed)
https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-X/Leica-X-U

3 weeks agopermalink

The DC2000 is too slow, shot to shot. The Leica is a little bit to expensive or risk at a dangerous environment..

3 weeks agopermalink

@Bombastic
DC2000 does 10fps with 20MP full resolution - too slow fps for you? And image quality is on par with Sony RX100.

http://deepshots.co.uk/blog/2017/02/quick-review-sealife-dc2000-underwater-camera/
Great value compared to leica

3 weeks agopermalink

@wolfie - from what I understand, shot to shot (not burst) is painfully slow. I would love to be wrong. Right now I use a sequence of LX7's for extreme/enduro motorcycle photography (off the bike).

3 weeks ago*permalink

So why not shoot in burst mode?
No review I've seen has made any comments on slow shot to shot performance, main gripes have been the lens isn't wide enough for serious UW work.

3 weeks agopermalink

@wolfie there are two reasons why burst mode is irrelevant sometimes. First, the decisive moment is fleeting. The next 20 seconds mean nothing. Second- I don't need 20 shots to sift through later. I want a fast acting, single shot mode. My finger is fast enough for multiple shots-- imagine riding a motorcycle at 120mph in a turn and snapping photos, I don't have much time anyway before I need to let go of the camera and practice on steering.

2 days agopermalink

Rob890

The DNG support for sigma is not that cracked up to be from my use of it. Had a issue when loading a file I shot in black and white but then wanted to edit in color, couldn't do it. Also there seems to be some quality issues as well so as noise even at base ISO. Using a noise program takes care of it to some extent but it seems its best to still shoot in their RAW format and let PP do the processing and turn it into a TFF and let what ever editor you use to do the finishing.

3 weeks agopermalink

turvyT

Groundhog round...

3 weeks agopermalink

davev8

DPR say>>>>For those who want to zoom with their feet, here are the fixed-lens cameras we think are worth a look:<<<<
i cannot believe DPR say that ..it is impossible to zoom with your feet

4 weeks agopermalink

We're aware that 'zooming with your feet' isn't the same as zooming (since perspective changes).

However, it is a phrase that is used to describe working around the limitations of having a fixed focal length.

3 weeks agopermalink

It commonly known that zoom with your feet means moving your body closer to, or further away from, the subject.

3 weeks agopermalink

davev8

yes I do know what you mean ....but many don't ...and believe what you say and believe you can zoom with your feet ......maybe it would make a good article

3 weeks agopermalink

johnami

I am Jesus :-)

3 weeks agopermalink

Fixed primes also allow for good digital zooming/cropping putting it on par with a zoom lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

I should think the populace would be used to zooming with their feet by now. It's all that most of them can do. It's a trade-off of the mobile phone age.

3 weeks agopermalink

luck002

You must be Billy, the Blue Ranger.

3 weeks agopermalink

DJS 531

davids8560-I doubt that those to whom you are referring are used to zooming with their feet.Their subjects are right in front of them: themselves !

3 weeks agopermalink

TomasT

It is so hard to compare the Ricoh GR to the other camera's. You can take this thing with you without noticing. This makes it a stealth camera. This is the reason i take pics everywhere were the other camera's are to visible, or to heavy to bring with you.

It may not be the best camera, but it is a great one!

4 weeks agopermalink

I think dpreview misses a lot of the point of the RicoHT. It's an ultimate street camera. No mention of zone snap focus.

3 weeks agopermalink

Woodyz

Ricoh's snap focus is just manual focus, which every camera has. The only difference is that you can set it on the GR as a firm shutter press while in all modes, a feature which I don't find useful because the press itself is unreliable and can shake the camera.

If I want to do snap/zone focusing, I just it put in M with the right settings (or auto settings).

3 weeks ago*permalink

"...The only difference is that you can set it on the GR as a firm shutter press while in all modes,..." Which is why it's not the same thing.

If you are shooting at a fast shutter the camera shake won't get you.

3 weeks agopermalink

Woodyz

Really? Set it to a fast SS so I could mash on that shutter release and hope the image isn't blurry?

Why not just set it to M? Maybe Ricoh should have a separate button for snap focus.

3 weeks ago*permalink

captura

The GRII is very similar to the Coolpix 'A.'

3 weeks agopermalink

@woodyz- this is just a feature that helps to capture decisive moments. Yes. It requires a modicum knowledge of photographic exposure I guess. And if you are more careful you don't need a high speed shutter.

3 weeks agopermalink

xyglyx

Fuji really missed an opportunity to make the ultimate pocket video camera by not giving the X100F a zoom lens with geared focusing and clickless aperture control and 4K output.

4 weeks agopermalink

iamnid

It's called the X-T20

4 weeks agopermalink

Grive

Fuji really missed an opportunity to decide to invest in a camera different in every relevant category?

In a sense, I guess. They also missed an opportunity to make a full frame DSLR.

4 weeks ago*permalink

Umm that must be why the x100Fs are flying off the shelves....

3 weeks agopermalink

Sezano

The ultimate camera will be the soon to be released X40.

3 weeks agopermalink

xyglyx

BTW this was sarcasm in response to the DPR writer's comment that "1080p video is behind the times", noted in the "What we don't like" about the X100F.

3 weeks agopermalink

PaulDavis

Ha, the sarcasm went right over my head. I should have know, considering you mentioned clickless aperture zoom lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

@xyglyx - sorry, also went over my head :-)

3 weeks agopermalink

Rob890

Would love to see a Coolpix A 2 on this list. Rather that than those DL cameras. Good to see Ricoh GR (When will its next iteration arrive?) a underrated tool. You could probably still have the x100t up there despite the x100F. Its still a very usable camera and cheaper now considering.

4 weeks agopermalink

brownie314

Yup - I have the CpA. It is awesome. I don't care for 18mm all that much - I think 24/2 would have been better. But it sure is compact - and that lens is super sharp.

4 weeks agopermalink

jimmy.walsh

The Coolpix A takes fantastic photos. I too would love to see an update. 24mm f2 sounds perfect.

3 weeks agopermalink

brownie314

Yes, I have a Canon eos-M (the original) with 22/2. It is actually kinda good. Sharp, compact. I just do not care all that much for Canon jpgs or the DR of the sensor. But other than that - it is pretty good.

3 weeks agopermalink

The Studio Test scene does not allow selection of the RX1r II. I don't remember DPR doing the test though.

4 weeks agopermalink

Jeff Keller

I noticed that last night and thought it was just my browser. Will dig in further in a bit.

4 weeks agopermalink

Retry now. I think it should be fixed.

3 weeks agopermalink

Thanks. Now works. I remember now. The lens performance was not memorable. the corners not far from the center are soft. Dropping to a performance inferior to an APSC system. The Ricoh GR II is better in these areas using a 16MP APSC sensor.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Bear in mind the possibility that shooting a flat target, comparatively close-up may not give a perfect representation of real-world behaviour (before you consider how important sharp corners are for the kinds of photos you'd shoot with this camera).

Personally I think a 28mm equiv camera is a dismal alternative to a 35mm equiv one, and vice versa. As such, I'd compare the GR with the Leica Q and the Sony with the X100F.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Tieu Ngao

Imagine the Nikon Coolpix A Mk2 with the features from the unborn DL18-55! It'd be at least as good as the Fuji X100T.
Nikon is not smart to ignore the premium compact market.

4 weeks agopermalink

mxx

Who, knows, maybe they are working on it. Surely they know it's a winning recipe.

4 weeks agopermalink

justmeMN

"Nikon is not smart to ignore the premium compact market."

Agreed. In light of their DL decision, I doubt that we will see anything this year.

3 weeks agopermalink

GabrielFFontes

You guys are hilarious... You think Nikon doesn't see the potential of the premium compact market?

Its simply a financial decision, they can't afford to open a very extensive and expensive production line for the DL cameras.

3 weeks agopermalink

justmeMN

@GabrielFFontes: Nikon states "the DL series will be canceled due to concerns regarding their profitability considering the increase in development costs, and the drop in the number of expected sales due to the slow-down of the market."

A new Nikon premium compact would mean more development costs, and wouldn't change "the slow-down of the market."

3 weeks ago*permalink

Tieu Ngao

It's not that Nikon has to start from scratch, they already have the Coolpix A, Nikon 1, and prototypes of the DL. They should be able to make the Coolpix A Mk2 with minimum development cost if they know how to avoid the mistake that had caused the failure of the Mk1.

3 weeks ago*permalink

PropaPH

Just like all areas of the world economy, the action is at the high end.... witness the success of new medium format cams, Leicas, and high end Sony. When the Coolpix A came out it was considered too expensive and that may have been it's downfall at the time, but now people with the cash seem willing to pony up for the best-in-class. I would pop for a 24mp Coolpix A in a second if it was as good as the original or hopefully better.

3 weeks agopermalink

mxx

Tieu Ngao & PropaPH, let's hope it's in the works!

3 weeks ago*permalink

In the camera market there is always room for excellent products most buyers will never really understand or use. Just like ski and tennis shops. But these products must be truly excellent.

3 weeks ago*permalink

dansclic

Cool pix A was a very bad selling at the time because too expensive.... reason why maybe they hesitate to invest again in such a camera....
But yes I agree, at 400 usd it was a terrific camera.

3 weeks agopermalink

jimmy.walsh

The Coolpix As:
- 20mp sensor from D500
- 24mm f2 lens
- built-in wifi

Please?

3 weeks agopermalink

Sad to see that most of the cameras here is in need of an update. We still don't hear any announcement for the upgrade of the GR using a Nikon d7000 sensor. The Sigma DP requires going back to its roots as the camera is unwieldy which defeats the advantages of a fixed prime compact.

4 weeks agopermalink

le_alain

Where is Nikon ?

4 weeks agopermalink

I LOVE ALL OF THEM
But could only manage to finance a fuji X100T and 2 used merrills.
However, each of the cameras is amazing, especially the RX1R and the DP0Q... The DP3Q too and the X100 for handling. And heck, the GRII is not to dismissed too.
HECK WHAT WILL I DO?

4 weeks agopermalink

jim seekers

Marc petzold thanks for that chart, I wonder what Lens is sharper between the lens on the Sony RX1R ii and the Lens on the Leica Q.
also which is the best lens between these two fantastic German Lenses.

4 weeks agopermalink

SRT201

The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!

IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.

THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.

4 weeks ago*permalink

SRT201

I should also note that Sigma supports their cameras like just about no other company. Constantly fine tuning and even adding features. Just within the last few days all the Quattro's have been updated to have DNG support and the new Super Fine Detail exposure mode.

4 weeks agopermalink

SRT201

So, to correct the article, the use of SPP is NO LONGER mandatory.

4 weeks agopermalink

I've corrected the text.

3 weeks agopermalink

frankje

Sorry, Richard, but it is still in the "What we don't like" list.

3 weeks agopermalink

It's me who should apologise: I didn't spot that at all. I've corrected it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

3 weeks agopermalink

blessingx

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't heard the dp Quattros received the DNG update. My dp2 may be getting more use again.

3 weeks agopermalink

NickyB66

I was going to buy this, my first Leica, then the XPro-2 appeared about a year ago and brought that instead, with a few prime lenses. Glad I did, although the Leica is a nice camera all the same. But I think with the saving on the Leica I was able to buy a few nice and WR lenses, so I have more flexibility.

4 weeks agopermalink

Okay, there are very very few Fuji lenses that compete for optical quality with good Leica lenses, and the Q has a very good Leica lens. (So far there are about 2 in the Fuji X system.)

3 weeks agopermalink

blessingx

Course most of the very good Leica lenses could be used on the X-Pro2.

3 weeks agopermalink

blessingx:

Doesn't work like that for M lenses at least. The X-Pro 2 doesn't have a curved micro-lens array.

3 weeks agopermalink

Parshua

I thought I'd also add my thoughts regarding the GR II. That camera is actually thinner than even the first generation RX100, and weighs the same. Extremely good ergonomics, fast operation, a very sharp lens (to the point it actually can match a 35mm lens when cropped), support for snap focus (aka zone focusing), good battery life, infinite customization, etc. makes a mix which feels like magic in absence of other words.

I cannot recommend it enough. It has transformed my photography, for a simple fact that such a snappy cam with an APS-C sensor can always be in my pocket, and nobody will object to being photographed by a camera that is so small and low profile.

If you are looking for 28mm eq. lens, definitely look at this one. The camera and the lens combined costs less than half of a similarly performing lens alone for other systems, and is the smallest of them all.

PS. Also internal ND filter and leaf shutter.

4 weeks ago*permalink

bzanchet

Too bad most of them does not have built in flash, when you attach one the whole point of being compact is wasted.
I love the colors on my RX1 (with a great built in flash) and my RX100, much better than my Fuji X70 (hoped for so much more, selling it, dull colors and soft jpegs).
I wish Sony could make a 28mm fixed lens full frame, myself and everybody who used my camera (no professionals here) complained that 35mm is too close for selfies. That may not be important to most here, but it is a big market share.

4 weeks agopermalink

"Too bad most of them does not have built in flash,"

Well if you're counting each Sigma as different camera, "most" could be true. But that's a reach.

4 weeks agopermalink

Scottelly

I know of no Sigma camera that has a built-in flash. How about you?

4 weeks agopermalink

Scottelly:

The SD1 Merrill has a built in flash.

The point is most people would count the SD Quattro as one camera, especially regarding a flash, since it is one body.

The OP was wrong about built in flashes being absent from most of these cameras.

The LX100 is not on the list.

True the Leica Q doesn't have a flash built in.

4 weeks agopermalink

mxx

"when you attach one the whole point of being compact is wasted"

But surely you only attach the flash when necessary. And when taking a photo with it, size surely does not matter. Detach the flash after use, and the camera is its compact self again. And the flash will probably be a compact model itself, which will easily fit in another pocket.

4 weeks ago*permalink

"Great ergonomics and design"

*looks at ISO control*

*Looks at focus dial + aperture ring*

Hmmm

4 weeks agopermalink

Bas Hamstra

Why isn't the Coolpix A in the list? Too old?

4 weeks agopermalink

CaPi

I was under the impression it wasnt sold anymore. Maybe still on stock at some stores.

4 weeks agopermalink

Revenant

It's no longer listed as a current model on Nikon's website, so it's likely discontinued.

4 weeks agopermalink

Jeff Keller

It's discontinued

4 weeks agopermalink

adegroot

Sigma has announced a firmware upgrade for all DP Quattro cameras, with the inclusion of DNG format shooting, as well as high res shooting (2 images melted into one) for still objects. With DNG we can bypass Sigma's own very good, but very sluggish software.

4 weeks agopermalink

CaPi

Btw. The firmware documentation states 12bit dng output. The x3f sigma format is documented being 14bit.

4 weeks agopermalink

@Capi i've wrote this way before into a Sigma Thread, that the DNG Output is only 12-bits, but .X3F RAW by Design 14-bit, needless to say, DPR Staff said so far that the Output seems to be equal.

Perhaps the 14-bit Files do show a bit less shadow noise, i'd guess...as it is the case with other 14-bit capable DSLR/DSLMs...and a tack more DR therefore.

Just a small Sidenote: The Output of my 2005 Sony R1 is also 14-bit, uncompressed. (.SR2 RAW)

4 weeks agopermalink

Scottelly

I don't believe the Sony R1 output 14 bit raw files, but I may be mistaken. Either way those files are noisy as hell. The R1 is not a good camera to compare against any modern camera. It didn't hold a candle to my 5D, and the raw files from that were definitely 12 bit . . . and much smaller (in megabytes) than the files from my R1. The R1raw files were uncompressed. It's weird that Sony couldn't figure out how to use some sort of lossless compression for their raw files . . . and still has problems with that.

4 weeks agopermalink

First of all, i do own the 5D & the R1, both are from 2005.

2nd, the Image Sensor from the R1 is roughly equal to the one from the Nikon D2X, but 10 MP only. Back into 2005, it was way good that ISO 400 was perfectly useable, and even higher speeds are great with todays de-noise plugins & algorithm. R1 Real Image Processor was too slow, too little processing power to process the internal RAW files as good as the JPEGs inside camera.

The R1 Zeiss glass still hold its own, there isn't any APS-C 24-120/2.8-4.8 being avialable, not even for 1k EUR in 2017.

If one carefully process the RAW Files, and using ISO 160-400 max, still today very good IQ from this old R1. I do know the Output is uncompressed since 2005, and 5D is only 12bits. Both cameras are very good nowadays, i do like them more then current tech. At least, the R1 records in 14bit, but i don't know if the RAW files are being 14bits to 12bit resampled when recorded. The Pentax K10D records 22bit, then save it as 12bit RAW

3 weeks agopermalink

Update - i've just installed Raw Digger Testversion, as the Web doesn't show me any kind of reliable source if the R1 does 14bit RAW, or not. I do now believe, it's been 14-bit RAW (.SR2 Format) all the way, uncompressed.

Here's a snap from RAW Digger, i've just opened a R1 RAW:

EXIF
Image Description

Image Width
3984
Image Height
2608
Bits Per Sample
14
Compression
Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation
Color Filter Array
Strip Offsets
254944
Orientation
Horizontal (normal)
Samples Per Pixel
1
Rows Per Strip
2608
Strip Byte Counts
20780544
X Resolution
72
Y Resolution
72
Planar Configuration
Chunky
Resolution Unit
inches
Sony Raw File Type
Sony Uncompressed 14-bit RAW

Note the Bits per Sample, it's 14 bits, and also the last Line, whereas RAW Digger says: Sony uncompressed 14-bit RAW. So much for my trusty, old R1. :-) This explains also the huge Files back then (usually around ~20MB per RAW File) As a Sidenote, i'd like to mention that the very old S75 records 14bit ADC b4 JPG

3 weeks ago*permalink

jim seekers

My brother owns a Sony RX1R II and Fuji X100T and the Colours from that Sony are the best I have ever seen, I have always loved Fuji X100 series Colours but they don't come close to the RX1R ii, The images it produces have like a 3D pop to them with a beautiful dreamy and creamy background, it's hard to explain until you see it and skin tones are amazing and I would even have it over the Leica Q, people complain about battery like, just buy a few ... problem solved, I own a Leica X2 and Sony RX100 Mk1 but that RX1R II has the Best IQ , Punch and Colour Tones I have evrr seen from a camera and I am not a huge fan of sony colours but the colour output from the RX1R II is different due to that razor sharp zeiss lens.

4 weeks agopermalink

It's like you're equating the barely usable Leica X2 with the Q or something because they both have the same badge...

4 weeks agopermalink

Fachy Marin

Good colors on a Sony? What? But seriously, Sony has been known for having the worst color rendition of all the milc system

4 weeks agopermalink

Richard Kwon

I had a Fujifilm X100 and X100S. The main reason I gave up on the X100 series is bc the back focusing issue when I shot at F2. I sent it to Fujifilm to get it fixed, but nothing it was the same when it came back. Shooting experience is important, but isn't the main purpose of the camera is to take pictures? How can the Fujifilm win Sony with the best IQ for the Sony...
This makes me want to purchase the X100F to see if it has improved!

4 weeks agopermalink

https://dearsusans.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/rx1-mtf.png

Jim, that lovely color rendition & 3D Pop comes truly from the Zeiss Lens, check out the MTF, for a 35mm F2 lens, the graphs are very good. It's just out of my reach, otherwise i could live with the quirks, and get myself also a RX1R Mk. II.

For example, here is the RX1:

It's the same lens into the Mk. II Iteration, already into the 24 MP RX1R predecessor.

4 weeks ago*permalink

"This makes me want to purchase the X100F to see if it has improved!"

Same lens. Similar (lack of) AF response.
Same ~F4 starting point for performance that compares to other F2.8's.

4 weeks agopermalink

X2100F's lens is soft at f2, at close distances. It is not soft with subjects which are further away.

3 weeks agopermalink

AF has also sped up to a greater degree than I thought possible, while still using the same lens design. My guess is that this is due to the higher system voltage that the new battery brings, but I could be wrong on that.

The X100F hasn't suddenly become a sports camera, but it's much nicer to use than previous generations.

3 weeks agopermalink

"greater degree than I thought possible"

If we're comparing lenses of the same vintage such as the (frankly unusable) Leica X1, sure. In actual contemporary terms however it's not really a worthwhile increase at all and the AF logic is still hunt-/ mistarget-prone.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Richard, how is the accuracy of the AF now?

3 weeks agopermalink

dansclic

Colors ? No, no....
when dim light, shift to cyan/magenta....very very problematic.

3 weeks agopermalink

deep7

Slight typo on page 8: "The Q's 28mm equivalent F1.7 image-stabilized lens is incredibly sharp...". Just the one surplus word in there!

4 weeks agopermalink

MikeF4Black

1:1 equivalent!

4 weeks agopermalink