yabokkie: no more teasing needed.
judging from the photo the camera cannot be anything good.
Yabokkie is obviously commenting tongue in cheek here, how come nobody sees that?
What? He may be serious...? Nah... he's too good of a photographer to be influenced by mere looks or style...
1llusive: Beauty Face mode? What exactly does this do? O.o
This mode just cuts any ugly faces out of your pictures and replaces it by some handsome ones (there's a menu with various actress/actors and models to choose from...)Very useful if you have grotesque friends and relatives as I do!
Amir Danesh: That is like Pentax 16-50 f-2.8
In what sense?
Different max aperture.Different optical formula.Different AF motor.Different construction.Different functions (stab, i-func)
Obviously these two lenses have more differences than similarities.
Let's hope that the Sammy will have better AF and optical performances than the Tokina/Pentax...
Buffer size seems to be improved compared to previous Sammy cams: nice!
It has totally changed my perspective on this camera...
Diaphragm with 9 rounded blades... Yummy bokeh!
It actually shows on the first samples (look for them in the Samsung forum). Looking to be a very good lens albeit probably expensive.
tecnoworld: Same hw as the 1 year old nx300, so I guess the tiny buffer issue is still there.
My guess and my hope is that there will soon be a higher end nx model with newer sensor and better hw.
Samsung has produced evolutions of the same sensors for a variety of cameras from the NX200 to the NX30... If you think that because they kept it at 20MP, it is the same sensor... Well, you're wrong but I suspect that you are perfectly aware of that already. You have no clue as to whether or not the HW has been significantly changed between the NX 300 and 30, why not leave it at that and wait until people get their hands on one? Of course you can carry on "guessing", it's your absolute right to insist on looking foolish...
celipessoa1971: La souffrance des autres nous rassure sur notre bien être momentané.
On devrait s'insulter en Français plus souvent!!
Ca a quand même plus de gueule et en plus, ça permet d'éviter la censure des filtres!! :-)
Ben O Connor: I protest the photographer, who took the picture before someone's slaughter! Sir don't you have ethics?
@KariIcelandSince when are journalist covering a conflict to save lives?
They are here to report, and that's what he did.
You don't want to see it like it is? Look elsewhere and pretend to be on the righteous side... it's easy.
Me? All I know is that I'll support interventions aiming at stoppping that and oppose any proposition to include these murderers to gain political power. Why? Because I have seen what they do, they can't hide now.
KariIceland: Truly disturbing images, the one of the execution speaks volume more about the photographer rather than the ones doing the execution, the photographer is worse in my opinion in this case.
@KariIcelandIs it your opinion that war photographers are useless and, hence, that wars should not be covered by journalists?
A good piece of advice: if you want to stop that sort of things to happen, you're much better off with a gun (and preferably several) than with a camera...
BTW: Now you know what's happening, what will YOU do to stop it? Or would you rather just be left unaware?
Doesn't this new camera remind you of a previous one?
I think it was called the EOS M but I could be mistaken...
Oh wait! My bad: the price is different...
bluevellet: Detail is impressive. High ISO is not so much; barely a stop better than APS-C and M43. I would have liked to check the A7 IQ too to see if the lesser pixel density/MP make a difference in high ISO.
But man, that Phase One image quality is completely in another league. :D
@PixelMover: it depends what's your final use for your images.
- If you use them only for reviewing at 100% on screen, then keep on comparing them at 100% on screen. - If you intent to print them, then compare them at equivalent resolution (for example 300dpi) for a given final print size.
Mike Walters: I just cannot see why, unless you are a journalist, you need to have a camera 'connected' all the time...unless you think that everyone ele is interested in everything you are doing....
Yeah... that's the very reason why Twitter and Facebook are such failures... nobody really wants to share everything they are doing...;-)
mckracken88: inbody image stabilizsation is a MAJOR buying factor for me...stabilized lenses cost an arm and a leg (well FF anyway)stabilzed APSC lenses do come cheap but are then inferior in image quality.
unfortunately 24mb-apsc will make iso 1600 not really an option (i guess)
good luck with the K3, pentax. (youre too late, im a proud d800 owner now)
What do you mean by "unfortunately 24mb-apsc will make iso 1600 not really an option"...?
Are you still thinking that ISO 1600 on APS-C is too noisy? It's not 2004 anymore, K5 ISO 1600 was already almost noise free a few years ago...
peevee1: Does "Continuous H" support tracking at that speed? 8.3 fps, right? Then it would finally beat 7D...
That remains to be seen in real-world tests. Canon certainly has more experience in that sort of things than Ricoh/Pentax but the new AF system looks good.
Wait and see.
Sdaniella: Pentax K-3:Max 8.3 fpsUp to 22 RAW shots = (Max 2.65s timespan covered)Up to 60 JPEG Large (★★★) = (Max 7.23s timespan covered)
Canon EOS 7D:Max 8.0 fpsUp to 23/25 RAW (Large/Fine) shots = (Max 2.88s to 3.13s timespan covered)Up to 110/130 JPEG (Large/Fine) = (Max 13.75s to 16.25s timespan covered)Up to 17/17 RAW+JPEG (Large/Fine) = (Max 2.12s timespan covered)
the longer the timespan covered with many more shots, the better...
110/130 vs 60, means 7D has 83% to 117% more hi-fps shot coverage than K-3,
13.75s/16.25s vs 7.23s, 7D has 90% to 125% more timespan coverage, than the K-3.
~ double the coverage
Wow! That's really impressive!
When was the last time you kept firing at 8fps during more than a few seconds again?
But hey, don(t feel bad, the 7D is wayyyy better than the Pentax... until we'll have a look at DR and general IQ. Then the sad truth will probably appear that 7D's sensor is in need of a major overhaul...
You also forgot to post some of your gibberish about the advantages of ExpSim LV... in another post maybe?
PS: I shoot Canon.
kecajkerugo: yet another good (but bulky) DSLR from Canon.Taking ocasion I am trying to attract your attention to the Oly E-M1 latest machine and want you to see that the high ISO OF LATEST M4/3 SENSOR IS RIGHT ON PAIR WITH THE BEST DSLR LIKE THIS ONE.
It remains to be seen if Oly still plays with its ISO ratings to deliver this result.
If the exposure value (ie the amount of light reaching the sensor) has to be twice as much as other cameras for a given ISO, then it's not really a performance but more likely that you should compare ISO 6400 from Oly to ISO 3200 of other manufacturers.
Zvonimir Tosic: Q is like Yoda — small package, before you know him you'll first make fun of him because he looks 'weird', but the Force is with him. "The review" talks about a camera, but we are indeed talking about a system here, with two Q cameras preceding this one, and infinite number of ideas as your imagination can go wild with this system and its expandability. As noted in another thread, the entire Q7 system — a Q7 camera and 7 lenses — weighs 499 grams only. I'll repeat: *499 grams only* for an 8 piece entire current system. And one of those lenses is 70-210mm / 2.8 equivalent zoom.I've never heard before that one can take their entire camera system on all trips and feel very comfortable — but Q users can, and they do.
@ ZvonimirI understand your infatuation with the Q system and quite like it myself, it's indeed something different than anything else but please, there is no "equivalent 70-210mm/f2.8" lens in the Q lineup, it's either a 15-45mm/f2.8 or an equivalent 70-210/f13 lens but you can't really "mix and match" to your likings...
High-ISO is slightly worse, e.g. compared to Pentax K5-II. Seems that all the engineering went into the LiveView-AF. Fuji's X100s and X-Pro 1 are better, too.
So for me, that's not enough.
Remember that Pentax applies NR to raw files from ISO 3200 on...
Differences are quite small anyway and completely irrelevant for prints IMO.
spidermoon: To really check IQ, there is one missing think, where the focus is made and the distance between camera and scène. The Q with the prime do it's best at f2.8/f4. The AF is fast but sometime not very precise, you focus on one think, everything ok on live view, but when you take the picture and check the result, focus have change. When i want precise focus, i use the very handy focus peaking with 2x zoom. Somes pics: OOC Jpeg: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9255327740/in/photostream/lightbox/OOC Jpeg, focus on the left pistil: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9255327606/in/photostream/lightbox/ 800iso in a museum, behing a security glass and harsh light: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffroy65/9233184460/in/photostream/lightbox/
AF not precise enough with contrast AF and very large DoF?
That's concerning to say the least...
I have used different cameras with contrast AF and various sensor size (NX10 & 1000, Fuji X10) and I always had very precise AF albeit somewhat slower than phase-difference AF...
If there was anything wrong with the tests shots, I'd bet on sub-par kit lens or pre-release bug in firmware but please, don't tell me that this kind of AF errors is something normal on the Q.