Marshal: I just bought the new Samsung Galaxy S II, which I'm going to keep, but I will give lots of credit where it's due and say that the iPhone 4S has great specs, both on the photo & video end and even more so, Siri, the virtual assistant who can do Voice to Text messaging and also does searches for you. That is really cool to me.
If I didn't already have a new phone, I'd consider holding out just another few weeks for the iP4S.
Are you for real? LOL What does Samsung's success have to with Apple? I know they make chips and screens for Apple products but a lot of their money comes from their LCD sales that just about every company buys from them. The boat loads of money from the A5 and A whatever the old Iphone used is probably just keeping the NX system and camera division afloat until it cracks the market.
So unless their camera division starts turning in a profit soon, Apple most likely contributed very little to Samsung as a whole. In fact, I would say Samsung probably helped them out more.
Patman888: Why are the M43 fanboys talking like the size of the lens is the most important thing in a camera system? Newsflash, it is not. In fact, the lens size ranks very very very low to a lot of people.
If you really want a shitty pancake zoom then you should get a point and shoot camera.
I would like to see the fanboys explain this when they say the NEX is not considered a compact system. How would the explain the nexc3 with kit lens being smaller than the GF3 with the 14-42 in almost every dimension? lol Just look at the comparison pictures from that link below. I know they are going to bring up the Panasonic x pancake zoom but that isn't even out yet and seems like a pure novelty item to me. lol
You must be blind. Bjorn L's post springs to mind and there are plenty others. Unfortunately, you only see those types of posts in NON M43 discussions. You never see ridiculous statements like that in M43 discussions. hmmmmm... Maybe you are one of them since you didn't notice the blatant NEX trolling by the hurt M43 fanboys in here. lol
Why are the M43 fanboys talking like the size of the lens is the most important thing in a camera system? Newsflash, it is not. In fact, the lens size ranks very very very low to a lot of people.
Ivanaker: all the talk about m43 was about lightness, well this is smaller and lighter.``m43 has a bigger sensor`` you say, well nikon dx has bigger sensor then m43.
nikon just makes cameras like no one else. great in every aspect.
tell me of one camera (not talking about medium or large format pro cameras 20k+) that nikon can beat.
d3s: the king in qualityd700: full frame lightweight kingd7000: aps kingv1: lightweight king
But the lens selection will be smaller. Isn't that the entire baseless argument against the NEX system? Now when the roles are reversed it isn't significantly smaller or lighter in practice?
I smell some major M43 fanboy double standards going on here. haha
So, when Nikon eventually releases the worlds smallest pancake lens for the V1 is the small brigade going to jizz in their pants? Or does smaller is better only count if you are comparing M43 with NEX?
roblarosa: Wow, and the V1 runs $200 more than the G3, what a joke.
I own a G3 now instead of the GH2 and I love it and I am sure many other people do too but I am sure Panasonic would much, MUCH, MUCH rather have it outsell a Nikon V1 than to satisfy us. So no, the joke is definitely on Panasonic getting owned by Nikon in every market except Japan and no amount of M43 fanboyism is going to change who's the joke on.
Actually the joke is really on Sony who somehow get's harshly criticized for making a low iso beast of a sensor and the best EVF by a country mile yet Panasonic and Olympus cam make 460 k dot LCD screens for 5 generations, which are already surpassed by compact point and shoots, without an ounce of criticism towards them. Hmmmm...
The M43 brigade is at it again I see. First they try and ruin the hype for the NEX 7, A77, and A65. Now they are dissing another format which strangely enough will have the same ammunition M43 folk used against the 1.5 crop sensors.
Should be good to hear all about how 2X crop is the universal sweet spot and 2.7x is too small. lol Ah good times.
35x zoom SX230hs? Sounds good to me. The 24x zoom that Panasonic is sticking to really isn't enough. I can totally outclass the FZ series with a G2 + 100-300mm for not that much more right now. Plus an A55 + 18 - 270 really isn't that much shorter than the FZ series.
Panasonic needs to get with the program. People buy these types of cameras for their zoom and versatility. The FZ series just doesn't differentiate enough from the superior dslr cameras.
A good example of why the M43 and NEX fanboys are deluded to think that Canikon is losing market share by not jumping into mirrorless right away. They simply do not need to. Just a mere rumor about a mirrorless Nikon raised their stocks.
Just imagine how badly a mirrorless D5100, regardless of lens size or body size, would outsell all current mirrorless cameras. A mirrorless rebel? It would win in sales in North America by a long shot regardless of the quality of the camera.
CarVac: The translation is terribad, but otherwise it's pretty interesting that they opted for color filters. That probably hurts battery life a fair amount.
You see the colour chart that says regular OLED technology has a 200um pixel density while with the filters they can go as small as 9.9um. It is pretty clear looking at the chart and text combined.
You should read again actually. Read this part again.
"The realization of 3.3um x 9.9um pixel size of the industry's smallest and *3 achieved a 2.4 million pixel high-definition 0.5 effective ultra-compact type. This time, we adopted the color separation overlay color filter on the white organic EL layer to achieve the ultra-compact high-definition.Fast response and high contrast wide gamut
High contrast is a characteristic inherent organic EL displays, wide color gamut, fast response by the performance, video and attentive, more natural color reproduction, tone characteristics, and provides excellent video characteristics."
Now look at the charts that show how much smaller the pixel sizes are using filters in place of the RGB technology. They even have a size label.
I think it is pretty clear that they are saying these filters allow them to go that small and it wouldn't be possible using the current OLED technology. Yes, even that broken English translation shows this.
bacteria: "since it's easier to adjust the behavior of a color filter than change the emission color of an OLED"
- that can totally be done in software. what they gain in "color filters", they lose in the saturation of dedicated r/g/b OLEDs. my mp3 player is an rgb OLED and it's an absolute *treat* to look at photos on it!
my guess is that because the resolution is so high, the manufacturing process can't easily produce three color channels at that density, so rather than admit that fallback, they turn it around into a claimed advantage.
You have to look at it from a size perspective. Plasma TV technology cannot get smaller than 42 inches. If someone comes up with a way to do it by changing the technology a bit, that would hardly be considered a fallback. That is absolutely an advancement.You can put all the RGB lights you want on the big LCD.
Geez you guys are a tough and unreasonable crowd. Cramming anything besides normal LCD technology into a viewfinder size is impressive enough by itself. This is good for cameras in general.
nofumble: In short, it works like a regular LED display like what's on your iphone except in higher density and extremely high contrast ratio.
Nothing here could prevent Samsung from copy it, and make it better and cheaper.
Unless Sony patents it as a viewfinder technology. Then they can use some Apple tactics to prevent Samsung from copying it.
Samsung does make some sweets OLED screens for their phones though. Galaxy S2. Drool.
Anyways, back on topic. What does it matter whether or not one electronic giant can copy the same technology from another electronic giant? What does this weak attempted downplaying of excellent new technology accomplish exactly?
We all know big electronic companies with huge pockets can do a lot of things. It is the first and how much better this EVF is compared to the Panasonic and A55 ones that is impressive. Not whether or not Microsoft and Apple can throw money and copy it if they really wanted to.
I suggest a little more subtlety to your Sony bashing or you risk coming off as defensive.
I am not 100% positive because of the horrible translation but I believe that article says that they needed to go with filters in order to make the technology feasible in such a small space.
Patman888: I wonder why howaboutRAW is so threatened by Sony? lol
It is obvious. No one can hate a system that much if they weren't. Just look at your replies. Trying to convince people that the NEX 7 is junk when it is like a pre order monster. Very threatened. lol
I wonder why howaboutRAW is so threatened by Sony? lol
HowaboutRAW: Not like others haven't made this point about dpreview's sample pics: But how about being clear about if the pictures come from RAW originals?
For example the Samsung NX100--never really reviewed here--can shoot basically noise free at ISO 2500 as long as one uses good extraction software, not the crap shipped with the NX100.
To those here in these comments who keep saying: But it's just a copy of the Sony Nex series: Really now? The Sony Nex series has a bunch of crappy G lenses--bad glass and bad specs, though a good Zeiss lens is about to ship.
Samsung has a few really good lenses for the NX cameras and more are about to ship. The 30mm NX lens is near Leica/Zeiss quality, yes, really. (And no, those who claim that the colour quality of high end Nikon lenses matches Leica or Zeiss have no idea what they're talking about, really.)
The NX100 is already an amazing still camera, albeit with bad RAW extraction software, no reason to believe different about the next in the series.
No. But if I had a career in marketing I would rather work for Sony rather than anyone else. My job would be easy. All I would have to do is shine a spotlight on the spec sheet. LOL
Prognathous: Why would anyone buy a Samsung over competition mirrorless systems? The NX200 is very likely to have inferior IQ compared to Sony (as did all Samsung APS-C cameras to date), it doesn't have the small lens lineup and system maturity of m43, and it doesn't have the forward thinking and superb user interface of Ricoh's GXR. In terms of sales all Samsung NX have been a failure, so why are they still trying?
Probably because they have the pocket books and the technology to force their way in like Microsoft did with the XBOX. They already invested so much in the NX series and they are not that far away.
They make awesome TV's, phones, and tablets. Their cameras will be awesome soon too. Maybe as soon as the NX200. I think this one is priced a little high at $899.99 though considering how cheap their older cameras are at the moment. They lose the upgrade sales from people who already own their lenses.
NEX has crappy specs? Sony cameras may suck for some people because of excessive NR or lack of buttons etc. but they NEVER EVER have crappy specs. Do you even know what specifications are? The Sony ones read out like a PR persons dream and this Samsung doesn't compare on paper at least. On the field it might be better but on paper, which is what specifications are, the Samsung loses out in a lot areas.
1080p6010fps25000+ iso24.3 mp921k dot screenetc.
You may not like them but they never have bad specs. Like NEVER lol
Menneisyys: Quickly compared to the Canon 230HS (the best compact superzoom - OK, it's not a fully-fledged/sized superzoom, I know...). At least 1.5 stops worse, IQ-wise. The Canon is way better.
Why are you comparing the picture quality between a 14x zoom with something with more than twice the reach? You don't compare 3x kit zooms with primes do you
I know you tried saving yourself with the " I know" bit but yeah, you still suck for doing an unfair comparison regardless.