Anybody want to extend the speculation to whether ILCs will become niche items as fixed-lens zooms (LX100) become more and more capable? With variable pixel pitch on the sensor (more pixels in the center), one could get reach too.
Specialists will always want longer, wider and brighter lenses, but for the average joe… is the ILC really necessary? I almost always recommend the RX100/G7X/LX100 to friends who ask.
Saw the announcement and thought "great… mkiii MSRP will come down." Then I saw the mkiv price… I guess there's plenty of head room to leave MSRP where it is on mkiii :(
icexe: This camera doesn't get the praise it deserves.
From the 87% Gold Award review: "Samsung is still a relative newcomer to the high end prosumer camera market, but it seems to have pulled all the stops when designing the NX1 – with impressive results." Considering they gave the A77ii an 80%, the A7ii an 82%, the E-M5 an 81%, and the 7Dii an 84%, I think it's getting plenty of praise. And for the FW update, it's like they ticked off all the negative comments in the DPR review (bad AF in low light or strong backlight…) and the issues users on this site have been complaining about.
small body doesn't make sense without small lenses.
mpgxsvcd: 1/2.3" sensor @ 720mm and F6.4. I would argue that no "Outstanding Quality Picture" could ever come from that combination of settings.
15x is plenty. 25x is the max I would ever entertain and only if it is at a decent focal ratio.
I hope one day this race to see who can build the smallest chip, longest zoom, slowest lens camera will end. It is pointless and without merit.
I dunno… seems like all those compact zooms are for the birds. (rim shot… I'm here all week, folks)
for all the "arm-chair" pros out there complaining about lack of glass, I imagine the *real* pros are very happy with: i) fast standard zoom, ii) fast tele zoom, iii) fast portrait lens for 95% of their work. FWIW, as an amateur, the 30mm + 45mm + 85mm makes a great arsenal. I don't know what you "we need more glass…. it's all about the system" people want, really.
It's a bit unfair to knock it for lack of EVF when there will likely be an NX50.
you guys should post the before and after for this one like in the "shooting experience". impressive.
Only photographers would complain about too much sunshine in Hawaii. And photographers from Seattle at that.
shademaster: Dear Samsung: Thanks for the 2nd control dial on the back!
Yeah… I decommissioned my NX200 with a drop onto hard tile floor and had a "forced upgrade". NX200 had the 4-way controller/control dial. It was OK, but I think the dedicated dial will be nicer. However, I've gotten used to pushing the EV-comp button to change the function of the dial on my NX300 and it's not so clunky. I often shoot in M/Auto-ISO or M/ISO-200/TTL-flash, so two dials is nice.
Dear Samsung: Thanks for the 2nd control dial on the back!
Rdmkr: Shrinking camera bodies is a losing deal, because to make it matter the lens has to be shrunk as well, which is always to the serious detriment of optical quality. This is why I think the mirrorless ILC is overrated; it's like putting a u4/3 lens on an APS-C sensor and pretending it's just as good. It occupies this narrow and inhospitable grey area between a compact or bridge camera that goes all in on the "good enough" mentality and the DSLR that brooks no compromises.
When you put a serious lens on a DSLR, the weight of the mirror system and optical viewfinder is comparatively not a big deal. That's why we don't need mirrorless. What we need is mirrorless focus technology on the sensor of DSLRs so Live View works well when we need it.
You apparently haven't used a small NX body with the 30mm f/2.0. It's a "serious" lens. I take it to parties/events, and it lives in my backpack when I'm traveling for work. I would never do that with a DSLR.
I also use the even more "serious" (read: "heavy") NX 85mm f/1.8 all the time on my NX300. I hold the lens barrel. I'm thinking about getting the 16-50 S to use on NX300. I don't see the problem.
dwl017: Sorry my Samsung NX300 with 45mm F1.8 prime will blow this thing out of the water. Im sorry but $900 for m4/3 fixed lens is surely a joke. No way in the world with so many other options. You would be better off with a first edition Sony RX100
Any detachable lens alternative is a much better buy.
if you want a bright-ish but not super-bright zoom, get this. if you want primes on an ILC get an ILC. what's so difficult about that concept? I AM tempted to get RX100 or LX100, but I'm NOT tempted to GIVE UP my NX300.
Also: is "performance" deprecated in favor of "shooting experience" now? I'd like to see some comments on AF performance. Are we to assume "AF is at least as good as FZ1000"?
But tell us what you really think…
But seriously, cons: "no articulating display". I don't need touchscreen, but I really want the flexibility to shoot at eye level with EVF OR waist level on the screen. Lack of tilt is a huge downside and a draw for RX100 mkiii.
Your " Samsung NX300 with 45mm F1.8 prime will blow this thing out of the water" right up until the point where you try to zoom out...
JEROME NOLAS: It's DSLR size, the 16-50mm lens is heavy and very expensive. What they were thinking about?
tecno, for years I would occasionally defend your anti-samsung attitudes when I felt people were bullying you on these boards. You express some valid preferences. But REALLY, day after day, month after month, year after year with the same complaints... Drop it already. Get a sony or fuji and complain about it instead.
justmeMN: Technical merit aside, in the US, Samsung has a brand problem. $2,799.00 for an off-brand camera? Good luck with that.
I thought the $2700 included the 16-50S AND the grip. So if you want the grip, it's a good deal. If you just want body+lens, buying them separately is a bit cheaper.
It would have been nice to have seen what the in-camera "Smart Range" Dynamic Range optimizer could have done. Are the tone curves adjustable in-camera?