Flynn

Only does 120 fps at 720 at a 3 second burst. This camera is at least double the price it should be IMO. Can't imagine they are going to sell a lot at anywhere close to the asking price.

Wex Photographic is taking preorders at 2,500 pounds. That's the price they were given by Sony but they say it can change. This camera looks amazing but I think at that price the GH4 is a much better value.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7-gets-a-provisory-price-in-uk-2500-pounds/

Hey Andrew, just wanted to thank you for the awesome website and forum. I cringed when I read the comments by the two incredibly rude and ungrateful people who are now (properly) banned. As someone pointed out, you're not the NY Times. You don't have a huge staff behind you to fact check everything you say, this is a one man operation. We're all human and mistakes are bound to happen. To insult you and act like it's a capital offense when you get something wrong is nuts. I know dustylense from dvxuser and think he's a better person than that. I really hope he reaches out to you and apologizes. Kind of in disbelief at the things he's said. You can disagree with someone or correct an error without coming across as a total jackass.

GH3 is the over all winner for me. Top features: Full HD at 60 fps, continuous recordable time, time code (for mutli cams), easy post workflow, practical ergonomics.

 

https://vimeo.com/72737956

D.L. Watson, I thought your grade was fantastic. Very impressive vid. And the above vid is just incredible. It's impressive what the GH3 can do in capable hands. As far as the test, I thought the BMPCC was the clear winner. Awesome dynamic range.

They look overexposed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kLPSpIdudU

Rumors that Sony will start putting the Olympus 5 axis IS in the upcoming A Mount cameras next year. 5 axis IS finally combined with decent video capabilities could be really special.

I don't particularly care for Sony, but I think the RX10, as expensive as it is, is still pretty good value when compared to the alternatives.

Oh yeah, it's also weather resistant.

Shoot in rugged outdoor environments without worry as the dust- and moisture-resistant design gives you that added level of confidence to follow your subject wherever they may roam.

 

For someone who doesn't want to shoot raw I think this could be a very good choice, especially if that price starts coming down, provided the footage is good. It looks to be an awesome camera for documentary/news work.

I think this person over there, who links to one of Andrew's vids with the RX100 to show what it can do, makes a good point.

Have any of you SEEN the video that the RX100 and RX100M2 put out? It's PHENOMENAL quality for its size and price. And it fits in your pocket (literally) with lens.

Take a look at this: http://vimeo.com/45682834

Now consider that the RX100 Mark 2 (RX100M2) recently released is superior (esp. in the areas of low light and noise) to the above footage, and the RX10 (based on the RX100M2 sensor) is superior to THAT.

That quality, for the price, the video features (manual EVERYTHING, peaking, zebra, focus assist, histogram, clean output, audio and headphone jacks, ND)...and WITH lens (a Zeiss constant f:2.8 24-200mm equivalent)....I mean...COME ON.

 

I'm intrigued to see what it can do in capable hands and if the video really is a step up from the RX100 mkii. The sensor is tiny compared to a full frame but it's not that small- at the longer end you should be able to get some nice dof. And while the price is high, could you build a kit that replicates all that this has for a similar price? 24-200 f2.8 Zeiss lens, stabilization, 60p/24p, headphone and mic inputs, built in 3 stop ND, declickable aperture, clean hdmi, etc. The G6 is currently around $650. Add the 12-24 and the 35-100 f2.8 and you're looking at around $2,600 and you still don't have the ND, headphone jack, etc. I know it's not a fair test, there are advantages to the G6 like the sensor, which is quite a bit larger.

Well, I said most people. The only really negative view was by one person, who made a number of posts. Someone mentioned the lack of 30p but said that was their only complaint. The overwhelming view over there is positive, very positive.

Wow, it's like night and day. Most of the people over on dvxuser are mightily impressed by this camera and are singing it's praises and over here most of you seem to think it's crap. What gives?

I've come across three cameras that fit my budget (under $350 including lens). They are the Olympus EPL3 w/ kit zoom ($249), the Samsung NX1100 w/ 20-50mm ($299), and the Canon EOS M w/ 22mm ($349). I suspect most of the folks on here would suggest going with the EOS M, and I much prefer the lens that comes with the EOS M to the other two lenses. But I'm leaning towards the Samsung for a few reasons: their prime lenses are often on sale and are affordable and good and the Samsung comes with a free copy of Lightroom 4. The Samsung also has wifi, is a newer camera, and just seems more capable than the other two. From a video standpoint, do you think there is a big difference between the Samsung and EOS M? I know the EOS M is a much nicer camera with magic lantern installed, but I'd rather not have to install anything on the camera.