Jylppy: Just tried NX1 briefly in a store. It has the best EVF I have ever tried and it starts to be at acceptable level (for a user used to FF OVF ). The NX1' EVF is far better vs. Fuji XT-I or Sony Alpha 7 II. However, the lag is noticeable and the view is nothing to compare e.g. Nikon D810's superb OVF (which is far better than in my Canon 5DII's, btw).
Another notable thing is its mechanical construction. It did not feel a high-end camera at all, but a poorly build plastic toy. I do not know is this impression due to low weight or not, but compared to Nikon's D800 and Canon 5DII the camera felt like a toy. Not a serious, robust photographic tool.
Hi, in a shop I was 100% certain to body is plastic. Then I went to check the specs on web and it says "Magnesium body". It might have something to do with weight and the buttons. Canon 5DII is my reference and that is .... quite robust (someone may read "bulky"). The Nikon D810 OVF was so good. I never thought it could be so much better than in 5DII. But Samsung's EVF gave me hope that some day EVFs will be not just acceptable, but good.
Just tried NX1 briefly in a store. It has the best EVF I have ever tried and it starts to be at acceptable level (for a user used to FF OVF ). The NX1' EVF is far better vs. Fuji XT-I or Sony Alpha 7 II. However, the lag is noticeable and the view is nothing to compare e.g. Nikon D810's superb OVF (which is far better than in my Canon 5DII's, btw).
Ross the Fidller: "Olympus's forthcoming 300mm F4 lens offers a focal length equivalent to 600mm. Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame, it's highly portable by comparison."
Saying "Although not as fast as a 600mm F4 would be for full-frame" in the above is just nonsense!
My point was to make comparison at image level which matters to photographers. "lens-resolution-per-area" has little practical impact on photography.
I think we talk about same thing, but using bit different terminology. I said before (in this or similar thread) that m43 lens needs to be "2x quality" vs FF lens to provide the same image-level quality as FF.
I find it interesting that Samsung is targeting declining camera market. They have superior silicon / sensor expertise in-house and they are one of the leading semiconductor fabs. They have far larger scale in silicon vs. Sony so Samsung could be a major player in the sensor market going forward. NX1 definitely seems an interesting product and a great start.
The system, however is still in its infancy and I would like Samsung to show a lens roadmap similar to Fuji that shows what lenses area coming. The choice of DSLR / MLC camera is a choice between systems first and the choice of particular camera body model is only secondary.
And of course I hope this will increase pressure on Canon and maybe even offer them a new sensor source. Buying from Samsung is of course a tricky issue since they would be supporting a competitor in practice.
Serious Sam: Call me skeptical but there are simply way too much comment s like: “I shoot xxx for x year and NX1 is blow them out of the water…” or “I just sold my xxx gear and bough NX1 and never look back.”
I am almost certain that there are forum “writers” here trying to boost up NX1. Its ok, that happens all the time, but this again shows how Samsung has no understanding of a Pro photography products. The target audience of NX1 is not going to swing just because you have tons of “amazing” comments, nor a gold award from DPR (which I also suspect there is commercial interest in it). You are not marketing a Galaxy S6 here!!
This target audience of NX1 in general has a good understanding of photography. They know what is most important to their photography workflow and anything else is irrelevant. I know plenty of photographers (including an AIPP master). They shoot Leica, Canon, Nikon…… and no one, NOT ONE said they will touch Samsung as a camera.
Serious Sam is referring to this kind of behavior:
Yes, not the first time Samsung would use such a media tactics.
@Chris, while m43 sensors have (very likely) newer tech than any FF, the benefits of it are limited. Optics are far more limiting factor. How would you otherwise explain the DxO Mark results I posted above? If lens is not limiting in case of m43 optics, then why m43 P-Mpx (measure for system sharpness sharpness) are far below Canon FF system? There is 13% difference in sensor resolution, but 45% and 31% difference in system (optics + sensor) resolution.
Still, m43 is a wonderful exchangeable lens camera system. When selecting a camera system, it is all about preferences. There is not one uber-camera-system that is "the best" in every parameter.
Yes, I understand this fully and that is my point. For a m43 lens to resolve as well as FF lens it has to have 2x better optical technology (let's ignore inevitable diffraction limits for a while). And having 2x better optics than what the pro-lines of Canon / Nikon (i.e. the largest lens manufacturers) is all but economical. Maybe such a feat could be done in small-scale uber-high-end production (thinking of optics required in silicon manufacturing ), but it is not doable in mass-scale at cost even remotely acceptable by photographers.
Therefore these claims of "m43 systems having better optics than FF" are not only plain false (check the measurements), but also theoretically very-very unlikely.
You need to take Mr Ogawa's words with grain of salt. If that would hold true then iPhone should have the far better optics than any MLC/DSLR, but that is not the case.
Just check the DxO Mark comparisons. Canon FF glasses beat Oly's optics and the difference is larger than what can be explained by the slightly higher Mpx in Canon 1DX (18Mpx) vs. Oly OM-D E-M5 (16Mpx).
Oly 60mm/2.8f @OM-D E-M5 (16Mpx) vs. Canon 100mm/2.8L @1DX (18Mpx): Canon is far sharper
Oly 75/1.8f vs Canon 135/2L: Canon is sharper
So actually Canon/Nikon FF systems have far better optics available to them than m43 system has.
My very first DSLR was 43-system Olympus so I have learned equivalence in the hard way. I spent hours and hours wondering why I cannot get any bokeh out of my 1/3.5f lens. My dad having shot with 35mm film said 1/3.5f should deliver nice bokeh, but he did not consider the crop format. I was quite disappointed and went to I upgrade to Canon 5D and 50mm/1.4f. I almost cried after seeing the bokeh.
This Equivalence discussion reminds me Mulder's "I want to believe" poster on his office. http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/%22I_Want_to_Believe%22_poster
mFT systems are significantly smaller in size vs. Full-Frame systems. Is it too hard to accept that choice between systems is a _choice_ between number of trade-offs (compactness, usability, image quality, lens selection etc)? One cannot get those all, but one needs to choose what elements in particular system are "good-enough" (e.g. "image quality in mFT") and what are the critical parameters that matter the most (e.g. "mFT's compact size").
Following this mFT-evangelists denial is like listening promoters of Flat-Earth-Theories. Fundamentally they either believe mFT engineers have figured out new ways to go around Laws of Physics or assume that Canon/Nikon engineers are complete idiots despite their vast experience. They are not
It is about choice and DPReview is doing great service to help us making informed, conscious choices.
Jylppy: 600mm/8f telephoto...
It is equivalent of 600mm/8f telephoto on Full frame
I am concerned of this design. The camera is attached with Arca-style plate and the camera cannot move at all when attached to the holster. One need to be really careful that the bottom screw does not open. I prefer Spyder Holster.
I own Spyder Holster myself, but I am not affiliated to the company in any way except being a fan of their products.
I use Spyder System for DSLR and I can say that wrist-grip + belt-attached-holder is the best way to carry a camera. I have tried all the alternatives and nothing compares. No more long straps to get stuck on, no more difficulties to take backpack away, no more camera-as-pendelum moments while leaning forward. This particular model looks complicated, but in general waist-holsters are superb way to carry a camera.
Oh, no more hurting shoulders either, but that is a problem only for DSLR folks like me ;-)
Jylppy: "The threats that our mirrorless cameras team face aren’t from other companies, they’re from other divisions within our company."
This is a certain way to kill innovation within company - especially if the innovation threatens existing business lines. I have seen that in action in far bigger scale.
I am still waiting for Canon to release prosumer EOS M with superb EVF and then improve the lens selection to include L-grade fixed aperture lenses.
And btw. I believe the future will be "mirrorless". Someday, Canon & Nikon will drop mirror & pentaprism from their "DSRLs. The Flange distance won't change for FF, but the mirror will be gone. Just have a look on the slow-motion videos of Canon 7D shutter & mirror in action and one will realize how the nasty world of mechanics are holding DLSRs back. Get rid of the mirror and even mechanical shutter and suddenly a whole new world of multi-frame computational imaging is opening (like Olympus' Super-resolution).
I was talking about "wishful state of the future". The current EOS M lineup does not cut it. Not enough native lenses and bodies are not good enough. I fully agree on this. But I do not think Canon is too far from the good-enough state for me (good EVF).
I also said that I am not going to dump my DSLR for m43 since more portable MLC will be only a secondary camera for me and I am looking for DSLR lens-reuse use case.
I have played with all the high-end MLCs (Sony, Fuji, Oly) and I dislike all (either poor ergonomics, EVF is nowhere near FF OVF responsiveness and quality). You have clearly made different choices and trade-offs, but these are my conscious choices.
Using EF lenses on EOS M is a big deal for us Canon owners. We all have our own use cases. My use case smaller MLC (EOS M X) is "2nd camera" and camera for less important, casual situations where, although I think the space between "important" (I carry FF DSLR) and "not so important" (smartphone is fine) is quite limited.
I am playing with idea of carrying two bodies when traveling and having EOS M with maybe 24-70/2.8 EF-M lens (i.e. 1/4f on EF-M) on it. This would enable me to keep 70-200/4L or 16-35/4L in the FF DSLR and thus cover broader focal range. I must be able to put the DLSR lenses to my mirrorless, otherwise I carry double set of lenses. I will not go for m43 since 2x crop sensor is too much sacrifice from IQ (I have owned a 43-system) and those camera are too small for pleasant capturing experience. DLSR is heavy to carry, but great to shoot with.
My point is not to say that my ideal solution would suit to you. I just say that we all have our own preferences.
sans culotte: One more article explaining why this "equivalence" concept is a complete rubbish:https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence
You have so many facts wrong in your claims that calling the article "complete rubbish" is an unfounded claim.
As Richard pointed out Canon 1D X has _standard FF-sized_ sensor. Canon 1D X has lower noise, but it also has lower MPx count vs 5DIII and especially vs D800. Therefore pixel-level noise is lower, but I assume others will be quite close once you scale to same image size. Btw. O-MD 5 has the same noise at ISO 3200 than others have at ISO 6400 - exactly as the article demonstrated.
X-Trans sensor does not use Bayer-array so the "RAW comparisons" do not make justice. Fuji's RAW conversion seems to reduce noise by default and that you can see from softness of the RAW photos.
"The threats that our mirrorless cameras team face aren’t from other companies, they’re from other divisions within our company."