random78: "It doesn't fill a need that isn't already addressed by the competition; isn't better, smaller, faster or cheaper than other mirrorless cameras in its class."
This is generally true of all Samsung NX cameras - they are very capable cameras but don't offer any "headline grabbing" feature to hype about. Just nice solid products. However they are not behind other systems either - they are merely as good. So a comparison should really be about the system as a whole including the lenses, rather than the bodies which are more or less similar. For me the Sony NEX lineup just doesn't work whereas Samsung NX works - so for me Samsung NX is overall a better system. Compared to m43, m43 has a more mature and varied lineup but at the same time Samsung has some unique offerings like the 85mm 1.8, 16-50 f2-f2.8, and the 30mm f2 which are interesting.
@techno: We were specifically talking about compact pancakes lens. Fuji 23mm 1.4 is a great lens but not a small lens. Personally for me having a compact normal prime is a must in a mirror-less because I want a small package. My current carry everywhere setup is actually not a Samsung but the EOS-M + 22mm f2 and I can tell you once you use it, you will see that Samsung is fast. But I am OK with the compromise because it gives me the size that I want. Every system has a compromise, none is perfect. Just take the one that best meets your needs
@technoworld - 30mm f2 may not be very fast focusing, but having owned and used all the 3 mirrorless pancakes (Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Canon EOS-M 22mm f2, and Samsung 30mm f2), I can tell you that the other two are even slower. And some systems like NEX don't even have a compact normal lens option.
Canon has been selling huge number of APS-C DSLRs based on a sensor which is worse then Samsung in some areas. I don't get why Samsung sensor has to "beat" Sony to be in the game. Samsung now has a sensor which is in the same league as the other APS-C players (though they have a mediocre jpeg engine). The point being that the thing to do now is to choose a system based on camera features other than the sensor and your preferred lens lineup.
"It doesn't fill a need that isn't already addressed by the competition; isn't better, smaller, faster or cheaper than other mirrorless cameras in its class."
AngryCorgi: Congrats to Samsung. They just tied Canon for the most recycled APS-C sensor. This is their 11th camera with a variant of their 20MP sensor, Canon hit #11 with the EOS M2 carrying a variant of their 18MP sensor.
Futility is a popular trait amongst some companies, to the point they seem to be competing at it.
If you look at sensor performance for various samsung cameras you will see that even though all of these are 20mp sensors, the sensor performance has actually improved with every generation. APS-C sensors are fairly mature these days, you are not going to get a completely new sensor every year. Sony's 24MP sensor is actually older than the Samsung 20MP sensor and their 16MP sensor is even older. And these have been "recycled" in countless cameras from Sony and others. The difference with canon is that their 18MP sensor has not seen any improvements over the years and has stayed the same.
munro harrap: I really wanted a NEX. I knew that the kit lens was not much good, and that the 24MP NEX 6 and now A6000 are a lot noisier than my Nikon D7100, surprisingly so (unusable above 800ISO), but the killer, what really sticks in the craw, was the fact that the only "good" standard zoom for these things, the 16-70 f4 OSS is neither sharp at the borders stopped down, nor free from variable performance depending on focal length, and has a lot of fringing. This "Zeiss" thingy costs $1000 or £770 roughly, for little improvement on what are not good kit lenses.
I found myself in the position therefore of being forced to reject it, and then with it the camera(s) as well. Or pay out around £1400 for a machine that cannot hope to better the Nikon D7100 with even a ten year old 18-70mm kit lens.
That buys TWO D7100 bodies at the moment, or any number of better full-frame cameras, and this new A6000 has lousy inaccurate popping orange dayglo reds, unlike the NEX 6 and NEX 7 which are better behaved
As someone who has owns a D7000 and have owned a D7100 and NXE cameras in the past, I am curious to know who told you that NEX-6 and A6000 are a lot noisier than the Nikons? The NEX-5N that I owned was very similar to my D7000 at high ISO and from all the indications so far A6000 seems to be in the same league as D7100.
And the NEX 18-55mm kit lens is on par with Canon / Nikon 18-55mm kit lenses if not better, so not sure about your poor kit lens comment either . However the lack of a faster standard zoom or for that matter lack of lenses in general is definitely an issue with the NEX system. Which is one of the main reasons I did not persist with NEX.
Everlast66: Yeah, right, these guys come out of the blue and make a 40 Mpix 1" sensor, while none of the huge corporations with hundreds of millions in R&D can match Sonly's 20 Mpix 1" sensor.These guys are too vague and have to become more open and honest about what their thechnology can do and actually does or no serious people are going to trust them or invest in their equipment.
I don't understand what your concern is. As mentioned in the articles, it is a 40MP base sensor and the final delivered image is 5MP. What else are you trying to find out?
vincentnyc: may i request please that someone knowledgeable educate me on how large the pictures from this camera will be on my computer monitor? i'm quite confused by this point.
i'd like to know so i have a better sense of the size of these images.
i understand that their standard first gen camera (the box-y one) has very small images, which makes them fun and curious and interesting, but ultimately, for me personally at least, more of a curiosity.
however, if this new camera's images are substantially larger, even comparable to a regular point and shoot, it would make this actually practical.
of course, i understand that standard cameras have now gone up to 20MP and onwards, but still, if the physical size on a monitor is not teeny tiny, it would make this new model far less a curiosity and more of a useful tool.
thanks in advance.
The images are going to be about 5MP as per the dpreview article.
30-250mm f2 lens with a 1 inch sensor! Surpasses the RX10 in being the most capable "zoom" point and shoot you could find.
I think Lytro should find a way to allow user to get the full-resolution "non-light-field" images out of the camera --- a lot of people who may not be interested in light-field images might still get interested in this camera given its general photographic specs.
vFunct: If you look at the videos on the Nikon site, it looks like this product is targeted exactly for professional outdoor sports shooters. The new 70-300mm lens is equivalent to 800mm, which is terrific for outdoor arenas, AND the size is much smaller than the equivalent 35mm setup.
This really is a very specific target market.
It could be the 2nd camera for any outdoor pro shooter, as well. Really for anyone that needed that 800mm range in a small package + high-speed sport frame rates.
I'm sort of surprised that Nikon went for such a high-end target. They're basically replacing a $20k D4s + 800mm lens combo with a $2k package.
If you limit sports to those played at noon in bright sun then perhaps yes. Go over to sports forum and you will see the sports photographers routinely pushing their FF cameras to ISO6400 @ f2.8 in order to high enough shutter speed to freeze motion. I would let you guess how well the f4.5-5.6 lens on a 2.7x crop sensor work there. Why do you think those guys are paying thousands of dollars on lenses like 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 instead of say a 70-300mm zoom?
Also 20fps is super cool, not doubt about it. But how big of a buffer does the camera have, and how quickly does the buffer clear when it fills up? 20 fps isn't very useful, if you can't have more than a second worth of pictures before you stop and wait.
sean lee: Hi, Guys. I have a question. I am not professional photographer. Just like to take pictures.
Now I am using Canon t2i with EF 50mm F1.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Sigma 10-20mm. I am satisfying with their IQ but I want to have little smaller body in retro style. I was waiting if canon announce retro style SLR so I can keep the lenses I have now, but I don't think canon will announce and I am tire to keep waiting.
If I switch to Olympus E-M10 or Panasonic GM1, am I down grade or up grade? or just same grade in IQ? Thank you,
In terms of raw sensor quality, you can expect E-M10 to be a bit better than the T2i, specially in terms of dynamic range. In terms of JPEG quality, you will see a bigger difference as olympus jpegs are excellent. In terms of lenses you could go with Olympus 45mm 1.8, Panasonic 25mm 1.4 and Olympus 9-18mm to replace your current lenses and each of these is superior optics compared to the lenses you have for canon. So you should get a gain in IQ. GM1 sensor falls short a bit and would be a little behind the T2i sensor though not by much. Plus panasonic jpegs and white balance are not that great.
inframan: It's a statement in itself about its readers that DPR felt compelled to identify each source photograph.
Who would I rather be - someone who wants to learn about these classic works, or a snob who considers others beneath him as he already knows about these and other don't. I would take the first, thank you.
It does seem strange that you have to pay more than SB-400 for this flash even though it is lower power. However I would prefer it over SB-400 for a couple of reasons. First because it allows greater than 90 degree tilt, which is something I use all the time on my bigger flashes. Second it is lighter on its own and combined with the AAA batteries instead of AA the overall package would be even lighter. For me the main use of SB-400 or SB-300 is when I want something smaller and lighter than my Sb-700, so the extra weight reduction over SB-400 is worth the slightly lower GN (18mm vs 20mm).
I would definitely be far more thrilled if it had swivel, but unfortunately a small flash with swivel still remains a dream. It could clearly be done, as shown by SB-N5 (makes me jealous of Nikon 1 system).
WoW is all I can say!
scrup: Why all these negative comments directed to the newspaper. Markets are changing, newspaper advertising revenue shrinking every year. They need to do what any business will do to survive. They saw an area that could save costs and made a decision.
For those that say quality will be suffer. Is it better to have a crap picture or no picture. News is global and people want to know what is happening around the world and not just their backyard. 27 photogs no matter how many cameras or zoom lenses they have can't be everywhere. A picture is still worth a thousand words no matter who takes it.
Newspapers will not survive by cutting costs. To survive they have to improve the value of what they are offering and convince the readers that they are delivering something which is worth spending time and money on. I doubt that further decreasing the quality will help in that goal. Cutting cost my delay the demise but not stop it. And it may even accelerate the demise if the quality takes a serious blow.
Johnsonj: "It is a shame that the public can't see this museum-quality exhibit."
This isn't about the "museum-quality" prints people should be seeing, Robb.
This is about MILLIONS of people (photographers or not) replacing 28 photographers. I'd rather pull from the MILLIONS than those 28. The millions are everywhere at once, the 28 are not.
Times have changed. It's official. The dying newspapers can't afford photographers.
They can afford photographs and that's just what they'll continue to get. Those pictures might even get better.
But do you want to sort through millions of those photographs to get the few fit for publication? Or do you want to rely on those 28 who have the capability to deliver what you need?
For people worried about the DxoMark score difference between GR and Coolpix A, please do yourself a favor and look at the SNR and dynamic range graphs and you will see that the differences are pretty much non-existent. As for 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW, the advantage of 14-bit RAW is that theoretically you could capture more DR with it. However as above comparison would show you GR manages to achieve very high DR even with 12-bit so it doesn't matter that it doesn't have 14-bit raw. If anything it is actually better that we get the same DR with a smaller file size. It would also be interesting to throw in the Sony 5N in the DxoMark comparison - another camera with the 16MP Sony sensor. 5N shows a clear drop in DR compared to both GR and Coolpix A and puts in perspective the negligible difference between these two. Now from personal experience 5N already has excellent DR and shadow recovery, so I could imagine that these two cameras could only be even more excellent.
JohnyP: I hate to admit this, but i think your reviews are largely irrelevant now. You can't keep up with volume of cameras and reviews simply matter less. People are quite fed up with reviews and buy what they want and ignore opinions.
I know i do and i believe many others are doing the same.
Interesting that even though you are "ignoring" the reviews, you still found time to visit this website and comment on the review :)
random78: It would also be interesting to have a comparison with the RX100 in the review. While at first glance it might seem to be in a different class due to different sensor size and zoom lens, in reality it can be a direct competitor. At its 28mm end its lens is f1.8 so in terms of DOF control and low light it should be similar to a f3.2 APS-C lens. That makes it fairly close to GR and Coolpix A specs. And it is even more compact. An an RX100 owner I am curious if I would see any real gain in going from RX100 to one of these two.
There is more to it than just the studio scene. The quality of lens, the ease of operation, etc all come into the picture. If I take your approach then I could say that DPR should just publish reviews for Coolpix A and GR and the readers would have all they need to do the comparison. However the fact is that when a reviewer is evaluating two cameras with an intent to compare them then they can provide more insights than you can extract that from comparing individual reviews.