« Canon EOS-M: A Response from Amin Sabet | Main | Memories Are Made of These »

Wednesday, 25 July 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I got mine last night.
It's (almost) too good to be true.
Even has a 35 page WRITTEN instruction book (should be 100+ pages, as it has even more features than my Canon T2i DSLR), but it's an imjprovement over my previous Sony T100, which only had on-line instructions.
Today I will take it out to "the field"for a few hours, and I suspect that it's gonna replace my DSLR for all but Super-Tele wildlife shots.
More later.

With the RX100 and the LX7 coming out. How bad does this make the Fuji X10 sensor gaffe look? I still desire one for its unique physical attributes, but if you're waiting to make sure you get one with the new sensor, the imaging part is already starting to look about half a generation old.

But does it have a tripod mount??

I have had mine since a week ago Saturday. Very sharp lens, excellent low light performance for any compact, and tiny. Love it. It seems to draw a good image in pretty much any kind of light, even high-contrast. Great little camera so far. Did I mention it is tiny?

In a recent thread here about the RX100's introduction I remarked that I would stick with my trusty Canon S95 because it's a camera I know and it's been an outstanding performer.


I still endorse my opinions of the S95. But I ended up biting on RX100 bait last week. (Hook in mouth...) I think my Canon S95 might be out of business. My primary first impressions:

- Remarkable image quality. Really. I've only shot a few hundred frames with it and only in JPG (no handy RAW conversions yet) but geez. Damn! In the few scenes I use as initial inspection frames the RX100 produced some of the best results I've seen from -any- camera.

- Same size as the Canon S95. That's important to me. It's gotta be really pants-pocketable...and it is.

- Pretty good handling, again very similar to Canon's S90/S95/S100. Being well-accustomed to Sony's menu/control Zen I was able to be instantly productive with the RX100. I have a few nits and have not yet learned all of the camera's tricks but it's been a shallow learning curve for me.

- A bit slippery! The satin finish is lovely but hard to grip, with the only tacky spot being at the rear. Richard Franiac is making one of his wonderful accessory grips (ordered) for the camera but it won't begin shipping until August.

- The RX100's battery concept sucks. The batteries must be charged in the camera with either with a USB cable attached to a computer or to an included AC adapter. (Of course the batteries are $50, too) WTF?

- The RX100's Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens is no slouch, either. It's extremely flare-resistant, produced excellent contrast and sharpness at all apertures. Its only weakness is that its fast F1.8 speed slows immediately when you push beyond 28mm. Not really a serious issue in balance.

- The lcd is a lovely, bright, rich display similar to the NEX-7's.

- Did I already mention that the image quality on the RX100 kicks many asses?

Someone in the EOS-M thread remarked that some folks who didn't want the expense of removable lenses might just get an RX100 and call it a day. That's quite feasible. Of course the viewfinder fetishists won't consider it. But Sony has built a nearly perfect pocket camera, at least for me, in the RX100.

I just got one (through your B&H link, of course). I have to say that the manual was a disappointment--using the menus onscreen was virtually the same, but I am spoiled by thorough and detailed Pentax manuals.

I haven't been able to use it a lot, but it certainly does seem to capture details well, and I look forward to trying the sweep mode (which lets you hold down the shutter moving in an arc for an in-camera panoramic) on something worthy. It does seem like a purse camera (I do not carry a smart phone) I might be happy with. I haven't been able to try the raw files yet, but I'm happy with the jpegs at 800 and under. (I have not printed any files yet.)

Design quibbles: I wish it had a grip. I realize it wouldn't look as sleek, but no grip makes me want to hold it two-handed, which means my left index finger is right over the pop-up flash. That just can't be good.

I haven't been able to really put it through its paces yet, so these are more first impressions than a proper review.

I received mine last week.
"So what's so special about the RX100?"

Same (or better) IQ as my Panasonic GF-1, but in addition it has a 28-100mm equivalent lens and comfortably fits in my front pants pocket.

This camera just made the Nikon J1 and V1 obsolete.

I've had mine a week now. I used it for snaps at a family reunion on Saturday and it did an admirable job.

Things I like: 1) Swipe panorama. Not great but good enough. 2) In camera HDR. Again not great but really saves some shots. 3) Control Ring around the lens.

Things I am not thrilled with: 1) JPEGS seem too contrasty. Had to remove some contrast with Lightroom. 2) The _complete-and-comprehensive_ manual is online only - no PDF I could find.

I use the camera as a take everywhere P&S to replace a Canon S95. My main oameras are micro-4/3 GH2 and OM-D E-M5.

Images, including full size jpegs can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrick_magee/sets/72157630688083496/

Anyone compared this directly with the Nokia 808 ?

I'm genuinely curious.

A question to the owners that I've not seen answered on the net ...

What about the speed of operation and "shutter lag" (or rather AF + exposure + shutter lag).

One problem with the S95 (that I own ... along with the S90 and S100 that I don't) is regardless of how you manually set parameters (e.g. by going fully manual for exposure or by using manual focus) the camera still seems to have the same lag. It seems to go through the same procedure determine exposure, determine focus then shoot even when you've already predetermined those parameters. This slows it up.

You'd think that with these items preset all it would have to do would be to set. Or perhaps changing the sensor from Live View (video) mode to full resolution then setting the lens to the required aperture then closing the shutter, resetting the CCD, then firing the shutter takes the same amount of time.

But if you half press the shutter button the lag drops (whilst you still have Live View) so the AF and AE is done and is not been repeated on the full press. That seems odd: if it can avoid repeating the setup in that case why not when you're in manual mode?

This has been reported on the forums by others and matches my experience too. It makes the otherwise fun S95 a pain for "dynamic" photography unless you half press the shutter (and you can't separate AE lock from AF lock with the half press).

What is the RX100 "shutter lag" like in automatic mode?

How does the RX100 speed up as you turn off the automatic features?

Can the RX100 be used for "Decisive Moment" photography e.g. street photography?

How I wish I hadn't read this article and the comments. Now my [imaginary] wallet feels a lot lighter.

Yep, took the hook too. I just used a bit of what I'd accumulated from sales of equipment I no longer use to order an RX100 from Buydig's eBay Store. It'll be here in a few days. I too have an issue with the in camera battery charging, so I ordered this:


Seems awfully cheap for a charger and extra battery, but what the heck.

My S95 is staying as my wife has her eye on it.

I'm not in the market for one but that doesn't stop an interest in the reviews. David Kilpatrick, who is always thorough and honest in his appraisals is very positive about it.

@Edward Taylor: micro 4/3 sensors are actually twice the size of the so-called "1 inch" sensors (aka CX format in Nikon-speak) which are nowhere near 1 inch in size. Damn those imperial valve/tube units :-)

But it really does sound tempting, especially after I flushed my S95 in the toilet a couple of months ago, and AF no longer works for focal lengths above 50 mm-e. And the speaker is dead, too...

Another thought. Consider what will happen to the market if Sony follows up with a camera that includes this new sensor, an EVF and a 24-28 to 200-300mm equivalent lens. Sort of a Canon Powershot Pro 1 on steroids. That could spell trouble for several lines of cameras. Of course, this includes Sony's own mirrorless and SLR lines so it'll be interesting to see if they do it.

If only you could add an external viewfinder, but I don't see a hotshoe. What are those two little holes on the very top of the camera, seen from the overhead shot on Amazon?


I've had mine for a week now. Michael Reichmann's review sold it to me with his "wow"....as it turns out he wasn't exaggerating: this is a great little image taker.

If I'm reading him correctly, Edward Taylor seems to be making the same mistake I've seen in many online RX100 vs u4/3 comparisons (probably due to the spectacularly confusing "One Inch" sensor size marketing terminology) - a 4/3 sensor is not "somewhat smaller" than the RX100's, in fact it's area is about 2X larger!

Edward Taylor, one of the featured commentators, writes:
"The only question is whether a Micro 4/3 camera with its somewhat smaller sensor could be made even smaller"
Actually, M4/3 sensors are significantly *larger* than the one in RX100, which is the same size as in Nikon 1 series, i.e. middle of the road between ordinary compacts and 4/3. Here you can see the sensors side by side: http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#164,56,163,75,88,27,a

The RX100 makes me wonder - really - does the world really NEED mini interchangeable lens cameras? If I want a pocket cam with quality the RX100 and G1X are much "handier" than even a Nikon J1 or a Pen Mini.

Last year I switched to m4/3 (from a Nikon D7000 and multiple primes), EP3 with PL 25, Oly 45, and Oly 40-150 as zoom.

Picked up the RX-100 last week for portability. On family weekend (many action shots and single and group portraits), so far 1) RX100 bests EP3 with 40-150 for IQ (both resolution and color rendition), even with cropping to reach 150 m4/3 equivalent, and 2) RX100 is on par with EP3 and Oly 45 for resolution, color rendition better for EP3/45 in my opinion although somewhat of a toss-up, others here prefer the RX100 (slightly cooler). Among many group photos, RX100 results generally preferred to EP3/45 by many people here. Of course all jpegs to date.

I very much like my PE3 (long-time Oly user, back to OM1 from my father), so my bias is to favor the EP3, but I find I'm often using the RX100 with its ready zoom. I have not found a zoom with good IQ for the EP3 yet. And the RX100's 1.8 when at 28mm adds enough background softness to meet expectations. One last advantage, others (read spouse) find the RX100 easier to use (or at least not as intimidating), not an essential element but a nice to have.

I expect the RX100 will take a good percentage of my photos in the future.

I got one for my wife. I had bought a Panasonic GF3 for her when our baby was born, but she kept using her old Fuji F31fd because it was more compact and she liked the image quality.

The RX100 blows both the GF3 and the F31fd out of the water, and that's at 1:1 pixel resolution without downsampling the images. It's perfectly usable at ISO1600 and can probably yield decent ISO3200 after downsampling.

I think this camera is much more of a danger for entry-level m43 (i.e. anything but the OM-D) than the EOS-M or NEX.

Apart from that, the UI is a bit fiddly because the buttons are so small. The only thing that gives me pause is the trap door for the battery/memory card compartment, which seems really flimsy.

I've got an RX100 on order. As an enthusiast who's used SLRs for a couple of decades, this will be my first compact camera (not counting smartphones). Here's what did it for me.

Thanks to my iPhone I'm hooked on the idea of the pocketable, always-with-you camera. But as good as its camera is (pretty damn good, considering), I keep missing (physical) manual controls, a decent zoom range, and better image quality.

I kicked tires on all the cameras in the enthusiast compact segment, and for me the RX100 just hits the sweet spot in the middle. The things it lacks (viewfinder option, hotshoe, etc.) are things I'm happy to turn to my SLR for, and sacrifice in a compact to reduce size.

I absolutely loved the handling of the Fuji X10, and think it's a brilliant camera; but the size-to-capability ratio of the Canon S100 had me stunned. When I learned the RX100 was only marginally bigger than the S100, which a much larger sensor, I was hooked. The announcement of the Lumix LX7 made me hesitate, because the lens seems ideal... but in the end, the RX100's smaller size won out.

There are so many good options that it was almost too difficult a decision. But that's what went into mine.

To answer the first question: Yes, it seems as good as (nearly) everything I've heard about it.
ISO=1600 in a dark bar produced beautiful facial skin with NO pepperoni artifacts. Focusing was chop-chop!
ISO=125 in our state park produced beautiful, sharp landscapes at all focal lengths. The DR is excellent.
The I.S. doesn't seem to be very effective.
The viewscreen is visible in Bright Sunlight (the only camera I've ever seen which does that).
I took about 100 shots, and spent a lot of time looking at them. Unfortunately, the first thing I had to do on getting home was to order a second battery ($50).
The menu is even worse than the usual unintelligible interface, and the instruction manual is virtuall worthless. It's the only camera I've ever had which needs an independent book to explain everything on it.
The size and weight of the RX100 is at the limit of carrying in a shirt pocket.
I've been carrying a pocket camera since my first Minox in 1957. This is the best that I've ever had. My DSLR is going to see little use in the near future.

Mine arrived today. Every few years I try and return another disappointing small camera (the last one being a Panasonic LX-2---nice, but too slow and too digicam for me at anything but base ISO). I already know that I'm keeping this one.

Small, quick, very sharp (even wide open), simply excellent at low ISO, and can be used well above base ISO (ISO 3200 raw converted to black and white is grainy but beautiful, IMO---definitely not a digicam look). This appears to be a sweet sensor/lens combination.

Not perfect---focus and recompose required too often, too many useless features, no viewfinder, lens gets very slow at anything but widest end, close focus only good at widest end, stupid photographer sometimes uses too many stupid automatic features leading to stupid errors. I'll find more to dislike along the way, I'm sure.

This camera is a remarkably balanced work of design. Nearly all the bad things are very likely required to get the good things into the small package. Fixing its problems would likely make this a lesser camera.

Soon after opening my RX-100 box, the first thing to piss me off was to notice that the wrist-band threading area sits right behind and partially obstructing the flimsy little enclosure that must be opened to access the USB charging port to charge the battery, needing extreme care so the enclosure won't break off and come loose from it's plasticky little hinge. Which genius at Sony tested this design?

Having never owned a Sony compact digicam before, the menu system seems alien and very unintuitive compared to Canon, for example. My rule of thumb is, if I have to RTFM (read the f*cking manual) to operate a compact camera, the manufacturer has failed. In this regard, Sony has failed.

Image quality? Look for my Canon S100 on eBay soon.

I lol'd at viewfinder fetishists! So true. I can't help but think of Kirk Tuck's evisceration of the new admittedly underwhelming Canon mirrorless offering. Horses for courses I say and as such the RX100 is a wonderful photographic tool. Very nice looking files so far.

I've been shooting with mine for two days, and the S90 now goes in a drawer. The image quality...with the results I expect from a pocket camera (and I've been carrying this in the front pocket of my shorts) I'm not in the habit of expecting much, but this is clearly very good. But, it's the lens and the reaction speed that I'm attracted to. It's f1.8 at 28-e, which is good, but then it slips quickly to f4.9 at the long end, but at 35-e it's still at f2.8 and that's good enough. My shots at ISO 1600 look very good, and though my version of Lightroom 4 doesn't yet accept the shots, and the Sony downloadable software is notoriously awkward, I have a lot of confidence that 1600 will be eminently useable...which takes some of the bite out of that f4.9. LCD is excellent, very viewable. The zoom range for this kind of camera is just fine, from ~28 to ~100. Good enough for small group wides, nice street stuff, and good portraits. I haven't explored all the options, yet; the big thing that I haven't figured out (if it's there to figure out) is how to leave the camera on, but turn the LCD off, when you're not actively shooting. That's gotta be in there somewhere. Right? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

The specs look like the answer to a photographers prayer, however my experience with Sony products is that they die prematurely. This goes for TV's radio's ( have had several of both) Amp's tape recorders and only one early P&S camera... I hope they have changed because unbeknown to me I got a Sony sensor in my OMD! On the other hand I still have Canon, Olympus and a Yashica cameras purchased in the fifties and sixties and they all still do what is expected of them.

I'm not sure I'm correctly following Edward's comment regarding Micro 4/3 sensor size vs. the RX100, but if it says what I think it does, a minor correction is in order: The m4/3 sensor is a good size bigger (not smaller) than the 1" RX100 sensor. So reverse his comment and wonder if they could squeeze a "larger" m4/3 sensor into the body of an RX100, or perhaps even an APS-C as Ricoh is rumored to be doing with the next GRD.

We are getting closer and closer to the luxury compacts of yesteryear with their lovely "full frame" 35mm sensors and excellent optics. Joy.

All the rave reviews would only lead me to think "what can Nikon do in their next "1" series camera" It's proof that Nikon had made the right choice in sensor size - there's lots of headroom with it - at least it could well be 20M without any sacrifice in IQ. I'm pretty sure the next iteration of the "1" series camera would be much more fascinating. I'll pass on the RX100 for its lack of EVF (sorry, personal taste only).

I am a picky guy when it comes to cameras. I shoot mainly with an M9, sometimes a Fuji GF 670, a Contax Phase One Combo, and a Sinar X. The RX 100 is unbelievable. I've only had it for a day, and when it arrived I thought it is a little too big for my jeans pocket - its intended destination. Then I started shooting with it.

It is incredibly fast (auto focus, fps, wake-up etc.), sharp, great in low light, small, versatile (the focal length range is just perfect). Sony got this so right! Mark my words, this will be the camera of the year. The first time I feel that a point-and-shoot camera really delivers.

I wonder if someone would be kind enough to comment on the RX100's highlight rendering. What I've seen so far suggests that for highlights, it goes from bright to blob very quickly.

I'm hoping those shots can be chalked up to user error and that the RX100 produces pictures more like, um, you know--that bathtub photo posted a few weeks back (Oly OM-D E-M5)!

I /think/ my recent memories are in color, I remember them with all my senses, but it is as if they are concentrated with age into what's important for each specific memory. B&W works for me if content/context is important, like finding a dusty b&w portrait of an old girlfriend in a long forgotten shoe box.

I have always dreamed of small cameras with big sensors. In fact, my favorite camera of all time is my Canon IXUS that used APS film. It was pocketable and I loved the panoramic mode. Sadly image quality of the tiny APS film was horrible and lack of any manual control ruined many images. But still, I got many great shots with it simply because it was in my pocket all the time - something my Hasselblad 501 and Nikon F5 certainly wasn't. It allowed me to take some stunning images in the back streets of Cairo and shadier parts of New York and London without calling attention to myself or the camera.

The Sony RX100 is the very first digicam to fulfill my dreams – at least on paper. Delivery in Norway is mid August so I sadly haven’t had a change to try it yet.

I don't lament the lack of a viewfinder. Since I wear glasses, viewfinders have always been an annoyance. An LCD screen, or the screen of a Hasselblad C-camera or a 4x5 works just great. I don't need that tiny hole to look through. Now it will be really interesting to see what images this camera can produce and if they've solved the ergonomic challenges (menu structure, control buttons, grip etc).

Sony sadly doesn't understand the concept of "less is more" and tends to cram too much functionality into their cameras. I'd be happy with a light version that only took RAW-images with no scenemodes, jpgs, video etc. Also, it would be great if they made a version with a tele zoom lens. (I'd rather have two cameras with two different lenses than an interchangable system that lets dust get onto the sensor. I have three M43 lenses and use three M43 cameras just to avoid changing lenses).

Anyway. The RX100 is a most welcomed camera and the number of orders it has gotten on Amazon will hopefully inspire other camera makers to compete in this segment. I for one am tired of getting the latest digicam only to retire it after a day of shooting. I've gone through the Canon digital IXUS, Canon G9, 10 and 12, Canon S95, Lumix LX-3 and TZ-30, a number of Sony’s, but they all failed to produce a decent image.

I also bought this camera very recently, took only a few test shots, but I have to concur with the rest of the crowd here. It is an impressive little camera for sure. I was already familiar with the sensor from my days of trying the Nikon J1, but the package around the sensor in the RX100 is a winner.

Just recently I got Ricoh GXR with A12 50mm macro module. 50 mm here is EFL, just to be sure I am not misunderstood.

Presently I am experiencing very strong urge to let go of all my Pentax stuff sans may be one body, two zoom lenses and a flash so that I can keep shooting for my older daughter's school.

I mean, I could buy A12 28 mm module, a Leica M module, one wide and one 50 mm lens and have it all covered.

I totally marvel at Ricoh colors and the way it renders light (for lack of better words here).

I wonder if I might add a contrarian note to this love fest. I've owned an Olympus XZ-1 for a year or so as my take anywhere camera (to accompany a micro 4/3rd outfit) and love it. I love it to the extent that I've come to realise it is possibly the best camera I've ever owned. However, I am never sentimental about gear and will move on happily if something else looks like moving things forward. Curious about the hyperbole surrounding the RX100 I tried it last weekend at my local camera shop, comparing it to my XZ-1, a GF5 (which is actually not that much bigger with a pancake fitted) and my recently acquired E-M5 (which is just the most fantastic camera by the way). The RX100 feels good in the hand. It's nicely made. It's really zippy. But having viewed the results of my comparison back home, the RX100 came in in a clear last place. This was partly due to the underwhelming JPEG quality at anything above iso100 (not hugely improved upon in the processed RAW files) but mostly because of the woeful softness of the lens towards the telephoto end of its range, particularly away from the centre of the frame. The comparative photos I shot with my XZ-1 at the same time were sharp across the frame at all focal lengths, perfectly exposed and just right. 20 MP means nothing if the lens bolted to the front isn't up to the job. It ends up being about bragging rights. About marketing. I am sure that some might suggest that I tried a duff sample but my experience with the QC of most camera makers is that it is generally much, much easier to find a duff sample than a good one. And if you find a duff one, you can save a hell of a lot of time, money and grief if you move on to something else or stick with what you've got (which is what I'm going to do with my XZ-1).

A public apology to Mike. I didn't realize B&H took Paypal payments, hence my eBay purchase of the RX100. I should have checked first as they do take Paypal. So my sincerest apology. I'm rather embarrassed.

What I don't get is how so many go ga-ga over the RX100 but the majority seem to be dismissive of the N1's sensor size and capabilities.

What about the speed of operation and "shutter lag" (or rather AF + exposure + shutter lag).

I forgot to mention that the shot-to-shot cycle time of the RX100 is what clinched the sale for me: it's nil! Compared to the have-a-sandwich lag with my S95 the RX100 is very dslr-like. It's ready for the next shot almost immediately.

To answer a few questions:

The two holes on the top are microphones.

The "shutter lag" is not noticeable.

The full manual is available at http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DSCRX100_guide/en/contents/contentslist.html - too bad it is online only, no download.

I am one of those "viewfinder fetishists" but I don't have the same requirement for a pocket camera. I don't expect it for this type of camera like I do for a relatively big camera like the Pentax K-01.

So, my Samsung EX1 (TL500) is going to ebay soon and I'm getting this RX100. It seems to good to be true and it fixes a few gripes I had with the EX1: real pocketability, truly fast operation and no lens cap. The IQ is icing on the cake because the EX1 was already very good in this department. The only regret will be to lose the 24mm and maybe the swivel screen.

Thank you all for correcting the mistake I made in evaluating the sensor size in the XR100. I sent off a quick comment and apparently confused the specs on the RX100 with the NEX 7.

My apologies if that mistake confused anyone.

I echo Kevin's disappointment with the S95's lag even when used manually.

Ken, is the RX100 more responsive shot to shot?

I too am still looking for a pocket DMD.

Thanks to Kenneth Tanaka and oldsweng for the speed of operation comments. Very helpful. These "photographer usage" comments often get missed in reviews (the ones I've seen so far) but they're usually the most critical part of loving or hating a camera.

Ken said: What I don't get is how so many go ga-ga over the RX100 but the majority seem to be dismissive of the N1's sensor size and capabilities.

I think the people raving about the RX100 are not the same subset of people that were putting down the Nikon J1 and V1. That and they're clearly different cameras aimed at different markets: mirrorless versus enthusiast compact. Very different physical UIs (switches and dials) with the RX100 being "normal" and the J1/V1 being "minimal".

In fact, there are a few people who thought the 1" (ugh ... 16mm) CX sensor is a good idea in this type of camera. It seems as Sony have shown to be about the biggest one you can put in a small box and build a decent zoom around. I think this will turn out to be the sweet spot for compacts that aren't cellphones. Move up to m43 size and you get the G1X body size and complaints about the zoom lens size and aperture. I won't mention APS-C or full frame (unless they use a prime lens ... we can wish).

I was one of the people asking when the Nikon J1 and V1 were introduced if there was going to be a P3 or a P7 i.e. a P300 or P7000 type camera with the 16mm CX sensor (and of course a modified lens for the larger sensor). With PDAF it could be even better than the RX100. In theory. But the big question is "Is Nikon interesting in this segment of the market?". They didn't follow Canon into the S90/S95/S100 part of the market by providing raw on the P300 or P310. Perhaps worried about eating into the P7100 sales? Or perhaps just waiting for the next product revision to put out their take this type of product.

The full user manual is out there in PDF form ... in Japanese. One might hope it appears as a translated PDF soon. In the mean time other users have grabbed the Sony HTML version and created a PDF (unfortunately the links don't work inside the PDF).

Try this one


from this thread


I don't know what's so special about it. The shape looks nice, the controls simple. BUT no accessory shoe, nearly all menu driven. Slow zoom lens.

Not my kind of camera.

@ Martin: "I've owned an Olympus XZ-1 for a year or so as my take anywhere camera (to accompany a micro 4/3rd outfit) and love it."

Then by all means stick with the Oly.
If you've mastered the camera and feel that it's not an obstruction to your photography hang on to it for as long as possible.

28 just isn't wide enough. I'll upgrade my pocket Lx5 to the Lx7 when it is available. Would really love it if the lens went to 21 at the wide end.

28 just isn't large enough. I'll update my wallet Lx5 to the Lx7 when it is available. Would really really like it if the zoom contacts went to 21 at the large end.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007