[PPPPPP42]

I'm a firm believer that there is a "right" camera for everyone.

If your photography only requires a point and shoot or even just a camera phone such as the family shooters and the facebook crowd and whatnot, then that is right for you and there are many good choices out there. Nothing wrong with that.

If you find yourself wanting more optical zoom than a point and shoot allows or just a little more capability and quality all around but still want to trust the camera to do most of the thinking and don't want to have to buy extra lenses then the bridge cameras were invented just for you.

If a person seriously wants to learn photography either for technical reasons or for artistic ones and is going to stick with it, then it is time to look at a DSLR. A person who buys a 3k-5k camera to learn on is way the hell more rich than I am (I make about 25k a year) but since I am a firm believer in not bothering with training wheels, if that's what they want and they are serious about it I say good for them.
That same person using it as a glorified point and shoot however really pisses me off.

Anyone who is serious about photography can afford it, it took me a year to save up the $450 (at that time) used price for my K20D and the $150 or so for my A35-105 F3.5. I slowly put together my collection of lenses when I could afford it and I always put photography first when there was extra money instead of fancy clothes or going out to eat. I can't actually afford to even buy one modern lens right now but they are not necessary for the way I use the camera and would in fact be a hindrance.

[K-9]

Also, interesting that it has HDMI where the K-30 doesn't.

That was the deal breaker of the K-30 for me.

If you want a small compact superzoom then get the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 .

I like the video quality of the ZS-20, but it's little sibling, the ZS-15 is said to have better IQ and better noise due to a 12MP sensor rather than the 14 MP. The ZS-15 is only $165 right now on Amazon. I'd go for that over the $200+ ZS20, or I would just jump to the X-5.

[kyteflyer]

---------------------------------------
I would say that the Panasonic Bridge Cameras are at least a match for the Fuji XS1.

I already have an FZ100 which I am trying to sell off even as we type... because it is simply *not* good enough. However, nobody wants it so maybe I won't be, and it will have to do. Sometimes I like its results, I guess...

[kyteflyer]

Kind of harsh I'd say.

I'd agree with that! I have my FZ100 but its not my first. I usually have a bridge camera as well as dslr... and I actually find that previous post a bit offensive to those who choose bridge instead of dslr.

[Alizarine]

You can see this among FZ150, etc. owners on the DPR Panny forum. They can spend a great deal of time working with raw, presumably because they don't have a great deal of money to spend on gear

I agree. I have a friend of mine who asked me before "what is a good camera for a beginner?" I told him NOT to get an SLR at first, but a superzoom, because he said he's also into macro and long zoom stuff. Given the budget he told me, I convinced him to get an FZ150. The learning curve he went through was amazingly steep but he handled it well. Only after several months did he notice stuff like difference on prints; low-light inferiority of the sensor and colors.

Now, he's itching for a Pentax DSLR. (no suggestions from my side! He took it right out of my mouth before I said it, he wanted either a K-r or a K-30. I told him to wait a bit more 'til the intro price goes down, but as for sure, he's already closed his head on Canikon).

[dc1500]

Panasonic Bridge cameras have had raw for a long time. I was a serious SLR user pre-digital and had a Panasonic Bridge camera before my Pentax DSLR and it was the quality of the wildlife pics with a superzoom that got me into wildlife photography with my Pentax. Nearly always shot in AV mode.Have people seen the spec of the new Panasonic DMC FZ-200 camera. SHould be the best yet for higher ISO.
I found that post totally patronising, to be honest.

[tclausen]

<SNIP>

If a person seriously wants to learn photography either for technical reasons or for artistic ones and is going to stick with it, then it is time to look at a DSLR. A person who buys a 3k-5k camera to learn on is way the hell more rich than I am (I make about 25k a year) but since I am a firm believer in not bothering with training wheels, if that's what they want and they are serious about it I say good for them.
That same person using it as a glorified point and shoot however really pisses me off.

Heck, I say go for it: if a point-and-shooter is willing to spend 3-5K on a camera, bring it on -- he helps pay for the R&D that goes into it, generously benefitting us all

[ChopperCharles]

See, when I started shooting I had a Canon A520, which was a bit of a learning curve, but it took remarkable pictures, and I found myself using aperature and shutter priority modes quite a bit. Eventually I got tired of how slow it was, and I "upgraded" to a Sony DSC-H50 superzoom. I bought the Sony BECAUSE it had aperature and shutter priority modes, a great zoom range, and a max (wide) aperture of f2.7. Unfortunately the image quality just wasn't there. The noise was excessive and the noise reduction made my images look terrible even at ISO 100. No hot shoe and a pathetic pop up flash made low light photography rather craptastical too. If the Sony hadn't made such artifact-y jpegs, I would probably have waited a lot longer before upgrading to an SLR. But I couldn't get rid of the H50 fast enough, because the images just looked like ass.

So, there is DEFINITELY a market for an SLR-like superzoom. Hell, I would buy one just to have a backup, or something to take if I didn't want to bring my whole kit. For something like the zoo, a small sensor with a ton of zoom is almost preferable to a cropped 300mm SLR shot.

Charles.

[PPPPPP42]

I wish to apologize for being harsh and patronizing but I find myself annoyed when people nit pick what is obviously a good quality beginner camera because it lacks the features of DSLR. My experiences with people have been more like what Alizarine experienced where people who are serious about photography and buy these cameras end up selling them off within a few months (or as soon as the money is available) for a full DSLR.
I accept that others would like a highly capable mini camera with DSLR controls though such a camera would be pushing into the market Pentax is trying to sell the mirrorless to. I expect to see a similar sensor in the Q2 if I am understanding its size correctly. If I had the money I would be lugging a 645D everywhere until conditions got so bad that I had to switch to an optio WG-2 so the travel cam logic is a foreign language to me.

[cquarksnow]

Just got confirmation from Henry Posner of B&H that there is no raw output in the X-5 :

Web No: 1021461836

The press release you linked to included information supplied to us by Pentax USA which has apparently since been updated. The product information at The New Pentax X-5 Digital Camera: From Macro to Megazoom | BH inDepth and Pentax X-5 Digital Camera (Black) 12761 B&H Photo Video is more current.

If you wish to return the camera and it conforms to our return policy provisions (see Return & Exchange Policy | B&H Photo Video) please use Order History | B&H Photo Video to request return authorization.

[cquarksnow]

Also I contacted Monique in the Pentax Customer Service in North Carolina and asked her to check with an authoritative source to ensure order cancellations are not misguided.
Given how Pentax is not able to verify the accuracy of a press release, I am certainly grateful that pentaxforums.com gave me a clue.
Thanks to all.
Christopher

[ChromaNoise]

No RAW, no FUN. I've been using my Olympus C-8080WZ for eight years now and I've been shooting raw with it almost exclusively (even though it's got the annoying 13-second buffer clear between shots). Reason being its JPEG output is very compressed in terms of dynamic range and sharpness is way below what the sensor can do.

In a compact camera, raw is simply a must in order to overcome the limitations of the low-end image processor they put in there. Just my two cents...

[Biro]

Just a late word here. The X-5 is a typical superzoom bridge camera that exists only to fill a market niche. It's most likely not even made by Pentax but a third-party OEM like Flextronics. Take a look at a lot (but not all) of the superzoom bridge cameras that are out there. They have a lot of similarities and often identical lenses. The company selling the camera with its name on it probably progams the image-processing engine but doesn't do much else. Still, like any other tool, these cameras can be useful when used in certain circumstances. But, unless price is one's deciding factor, I don't see how the X-5 can compete with Panasonic's FZ-200, with its fixed-aperture f/2.8 zoom and EVF with the same resolution as the company's G-series micro four-thirds cameras.

[JinDesu]

Just a late word here. The X-5 is a typical superzoom bridge camera that exists only to fill a market niche. It's most likely not even made by Pentax but a third-party OEM like Flextronics. Take a look at a lot (but not all) of the superzoom bridge cameras that are out there. They have a lot of similarities and often identical lenses. The company selling the camera with its name on it probably progams the image-processing engine but doesn't do much else. Still, like any other tool, these cameras can be useful when used in certain circumstances. But, unless price is one's deciding factor, I don't see how the X-5 can compete with Panasonic's FZ-200, with its fixed-aperture f/2.8 zoom and EVF with the same resolution as the company's G-series micro four-thirds cameras.

Because it's marketed at people who don't know what a fixed aperture F2.8 zoom means.

And these same people don't use the EVF. And care only about price.

i.e. these kind of people: