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.
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.