3 ms·
Not so sure, for a lot less than $1699 you can buy some very good micro 4/3 cameras which would probably give this a run for its money in low light settings. mi
by hyperbovine 10y ago
Not so sure, for a lot less than $1699 you can buy some very good micro 4/3 cameras which would probably give this a run for its money in low light settings. micro 4/3 is not quite "tiny", but judging from the picture of the founder holding one up, neither us this (despite what the headline claims).
- misev 10y agoThe largest part of a micro 4/3 or a DSLR is the lens usually, and this thing goes around that, so I'd say it's seriously smaller. We can just speculate at this point about the low light performance though, I can't wait to see some proper review.
- slantyyz 10y agoYou can consider a fixed lens 1" sensor compact like a Sony RX100. It's got half-decent low light performance. It may not beat a 2016 consumer level DSLR for low light, but it's probably comparable to a 2008-2010 Rebel.
- bobsil1 10y agoThere's a mobility premium since this fits in your pocket. Much smaller than an A6300 with pancake lens. You could potentially jog with this in a wildlife refuge, then take bird shots.
- alkonaut 10y agoSLR or mirrorless lenses that do 28-150 equivalent are pretty heave and bulky. The worst bit is that the camera body and the lens are perpendicular so the size of the full system (measured as a bounding box) becomes pretty extreme. This system has a big benefit in that the optical axes are along the camera body so the flatness is preserved. I remember a few (single lens) digital compacts that did this in the past.