Most Interesting Cameras Of 2013?

I've been thinking about the most interesting cameras of 2013. These aren't necessarily the most expensive, most popular or best-performing cameras. Rather - I'm interested in the cameras that brought something new to the table - that moved camera design and technology forward. This is sort of in preparation for choosing a Camera of the Year. But I also think it's fun to go back and look at the significant announcements that happened over the past 12 months. So, in no particular order, here's my list - each one linked to the intro article in case you want to know more:

Nikon Df
Nikon 1 AW1
Sony Alpha A7 and A7R
Sony QX Lens Cameras
Sony RX10
Olympus Stylus 1
Canon EOS 70D
Canon PowerShot N
Pentax K-3
Samsung Galaxy NX
Panasonic Lumix LF1

What do you think of the list? What's missing? What doesn't belong?

looks good, you covered whatever I would have suggested - sony & nikon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armando_m

looks good, you covered whatever I would have suggested - sony & nikon

---

Which ones are your favorites, Armando?

I would split the A7 and A7R - two very different cameras IMO. My choice would be the A7R. A smallish body designed to use nearly every lens ever made (including Sony's E and A-mount lenses) with D800E image quality. - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I would split the A7 and A7R - two very different cameras IMO. My choice would be the A7R. A smallish body designed to use nearly every lens ever made (including Sony's E and A-mount lenses) with D800E image quality. - Terry

---

I agree. But for a forum post it was easier this way :)

I thought of another camera - the Panasonic Lumix LF1. It's been added to the list.

Fuji x100s.

Well John that's a great list. I have been reading reviews on the Sigma DP3 Merrell. Its a painfully hard camera to use but the image quality I'd suppose to be really good. Have you ever used anything from that series?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmourati

Fuji x100s.

---

I thought about it, Demetri. But the reason it didn't end up on the the list is it's essentially the same as the X100, but with a better sensor. It doesn't give us anything really new. I feel the same about the X-E2. They're both great cameras that deserve our attention. But I don't think they really qualify as "interesting" cameras - at least not in the way I defined it for this list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Well John that's a great list. I have been reading reviews on the Sigma DP3 Merrell. Its a painfully hard camera to use but the image quality I'd suppose to be really good. Have you ever used anything from that series?

---

Good suggestion, Greg. I haven't used any of the recent Sigma compacts but I did use the very first one - the DP1. Here's our review for that camera, from back

Sigma DP1 Review >>

It sounds like it hasn't changed much since then. I found the DP1 kind of frustrating but the Foveon sensors really are special. It's too bad they haven't put one in a more versatile, user-friendly camera. I'll take another look at the DP3. What was the deal with the Merrel, again? It's a special edition of some sort, isn't it? How is it different from the DP3?

I am not sure about the Merell. I think he was one of the engineers that designed them sensor. But I don't know if there is any difference in the versions of cameras.
Camera of the year is going to be a dog fight. The DF is looking good. Was the RX1 a 2013 release?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Was the RX1 a 2013 release?

---

No - the RX1 was in 2012. I made a trip with Sony last year just about the same time as the trip this year.

The Nikon D7100. Okay I bought one, that makes it look interesting to me. I'm currently trying to figure out if I can tell a difference between pictures done on the D7100 and those done on the D800 (for three times less money).

Apart from that I find the Sony RX10 very interesting. A 24-200 f2.8 constant lens on the latest version of the remarkable sensor from my RX100. Wow. Pity it's so big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

Which ones are your favorites, Armando?

---

sony A7
and nikon DF ... still to be seen but the expectations are high

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

The Nikon D7100. Okay I bought one, that makes it look interesting to me. I'm currently trying to figure out if I can tell a difference between pictures done on the D7100 and those done on the D800 (for three times less money).

Apart from that I find the Sony RX10 very interesting. A 24-200 f2.8 constant lens on the latest version of the remarkable sensor from my RX100. Wow. Pity it's so big.

---

...so ... is there a difference that you can tell ?

Hmmm - that's actually a reasonable consideration. The D7100 is the first APS-C DSLR that I felt rivaled full-frame image quality. Of course, when I carefully compared to the D600 I could tell the difference. But the D7100 is good enough that a careful comparison was required. And at normal enlargment sizes, no one is going to notice the difference. The D7100 is a very impressive camera - especially for the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armando_m

...so ... is there a difference that you can tell ?

---

Well first impression was - no I can't tell the difference.

But I'm not convinced. Test shots don't tell the full story. I need to do some prolonged work with it and see how many shots I get that really impress me the way the D800 often does. That's planned for Christmas/New Year with trips to England and Hungary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

Well first impression was - no I can't tell the difference.

---

I'm not sure how the pixel size of the D800 compares to the pixel size of the D7100. But the main difference between the D7100 and the D600 was sharpness. Because the pixels on the D7100 are smaller than the D600 pixels, there's more diffraction and that makes the D7100 a bit less sharp. But you really have to pixel peep to see the difference. And I swear the D7100 handles high-ISO noise better than the D600. That sort of makes sense too, since the D7100 is newer and would likely have more noise control engineering magic. The same thing should be true with the D7100 compared to the D800, regarding high ISO noise.

Well the D7100 has one victim already - the Nikon 18-200. When I pixel peep I can see lots of chromatic abberation (green fringe on white lines), low contrast at longer focal lengths - at least the sharpness is not too bad. But that's not what I need when I'm trying to wring the maximum out of the machine.

So just today I've switched over to the latest Nikon 18-140VR. I've already done two village events with it. Looks very promising, performance seems to be pretty much constant at all apertures and focal lengths. I like that.

Of course I'll do a review of the lens and the camera when I've got more experience.

Well for me as a beginner in the photography field ., I love the features of Canon EOS1100D. This type of camera reallt fits my lifestyle. I like the overall capability of this camera plus the very cheap price really has a great part.

thanks for sharing.

hmmmm.. i agree with you.

Thanks for sharing.

Well for me D7100 is best regardless of the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

What do you think of the list? What's missing? What doesn't belong?

---

You nailed a bunch that caught my eyes as interesting or impressive.

The Panasonic was not a contender for my own purchase but I love the small Panasonic we have so it got my attention.

The AW1 and 70D are two that were contenders for a purchase.

AW1 struck me as the ultimate evolution that started with my 1987 Minolta Weathermatic 35.

70D is where I hoped the camera and camcorder would merge. If that's a compromise my initial impressions are one of the best compromises ever.

BTW: I hoped the camera and camcorder merger were shaped, packaged or weighed more like the AW1, and I'm sure that will come.