NSXType-R said:
Yes, the RX1 is definitely direct competition with the Leica X1/X2, which still has a much smaller sensor and has trouble with subject isolation.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this. Leica users buy Leica, because it is Leica - they will not buy a Sony, because it is a Sony. $800 premium is not in the same class at all. At this price, they don't expect to sell many but to show they could.

The word for this camera is "boutique" and in my mind is no different than the recently announced $25,000 84" XBR-84X900 4K LED TV by Sony. They made it because they could and it is the first of a new line that eventually drop in price for the market.

For those who think a full frame mirror-less system is attainable, they just found out how much it will cost. It is good to see someone finely did make one though - it shows they are seriously considering it. Hopefully it will get the ball rolling for something in 5 years that us mere mortals can buy.

TaoTeJared said:
I have a X100 - 3x more!?!? That is the same as a D800! Ummm No. Nothing is worth that much with a fixed lens. If it had exchangeable lenses and they made it M-mount - maybe.

The only one's that would appeal to are maybe the "I'm stinking rich" Leica crowd (real Leica photogs would hate it.)

That RX100 looks amazing. I saw some High ISO shots - up to 6400 is usable for sure.

Yes, the RX1 is definitely direct competition with the Leica X1/X2, which still has a much smaller sensor and has trouble with subject isolation.

I agree, the Sony RX100 is an excellent piece of kit. It is embarrassing to say, but it has more than equaled my D40 with kit lens, which I bought for $650 in April of 2008. High ISOs have more than matched the D40, where noise creeps in already at 800.

But alas, thus is the march of technology. :D

I just wish Nikon would get with the times and step up their advanced point and shoots.

bjrichus said:
Sorry - I missed your reply.

My response is to agree with you. The Nikon 1 is just as much a diversion.

Not a problem. My other cousin was asking me for recommendations and asked about the Nikon 1. She was curious about the interchangeable lenses, but she's the type that just wants a fast responding camera. I didn't bother telling her about the RX100 because I thought it would be out of her budget. Well guess what- she ended up getting a RX100 anyway.

So now I have two family members that have a RX100.

In any case, if the Nikon 1 had better lens support then maybe I would have liked it more, but right now it has what, 2 kit lenses, 1 power ultrazoom and 1 somewhat fast prime?

And Nikon wants us to take them seriously?

Sure your AF is pretty impressive, but you should back that up with a nice lens selection. At least Samsung got that down.

NSXType-R said:
Couldn't you also say the same about the Nikon 1 series?

Sorry - I missed your reply.

My response is to agree with you. The Nikon 1 is just as much a diversion.

NSXType-R said:
Speaking of Sony...
http://photorumors.com/2012/09/09/sony-rx1-specifications/
$3000 is too much for me, but I guess it would really appeal to those who like the Fuji X100.

I have a X100 - 3x more!?!? That is the same as a D800! Ummm No. Nothing is worth that much with a fixed lens. If it had exchangeable lenses and they made it M-mount - maybe.

The only one's that would appeal to are maybe the "I'm stinking rich" Leica crowd (real Leica photogs would hate it.)

That RX100 looks amazing. I saw some High ISO shots - up to 6400 is usable for sure.

i'd rather spend the extra 700 to get a d800 + 50mm 1.4G ( or 400 if you must )

i feel if you're spending that much than it should be interchangeable : /

Speaking of Sony...

http://photorumors.com/2012/09/09/sony-rx1-specifications/

$3000 is too much for me, but I guess it would really appeal to those who like the Fuji X100.

Slight bump in this thread.

I tried the RX100 and I immediately recommended it to my cousin. Seriously, it's that good.

It responds quickly and the controls are intuitive- I was shooting in Aperture Priority within seconds of picking the camera up.

Not only are they relevant, they're still awesome at $650. Yes, it's really expensive, but this camera really would put entry level DSLRs with kit lenses to shame. AF is quick and assertive, even in indoor lighting. Even does good video, if you like that sort of thing.

My cousin is used to the Olympus XZ-1, which was no slouch and he feels the RX100 is loads better than it.

If you don't care too much about bokeh, this is the camera to get right now if you had a spare $700 on you.

TaoTeJared said:
If someone actually came out with a 10mp, pocket-able $500 digi cam that can do 6400 B&W well and amazing low noise 100-800 and modest 1600-3200, I would seriously look at that.

That is going to happen in a few years. Olympus did a wonderful job with their OM-D E-M5 mirrorless m4/3 camera. It is close to the D7000 quality at high ISOs. The sensors get better all the time, and if the thing with OM-D is possible now, we´re going to get some very serious compacts in a few years from now. The Fuji X10 would be enough for most occasions (except very dark places or shots with bright oof highlights) already. If it had 24mm instead of 28mm in the wide end, I would already have one.

If you really want to add something - Sigma has their DX sensors in their compacts. Great IQ to 800 but they have always suffered above that and with software and clunky user controls. I always have liked the "look" of the images it produces though.

I know many are always complaining about price, but to be realistic, the cheap compacts are/will for the most part go away. Cellphones have taken over that market and the sales of cheap compacts have had a steady drop year over year. Everything left will be in the $350-500-800 range.

I actually used my G11 (10mp) (sorry I said above it was a G12 - goes to show how much I use it) this weekend looking at "Open Houses". To me, that is what these cameras are good for. Stuff that taking a DSLR would be a pain, or even weird, really in the way, and when you need a good focal range where DOF doesn't matter. Being so use to "controls" the cheaper compacts drive me batty as usually I just want to change exposure down a notch and on cheaper systems it is burred in menus.

For what it is, it works really, really well and it's IQ has held up to the $300 dollar compacts of today almost 3 years after I got it. Maybe not at +1600, but 80-800, it is still great.

That's what $500+ compacts are - Great IQ, usability similar to DSLRs, and you don't need a new one for 3-5 years. In my mind, I like to buy something like this that is a bit more, but I can get 4 years out of without feeling the need to upgrade it. And if I want to do something really unique, where I know hot to set a DSLR, I can use basically the same settings for it.

Not that I am in the market, but I am interested in that Panasonic with it's 10mp sensor. I hate seeing companies add tons of MP with almost zero resolution or IQ gain. It just means they are combining more pixels to try to get an image. If a small camera's files get to close to the same size of my D800, that is just ridiculous.

If someone actually came out with a 10mp, pocket-able $500 digi cam that can do 6400 B&W well and amazing low noise 100-800 and modest 1600-3200, I would seriously look at that.

What I want is a $500 BLACK Nikon SP 2005 Rangefinder with a D4 sensor, fits all my current lenses and can be delivered tomorrow. This is the result of sitting here at lat 35.577710° lon -75.462148° wind at 20-30 mph, rain moderate to heavy in the motorhome.... waiting for the D400 announcement. Ugh!

spraynpray said:
In answer to the oq, I'd say more than ever. Some of these latest generation are what a lot of the DSLR buyers SHOULD be getting.

I agree- I think a Panasonic LX7 would be able to do most of what I need to do in a much smaller package. If only it were just a bit cheaper.

And I'm not too worried about sensor size- yes depth of field might suffer, but Nikon pulled off some good things with the V1/J1 sensor. I like the faster lens on it.

Supposedly it has about the same depth of field as Panasonic m4/3 with kit lens.

Good thing I read these posts....I misread the sensor size information and did not realize the LX7 was only less than 0.6" size.... no way I want that. I will look for something with a full size sensor and go that way.

spraynpray said:
In answer to the oq, I'd say more than ever. Some of these latest generation are what a lot of the DSLR buyers SHOULD be getting.

+1

Exactly. These little $500 cameras can do a LOT. Enough for most hobbyists anyway.

In answer to the oq, I'd say more than ever. Some of these latest generation are what a lot of the DSLR buyers SHOULD be getting.

or Samsung, or Sony NEX, or Fuji... or any non- Micro 4/3s system maker. After all, 4/3s and M 4/3s are the only "open" mounts on the market today.

With that kind of logic, why not force all camera makers for each sensor type adopt the same mount? Geewiz (if you haven't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic here)

bjrichus said:
And then along comes C@non with the EOS M. At least according to our photorumors.com sister site.

Looks like a P&S with a "not compatible with anyone else" interchangeable lens system. It also won't fit in my pocket... ;-)

For non-C@non users who simply MUST be 100% C@non what is the logic? What is the must have feature (or did I miss it)?

Couldn't you also say the same about the Nikon 1 series?

And then along comes C@non with the EOS M. At least according to our photorumors.com sister site.

Looks like a P&S with a "not compatible with anyone else" interchangeable lens system. It also won't fit in my pocket... ;-)

For non-C@non users who simply MUST be 100% C@non what is the logic? What is the must have feature (or did I miss it)?

I wont disagree about the Canon 1GX, which in reality was just a stop gap measure by Canon while they put the finishing touches on their EOS-M mount camera.

As I've said in the past, I wont use Sony cameras, because they are always just missing something. Ever Sony camera I've tested just reinforces that even more. If I was going to get a compact camera today it would be one I could put in the front pocket of my shirt, otherwise anything without interchangeable lenses is a waste of money.

msmoto said:
@NSXType-R

Panasonic Lumix LX7 is on my August "Wish List" at B & H. This looks very impressive. ISO of 12,800, 24mm f/1.4 lens on a larger than full size sensor. Nice zoom from 24-90mm. I suspect this will be in my little "birthday present to myself" basket when I return from the journey to Hatteras in North Carolina and Orlando, Florida the week following. My Olympus 1030SW a great little companion will get a replacement, I think. And the new one will be such a stealth piece in night spots....especially with some black gaffer's tape on it to make it look a bit used.

I had been thinking of the Fuji that TTJ has always thought a lot of, but this looks like a very nice bargain. I hope it will produce like the specs suggest it should.

You know, I'm really liking the Sony but really hating the price- it's $650!

I don't think the LX7 will be a bargain- their predecessors always sold at or around $500 new. The LX5 still sells for around $350.

PB PM said:
Sony, meh, it is Sony. LX7, not bad, but why did Panasonic put a smaller sensor in it than the LX5???

To fit the 1.4 lens I guess.

The Canon G1X makes no sense- it starts at f2.8 at the wide end and ends at 5.8 or something.

I'd rather get the Sony RX100.

LX 7 has the same sensor size including MP which could be interesting to see the high isos, but I have only seen iso 400 at the top. Samsung has the EX2F to add to the group of these as well. Thing is the Sony is 22mp and the Pano is 10 - That is a huge difference. I always liked the idea (and look) of the Fuji X10 since at it's longest focal length, it is still 2.8. In my mind, a compact should fit in your front pocket - none of these are that.

Honestly I have given up on compacts going for my iPhone. At least if it is a noise ridden shot, I can add some filters, borders, and a George Takei happy dance to it, to make it look interesting. I have a G12 I haven't really shot for a year due to it's size. If I'm going that large, then I would rather have my X100 since neither fit in my pocket.

Sony, meh, it is Sony. LX7, not bad, but why did Panasonic put a smaller sensor in it than the LX5???

@NSXType-R

Panasonic Lumix LX7 is on my August "Wish List" at B & H. This looks very impressive. ISO of 12,800, 24mm f/1.4 lens on a larger than full size sensor. Nice zoom from 24-90mm. I suspect this will be in my little "birthday present to myself" basket when I return from the journey to Hatteras in North Carolina and Orlando, Florida the week following. My Olympus 1030SW a great little companion will get a replacement, I think. And the new one will be such a stealth piece in night spots....especially with some black gaffer's tape on it to make it look a bit used.

I had been thinking of the Fuji that TTJ has always thought a lot of, but this looks like a very nice bargain. I hope it will produce like the specs suggest it should.

Anyone salivating at the Panasonic Lumix LX7 or the Sony RX100?

I certainly am. I'm not sure which one I'd like more. The Panny definitely has the faster lens, but the RX100 also has the bigger sensor for more subject isolation.

As much as I like Nikon DSLRs, I don't think they have anything comparable in the advanced compact range.

PB PM said:
Actually your iPhone costs you way more than that. The only difference is that you don't pay for it all up front. A tenth of each monthly payment you make goes to paying off the phone. So you maybe pay $1200 over the course of your contract, and that adds up to the phone costing you $300 on top of the $199 or whatever you paid upfront.

My intentions regarding the iPhone and the topic, "Are $500 Dollar Point & Shoots Still Relevant?" was to show two things: 1) That yes P&S are still relavent and 2) that many modern devices (ie iPhone, iPads, tablets and other device like it) have confirmed it. It is the simplicity of P&S device, that will continure to have a consumers market wanting them.

As for the cost-effectiveness of any device...well that all depends on the independent or dependent variables; such as the user, the buyer and seller. Explaining this would totally deviate from the topic...hopefully one day we will meet face-to-face and have a nice cost-benefit analysis conversation about it PB PM. But for now....cheers mate.

TaoTeJared said:
"DSLR combo is more cost efficient."

I love this line of thinking and in reality it never works and why I believe the m4/3 segment has driven prices up. (Not to throw you in this category or most on here either.)

Quintessential story: 2 pairs of friends asked me "what should I buy?" for their girls who are in cheerleading (8yr olds) and their point'n shoots were dated. They both had budgets of $500. I suggested a couple of new super zooms.

One listened got the P500 (just came out) with a 8gb 15mb/sec card, extra battery bag and tripod kit for about $525.

The other bought a Rebel T1i with a 18-55is on clearance for $475 thinking he can use the lens later. (This is where the low-end and m4/3rds bleed you to death - along with every other DSLR but why anything with interchangeable lenses is infinitely more expensive.)
First match - oops 55mm stinks. Goes cheap and buys a 55-200mm IS for $170. Sees the friends close up pictures of the girls from the stands - now frustrated. Returns the 55-200, goes cheap again 70-300mm this time non IS. Next week, photos blurry. Goes back, kid tells him he needs a flash - Buys some Sunpak cheap flash for $150. Flash doesn't reach and girls are way underexposed. Meanwhile our other friend is just firing away and posting to Facebook and the images look great and is shooting 1080p video to boot. The P500 is a bit nosier but I gave her my old copy of noise ninja, set it to batch, and bam - better than the out of camera DSLR of the other friends.

He finely calls me back which I laugh my A$$ off and get him straightened out with a 75-300is and give him a lesson on his camera. End cost Camera kit $475, $450 70-300IS Lens, card, 2 bags (holster won't fit second lens), cheap flash $150, tripod $100 + case of beer = $1400. $900 more and his images look no better than the other friend's. And he still complains about not being able to zoom enough. And now he's playing with settings and his images look like C@&*. 8 phone calls later I gave up and drove an hour to reset his camera and put it on auto.

In my friends rather normal world, the $500 P&S super zoom is 10x better than the whole $1,400 spent on a DSLR that in his mind, still doesn't match the P&S. It just is. That's why his wife went out and bought a P500 also. Now her's look better than the DSLR's as well.

Point being - compacts, (advanced/super zoom/pocket) cost just what they are and do what they do very well. Entry level Dslrs & m4/3rds pull people in and then the rat race starts to match what a good p&s can do.

Companies see this, and realize a very good Advanced compact/super zoom is a very good deal vs the rat race of any interchangeable system. $800 sounds like a lot, but when is the last time you added up what you spent (with accessories, filters, etc.) on your DSLR?

+1 So well said.......