Let me guess: it'll be white, every button will have three functions - none of them clear, and it won't come with any instructions, because if you have to ask, you're not one of the klan...
zzapamiga: Sigma please sell Foveon to Canon or Sony. Your camera division cannot be profitable and you are primarily a lens maker. That way we can all enjoy Foveon sensors in great bodies with a better supported lens mount.
Canon will always be market-leaders who follow the innovation of others, and Sony already make the best CMOS sensors. Nikon are a conservative company - no chance. If we want Foveon developed it would have to be sold to someone with a need to trailblaze.
Olympus don't have the money, and although Fuji like experimenting with their sensors (I'm sad the S5's sensor was never taken forward) they have their hands full with their latest idea. That leaves Pentax, Panasonic and Samsung. Samsung are more interested in android cameras and new UIs. Panasonic have the resources and it would create differentiation between them and Olympus, but can't see it happening (unless rumours are true that they've ditched their own sensors for Sony in the GH3). But Pentax are in desperate need of something to make them contenders again. Their APS-C cameras are 'nice' - but 99% will still buy an Canikon instead. But put a Foveon inside one and you have a genuine unique selling point again.
These guys will buy it:http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151161162199851.471883.96845044850&type=1
Valiant Thor: What about lenses? Does anyone know if you will be able to use M4/3 lenses that work with the G5 and OM-D systems on this camera? Thanks.
Seems perverse to leave the XZ-2 off the comparison chart. The XZ-1 was the best of the last generation after all
photofan1986: And what's this thing exactly for?
Making calls and taking photos... which bit of the story confused you?
bradleyg5: This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.
This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.
It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.
If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.
This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.
Jon, I was referring to autofocus performance, ISO didn't enter into it. A 2.8 line sensor will not work on a 3.5 lens. End of story. Period. The end.
Secondly, I own a 5D II and a GF1. Your comparison of ISO 200 to 800 is nonsense. I don't mean that rudely, but it depends entirely on available light, and a handful of other factors (lens quality, sensor manufacturer, software etc.) and you can't simply bump the numbers like that and assume a two stop advantage across the board in all conditions and at all sensitivities.
Tell an f/2.8 sensor line on a phase-detect autofocus system that f1.8 = f3.5, see if it listens to you.
(Yes I know micros 4/3 is contrast detect. The point still stands, as presumably our friend makes similar ridiculous comparisons between crop and full frame)
IcyVeins: Thic camera CHEATS, you can't reduce noise in RAW and still call it RAW.
It's their camera, they can do what they want. Would you prefer to be offered the Red Green and Blue sensor data separately and interpolate them yourself? Perhaps just the stream of numbers and let you decide how they should add up?
Stollen1234: but why do we have to read this on this website..
we all heard about this on google news..yahoo..or Foxnews..
Please keep this site about photography..i mean about cameras and how to take photos..
not how to share it on social networks
'No camera reviews were hurt in the posting of this story'
I have a very soft spot for Pentax and I'm all in favour of attempts to shake up the current paradigm and lack of choice regarding bodies, but only to improve outdated systems, not to exercise the designer's ego. I saw an interview in which he seemed far more concerned with imposing his own signature and style upon it than whether or not it actually worked. Like a Phillipe Starck grapefruit squeezer, this camera appears designed to sit there looking striking, not to actually be used. Shame that a once great company has, I suspect, goofed again.
Everybody complains when a review isn't posted immediately after a launch, now everybody complains when news comes off the grapevine early. It must be hell being forced to come to this website every day, being made to pay the hefty subscription price and then not finding it to your taste...
The irony is that Samsung have not even bothered to bring decent connectivity together in the products they already have, instead they're providing components for main rivals Apple to do just that in the near future. My TV should be my hi-fi and have a dock for my Mp3 player/HD video camera, and should be linked wirelessly to my media centre and external storage, which should all be remotely controlled by my phone/tablet. (As just one theoretical example - there are plenty of others) That was all doable years ago and should be absolute standard, but Samsung sell their products individually with precious little interplay between them - compare the Samsung store in London to the Apple store, and it's an enormous missed opportunity. If they want leverage in the camera market they should be selling packages of products, offering cheap cameras with their TVs, phones and laptops, all of which have a good slice of the action, but ensuring first that they're properly integrated.
And have they addressed any of its major UI failings present since its first incarnation? No. The incredibly wasteful use of screen space, the ludicrously unhelpful access to controls etc. Typical Adobe release, add things but don't fix. Such a shame. The software boys certainly know what they're doing but the designers screw it up.
Not needing 5 clicks to do the simplest thing would be a start. But customisation should be the goal, not imposing another designer led, fixed concept on people, but letting them choose.
Video is here to stay and I have no problem with that, it's another tool. But I do have a problem with the lack of imagination shown by editorial staff in their handling of stills and online newspapers, and their slavish assumption that if you stick a video into a report you've automatically achieved something worthwhile. I had an argument with some Guardian bods as far back as 2005, that the direction they were taking was utterly unimaginative and half-hearted, they were trying to dump a newspaper on to the internet, rather than start with an appreciation of what the net can do and build a new format from the ground up. And here we are in 2012, and online newspapers are still laid out abysmally, the navigation is still hopeless, and more and more we're offered video even when we would prefer to read in silence - something the still image complements perfectly. I think with the growth of tablets we'll slowly see an improvement, but there's a real lack of vision.
Mssimo: 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) !!! wow..better than the D800/5D mk2
Of course, regardless of its advertised capabilities... if its as hackable as the Panasonics... ;)
thethirdcoast: Good luck shooting macro or telephoto handheld with that tiny grip.
Well I've been holding cameras by the lens for thirty years now, why break the habit of a lifetime?
Harold66: it would have been perfect but why on earth did they move from a 41mm to a 45mm FOV ? they maintained the 28mm FOV so why not do the same with the dp2 successor ? :(any words on a external finder . another minus of changing the FOV . I do not know of any 45mm external finder :(
also they should try to offer the option of a ratio in addition to the 3;2 ratio
I imagine someone felt the two cameras were differentiated enough and needed more air between them. I agree, I don't like the move to 45, but a move to 43 might have been a good advertising sell - 'the camera that gives you what your eye sees' kind of a thing.
All that lovely tech inside, and still a cheap body to save a couple of $$. The X100 sold as much on its looks and feel as its guts, how much would it add to the price to put it in a nice box? Sigma are a company I greatly admire, but it seems there's a penny pincher in a grey suit intervening at a crucial stage in all their designs. But good luck to them, I hope it does well enough for them to continue making cameras.