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.
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.
Jarda_Houdek: I guess the aperture range will be the most decisive factor of it's success.
It would be a hard sell having to pay for an APS-C sensor with a kit lens.
fransams: The compactness of the body makes no sense when compared to the size of the lenses.If you want a pocketable (zoom-)lens, you need a smaller sensor. Plenty of them for sale, but not so good.But why should you want a pocketable body when you need a bag for the lens(es)?Considering the size of the m4/3 lenses I have no problem with an EP-L1 or G3 body.This is not necessarily a camera with an identity crisis, but it could sell very well to people with such a problem.
I wonder why are people so assertive and so confident that the way they look at something is the only right way? :)
IcyVeins: Is there anybody who doesn't immediately jump ahead to the number at the end before reading anything else in the review? I doubt it
Hmm I never run to the end to look at the score. In fact as far as I am concerned the score is only a very rough guide for total beginners who don't know enough about cameras to compare cameras themselves based on the actual review. But I do run to the last page to read the detailed conclusion. And then depending on which camera it is and what details I want to know, I go to other pages such as performance, handling, image quality etc
hippo84: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/page18.asp - take a look at the playing cards, for example... A65 has much better dynamic range and more "pleasant" colours...or not?
Dynamic range is hard to compare in JPEG samples due to differing amounts of noise reduction. And colors are just based on "default jpeg settings". You can typically change the default settings to suite your taste
Haha. The moment I saw the Gold Award for A65, I knew there would now be a storm about why it got the Gold Award and not the A77 :)
Why do people even care about the Awards or the scores. These might be a rough guide to beginners who don't have a clear idea of how to compare one mode to other. But for experienced users on these forums, the right thing to do is to read the review or at least the detailed conclusion page and make your own conclusions. The opinion of DPReview staff is significant because they handle so many cameras and get a great idea of their relative merits. But it is still an opinion influenced by their likes, dislikes and subjective preferences. But the good thing is that they do a great job of presenting to you all the details and then you can decide for your own whats good for you.
And they explain why they think a camera deserves an award. So you can read it and decide if the factors that they considered matter to you or not :)
TaxiDinner: I think it's just a CCTV lens with a wide angle converter stuck to the top of it. Genius though I must say (in the fact that the less-informed will buy it, and SLR Magic will make $$$). Shouldn't cost more than $299 though, but most likely will.
Price is determined by the quality that the lens offeres and not by how it is made. If it is good quality then people will pay the price, if its not good people will not. Hardly matters how they made it. Considering that the lenses that Canon, Nikon, Panasonic etc sell are mass produced unlike this lens, it is very likely that the manufacturing cost per lens to those companies would not be very high either.
Martin Ranger: Whether the NX200 sensor is marginally better or worse than the Sony one, the differences are so small that I would argue they are immaterial in real world use. Ease of use, speed and availability of nice lenses matter much more. The one aspect where the NX200 falls short is its inability to compress RAW files. So unless the Sony has a dramatically worse user experience, that pretty much settles it for me.
Disclaimer: I only shoot RAW :)
Right. The sensors seem to be very close. So the much better NX lens lineup is making me tilt toward the NX side. If Sony had the lenses I needed, I would have already got a Sony. The monstrous RAW files are going to be an issue for sure. Though on the positive side this might compel me to do a better job at culling and only keeping those RAWs which are worth keeping :) Plus hoping that a good EVF will become an option in future.
danaceb: for all of you who threw a whine storm when I remarked 'it takes more than spotty jpegs to account for the NX200 poor high ISO', I rest my case.
I am not sure what you mean because the high ISO performance seems excellent in RAW - competitive with the best of the APS-C sensors despite the fact that it has higher resolution
kwojdyna: To anybody that use this comparison tool - remember - shots taken by different cameras are taken with various lenses too. This means different DOF at each picture! So BEFORE you come to WRONG conclusion that any camera is not sharp, please look at the samples and think WHICH objects WERE IN FOCUS first. And then compare ONLY the objects that were focused by the camera.
The other important thing is when you CONCENTRATE on focused objects ONLY to wonder how image processing of a camera works (sharpening, anti-aliasing etc.) For example - JPEGs from this camera look very unnatural, just terrible. The higher ISO, the worse.
The good point is to replace small sensor Olympus in default choice with same size sensor as others Nikon D3100, which is probably a best candidate for reference APS format camera available in this comparison. I suggest to forget the lenses' DOF factor and conentrate only at focused areas. Compare colour strings, cottton balls, coins etc.at 4 cameras. Isn't it enough?
You are right, but please dont assume that those who are pointing out some issues in the samples dont understand all of this :) There were some real issues with one or more of the samples. In fact dpreview has already pulled out the ISO 400 shot which was the most torublesome. So please dont automatically assume that others dont udnerstand what you understand :)
rsf3127: Worse than NEX 5N and more expensive. No thanks.
50mm 1.8 is not a normal lens on NEX, more like a short telephoto. But yes 50mm OSS is an exception in the otherwise not so great NEX lineup. I am hoping Sony will improve the lineup but we dont know how much time it will take. Plus the shorter registration distance of NEX might not allow making pancake lenses of the sort that samsung system has - including the 30mm, 20mm and 16mm. There is even a rumor for an upcoming 50mm pancake! Anyways I dont want to sound like a Samsung fanboy - I dont even own an NX camera yet :) but seriously thinking picking up an NX200 after seeing these results!