So... gaskets everywhere except in the most critical place? What's the *practical* verdict on weather resistance? <confused/>
Such format wars in this thread! Here is a quiz. Mark on a scale of 1 to 5 how true each statement is for you:
1. The best camera is ... the one I own or the one I'm planning to upgrade to.
2. The most important camera attribute is... the one that justified my latest purchase.
3. The least important camera attribute is... the one my peer has pointed out is missing from my camera.
4. The above three points are absolute truths, independent of my perspective.
Michael Barker: I think this discussion shows two things:
1. People never talk about the viewfinder. Larger formats come with better optical viewfinders. If you care about that sort of thing...
2. There's probably pent-up interest for shootouts between equivalent systems of different formats in the same price range. EOS 7D Mark II with 18-135mm STM Kit vs EOS 6D with 24-105mm f/4L Kit, for example?
Or K-3 II with 20-40/2.8-4 vs D610 with 24-85mm...
I think this discussion shows two things:
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: A larger sensor will be exposed to more light. Indeed yes, but not per unit area. This is NOT why the quality is better.
As Richard said, it's the total amount of light that matters when we view photos at a common size. If we view photos at a common size, we may assume for the sake of argument that all sensors have the same number of total effective pixels. A lens produces the same amount of light at the image plane no matter what size the sensor is. Therefore, a larger sensor, covering a larger area in the image plane, gathers more light. If the larger sensor has the same number of effective pixels as the smaller sensor, then the light gathered per effective pixel is larger for the larger sensor. Therefore, the per-effective-pixel quality potential of a larger sensor is greater in the case that there is no change in the lens, and by extension the potential quality of the photo when viewed at a common size is also greater for the larger sensor. This is all theory, of course, and there's a long journey between theory and practice.
Chris62: Dissapointed camera - not much better than G5/G6 - next year will be far behind the competition.
@XVOYAGERX: Apples and Oranges. The viewfinder on the G7 is a lot larger, plus we are talking about different formats (mft vs cx) so depth of field is different. And interchangeable lenses are a big deal.
JEROME NOLAS: Where is promissed 16-80mm lens? Announced 2-3 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leaks are one thing, announcements are another, and products delivered are yet another thing. NX-R was leaked in the same way, October 2012. http://photorumors.com/2012/10/01/nx-r-and-nx300-mirrorless-camera-entries-leak-on-samsungs-website/
tecnoworld: I'm a fan of the NX line by samsung (using the nx300 with much joy, at present, and nx100 and 200 before that), but I can't really defend this camera.
It's bulky, ugly, plasticky, has no physical controls and, as much as it seems from the preview I read, it's also quite slow in operations, even if it has a great hardware.
I really hope this remains an experiment for Samsung and that they will release a "normal", "dumb" nx30 with rangefinder form factor anytime in 2014.
I was very impressed by some of the NX lenses, and the relatively nice array of physical controls on some of the other cameras, which had a Pentax-like feel. Samsung is distinguishing themselves in a new way here. I think they are going to catch some new fans, but are a long way from being able to satisfy everyone or most people. Good luck to them, but my preferences at the moment lean more toward the established, evolved tools.
I'm actually not at all surprised by Samsung's direction. The surprise to me was the results of my changing and congealing of my own needs and priorities, where I found that I have zero interest in being the first to experience whatever the next photography paradigm of gear-handling is.
But they say this happens to guys in their 30s.
Another thought as well ... it should be interesting to compare with the Sony A3000 and try to justify the $1300 difference in price.
I would have been more impressed if they added two different initials. Instead of HD, how about WR?
Unusual priorities. A $1700 bundle, and there is no standard zoom available other than the basic 18-55mm. Not even a third-party option. And yet they have announced an NX fisheye.
Kodak digicams are no more - this looks like the replacement.
JackM: The people here and in the Leica forum making excuses for this camera are the definition of fanboy.
DSLRs with 18-55mm quasi-permanently attached are common, and the reasons for Leica's premium pricing are well known, so what is there that is new to argue about or excuse, exactly?
Najinsky: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can,And wisdom to know the difference.
It's that last bit that's giving me issues.
Take the bare faced lies of marketeers, abusing the hard earned reputation of a once great brand, with the sole aim of seducing and milking those guilty only of trust.
Is that something I can change or can't? Should I even try to get involved, if people want to buy it, it's their money.
"fast and precise autofocus"... "allows photographers to concentrate completely on composing their subjects... decisive instant... any situation."
Yet reports say 'reasonable'. Reasonable CDAF means, sometimes it locks, sometimes on the subject, but maybe the background.
Is this not deceitful? Are DPR complicit in this?
Should marketeers have to prove they are not trying to deceive buyers before DPR gives it free coverage?
Is that something we could change?
Should announcements be moderated?
The often-heard comment that goes along with posting a press release of "we'll have to wait until we get one of these into our labs and see whether <insert manufacturer>'s claims translate into real world advantages" is hardly necessary, at least from the perspective of this audience member. I take it as a given.
Michael Barker: This is soooo much better than anything Sony has to offer.
AlpCns2: The NX lenses are very good indeed, with a nice and useful selection. An underrated system, actually.
@Emacs23: I'm very impressed with the 60mm f/2.8 Macro and it is not all that heavy. And I'd say the 30/2 is better than decent.
This is soooo much better than anything Sony has to offer.
The rear LCD appears to be at least 20% shorter in height than the rear AMOLED on my Samsung NX200. That's a pretty big loss when you shoot in square format a lot, as I do. Big sacrifice for the rangefinder mystique.
Really, I think rear LCD size should be advertised in square millimeters, but again, I'm not a 16x9 shooter most of the time.
cgarrard: I like this announcement. I gave myself a couple of hours to think about it before I decided to have an opinion.
I like the idea of a well featured compact DSLR with a decent optical finder, and based on the specifications it seems Canon has nearly nailed this one.
My only concern is the use of Canons decent but aging 18mp sensor, it seems Canons semi-conductor facility isn't able to keep up with competition. Surely the sensor is decent, but it's lacking in DR and the CDAF off it doesn't seem capable enough to keep up with competition.
Comments continued in reply...
People complain whether the megapixel count stays the same or increases - it's amazing.
highwave: I think this picture bellow tells the whole story that needs to be told:
Basically it's not all about the height/width of these small cameras that matters the most. It's the depth. And as clearly seen in the picture above, this is just another fat SLR camera regardless of its height/width.
I mean, just look at the current Fujis. Those are chunky mirrorless cameras no smaller than a typical SLR in height/width. But with a prime they are still considered small laying flat saving space.
When you get something like a typical micro four thirds and slap on the magnificent 20mm f1.7, you can easily through it in your slingbag and it totally disappears. Even the relatively largish OM-D E-M5 can be slipped into cargo pants.
Now go and try doing stuff like that with this so called mirrorless competitor SLR.
No cake Canon. I was hoping for some spectacular creativity. This camera is just downright lame.
Put a zoom lens, large sensor, large rear standard aspect ratio LCD, flash, EVF, decent battery and grip either on or in the camera and you get almost the same size whether the camera has a mirror or not.