straylightrun: To all those wanting a 1" sensor, good luck getting a 24-720mm equiv lens that isn't the size of a bazooka.
FZ1000: mini-zooka. Rebel-ish in size.
Sezano: Fantastic camera! How about a constant f2.8. I'd gladly pay a lot of mullah.
RX10: constant f/2.8. Circa $900.
utomo99: The Sensor size are too small. The Lens not fast enough. I hope next cameras will be better
See Rx100i, ii, iii. 1" sensor, f/1.8 at wide end, but limited zoom and twice the price. Or the RX10: also 1" sensor, and has 10X zoom, but not a pocket camera. Small body, long zoom, <$400 price new, and large sensor are mutually exclusive.
Provia_fan: Looks like a great package but no RAW, so for me it's a non starter once more. I have been tempted by the HX series, I think they can be great for street but I need RAW.
I have a Pentax MX-1 and although its JPEGs are excellent and overall image quality excellent, the JPEG engine still commits a bit of a murder when converting RAW data to JPEG. So I shoot RAW and use Silkypix or Adobe Camera RAW.
And from what I have seen from Sony, being also a long time user, you definitely need the RAW file. I have learned over the years to never judge what a camera can do from the JPEG file alone, because in particular with the smaller sensors, they let you down a bit.
If shooting at 720mm f/6.4 equivalent zoom with a 1/2.3" sensor, one is lucky to get a half-decent JPEG. Auto noise reduction is obligatory. The choice is between a somewhat smudgy and flat picture, or one that is no good at all. RAW would be of no aid to the casual user and more headache than help to someone hoping to turn grape juice into champagne.
lacikuss: The only problem is the small sensor...
I'd buy this with a 1" sensor and same size. You Sony figure it out
Perhaps the RX100iv, but with only 3X zoom, and for $950. If you want 1" sensor and more zoom, it won't fit in a pocket. Think: RX10 or FZ1000.
The f/2.0 aperture of Olympus' Tough cameras is more distinctive, and relevant, than RAW capture for this sort of camera. Recent "T" models also have faster AF than some of the competing models in the niche. Addition of RAW responds to demands of people who don't engage in activities that entail use of this sort of camera anyway. I'd sort of fear that the AF motor noise still intrudes on the audio in video mode.
No fault of Olympus alone, but these cameras all seem to have a short life if used for snorkeling and the seals get compromised by even tiny amounts of sand, plankton, or silt, which can be very sticky or glue-like. The cleaning must be very meticulous and regular, or corrosive and silty seawater will invade.
The test is not whether the cameras survive one dive, or bathtub tests, but whether they survive three sea submersions on separate days or trips.
h.265 support does exist, and it's worth clarification.
PowerDirector13, an inexpensive video editor, supports the h.265 codec directly. With ad-ons, it can also do some fairly high level editing and grading for a fraction of the price of Premiere or Final Cut. Perhaps Adobe will introduce h.265 support this year. Apple? Not so soon. Why help Samsung, its smart phone nemesis? Avid may never get there. Sony Creative's Vegas or Movie Studio may not support h.265 until Sony cameras do. Right now they promote XAVC.
Grant Taiwan's Cyberlink PD13 a smidgeon of credit for being ahead of all the stodgy competition, and underprice it too.
taktak91: Judging from the review, it's a very capable camera.Too bad it's not sold everywhere like other brands.I won't purchase a $2000+ camera if I can't see it in person first.
"Camera stores"? These survive, if barely, in a few large cities. These days, in most places, one is lucky to find an electronics retailer or Wal-Mart / Costco type affair where the shrinking faction of floor space dedicated to cameras is likely to include no more than Canon, Nikon, and maybe Sony or Fuji, and not very many models. You don't find a 5D or D850, and likely not a single Samsung, Pentax, Olympus, or Panasonic. Ricoh printers, not cameras.
ljmac: Nice camera, shame about the system. Really, I often find it frustrating how most photography review sites seem to forget that a camera needs a lens to work - it doesn't really matter how great this camera is (or how great Sony's mirrorless cameras are, for example) if you can't get the right lenses for it. The only mirrorless system with a decent selection of lenses is Micro 4/3rds, but this critical fact is largely ignored by reviews.
Yes, reserve "gold" exclusively to the cameras that must be scored for each and every lens that might be use in every situation that could be imagined, even if that "kit" costs $50k, requires a hand truck to carry around, and takes a year to review.
Joking aside, the normal standard for rating camera bodies should be two zoom good lenses, and maybe one prime for the studio still life comparison shots.
S Severs: It looks like a nice product, but I have no confidence that a company with it's hands in all things electronic will still be in the camera business 5-10 years out, especially with the continued sales decline in the premium camera market. It's all about the glass in front and established 1st party camera companies still refine, innovate, and make new lenses, and have lens roadmaps. In addition other 2nd party manufacturers are making other innovative/responsive lenses for Canon, Nikon, and m4/3.
What "camera business" will survive in 5-10 years? It will probably persist mainly as an appendix of "consumer apps" or a small high-price niche.
Canon is makes printers, mainly, and is expanding into medical diagnostic gear. Nikon also sees faster growth outside the camera world than within.
GatanoII: If someone makes an NX to EF electronic adapter with AF, aperture and IS working (almost) as good as on a Canon camera this Samsung NX1 can make a difference in the market right now, i.e. sell a lot of pieces and force Canon to make something similar/better, sooner than later.
Otherwise, the huge difference in glass selection compared to Canon will still keep it in a much more limited market, the same way as Sony NEX mount cameras are adopted by many Canon users thanks to the NEX to EF adapter availability.
Why I compare it only to Canon? because it has the most selection of glass and can work easily once (and if) an electronic adapter is available.
How many people can afford (or bear to lug around) more than perhaps two lenses? Could one travel with the $719 Samsung 18-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Movie Pro lens, avoid pauperdom, and be quite happy?
Samsung has promised a 300mm zoom, but not that it will be cheap. Fit in pocket, no. Empty pocket, of course.
On the other hand, the LX100 has a fast lens and now costs less than a fast lens on its own.
shademaster: for all the "arm-chair" pros out there complaining about lack of glass, I imagine the *real* pros are very happy with: i) fast standard zoom, ii) fast tele zoom, iii) fast portrait lens for 95% of their work. FWIW, as an amateur, the 30mm + 45mm + 85mm makes a great arsenal. I don't know what you "we need more glass…. it's all about the system" people want, really.
Or they say, "Nice picture. What of, I don't care. But look at this pixel noise in the corner. Some day, you might grow up and get a camera almost as good as mine."
Everyone dreams of flying, and bird's-eye shots are dreamy. Even caterpillars flee existence as worms, and endure weeks entombed in fuzz, in order to fly, if only for days or weeks at the end of their lives. Landlubbers who grimace and say "not me" don't convince anyone.
That said, drones do raise concern. No, not spying on neighbors. That is the last reason an enthusiast would give a hoot about.
It's cost. The prices and features are tempting, but how many flights do they actually last? Does $1,259 multiply into a five-figure expense afteer tallying the crashes, tree hang-ups, or other breakage?
Next comes access and safety. How long will viewers care for flyovers of vacant public wilderness? The temptation is always the same iconic landmarks or cities. This problem will lead to lots of buzz, literally, figuratively, financially, and legally.
JEROME NOLAS: This is VW Phaeton of cameras. A camera nobody asked for...heavy, expensive. Samsung have no idea what people want. I was a Samsung user but gave up.
I asked for a weightless camera that cost nothing. Added bonuses: no batteries, lenses, or SD cards needed. Does not break when dropped or submerged. Not even noticed when in pocket. Stabilization perfect. Fully customized options for resolution or codec. Discrete and draws no attention in public.
I found it in my dreams. And there it remains: weightless and worthless. Known as "Photon," not Phaeton.
Do freshly sold NX1's come with the latest firmware? Or, when turned on for the first time, do they prompt one to log into a WiFi and obtain the firmware automatically? To obtain the firmware, must one register with a "support" service that simultaneously extracts user information everytime one turns on the WiFi? That is apparently what the "smart" Samsung TVs do. They aren't alone in that game, but just what sort of experience do users report?
G1Houston: Will there be a separate review on the two f2.8 zoom lenses?
One of the lens-oriented sites reviewed one of them and regarded them well, observing only a bit of softness at edges.
ThePhilips: "The only exception to the excellent ergonomics are the four buttons on top of the dial that control ISO, WB, AF, and metering, which feel a bit Nikon-esque."
The condescension is truly Canon-esque.
Kimchi versus Sushi. So what?
agnost: The NX1 makes me wish I could afford a third camera system. (Now that's really first-world problem!) The other camera makers would be wise to keep an eye on the rearview mirror as Samsung's lens selection improves -- this is not a complacent company willing to settle for second-best.
Don't forget LG.
AbrasiveReducer: Samsung has come such a long way in a short time. And like Canon, they are too big to fail so they can stay in, no matter what. They can also afford to give stuff away, if they think it will help. Not that long ago, most people with a name brand TV had a Sony.
Samsung's better lenses are not offered at "give-away" prices. As pricey as Nikon or Canon.
jkoch2: Solution: make a wide-angle bodycam part of every cop's kit, just like his badge, gun, or phone radio. A fraction of the cost of all the automobiles uses, or the legal expenses, overtime, or public destruction that occur when things go wrong and the evidence is missing or tainted.
Feidin Santana, the man who captured video of a cop shooting a fleeing, unarmed man in the back, dreaded turning over the video. There was obvious fear of the blue line and the dominant public omertà on matters of police dealiings with "those people."
Due to this sad event, now maybe police body cameras will become obligatory everyrwhere. Time, once and for all, to abolish the chance that police reports were doctored, or that "eye-witnesses" saw or merely dreamt something. Squad car roofs may all need to be equipped with 360-degree cameras that function throughout duty hours. Individual cops may not want to keep the bodycams rolling 24/7, but the cameras should probably turn on automatically any time they report an emergency, stop a car, make an arrest, pursue suspects, or unlock their pistols.