After years of arguing the same point I think I have understood what is the popular definition of a p&s: anything that doesnt change lenses and is smaller than a Rolleiflex, is a p&s. For some people, even Rolleiflex is a p&s.
It has nothing to do with functionality, quality, price, or the worklfow of people who use it. Just the ability to change lenses or not.

But no point arguing about it, it's just a definition that merchants use to categorise their sales and organise their websites:
"p&s digital cameras, click here"
"dlsr digital cameras, click here" (usually includes m4:3 & Nex )
who cares, whateva

_julian_ wrote:
navyasw02 wrote:
millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.


Absolutely incorrect. If this is a P&S then so is a Leica.

It's not possible to change the lens. It comes without a viewfinder.

Julian, with all respect, that's just a ridiculous statement. By your own definition you've basically condemned the Hasselblad SWC to point-and-shoot status.

Spyro P. wrote:
After years of arguing the same point I think I have understood what is the popular definition of a p&s: anything that doesnt change lenses and is smaller than a Rolleiflex, is a p&s.

who cares, whateva

There's something to the simplicity case you described; The Leica Minilux I gave my wife I know I've described at times as a point and shoot even though by my earlier definition it isn't, mostly because that's how she used it. And it delivered very nice results.

But any fixed lens camera being a point and shoot? Doesn't ring a bell for me, but I can see how a generation of fixed lens collapsible zooms on tiny digicams might make that a comfortable definition.

Myself... I think less of fixed lenses or fixed focal lengths (a plus, not a minus in my books) and more about how exposure is managed. A camera that can easily be put in A, P, or M modes is a flexible tool and doesn't feel like it deserves a P&S label.

An all-auto camera then is a P&S. Maybe if the controls for adjusting aperture and shutter speed (and ISO/sensitivity too) and even focus are so hard to get to so as to discourage their use - then yes, those should be considered P&S cameras too.

While what someone else calls a camera doesn't matter to me, I do sometimes feel like responding if I sense the term is used in a pejorative sense as is very often the case on discussion forums. Mostly I'm interested in the "why?" question.

michaelwatkins wrote:
_julian_ wrote:
navyasw02 wrote:
millsart wrote:
I think the RX1 needs to be thought of as a P&S camera, one that is expensive, can shoot in very low light, and that has some real DoF control.


Absolutely incorrect. If this is a P&S then so is a Leica.

It's not possible to change the lens. It comes without a viewfinder.

Julian, with all respect, that's just a ridiculous statement. By your own definition you've basically condemned the Hasselblad SWC to point-and-shoot status.

That Sony opted to allow buyers to decide which type of external finder - there are two available, plus many third party optical finders that would be usable - is a marketing decision which does not change the class of camera.

Likewise... calling it a Cyber-shot has nothing to do with the class of camera but which design and manufacturing group within Sony that was tasked with making it. I'm glad they decided to look beyond NEX and try something different. It looks like a successful marriage of technology and capabilities for a serious, small, camera.



In my mind that Hasselblad fails as a P&S because it won't auto focus. it's not possible to actually point and shoot a subject with just a simple shutter activation/button, because the lens must also be manually focused.

So to add to the set of criteria that most handily identify p&s cameras, I would include the ability to AF as well as rear screen rather than viewfinder and a fixed lens mount.

Of course this discussion is merely testing the validity of various definitions, but it's an interesting way to explore and understand different camera capabilities.

If it's not clear, I agree that the RX1 is a wonderful camera, and I believe that is what Millsart was saying when he/she claimed the RX1 has more in common with a P&S than SLR/mirrorless/rangefinder classes.

The point is, that identifying it in this way, plays to its strengths (compact,covert,quiet,simple) and emphasizes what it can do - rather than what it can't.

As far as I am concerned, point and shoot defines a shooting style not cameras. Who cares whether the camera is categorized as P&S or not, what matters is what it allows you to do and how you use it. The streets are filled with people carrying DSLRs and using them for P&S. On the other hand I bought the Sony RX100 mostly to use it as a high-quality P&S but more and more frequently I find myself using it in fairly non-P&S ways. Most cameras these days allow you to use them at either extreme and RX1 is no exception.

curious80 wrote:
As far as I am concerned, point and shoot defines a shooting style not cameras.

^^^ This makes sense.

I was talking before about the general perception that I see on the internet, not my perception.
personally I'd be hesitant to call even a holga a p&s, and that's a camera that has two aperture and two focus settings and is being advertised and self defined as a p&s. I cant think of it as a p&s because I see so many people not using it as a p&s. Even their decision to use a holga is a very intricate, almost elitistic process that they usually arrive to after a couple of years of photography. Personally I've never met anyone who started photography with a holga, I'm sure they exist as part of the whole lomography wave, but I havent met them.

curious80 wrote:
As far as I am concerned, point and shoot defines a shooting style not cameras. Who cares whether the camera is categorized as P&S or not, what matters is what it allows you to do and how you use it. The streets are filled with people carrying DSLRs and using them for P&S. (snip) .

+1
I often use my M6 as a point and shoot. Set the elmarit 28 at f/5.6 or smaller, shutter at 1/125 and zone focusing. Really quick point and shoot.

Anyway, I'm waiting for the Sony RX1. I guess the control, menu, buttons and everything will not be far different from RX100. Easy to use. I'm still learning about the features (and how to use them) in RX100 but they're not difficult to understand.

Funny thing is I never bothered to learn about the menus or the buttons on my 7d, or prior to it, on my 30d. I always set those cameras it at M or A and shoot away

_julian_ wrote:
It's not possible to change the lens. It comes without a viewfinder. And it's marketed under SONY's own Cybershot p&s brand.

A label does not change what a camera *is*, only its marketing.

I think everyone in this thread will agree that a P&S is a camera with fairly extensive automation (thus "point and shoot") aimed at making it possible for relative novices to get decent results (think: grandma). There is also a lack of manual features, since this isn't useful for this demographic. There is also the implication of a smaller sensor, allowing the camera to be tiny and fit in a jacket pocket or purse. This is not a hard requirement, but the larger the sensor, the less it fits the demographic.

The RX1 is not a point&shoot by any sane definition, although given a P or AUTO mode, you can of course treat almost any camera like a P&S.

carstenw wrote:
_julian_ wrote:
It's not possible to change the lens. It comes without a viewfinder. And it's marketed under SONY's own Cybershot p&s brand.

A label does not change what a camera *is*, only its marketing.

Why Sony decided to release the camera with a Cyber-shot brand is something of a mystery. The Cyber-shot group apparently designed it, so the brand is a symbol of pride at the very least. Sony acknowledges there always is sharing of knowledge and resources among their different imaging product groups.

As most (if not all current) Cyber-shot cameras are fixed lens cameras, that may have helped in deciding the brand, or deciding which group would build it. Or they may have wished to avoid confusion and speculation about the NEX brand, but if so that has failed because there is lots of speculation about a full frame compact (the VG900 doesn't count!) NEX.

They may have wanted to send a statement to the market and to their competition: Our Cyber-shot line is moving upwards, and indeed it does follow in the footsteps of the RX100 in that regard and certainly sets a high water mark of sorts.

Today I handled the RX1 at a photo fair here in Sweden. I was surprised by how silly small it actually is in your hand and how small even the lens is. In fact, the RX1 was so small and negligible that most people didn't even see it! That's a feature that I desire very much.

I can't say much about performance, except that the AF wasn't fast at all. But it seemed very accurate and the speed could very well depend on the firmware. The menues were just as awful as in the A99, that I also tried and that has a very nice EVF indeed. So if the hotshoe EVF for the RX1 is the same, I think no one will be disappointed with it.

Build quality was very nice and better than I expected. The lens barrel is all metal and buttons and dials were sturdy and with a tactile feel to them. The balance between weight and "quality feel" was perfect. Light, but small and solid.

Point and shoot? No way. Anyone buying such a camera will know how to use it, because the looks of it is really unappealing (butt ugly in my opinion) and can't be used for bragging, unlike an M9. And no one in their right mind will buy such a niche camera for "pointing and shooting" at that price. No, this is a tool and I think I like it more now when I've held it.

So - will you get it?

mortyb wrote:
So - will you get it?

I don't know yet. I'm probably one of the first on the largest waiting list in Sweden since I booked one only two hours after the announcement.

One part of me says that I should wait for something similar with swiveling screen and exchangable lenses, but who know when that's gonna happen? The other part says GET IT, this is what you've been waiting for and you don't need anything more than a 35/2! In fact, I think it's a good thing that I wouldn't be able to start wondering if I "need" more lenses. It always leads straight to upgrade hell. I've sort of ruined the idea of the OM-D by getting more lenses.

How loud is the shutter, compared to other cameras you have used?

carstenw wrote:
How loud is the shutter, compared to other cameras you have used?

I could seriously not hear it at all, so it's not loud. But I guess I wouldn't be able to hear the OM-D in that place either.

carstenw wrote:
How loud is the shutter, compared to other cameras you have used?

Silent.

Makten wrote:
One part of me says that I should wait for something similar with swiveling screen and exchangable lenses, but who know when that's gonna happen? The other part says GET IT, this is what you've been waiting for and you don't need anything more than a 35/2! In fact, I think it's a good thing that I wouldn't be able to start wondering if I "need" more lenses. It always leads straight to upgrade hell. I've sort of ruined the idea of the OM-D by getting more lenses.

Hope you'll get it - I'm sure you'll make fantastic photography with it. I'd love to get it, but I think price is too steep.

carstenw wrote:

The RX1 is not a point&shoot by any sane definition, although given a P or AUTO mode, you can of course treat almost any camera like a P&S.



Depends if you think "point n' shoot" is a verb or a descriptive noun.

To me, a "p&s" is a compact, non-interchangeable lens camera, that I can use for mostly casual shooting. Doesn't mean you can't do serious photography with one, as I feel my RX100 can be used for more than just Facebook snapshots, yet at the same time, in my mind, the RX1, like the Fuji X100 is basically a "p&s" camera, because of how I would use it a majority of the time.

Depends what your used to I guess. For me, it used to be there were DSLR's and compacts aka "point n' shoot" by the truest definition of the word.

There was no murky gray area with smart phone cameras, CSC's, EVIL's and lord knows what other acronyms we've got these days.

Now days sure we've got CSC's etc, but what they are really comes down to how one uses it, does it not ?

If you have a shoulder bag full of Leica M glass for your NEX CSC that you manually focus on each shot etc, your hardly pointing and shooting

If however, you only have the kit zoom, and use it just for social snapshots, would that camera not be a "p&s" based upon usage ?


More so, does it really matter ?

If I owned a RX1, would I want to fight someone if they dared call my new $2800 camera a P&S ?

Likewise, if I was in the market for one, based upon what features it had and how it would help my photography would I suddenly decline to buy it because its under the "CyberShot" lineup ?

All and all just a bit silly

millsart wrote:
More so, does it really matter ?

That is rather a long post and a lot of arguing if you don't think so

The talk is normally of point and shoot cameras, i.e. noun, not of people pointing and shooting their cameras, i.e. verb. As such I think it is accurate to emphasise the automation expected in this class of camera. The RX1 doesn't fit that, with its extensive manual operation abilities.

Makten wrote:
One part of me says that I should wait for something similar with swiveling screen and exchangable lenses, but who know when that's gonna happen? The other part says GET IT, this is what you've been waiting for and you don't need anything more than a 35/2! In fact, I think it's a good thing that I wouldn't be able to start wondering if I "need" more lenses. It always leads straight to upgrade hell. I've sort of ruined the idea of the OM-D by getting more lenses.

I've had exactly the same two thoughts (and I have more lenses for the GXR than I really need). I've concluded that there's nothing lost if I go for it, so go for it I shall. There's no danger I'll feel limited with it, and maybe by the time an ILC full frame truly compact camera comes out, I won't care for one any more.