brendannicholas: My photos can do that too! It's called photoshopping a photo taken at f8.
No the result of light field process is very different from what are describing
HBowman: Some ppl like to waste money in useless engineering. What a wast of time im dazeled.
Not really. The first commercially available DLSR had 1.3MP and cost $30000. But later versions built on it and look where the industry is now. This is a completely new technology and like all such technologies someone has to be the pioneer and get the first version out. The first iteration won't be the most exciting one but once it is in place it opens the door for more development to get it to a point where it will be more capable and more suited to a broader range of uses.
bobbarber: This chart looks this way only because of an arbitrary definition of "mirrorless" cameras as having interchangeable lenses.
Compact cameras are mirrorless, as well as cell phone cameras.
Many more mirrorless cameras are sold each year than DSLRs.
If you look at the charts you will see that the chart never mentions mirror-less. It says "The proportion of interchangeable lens camera sales made up by SLRs (light blue) and non-reflex cameras (dark blue).". So it is very clear, we are talking about DSLR vs non-DSLR interchangeable lens system cameras.
Dustinash: the biggest problem with this picture is poor lighting. The second is that although the subject tells a story, the background is bland. Its a decent photo not a great photo
It is not a posed studio shot. It is a real-life event so you don't control the lighting and background.
tessl8d: I almost bought the K5 just over a week ago, everyting about it felt and worked right,a few days later I saw the KO1 and the money's stayed in my pocket. If this is the Ricoh/Pentax way, then I'm afraid that they will find themselves with some big problems, I'm not buying into a system from a company that might not be there in 3-5 years. If the slim,light and capable NEX7, was weatherproofed, I'd be happy to wait 6 months for it. Hint Pentax.
@tessl8d - K-5 and nex-7 are very different cameras so I wonder why would you compare them. And they also differ hugely in terms fa available lenses. As for k-01, you have to understand that it is not a competitor for nex or m43 etc. It is a camera for existing pentax k-mount and gives them another more compact body to use with their lenses. If I owned a k-5 and a bunch of pentax lenses specially some limiteds then I would gladly buy a k-01 to use with my limited to have a more compact setup for times when I dont want to carry my k-5. That would be very different from going for a mirrorless system like nex or m43 which will be even more compact but require me to buy into a complete new set of lenses and accessories etc. Both are very different products.
Copiare: Great, now more slow zooms and awkward cameras with bad quality control. Pentax/Ricoh, The Ne'er-Do-Well Camera Company.
I have never owned a Ricoh camera, but I have never heard any Ricoh owner complain about the quality. From owners comments my impression has always been that Ricoh cameras are very solid which function the way they should and have very good interface.
DFPanno: No EVF is going to be superior to the human eye and that is what an OVF is (in essence).
Of course an excellent EVF stands to be better than a poor OVF but that goes without saying.
The substitution of one for the other may create the opportunity for other design advantages but that is a tangential conversation.
You don't really watch "directly" through the lens in an OVF. The lens forms an image on a screen and you then watch that screen through a prism. And that process does NOT show exactly what the lens sees. For example OVFs do not reliably show the depth of field captured by the lens at large aperture. Everything at f2.8 or larger shows as about the same. An EVF does not have this limitation and shows the depth of field exactly as captured by the lens. As for looking at a "tiny" monitor, have you actually used an EVF. A good quality EVF hardly feels like a tiny monitor. In fact when I use an EVF on my camera, most of the times I don't even feel that it is an EVF and not an OVF. It is not perfect, there are times when I feel the limitations of the EVF. But thats why it is good that the technology is improving and removing the remaining limitations.
JohnHoppy: Bad news for all who insist OVFs will always beat EVFs and DSLRs with mirrors and OVFs will last forever – Sorry, they won’t. The good news is, EVFs will keep getting better. When a mirror box/pentaprism camera costs 30% (or more) above the electronic solution, no prizes for guessing which way the makers will go. But be patient, and positive – tomorrow’s cameras will be better than today’s in every way, and guess what – eventually you won’t notice they’re all-electronic!
There is a mistaken assumption that OVFs are somehow a more "pure" way of viewing for photography. I was recently reading an article from a professional photographer who uses large format film cameras and medium format digital backs. Interestingly he was happy that his medium format back now has a good LCD and live-view because for the first time he could reliably achieve precise focusing for his medium format system. Funny no one told him that live-view through LCD is not what proper photographers use :)
simon65: I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
I suppose your particular store must have really low light levels. When I tried the A77 EVF (same as NEX-7) at a Sony store I didn't see any noise at all. And that was with the slow kit lens. I tend to use relatively fast primes so my real-world experience is likely to be even better. The EVF was easily better than most APS-C DSLR OVFs and second only to the full frame OVFs.
PaulSnowcat: Well... there gonna be some lenses, made for NEX, adapted for m4/3, as normal Sigma's were adapted for 4/3. So what? As usual - no wide angle...
We don't know yet if Tokina and Tamron will take the same approach as Sigma. They might show more sense.
Henry M. Hertz: who buys lenses for m43 cameras?except some gear heads who frequent sites like this one.
whenever i see someone with a m43 camera he uses the kit lens....
We could say the same about DSLRs. Go to any public place and you will see a large crowd of DSLR owners with kit lenses mounted. But that doesn't mean there aren't many other users who use lenses other than kit lenses. Same is true for m43, no real difference.
At first glance the decision seems to make sense. It is clear from the proceedings that second company wanted to use the first image. But since they didn't want to pay the fees to the first company so they decided to make their own version. And they made it a bit different to avoid being a pure copy. So there was a clear intent to copy.
But looking at it a bit more deeply the argument doesn't hold. Sure they could not use the original image without permission - that was copyright violation. However making their own version of the image should not be a problem considering that the first image itself is not an original idea. Since a number of such images have been created before the first image, and the first image is just one of the many versions, so it should be OK for anyone else to come up with another version and use it. There seems no reason that second company should be required to use the image from the first company and pay for it instead of coming up with their own version.
PerL: I think the review dont give enough credit for the unique speed and AF - the major shortcomings of other mirrorless cameras.
@Dolan - Lenses are definitely the key - the system has a potential of being interesting given the right lenses. So waiting to see what Nikon releases in future
@PerL - Just because a 'Pro' likes it has no bearing on whether it is suitable for me or another user. I am pefectly capable of evaluating how well it meets my needs, thank you :) Once again if you need great tracking AF in a very small package then yes Nikon 1 is the only choice. However if tracking AF is not high on the priority list (which it is not for me), then Nikon 1 in its current state does not offer much to recommend it over other alternatives
Tracking AF is definitely a strength of the camera which dpreview does acknowledge - they say that it is the only mirrorless in the market to provide that. However the single-shot Af and responsiveness of V1/J1 is not better than other mirrorless cameras. I have tried J1 and olympus e-pm1 side by side and e-pm1 was faster in AF and more responsive. And a major issue currently is that the smaller sensor has not provided a size advantage for now. Again look at a e-pm1 with kit-lens and a J1 with kit-lens side by side and the e-pm1 is as compact if not more and is cheaper, has a better sensor, is more responsive, provides more controls. Hard to to recommend the J1 over it.
oselimg: These samples raise the question that will there be any point in buying budget SLR's? Though they may have the OVF but even my 40D's slightly bigger viewfinder I find not big enough. Anyone who is about to say "but you can use the screen for composing" stop! No thanks. Maybe at times even when remotely speedy operation is not needed.
Sure there will be a point in buying a budegt DSLR. A budget DSLR can be paired with a large assortment of lenses to do so much more. If you ask about "budget DSLR with kit lens" then yes I agree that there will be no point in buying that. But then I think there never was any point in using any DSLR with the 18-55mm kit lens anyway :)
Eric Fossum: I'd like to think I am still on the innovator side of the curve and most of my technical friends know I am somewhat bored with the CMOS image sensor technology. I am actively on the look out for the "next thing". Still, just because something is new and interesting does not mean it does not deserve a critical eye. I tried to point out what may be shortcomings of the technology relative to the 2009 Fujifilm paper, which is all I know about the specific Fujifilm device. I will check in later to see if someone has something technical to offer besides just general pot shots. I did find the Debbie Downer comment funny. She is just a distant relative, I believe.
I dont think there is anything wrong with your comments and since you are an expert in the area so obviously your opinion has weight. However your remarks in the article provide a fairly high-level commentary and don't delve much into an assessment of technical merits or de-merits of the technology - so readers should not look at these as a conclusive verdict about the technology.
Based on the quote from Fuji authors it seems that the major gain is increased light-capturing efficiency specially at smaller pixel sizes. Unfortunately fossum did not really address this properly. Of course he could be right and this technology might not be "disruptive". But overall his comments are very general and from his comments it does not seem that he has a detailed idea about the extent of gains possible through this technology. These are like the comments from an industry analyst rather than from an engineer intimately familiar with the technology in question.
random78: While NEX-5N is great, it still suffers from the big-lens issue as NEX-C3 in the beginner section. Just like NEX-C3 was demoted in beginner section due to this issue, NEX-5N will also potentially loose out to NX200 for the same reasons and also because NX systems has a better lens lineup overall. So I think dpreview should re-assess this category once the review for NX200 is complete.
@ET2: I think you didn't read my post clearly. I didn't say that DPR got it wrong. If you read the comparison you will see that they have not had a chance to take a detailed enough look at NX200 so far. All I said was that once they do that, they should revisit this comparison as they MIGHT find the NX200 to be the better option. DPR is free to make whatever assessment they find appropriate.
In general it depends on one's needs and preferences. For my particular needs NEX doesn't have many useful lenses. The only interesting ones are the 24mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8. And the 24mm is very expensive. So I can't make use of the excellent NEX cameras. NX and m43, on the other hand have the lenses that I need - i.e. fast and compact lenses at a reasonable price. And they have it today so at this point they are the better options for me. If in future NEX catches up in lenses, I will look at NEX as well. I don't have anything against a particular brand. Whatever has the tools to meet my needs.
Hmm I think you are confusing the lens lineups here. NX pancakes are 30mm f2, 16mm f2.4 and 20mm f2.8. None of them is an f3.5. The NX 30mm f2 is the same size as m43 20mm 1.7 and is equally good. m43 25mm 1.4 is great but is certainly not as compact as the samsung 30 or pana 20. The big lens issue is there only with NEX, not with NX.
By the way I am a m43 user myself so its not like I am trying to belittle m43 or NEX. In fact I prefer m43 over NEX due to better lens choices. Its just that at this point I think NX200 can provide the best IQ in a compact package out of all the other options.
Right but NX200 seems to combine the IQ of NEX system with the compactness of m43 system. Based on the RAW samples on DPR NX200 seems to have an excellent sensor with a NEX-5N class low-light capability. And unlike NEX samsung has m43-like compact lenses as well. This is why I mentioned that NX200 might turn out to be the leader in DPR's "intermediate cameras" category once DPR has done the full NX200 review.