The original was probably around f/17 (22 times slower than the later f/3.6 Petzval lens according to several sources). This lens is five stops faster! Even with modern materials etc. I don't think it is possible boost the original design to f/2.9. Maybe the pictures look similar, but most likely it is a completely new design that has nothing to do with the historic original.
dlinney: Having taught DSLR photography to beginners for many years let me suggest a profile for the typical buyer of this camera: he/she will shoot JPEG, will shoot in full auto-mode and will use the output pictures as is with little or no post-processing. Concepts such as shooting RAW or lifting shadows in PP are no yet in their vocabulary. They will assume the AF system works without needing to know the different AF modes. They will read an article on "20 ways to improve your photography" but give up when it simply confuses them (it took me two full days of a hands-on course to teach what such articles expect to cover in 2 pages). Enthusiasts will tell them to shoot RAW and shoot in manual mode and their photography will deteriorate and they will revert to full auto.
So, evaluate this camera against this scenario. Comments about an outdated sesnsor etc. are simply irrelevant: does it produce good Jpegs? End of story.
@dlinney: Sorry, did not want to attack you. I had to do with students (arts, design, etc. and creative hobbyists) who picked up cameras like the D40 or 350D happily because they were affordable, but had decent image quality and features and manual options. I was in the same situation. We took photography very seriously, we just did not have much money. I don't know if that is a large market, but many of them buy better gear later (I bought D90 and D800, later).
Entry level DSLRs are still a good tool to learn, but the 1300D does not offer anything new to these customers. Same results with a 1200D on fire sale.I think the family/casual shooter you describe should get entry level mirrorless instead. More similat to smartphones, compact cameras, camcorders.
Gesture: 95 percent viewfinder coverage. Actually, I'm impressed.
But a sub-standard viewfinder is still better than no viewfinder at all (entry level mirrorless).
Very biased. Why do you think everyone who cannot spend lots of money on a camera does not know basics and does not want to learn?
My first DSLR was a Nikon D40, probably the most basic DSLR ever made.
I used aperture priority most of the time, sometimes shutter prio or manual. Beyond the kitt lens , I bought a 50/1.8 and a (used, old) 90/2.8 macro. Very usefull even tough both were manual focus only with the D40. I installed a split image focusing screen that was available on eBay.
I took many, many pictures with it. Never used auto modes.
Yes, I did know photography basics, I had used manuel film cameras before. I was just happy they finally made DSLRs that did not cost thousends.
arhmatic: "forever"? ditch the focus by wire, typical, ALL lens makers. Do all mechanical. The only way to make them forever.
The reality is, -this wire thing might break anytime. Might not be supported in 2-3 decades...-compatibility is an issue. How can I use my Sony lens if suddenly I want to get a body from different maker? Adapters don't work. Make them all mechanical, so we can at least focus.
The reality is, my old, 1970s Nikkor works on my Fujifilm like a charm. All manual. Fujiflm on Nikon? Never. Not that I'd need that, but just a thought... Again, do all mechanical (manual or autofocus, your choice) then it's at least a step towards "forever".
What about Nikon AF/AF-D lenses? I think they work on nearly every Nikon SLR ever made. Even if the chip fails, they still have an aperture that can be controlled by the camera. Even if the cam has no AF motor, you can still focus them manually. Even if your mirrorless (or Canon)+adapter cannot controll the aperture, you can still do it yourself with the aperture ring.
"Also consider" NX1?
Are you serious? Yes, its a great camera. But with Samsung stopping sales of all cameras and all related accessories in various European countries....
Would you still recommend it? Buy a pro level camera with no new lenses available in the near future? Even if you invest in some glass now, there probably won't be a successor for the body in the future.
Zvonimir Tosic: It would require a power of a supercomputer to run even 4 lenses. Where all the data would be stored too? I had once drawn and planned a similar idea, but it had three lenses only, wide, normal and semi-tele, each had it's own focusing point fed by the data from the widest lens. Each lens could be used separately, or in concert with others. But when the computing power had to be calculated to make the thing work seamlessly, and still remain compact, it was enormous. It is much easier to create just one great lens, insert one great sensor with enough MPs, keep the temperature down of the camera, save on power, and do trimming as needed from the wide lens. Like the Leica Q.With an array of tiny lenses there is no DoF control, no aperture control, no shutter control for each, all is just "snapshot photography" which is no fun at all.
Why not simply store all the data and do the processing after the fact on a computer with much more power?
All you need on the device itself is a low resolution preview (maybe even the image from a single sensor is enough).
LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: if they made compacts with a 1 inch sensors in the basic models, and with loads of filters and creative tools that would be nice. Im talking bout the £60 low end market. BEEF UP CAMERAS. the same could be said in putting full frame sensors in all dslrs like the 35mm film days but charge entry prices!
While I own a D800 (and love it) I think APS-C cameras are very, very good these days. Even for professional work, poster sized prints etc. If APS-C is really not good enough, 135 film would not be good enough either.
Miike Dougherty: 'Videographers and, perhaps, travel shooters might do better looking elsewhere." Add to that sports shooters and this camera is attractive to a lot fewer shooters in the advanced amateur segment. (I do own one.)
Whats the problem for sports? It has good low light & AF performance.
Guidenet: Personally, I think DPR puts way too much emphasis on Liveview and movies. This is mostly a still camera forum. I know some shoot video, but I'm not sure it's something to emphasize in cameras past a certain level. I know, Liveview is generally not very important at the higher level models. When many use Liveview it's on a tripod and/or macro work when you're looking for accuracy, not speed. For any action, it's eye-level. This is not targeted at beginners.
Maybe DPR would do well to look at their own polls. Since 2/3rd of the voters consider manual controls and interchangeable lenses the most important interest, maybe those type things should get 2/3rd of the emphasis. Since WiFi and Touch Screen have almost zero interest, maybe they and similar items shouldn't get much. Small size is a distant 3rd place. I think some might get caught up with a jaded view of what they believe is innovative without paying attention to what we want in a camera.
I have been involved in video art since about 2005. Nearly all stuff has been done manually because every second was planed carefully. You don't want hunting and unpredictable AF or colors that look different on every shot (making compositing hard). A single take was rarely longer than some 30 seconds. We wanted DOF control, but affordable 2005 cameras w/ small sensors could not do that. So the D90 (first video DSLR) was a great step forward. Even tough limited to 720p / 5 minute takes, no video AF and no mic input. To control aperture during record we used manual lenses and external recorders for better audio.
My opinion: DSLRs are very capable for "planed" videos. But journalistic stuff etc. is different entirely. You have to be quick in some situations and so you need good AF etc.
I was surprised to find video modes in entry level DSLRs because "soccer mom" or someone who hunts his dog during a vacation will get better results with a traditional camcorder.
I wonder what Mr. Petzval himself would think about this lens. Remember: He was not aiming for a 'special effect' lens. He just designed the fastest portrait lens that was possible in his time. His f/3.7 lens was revolutionary because exposures shorter than a minute became possible for the first time. Other lenses were some f/22. He was the first who calculated the elements (and not just "guess" them). I am sure the "characteristic" bokeh was not really intended!I don't think the new Petzval lens has much in common with the original. The optics is completely different. Much faster and the "effect" (which was not intended!) is very exaggerated.
Its a bit like pianos. On a piano low keys are harder to press than high keys. Steinway etc. tried to eliminate this "problem" for decades without success. Digital pianos could be made with all keys equal easily. But now digital pianos do their best to emulate that old problem even tough it makes them more expensive.
StevenE: small sensor, no swivel screen, limited lenses ...
.... what does this system offer?
I don't think anyone who uses a 1000mm lens will even consider a camera that does not have a viewfinder and hides manual controls deeply in the menu.
Being able to take pictures without a mechanical shutter is an interesting idea. I hope we will see that (at least as an option) on future cameras with larger sensors.
A camera like this is called "higher spec" now?
In my opinion a p&s needs to have a good full auto mode. But I never understand the benefit of these scene modes.What is the difference between "portrait" and "beauty"? Should I use "dog" or "cat" mode if it is an elephant? Why not just implement PASM modes? Manufactors obviously think buyers of compact cameras are idiots. But this is a $400 camera. For that price it should have a 1/1.8'' sensor, RAW mode, manual focus and manual/semi auto modes.