I think it's a nice camera, but it will all come down to image quality... if the image quality is top notch a la almost RX100, they would still have to price this more in the $400 range to position themselves in relation to the RX100.
RX100 made a huge splash, and I think in some ways opened up the "casual consumer's" mind to the issue sensor size in compacts.
Falling behind in terms of both MP and in terms of sensor size, this camera basically has to be SUPERIOR sensor quality to RX100 to really make any kind of big splash in this sector I think.
I might consider buying this camera, but probably at a lower price than $499. With peaking and the fast autofocus, the actual performance of this camera might be really great, and hopefully if it doesn't make a huge splash, the price will be much lower.
Putting 4 sonys and only 2 nikons on the list actually helps nikon. Not that D800 wouldn't win anyway... but some people definitely vote brand.
Daniel0140: Very strange---The camera that got the highest review ratings of all milc's, the NEX-7, is not even on the list---No vote!!
I believe that NEX 7 was a 2011 camera, though hard to find until 2012.
Rage Joe: And to tell you the truth the pictures Angel Adams took/made are pretty. Pretty BORING.
Who is "Angel Adams"? Ansel Adams was a highly respected photographer whose prints have sold more copies than your DSLR camera has pixels.
Marcelobtp: WOOOW samsung again copying sony!
Samsung has pretty much caught up with and blown away Sony in every area of electronics except for cameras, and they already have better lenses for their NX system than those for the NEX. They are sitting on more than 3 times the market cap of the badly hemorrhaging Sony, and are committed to surpassing them in cameras, which means they will within a year or two. Its inevitable at this point.
ammie: I think it is irresponsible for the authors at DPreview, in using this title, to equate the views of Mr. Chung with the practice at large. Mr. Chung fails to make any serious arguments challenging the journalistic or artistic importance of (stills) photojournalism, merely his own ability to make a living out of it. Therefore his view in my opinion sullies the large number of people around the world who are putting their lives at risk everyday to visually inform us about the planet's state of affairs.
Perhaps a better title for this piece would have been "Dan Chung: No future in photojournalism FOR ME". Maybe in the future, when Mr. Chung realizes he no longer has the talent, desire, or ability to shoot in the documentary, advertising or narrative industries, he will come back and try to convince us that there is no value in capturing moving images either.
Don't take it so personally or to attack Mr. Chung or dpreview. It's just a very legitimate opinion from a guy whose career is photojournalism.
He knows what people are paying for photos, and the trend is not good for making a good living through photojournalism alone, anymore. There does not seem to be any technological or social trend in sight to reverse it either.
Just less money, and tons of competition... from people who are doing it for free. why pay a guy $500 to cover an event, when they're "crowdsourcing" it for free?
Yes a photojournalist can find some opportunities to make money, but they are less and less. So he has to diversify at this point. Video is the natural way to expand your business, given your equipment and skillset. Though that is gettin crowded too.
A huge part of the reason that photojournalism is dying is not so much video.
It's that there are so many cameras on the scene in most places a photojournalist might go now. Sure, there's still opportunity to take great and important photos... But the opportunity to have FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT is deeply impacted if a large percentage of your regular money making opportunities are already heavily covered by high quality camera phones and amateur photo loggers with feet and eyes on site.
I think he's emphasizing the diversification into video as a way of surviving financially... (which is of course going to financially squeeze the "traditional news video cameraman" when there are thousands of people who can shoot great professional video trying to scratch out a living)
I bet traditional paparazzi are also gonna by squeezed hard.
Very difficult to make a good living SELLING photos of events, when HALF THE PEOPLE will be bringing an excellent camera.
Mssimo: I'll take it for $150
300 mm that weighs 300 grams. And pretty decent minimum focusing distance. You'd actually have a shot at mounting this on a flexible tripod without it falling over.
BradJudy: I haven't seen it mentioned much, but this technology can also be used to generate an image with essentially infinite depth of field, rather than choosing a particular focus point and using a conventional depth of field. That's how it's used in industry (and why it was developed in the first place) to create very large depth of field without super small apertures (and thus long exposures).
Maybe i misunderstand this techZ
Can you produce a higher resolution approximation of this "light field" image today, by programming a high end SLR with good video capability to:
(1) step 1: simply shoot a photo with your camera at a small aperture and very deep DOF to get everything into focus at once.
(1) step 2: shoot full HD video wide open in your fastest frame rate, while smoothly and rapidly bringing focus from infinity to closest macro rapidly, to assign depth and "blur properties" to everything in your frame..
(3) step 3: computer shenanigans.
Or something like that. I'm just spitballing here, but it seems you should be able to do something along these lines.
Amazing tech though. Very cool. I wonder if the tech scales easily to higher resolution or if the difficulties expand rapidly with increased resolution.