Marty4650: Does the "Kodak" brand have much status today?
Perhaps with people over 50, or in some foreign markets, but here in the USA the brand Kodak meant "cheap camera that does OK, for what it cost you."
Those high end Retina Rangefinders and Kodak DC SLRs are the exception, not the rule. And they were never manufactured by Kodak anyway. They were just marketing cameras made by German or Asian companies.
I am 65, and for most of my adult life Kodax was grinding out cheap instamatic cameras that came in kit boxes, and were given as Christmas presents with a tag on them that said "open me first."
I started with an Instamatic, like so many. This could be a cheap option for a second allround camera to take with you all time. Let's wait for results, see what it can do in IQ
where is the nostalgy look, it should look like an Instamatic :-)
The white one looks pleasant, let's wait what the results are first, it could be an interesting allround option with a good pancake attached.
Rooru S: I'm surprised the RX10 outperforms video resolution compared to the a99. Tried video from the a99 and wasn't performing as I expected. Tried the RX10 and it's something totally diferent.
Normal, the sensor uses a partial frame, not the FF. If you take a sensor portion comparable to the 1" sensor, you end with a resolution of 8 mpix. I do not know if RX10 uses the whole sensor surface for video, but if it does you have a 20 mpix resolution, if it uses half of the sensor you still have 10 mpix, with the same surface on the A99 you end with 4 mpix. That makes the difference. A99 sensor has 2.5 times larger pixels, what gives it a low light and high Iso advantage and better dynamics. RX10 is made for video and Sony has concentrated on that part of the camera what is it's strong point.
dpmaxwell: 1st page says it has a 2.36M dot OLED viewfinder. Specs page says viewfinder resolution is 1,440,000. Which is it?
Not much (none that I could find, in fact) discussion about the viewfinder in the review. Strange. I must be missing it.
it has the 1.4 m EVF found in the a6000
wootpile: Meh..big, expensive.
I would have liked to see this sensor in a Nikon p7800-ish package with 650 buck pricetags.
and great Nikon price tag ....sic
DXO has tested 1" sensors, and compared the Nikon V3 to Rx100 and Rx10. In this test the Nikon sensor looks drawn in a real bad way. It is the worst 1" sensor made until today. And all that for 1200$....sic.
RX10 is a real fantastic camera, the only problem is it's shape and package, and the second is it's pricing. A camera Nikon's V3 like had made a better job for my own purpose. In some way, an RX100 with interchangeable lenses is what I wait for, and i seriously look at Samsung's mini. With the backlit Sony sensor and Schneider Lenses (?) it should perform very well too. And, the pricing is ok with Samsung. Hope it will make Sony price be a bit more human in the future, like a6000 pricing.
MFiftysomething: Samsung v Nikon 1 = a race to the bottom $amsung alway discount fast, there are so many J1s on the market at the moment Ebay is awash!
There is no doubt that the Nikon 1 is of interest and a good system, only the price makes it unaffordable. In the fire sales, when prices dropped to 300$ for the 1V1, they sold like hot dogs. I would buy a V3 right away for 350$ for the camera only, or 550$ with EVF and grip.
ggggee: Someone has trouble with the measurements. 3.3 inches and 110mm are far from equivalent. 3.3 inches is quite small and 110mm is not. Which is true?
3.3 inches is 84mm
Ammarz: the ISO is goodthe design is goodthe burst is poorthe screen is badthe battery is goodI give it 8 out of 10 for this linewaiting for sample photos
I know many people who use dslr's of high quality and level, more than 90% have never shot in burst or multiple exposure mode. So, if you want to shoot sport, get a fast dslr or a NEX/a
N13L5: what good does the slim camera do in my pocket if it has a soda can style lens that won't retract?
There are some high quality cameras with built-in, bright, retracting zooms.
For having a DSLR sized sensor in a Sony Nex camera I can understand the design compromise. For a 1" sensor, what's the point?
you can't have it all, but wait the first pancake to come.
agentlossing: It will sell, because it's Samsung (and Best Buy will shove it in our faces).
What's the point of a slow (f/3.5), wide (24mm!) prime? Who wants it, beyond someone who will shoot the occasional landscape, and who would be served better by a larger sensor for that purpose?
Odd. Just odd. I think Samsung knows they can take market share away from the more serious mirrorless manufacturers just by releasing something that the lens comes off of.
what has the thickness to do with optical quality?
Henrik Herranen: Ohm Sweet Ohm.
we are all robots, we know that since a bit of time
tbcass: Some how I don't think that going from 10 fps to 11fps is anything to get excited about. It seems to me that Digital Photo tech has become a mature technology so manufacturers are scrambling to find any "improvements" they can to keep people buying upgrades. Digital has reached the point where it's like film. You use your body until it breaks.
Nikon concentrates at the moment in the production of cameras that are special in function and design but that nobody really needs and 99% of all photographers do not want. The price of this gadget here, the DF, and the new 1V3 confirm this without any doubt. If Nikon wants to survive, do things people ask for and that sell, and do it at reasonable prices and no the same junk re-polished eternally. 5 or 6 models with the same 24 mpix sensor, that really sucks, specially when you know that they all do the same shot and the only difference is in minor body comfort. Take the D5300 and give it a lens motor drive, and that's it, all the others are useless since then you have one camera that has it all and does it all. Do beside that the same camera in a high end pro body, and you do the game without loss and criticism. 6000+$ for a D4S and 1200$ for a 1V3, more than 1000$ for the A, ridiculous.
Shamael: at this price they should put a yellow square on the front, it's the least I await form a high standard luxury object for pretenders. (sorry, the red dot is taken)
no one will ever say that RX100 was cheap....sic
RRJackson: I get the too-expensive part, but the technology is amazing. It's a relatively small-sensor camera (as some have repeatedly mentioned), but it's really compact and has insane processing power. I've stood around in stores shooting with them and been amazed at the ability to shoot several exposures at once and have the camera suggest the best one. The AF is pretty great. The slow-motion video stills (or whatever they call them) are very cool. From the minute you pick up the camera you can tell it's got a ton of horsepower under the hood.
But yeah, it's pricey and the choices in optics are kinda thin, but with the 32mm f/1.2 what more do you need? I mean, it's pricey, but so is the camera. That camera and lens combo is gold, though. And with a 1/16,000 maximum shutter speed? Please. How can people disparage this little camera?
7 billions of humans have 7 billions of opinions, and for each, the one that counts only is his, isn't it?
Compare what we all do, quality, functions and the prices, and then it is not hard to tell how much this is overpriced.
There is no value to anything anyway, there are 2 values created by humans, one is the one who makes it and wants a value he estimate it's worth, and the other is the buyer who looks at the object, analyzes and estimate the value he is willed to pay for it. If both are far away from each other, and here they are, the seller bites the grass, it's that simple.
This camera is amazing in functionality, it serves for specific purposes due to a small sensor that has certain advantages, and myself would like to ow this camera beside others, but the price it sells, and what it is worth in my view, is far away from each other, and this confirms the rule I mentioned above. If you estimate it is worth 1200$, buy it, I will not blame you, or anyone else, for that.
SRHEdD: Put aside brand and format rivalries for a minute, and realize what this might have potentially been if Nikon had used a m4/3 chip and mount. That's all, just think of where this might have gone, the lens possibilities, the possible combinations of lens and camera, etc.
THAT would have been a breakthrough "enthusiast's" camera.
a bit more than a 1 inch sensor (that is not one, by the way), and, a better price range, with Gods, eehh, Nikon's will
select: they should have made a camera with aps-c sensor and Nikon dslr mount....that would have been a smart thing to do... having so many lenses available...
you mean another DF cripple with APSC sensor and double the value pricing !!!
at this price they should put a yellow square on the front, it's the least I await form a high standard luxury object for pretenders. (sorry, the red dot is taken)
tbcass: Maybe now people will stop complaining about the price of the Sony RX 10 which offers a lot more for less money when you consider the lens and the fact you have to spend extra for an EVF.
RX10 is also too expensive and you can't compare it, this camera here from Nikon is handsome and small, it's size and features mak it an amazing camera, it's price destroys that romance right away again.
Thoughts: If Nikon didn't charge this sort of money, they would make a bigger loss from 1 series.
Nikon can charge what ever they want for it, if they want to sell it an become a runner sell the kit for 599$.