I wish someone would make a fixed lens UW camera with one of the 'premium' digicam sensors (1/1.7" through the Sony 1" sensor) and something like a fixed f/2 lens at 28mm equivalent.
ImagesInstyle: it wont sell outside because america's always complaining about something.no matter what camera is made, there will be a group of trolls *itching about this and that.Japanese people dont *itch like americans, and i dont blame them for keeping it only in japan.
Hmmm ... and I thought America had a reputation for conspicuous consumption. No shortage of American consumers willing to pay money for stuff.
Just has to be stuff that people want to buy.
Gesture: "Samsung's lens collection is relatively small at this point"
That simply isn't true. I stopped there. Not to mention that you can fit thousands of legacy lenses to the NX bodies.
See Viking79 below. And it is a very rational line-up that hits a great progression of prime focal lengths. Who else has such an affordable 24mm equivalent, or 30mm and 45mm equivalents.
It isn't true if you restrict your shooting to wide-to-normal primes. 45/1.8 on APS-C is a lens nobody wants; 85/1.4 is a monster, then you have pedestrian slow kit zooms. Not much to pick from.
viking79: Thanks for the honest overview, would like to try one myself. You mention not many lenses, maybe there are plenty?12-24, 10/3.5 fisheye, 16/2.4, 20/2.8, 30/2, 45/1.8, 60/2.8 macro, 85/1.4, then all the standard zooms, 18-200, 18-55, 20-50, 50-200.
It's one thing to have some number of lenses. Another to have lenses that anyone actually wants. 45/1.8 for 1.5X crop ? 85/1. 4 monster lens ? Samsung has it pretty well covered for WAs (and the enviable 30/2) and basic consumer zoom options. That's not much of a lens lineup IMO.
Great photos. I admire the dedication of top wildlife photographers.
Dennis: I tried both the Oly EM1 and the GX7 at Photoplus in October - the first time I'd seen either. The EM1 had a confusing array of buttons, like the EM5, but was more refined and the EVF was really nice. The GX7 was unimpressive and the EVF was very mediocre. It did not feel like a $1000 camera. Autofocus was sluggish and uncertain compared to the snappy EM1. I also tried the GM1 and thought it was too tiny with really fiddly controls. To my mind, Oly *is* micro 4/3 these days, at least for stills, with Panasonic appealing to video-oriented shooters.
Nothing wrong with liking the camera - it has its own unique set of features that no other camera has. But some people are griping because it didn't get "Gold" and I can fully understand it not getting gold; it doesn't feel as well put together as other cameras. There's nothing wrong with that ... two out of my three cameras have "Silver" ratings from dpreview. And one of them barely deserves that !
Generally, I agree with jerrysdean's comment that mirrorless is overpriced. It might sell better if it didn't cost more to go small. The Panny G series is probably the best deal going. Sony tried with the A3000 but the result is - apparently (I could kick myself for not finding one to try while at the expo) pretty lousy (EVF & LCD).
I tried both the Oly EM1 and the GX7 at Photoplus in October - the first time I'd seen either. The EM1 had a confusing array of buttons, like the EM5, but was more refined and the EVF was really nice. The GX7 was unimpressive and the EVF was very mediocre. It did not feel like a $1000 camera. Autofocus was sluggish and uncertain compared to the snappy EM1. I also tried the GM1 and thought it was too tiny with really fiddly controls. To my mind, Oly *is* micro 4/3 these days, at least for stills, with Panasonic appealing to video-oriented shooters.
Zvonimir Tosic: It's 30-60 mm in 135 format terms — it covers both classic 35mm and 50 mm FoV, with extra few mm on both ends. To many this could be the only lens they'd ever need. And it's WR too.It also has a classic touch to it, with a Super Takumar focus ring type.
So it's a more expensive, narrower (zoom range), slower version of a 17-50/2.8. It's a wonder nobody ever thought of it before !
Roland Karlsson: Hate when companies do this kind of teaser series. Yeah ... fun for an evening or so ... reading and commenting. But then ... it just gets boring.
BTW - to all of you. It is by far to little information yet. Nothing can really be said.
BTW2 - much more fun with the Pentax leaks than this Nikon teasers. Pentax leaks are quite reliable. :-)
Pentax leaks ? Like what color combinations the K-3 will be available in next ?
That's really impressive.
Joe Pineapples: "If I make derogatory comments about HDR, then I'll sound cool and everybody will think I know a lot about photography."
"If I say that they're good and anyone who disagrees is a gearhead who doesn't understand art, then I'll sound even cooler everybody will think I know a lot about art."
Miwok: The think about so many violent comments here is the fact than DPR is a site of gearhead. Lot of people here have only passion for gears and very few of theme have any artistic talent.So, they're very jealous of creative people.
That's an easy kneejerk reaction. But I've seen better work from dpr members, including some that are very technical. I have more books of photos on my shelves than books about photography. Just because we come here to talk about gear doesn't mean many of us don't appreciate good photography. Now consider the possibility that maybe the photography in question just really isn't that appealing. You're quick to jump on dpr readers for being too technical to appreciate it. And yet this photography was presented to us by the same gearhead dpr starff that does 30-page in depth reviews of cameras for our consumption. Maybe it's the dpr editors who wouldn't know good photography if it bit them. (I'm not seriously suggesting that; just pointing out the logical fallacy in assuming that if we don't like a photography, it means we lack artistic sense). BTW, I will admit that I'm jealous of creative people. I just don't find HDR (or anything about this work) remotely creative.
David0X: Come on - these images are great! Forum HDR experts can hate all they like, but these are sensitive, beautifully constructed images. If you don't realise that it's an amazing feat to get these pics then that's too bad;and reading a forum won't help you.
To me, a photograph succeeds if it is interesting to look at. And the effect gets in the way. Before I see subject matter, I see cartoon colors. Maybe without the HDR effect, I could enjoy the compositions (constructed scenes don't bother me in the least; I'm intrigued by Julie Blackmon's photographs). I'm not sure they'd be great, but they'd be more interesting to look at.
More HDR cr*p. I know, I know, personal taste, but sometimes I feel I might as well be following a graphic novel fan forum.
I saw it (GM1) yesterday at the Expo. It's very tiny. But although the controls looked nice, they were also tiny/fiddly for my tastes. And that's coming from someone who's carry camera is the RX100. The little dial on the back reminds me of the S90 - not much for your thumb to move.
Yet another luxury item that I don't covet. But a good thing all around - ought to raise a small fortune for charity thanks to the people who put their time into it.
Bruce McL: "For most purposed, 3MP is plenty."
People using their camera phones "for most purposes" won't bother reading this website.
You didn't mention anything about how editing and saving JPEG files repeatedly can degrade the quality of the image.
People who care about their final results should use at least 8MP. If you start with 8MP then you will be able to edit and crop and still have something that looks good at the "deliverable" size of 3MP.
"But if you know how to photograph you wont need to crop."That would imply that all anyone needs is a 28mm lens if they know how to photograph.
Photato: Sensors are just dumb areas where the photodiodes sit. So it has never been about sensor size but photodiode size.DSLRs capture better images not because the sensor is large, but because the photodiodes are large and contain many of them.I'd say from 3 to 6MP is a good number for small sensors considering in the poor conditions must shots are taken; low light, camera shake, bad focus, people moving, etcThe question could be rephrased as, how large the photodiodes should be?
"DSLRs capture better images not because the sensor is large, but because the photodiodes are large and contain many of them."
If one sensor has more and larger photodiodes than another, wouldn't the sensor be larger by definition ?
justmeMN: Hmmm. AF speed not as good as a DSLR. Sensor not as good as a DSLR. Priced higher than many DSLRs...
Smaller than any comparable DSLR, bigger VF than any similarly priced SLR, faster frame rate in AF-S mode (except Sony SLTs), pretty seriously weather proof in Ming Thein's review "holds water" ... You pick your priorities. (I use a Nikon DSLR myself, but this little camera certainly has its strengths).
Guess they wanted to make a camera with no viewfinder that won't sell so they can be just like everybody else.