People please go and read the article, this is actually sarcasm not a real product.
Robert Newman: This is roughly a 12.6 inch telescope. A used Celestron 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain without mount can be had for roughly $6K. While an f11 optic, it has considerably more light-gathering capability (23%) than the $33 f8 lens featured and is a fraction of the cost. As for the $180K used Canon telephoto, you can buy a large refractor scope tube assembly of similar size and f-ratio optic for $25K or so although you would have to wait for the right deal (i.e., no mount).
Telescopes are cheaper because they have a very simple design adequate for viewing. Camera lenses employ a much more complex design to account for a lot more aberrations and provide better sharpness and contrast etc., which makes them expensive. The closest equivalents to telescopes in the camera lens world are mirror lenses which are basically the same design as reflector telescopes. You could find a rokinon 800mm f8.0 mirror lens for only $179. On the other hand a regular 800mm camera lens such as the one from Canon employs 18-elements including fluorite and UD elements and costs $13000.
Horshack: Q: One thing we’ve seen with DSLRs in the D5500 and D3300 class is that as resolution gets higher, AF accuracy becomes critical. With higher-end DSLRs we microadjust focus routinely, but this feature is not available on the D3000/5000 series of cameras. How are you dealing with this issue?
A: We don’t have micro-adjustment on that class of cameras. We do have stringent quality criteria and standards, and based on these standards, we don’t see any problem with not having micro-adjustment for that class of cameras.
So by inference this means Nikon professional and prosumer cameras with the AFMA feature have less stringent quality criteria and standards vs $400 entry-level bodies that don't have AFMA. :)
@Evildogofdoom: You are likely right about D3300, but this is not true for D5300 / D5500. The D5xxx is often the entry point for enthusiasts who do use more than just the kit lens.
It might be the engineering team but these were typical marketing answers. Standard responses like "DX and FX are equally important to us", "we don't see DX as consumer and FX as professional", but "we won't talk about whether we are working on a high-end APS-C model". Similarly "our quality control is great and we don't feel the need for AF tuning on D5000/D3000 type bodies", even though the higher end bodies which should have at least as good if not better quality control do have this feature. etc. Not unexpected at all of course. Canon/Nikon rarely reveal anything about their product plans. Perhaps the only thing of substance was the admission that we were slow on D600 response and learnt from it.
Serious Sam: The pro kit is currently selling for almost 3K (well 2.9)in Australia. This is same price as grey import D750 Kit. They need to drop the price by at least 30% to make it worth while to look at
For those who is welling to hand over 3K to Samsung for a Camera, you must be:1 Clueless2 Very Rich3 Korean
or mix of the above.....
I love the what they say in the video made by TCSTV "The Mirrorless Party 2015" You can watch it here https://youtu.be/eplN_wI0AbA
Who is this Samsung........:P
@Serious: Man now you have me soooo confused. I just convinced myself thanks to you that these damn APS-C cams are so expensive. And now you flip on me :( So now you mean to tell me that a D7200+17-55mmf2.8 is actually worth AUD 2.9K even though you could get D750+24-120mm f4 for the same price? Remember D750 is 3-4 stops better than the APS-C sensors? And remember who cares if the 17-55mm f2.8 is f2.8, the D750 + 24-120mm f4 would still be significantly better, right?
When Michael did his review against the 7d2, he couldn't get good hit rates with the samsung with a sports lens when he "racked the sports lens". We shoot zooms in sports - 70-200 f2.8L and 100-400 II and rack the lenses. I wouldn't give gold to the samsung without 1) more system glass 2) testing the hit rates when racking of sports glass 3) testing the hit rates in shallow dof of the gym
Ahh OK. Well personally I hardly care about the % score and gold and silver awards etc., and only read the review and its conclusions. These things are highly subjective and really depend on your use case. On one hand as you said for a professional sports shooter, a field-tested, reliable and mature 7DII with a vastly superior overall system is a much more obvious choice. On the other hand, you could argue that NX1 is a significantly more complete camera in that it is not only made for action but equally good for landscape with its resolution and substantially better low-ISO DR - an area where 7DII lags behind other modern APS-C cameras. It also has top-of-the-line video specs. So in that sense it gives you the 7DII, D7200 and GH4 all combined in the same package at pretty low price. Either way, Canon will sell far more 7DII's than the number of NX1's Samsung could ever sell.
Of course, Samsung has a long way to go to entice actual professional photographers. There has to be a much broader lens lineup, accessories, professional support network, a lot more brand recognition and so on. I don't think anyone should expect that just by releasing a good camera Samsung will take over the professional world. This is just an evaluation of the camera in itself. And that too in limited circumstances. There are a variety of different AF situations that come up in professional use and Canon/Nikon have decades of experience working with professionals to fine tune their AF algorithms. So no one is saying this will dethrone 7DII in professional world. However it is highly encouraging that mirrorless cameras which have traditionally been limited in their tracking AF ability are now able to operate in the same league as the most advanced APS-C DSLR that exists in the market today.
Yes he didn't recant his comment on "Rack focus", though back in January he added the note that he has talked to Samsung and they are working on fixing this. At the same time though dpreview states:
"Tracking-AF is a more deliberate and precise approach than letting the system manage subject tracking. It feels much more "sticky" and the NX1 is very good at not losing the subject, even while panning and zooming in and out. In fact, this may be some of the best subject tracking we've seen, so it's a shame that usability for stills is limited by the fact that it only works by tapping the touchscreen"
Which suggests that if you select the subject explicitly using touchscreen then it does track well even when you rack the zoom.
@Serious: I am completely with you mate! It is laughable that someone would get a D7200 + 17-55mm f2.8 for about 2.9K AUD when they can get the D750 + 24-120 for the same price. There is no longer reason for high-end crop cameras like 7DII, D7200, X-T1, E-M1, GH4 etc to exist at such exorbitant prices any more!
iAPX: There's just a little problem on this camera:with it's lens, and maybe any lense that anyone coiuld create on 2015, there's no real on-focus sharp part.
Said differently, there are 28MOP on the sensor, but the lenses are just low-pass filters and there's no improvement since 16MP APS-C sensors, definition is not resolution.
There is clearly a good example, at ISO 100, with micro-contrast forced, and nothing really sharp (as sharp on aD300 or D610 for example)
Here is a link from studio scene comparing NX1, D7000, D610 and 5DII. Make up your own mind. Personally though 16MP is more than enough for my needs.
Hmm go to the studio scene comparison, select NX1 or D7200 against a 16MP body such as D7000 and then read the white-on-black text close to the middle of the scene. You will see a clear increase in resolution where many lines of text which are just a mush in the D7000 image can be clearly read in NX1/D7200.
@Serious: You have opened my eyes. Lets all get together and nuke this camera out of existence. Go D750!!!!! :)
@Serius Sam: Yes sir :)
@Serious Sam: I am not sure why it makes sense to make these comparisons involving these totally unrelated kits. D750 is a great camera which at $2300 is indeed a great buy. NX1 at $1300 is about $1K cheaper. Whether it makes sense for you to shell the extra $1k to get the FF camera or not is really a question independent of NX1. You have the same question within the Nikon lineup whether you should get the $1200 D7200 or $2300 D750.
saeba77: it's a great camera, but it's just too expensive....you cannot compete with nikon and canon at that price if u consider they lens portfolio...imho
Right now the NX1 is selling for $1300 which is significantly lower than the $1700 for 7D II, even though as the review indicates it matches the 7DII performance in most cases and in some cases even exceeds it, specially in video where it is in a different league altogether. How much lower could you expect the price to be for a camera of this level of capability. Lens portfolio will obviously take time to develop.
Hmm that kit includes a 16-50mm f2-2.8 lens which is by itself a $1300 lens. Why would you compare that price to a body only price? NX1 body sells for $1300 which is significantly cheaper than the Canon 7D II at $1700 and only $100 more than the Nikon D7200.
random78: Great job at a nice, balanced review! NX1 seems like a great camera. Hoping that NX500 retains much of its attributes (except obviously the 15FPS).
Yeah the 2.3x crop in the video is a shame, but to be fair to Samsung scaling the 28MP frames to 4K at 30FPS as NX1 does will require a lot more processing than simply cropping. And given the significantly lower price point (and smaller battery) they probably can't include as heavy a processor in NX500 as NX1. 5 shots buffer is definitely small. My main worry though is low light AF. Other than that everything looks good!
Great job at a nice, balanced review! NX1 seems like a great camera. Hoping that NX500 retains much of its attributes (except obviously the 15FPS).
NameFinder: Deja Vu - MV1 reloaded:
It was 1997, when Canon launched a "hybrid camera" ("convergence camera" it is called here) named OPTURA MV1. Of course, this was not a 4K cam but a dv cam - however, the ergonomics and over-all concept looked quite comparable to the XC10.
The web address below lists 3 recording modes:field movie modeframe movie modephoto mode
To "visit" e.g. here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dvc/data/1997-2001/1997_mv1.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1997-2001&p=2
@Richard. I think you guys are degrading the "news environment" a bit too much to try and prove your point. The simple fact is that there already are cameras like GH4 and A7s, and to a lesser extent FZ1000, which are simultaneously full-capability video devices as well as full-capability still devices. They don't compromise one for the other. It would be obvious to anyone that apart from the grip, these devices provide a far better convergence of video + stills capabilities than the CX10 which is just above average as a video camera and below average as a stills camera. Why would your news agency prefer a CX10 over a GH4+14-140mm combo which costs less money and which can do better video than CX10 and far better stills.
So it looks like your idea of a universal capture device revolves around one which is good at video but can be mediocre at stills, as opposed to many other devices already released which are equally good at both stills and videos. Honestly you guys should stop defending your stance as it is not holding any water no matter how many arguments you make.
Also I am sure you know that video is normally shot at shutter speed like 1/30 or 1/60s which is often not fast enough for stills specially in dynamic situations as found in the field where you guys argue XC10 would be use. And if you shoot video at higher shutter speeds then it feels weird and not cinematic. So as good as the idea of an 8MP still grab out of video looks on paper, it is far from a generally useful approach.