Skipper494: It does not impress me when a company keeps bringing out new firmware versions, means they didn't get it right the three times before. The lenses are excellent, the performance clean, but it's still a 16MP camera.
@Skipper. Would you rather take the Sony approach where they release a camera with sub-par AF (A7) and then just a year after that released a brand new camera with slightly improved AF (A7II) which is still below par and you will need to wait for one more generation before it starts matching at least their own A6000. And btw I am a Sony mirrorless user.
justmeMN: Yesterday, I saw another television ad for Samsung washing machines. When people think of Samsung brand, that's the kind of thing they think of, not cameras.
Samsung lacks brand identity in the camera sector. The notion that Samsung is going to somehow overtake Canon/Nikon is hysterical.
I agree that Samsung or even Sony has a long way to go before they could get the same brand recognition as Canon / Nikon. I also think that every time I use a Canon or Nikon DSLR it seems like a mature product which works as you expect whereas Samsung / Sony etc are still not as mature. However, Samsung / Sony / Fuji / Olymus / Panasonic are going in a much better direction for me than Canikon. I don't care how much commercial penetration a brand if it offers a product that I like.
random78: Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?
Looks like I was misled by the articles such as the following:
The article was published yesterday and says that firmware 1.3 for NX1 has just been announced. And it is appearing in google as the latest headline news.
Looks like NX1 firmware 1.3 was released within last day or two as well.
Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?
random78: I see that you talk about the physical connection being a plus compared to Sony Q-series and thats a fair point. At the same time though the wireless nature of the Q-series also makes it much more flexible. All in all you could at max say that it is in some way a refined version of QX100 but not much more than that. Nothing revolutionary here. Also the mode where you take 4 shots for lower noise has also been around on Sony cameras for ages. Nothing new there either.
I do see the value in physical connection if it reduces lag. At the same time with the Q once you mount it you could leave it on. With this thing it seems like it will be cumbersome to leave it on. You will likely have to keep it in the pocket and plug it in every time you want to take a picture. In any case we could keep arguing. Personally I am not the target audience as I am unlikely to get either one of those. However to me at least it just looks like a slightly refined take at an old concept.
random78: And how is it so revolutionary compared to Sony QX100 which achieved the same a long time ago?
And why would the image quality be superior? Just because DxoMark has its image processing? Thats a very strong assumption to make unless you have had any time to actually analyze and compare the files from both. At the end of the day it is the same sony sensor and the lens is reliant on software correction like most other lenses in these small cameras. Nothing about it gives any indication that it will have IQ better than RX100 series.
I see that you talk about the physical connection being a plus compared to Sony Q-series and thats a fair point. At the same time though the wireless nature of the Q-series also makes it much more flexible. All in all you could at max say that it is in some way a refined version of QX100 but not much more than that. Nothing revolutionary here. Also the mode where you take 4 shots for lower noise has also been around on Sony cameras for ages. Nothing new there either.
And how is it so revolutionary compared to Sony QX100 which achieved the same a long time ago?
Could the preview folks please elaborate a bit more on the statement "Focus appeared to be on par with a native Canon body". Does it mean on-par with native Canon bodies in live view, or on par with native canon bodies in non-liveview PDAF mode.
The improvements are nice but $949 is way too much.
Narretz: So the Q uses an EVF with field sequential technology, which has a bad rep for its color tearing. I wonder how pronounced this still is - the tech must be improving, same as everything. I guess it's made by Panasonic, because they are the main users of it. I assume that this might be the same tech / finder we will see in the GX8, which means a resolution increase from 1024*768 to 1280*960. Eye point for the Leica is 17,5mm, same as the GX7. The real question, which is hard to answer, is how big the EVF is physically. I find the GX7 EVF simply a bit too small.
I had the original Panasonic G1/GH1 with the field sequential technology and never encountered the color tearing in my real world usage. Surprisingly I still consider that to be the best EVF I have used to date. I could see the pixels in my A6000 EVF which I never did in the old Panasonic EVF despite the fact that the A6000 has slightly higher resolution on paper. The hight resolution NEX-6/7 EVFs didn't have this problem but crushed the blacks badly and never quite looked natural to me indoors. I would be excited about a 3.8MP version of the G1/GH1 EVF.
Based on this studio comparison the NX500 might be slightly behind the NX1. However to put that in perspective it still looks slightly better than my A6000 which was the best APS-C mirrorless sensor before NX1. Based on DPReview comparison I would say NX1 and D7100 seem to be about on par, with NX500 following close behind and A6000 behind NX500. (I compared ISO800,1600 and 3200).
justmeMN: "Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason" - Jerry Seinfeld
@Papi: The reason for traveling this road is that it gives you a level of detail close to D800/A7r 36MP cameras, in a significantly cheaper and smaller package.
FantasticMrFox: "Before the firmware update for the X-T1, it could focus down to 2.5EV. After the update, it can focus all the way down to 0.5EV."
Am I being confused here, is this a mistake by DPR or does the X-T1 really just focus down to 0.5EV? Considering that the Pentax K3 focuses down to -3EV and the Panasonic GX7 even goes down to -4EV, that's just laughable.
Thanks for the correction, but you have only corrected the wording not the "spirit" of the wordings :) You still say:
"To be frank, this is still fairly behind what the competition offers, ......"
Not sure how you can make this statement without stating what is the lowest PDAF-cpabale EV for other mirrorless cameras, and what is the lowest CDAF-cpaable EV for X-T1 vs the other cameras.
random78: "Before the firmware update for the X-T1, it could focus down to 2.5EV. After the update, it can focus all the way down to 0.5EV."
I believe this is incorrect. As far as I know it is just the PDAF which was limited to 2.5EV and now works down to 0.5EV. The CDAF works in lower light levels as well. My sony A6000 also disables its PDAF in low light and goes to CDAF-only focusing. Though Sony does not specify the cutoff for A6000.
A7r and A7s don't even have PDAF. I think you are just quoting the lowest EV for AF, not the lowest EV for PDAF.
It is a mistake on DPR -- the 0.5EV figure only applies to PDAF. As you might know, X-T1 and many other recent mirrorless cameras use a combination of phase-detect AF and contrast-detect AF. However the on-senosr PDAF pixels in these cameras are small so they don't work in very low light. So below 0.5EV, X-T1 will only use contrast-detect AF and disable phase-detect AF.
"Before the firmware update for the X-T1, it could focus down to 2.5EV. After the update, it can focus all the way down to 0.5EV."
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.