Update: I have the camera now, and the low-light capabilities are actually *really* good.
I like the look of it, very "camera like", meaning it's a machine, not a blob. And apparently it's a dang good lens, so it'll be interesting to see what reviewers say. And it's a 28mm-e to 112mm-e and 2.0 to 2.8, so that sounds great. Still very few zoom lenses are that fast, and the range appeals to me, unlike 12x super-zooms, it has a chance of delivering high fidelity over the whole range.
*The sensor is still larger than most compact cameras', including the one in the Canon S95. Thanks to ES.
----
tOP also has an interesting little article about which is the best aperture to use, fidelity-wise.
And while it is a small sensor, it's still 50% bigger than the one in the Canon S95 (which itself is bigger than most compacts). That and all those things you point out make the X10 look pretty sweet indeed.
ReplyDeleteOh that big, huh? Great.
ReplyDelete(I was wondering what it could have over the S90/95, which is *really* good and handy.)
I really wish they could just tell us sizes in plain millimeters diagonal so we have a chance. 2/3 and 4/3rds my ass.
ISO goes up to 12,000. While that is PR surely, I guess it means that 3200 might be useable.
I'm still thinking about getting a pocketable camera for carrying with me, the DSLR just gets cumbersome at times. I was just looking at the X-10 and am sorely tempted. However is there a compelling reason to go for it over the Canon Powershot S95 or the Lumix DMC LX5 (the latter I borrowed once and really enjoyed).
ReplyDeleteVery good question. They all have small sensors compared to M4/3 and up.
ReplyDeleteThey're probably all excellent. I might take the Canon, but if one likes an optical viewfinder, the Fuji is it. (I think it's rather bigger.) The Fuji has a manually turning zoom, which is nice.
I've heard much good of the LX5 too, or at least its predecessors.