mandophoto: How is the 3G/4G connection accessed? Is this another revenue stream for Verizon, ATT, et al.?
Yes, of course. Got to have a data plan from somebody. Or don't use that and rely on WiFi. That's very realistic these days. My tablet is WiFi only and I never feel I'm missing a thing. If your phone can act as a hot spot, you may be able to just use that, though 4G would be faster in a city with good service. Many of my friends use it exclusively now, even at home. They all work for Google and can afford it.
Sergey Borachev: Not a big camera at all considering its APS-C sensor.
Silly for Samsung not to put a few more buttons and dials on the top of the camera though. Look at the waste of the space there, compared to the other two cameras in this diagram.
Exactly what I was thinking. They seem to have wanted it simple, but it would have been better with a second dial on the front, as well as an exposure comp. dial and another couple of function buttons. There may not be much room on the back, but the top and front look barren.
Kuturgan: With Android platform the Galaxy NX will constantly freeze up as my Samsung Galaxy smartphone does.
That's not a given. My Android devices rarely have problems. When they do it's typically a app that stops working abruptly, but it never freezes up.
gerard boulanger: How do you handle it to talk/listen? The idea of having to hold a camera and its lens on my ear is troubling to me.
It's not a phone. OK, if you use voip it can be one, but it doesn't have phone-style speaker and mic placement. You can always put in earbuds and the mic will pick up your voice if you talk anywhere nearby. And it will have small speakers built in that will be loud enough to hear without holding it anywhere near your head, if you don't have anything plugged into the headphone jack. I don't know whether they designed this to work with Bluetooth headsets or not. I hope so.
HowaboutRAW: Who cares, if like the other Samsung Wifi cameras, this one doesn't allow uploads of raws. The camera's wifi function is next to useless to those interested in high quality images.
Anybody know if this camera can upload raws over wifi?
The Samsung already had a good OS and menu system worked out for the NX cameras, so who wants this variation? What does it actually improve?
With other comments, this is real likely to slow down the menus, that's dumb.
Has Samsung fixed the buffering problems the NX20 had/has when shooting raw (the NX300 is just okay)?
In other news, when shooting raw the late 2012 firmware update for the NX100 gives that camera the high ISO performance of the NX20--that's free if you own an NX100.
Then of course, is there all sorts of crapware one has to suppress or possibly uninstall on this camera? Samsung has a bad habit of loading its perfectly good Android tablets with crapware.
No, it really isn't a different question. Anybody with any sense uses sleep mode constantly on an Android tablet. If I push the power button all it does is go to sleep unless I hold it down and tell it to turn off. I reboot mine about once a month, otherwise it gets a little flaky. In sleep mode the battery use is tiny and the tablet comes to life almost immediately. It's exactly how I want my camera to work. Unfortunately, my V1 takes longer to wake up than to turn on, so turning it off is essential. But that's bad design. Sleep mode is perfect for devices that get used intermittently, like cameras.
techmine: where is that guy who says Samsung copies everything?? :-)
No, or OS. Android has had some teething pains over the years, but recent versions are quite nice. No doubt it will continue to get better, and the cameras, too, but this looks like an OK first effort.
Gesture: Interesting development but I'll never understand why folks want to work by waving their fingers in front of their field of vision. For me, a computer mouse or dials/buttons will always be preferred for most things and much, much, much more powerful in manipulating information or a device. NX cameras: great. Connectivity: great. Not interested in this interface.
It would be better if they had left a few hard controls, but I suppose this has simplicity going for it. It's easier to write software for a consistent configuration. That's why Sony screwed up in leaving a touchscreen off the NEX-6. Who would want to write apps for that? Awkward. My ideal camera would have both a biggish touchscreen and a few straightforward buttons and dials. As long as you got the configuration right and kept it consistent it would be a nice platform for useful apps. But it has to stay consistent.
rusticus: good camera - unfortunately ugly - I do not buy
Ugly? Don't see it. A simple, utilitarian shape rendered in basic black. It will never go out of style. If you need retro fripperies this may be ugly, but the old cameras retro cameras emulate were designed to be functional. Just like this is.
onlooker: "what a smart camera!", "perfect camera for street photography", "one of the rare cameras which have been designed for the use of photographers", "Nice little APS-C camera for The Photographer. Not for everyone..."
What is this, an alternate reality, or has DPR Connect finally taken over? The damn thing has neither a viewfinder nor an articulating LCD, so I suppose "The Photographer" would be the one walking around with his hands extended in front of him, squinting at the screen. Have phone cameras really done so much damage?
Long before Connect, or the ubiquity of phones with cameras, millions of people were managing to take pictures using cameras without vfs. They didn't feel the need to hold them at arm's length, and most had displays smaller and dimmer than this one. Let's not exaggerate the difficulty of taking pictures with such cameras.
Zvonimir Tosic: This is subjective, opinionated review? Well, compare this 18 page review full of graphs, numbers and test shots with Ken Rockwell's review of the GR.http://kenrockwell.com/ricoh/gr.htm
No, no, you can't make me! It's cruel to even suggest.
Marek Rucinski: This is an example of an interesting practice: put some hardware in the device, for which the user pays (the cost of the wifi chip was included in the price), and then increase the value proposition of the product (by enabling the feature) *after* the product has been sold (!)... or not.
I think this practice is not only dishonest, but also damaging to the client (who pays for a feature he may never see enabled in the end) and therefore should attract attention of relevant regulating bodies.
Sadly, examples of very similar practices start to pop out regularly (uncompressed hdmi in Canon 5d III, cropped hdmi output in Nikon D600), but this seems to be the boldest example to date. In case of Canon/Nikon it's difficult to prove dishonesty, because they can claim genius, and incompetence of their engineers, respectively. Situation here is different, because there are physical chips that were obviously meant to be there from the beginning, but were intentionally not enabled.
I suspect they built this around some standard tablet chipset that included WiFi because it made sense for other reasons. They likely didn't have time to write the firmware to make the WiFi work before the camera release. I don't think they intentionally left it out for any nefarious reasons. They were under pressure to ship the camera, and that was a feature they could defer.
Richard Franiec: The announcement says it all. A fashion statement just like previous "titanium" or "safari" edition. This time with super-premium price tag. The "RAW edition" imprint is clever but misleading and not even worthy a laugh.How about tossing in some EVF or at least a decent grip, Leica? I guess added value is not important for targeted audience. And Leica knows it well.
Decent grips are your department, Richard. I love my V1 Richard Franiec grip. Looks and works splendidly and a great value. Unlike this absurd camera. I understand the fool from G Star RAW was waving around a lot of money, but Leica could have said, "No, thanks, our brand is important to us." Leica executives don't know how to say 'no'.
I know some Nikon 1 shooters who will be happy with continuous af with the adapter. The continuous af is a Nikon 1 strength, so being able to use it with longer legacy lens is impressive. There are a lot of other features I would have valued more, but this is a substantial feature for some people and Nikon didn't need to do it. I expect it's something they were working on for the next round of bodies.
nonuniform: CRI=85 and $1200, hmmm, no, at that price I'd expect a higher color index. I was thinking they would cost around $500.
The CRI of LEDs will no doubt rise, but for now, well, not great. It's because the white ones are blue LEDs with fluorescent materials to add the warm colors. They all have a big spike in the blue and are weak in the adjacent colors. The more of the blue they convert to other colors, the less efficient the light is, but the better the CRI. I suspect the LEDs being used here were not developed specifically for this, so they have the same CRI as household lights. The price seems a bit high for what they are. I 'm starting to use them around the house and find them quite a bit nicer than CFLs, even if they are rated no better. Instant on, usually dimmable (though be wary, as some dim badly), very pleasant.
onlooker: Samyang is the new Tamron (remember Adaptall days?).
Back in the eighties many of the Tamrons were competitive with other third-party lenses, if not the best from the big guys. They were good value and very sturdy. I still have an 80-210 in case I need to club an intruder.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't wanna bash Pentax. I really don't. It is a respectable, innovative and honest brand which makes DSLRs I wouldn't refuse to own and would certainly enjoy. But... that pink and gold colour scheme...? I don't know what's worse - Pentax offering it, or thinking someone will actually buy one.
(long pause in order to clean the vomit off the keyboard)
I'm tolerant of colorful cameras. The candy apple red looks quite nice. But pink and gold? That looks like a Christmas ornament. I can't imagine anyone ordering one of those.
Timmbits: I would have liked to see Pentax make this a mirrorless, with a removable adapter on the front, to use legacy lenses, or removed, to use lenses with a shorter flange to sensor distance. It would make for good competition to mirrorless (apsc and mft), as well as prism and mirror systems. When it comes to saving a company, bringing it back into black ink, offering incentives for new lenses could be of immense help.
I'm glad to see Pentax still in the game, and rejuvenating their line. I'm predicting that the weather-sealed version will sell better than the slightly less expensive version.
They tried that already. You can get the K-01 for practically nothing. Some of that was the awful styling, but more was that mirrorless buyers want a slim camera. If you have to make it the size of a dslr, might as well make one.
Pangloss: Even at a lower price, the only significant market for this camera is Japan, it's not likely to gain traction anywhere else. There is no market anymore for these $500 toys in the rest of the world. Pentax and fanboys can argue that the IQ is excellent, but in the end it's the size and the color combinations that matter for the Japanese market. For the rest of the world, this camera just doesn't cut it at this price level, as it has to compete with many other compact and mirrorless cameras with better IQ and better feature sets. A NEX-F3 will spank this Q7 in terms of IQ at any ISO for the same $500, whereas the LX7 for half the price will easily provide more flexibility and more features in a slightly larger package.Conclusion: nice but FAIL.
The LX7 can be had for under $300. If the Q7 actually becomes price competitive, it might be interesting, but I don't see people buying one of these and a bunch of lenses.
Why didn't they do this from the start? Not that I would buy one, but it at least stacks up better against advanced compacts and the focal lengths of the lenses make sense. Make a tiny mirrorless system then cripple it needlessly. Stupid.
Gregm61: Panasonic definitely needed to be doing something. Their sensors s....., well....they're not good.
The sensors they provided to Olympus and used in their own older cameras are from years ago, and are not at all comparable to what they are using now. The G5 was good, and the G6 and GF6 look very good. Only slightly worse than the sensors Sony makes for Olympus.