There's no doubt that several manufacturers are slipping in regard to quality control and the more this is publicised the better it is for consumers. That's us, who put up the money.
I'm amazed that this should get the same rating as the Samsung NX200, which is streets ahead, though years earlier, with mag alloy construction, APS-C sensor, more MP, less noise, etc.
I can never understand these reviewers' predilection for M4/3 cameras, as I have one and they are a dead end, easily surpassed by similarly, or lower priced APS-C mirrorless cameras.
Blown highlights in the bird. Why didn't you use Samsung's converter, convert to tiff and recover the highlights? They are there.
With sunglasses?! You're supposed to focus on the nearest eye, not sunglasses.
Too heavy, too large, too pricey and despite the EVF and slightly larger sensor, the BSI-CMOS sensor in my Samsung EX-2F will probably out perform it for a lot less money..
cpt kent: Seems to be a lot of folks exclaiming brilliance without questioning. Sources? References? Research? Further reading?
There are a lot of sources touting the good of flu vacine, but the facts are that the UK government and others are suing the drug companies over useless vacine. There are always sources on both sides of an argument, each with their own agenda.
All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.
Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.
Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.
Another variation on a theme. No RAW is a deal breaker. The Nikon 7700 is a larger sensor and no doubt better due to the smaller range zoom.
Happy days! When in the RAF, I flew one of these all over the Mediterranean-Middle East and North Africa. Nice shot.
This is the edited version? An exercise in noise, I presume.
H.265 codec is a 'Pro' and a 'Con'? The unedited RAW SRW file is a 2.9MB jpeg?Let's get real here and give us an SRW file we can look at. I would love to buy this camera, but I have a camcorder and don't need all that video stuff.
Skipper494: Easily outperformed by the older Sony NEX 7 or the later Sony a6000, both with interchangeable lenses and lower in price.
The A has 50% larger photosites (16MP to 24MP), so the dynamic range will be greater and the noise should be less, but this depends on how and how much the RAW files are compressed, which unfortunately they are.I was shocked to find that NEX 7 RAW files are actually compressed (page 92 in manual), thus negating much of the sensor's performance. It appears that Samsung uses little, if any compression. One needs to check the size of RAW files, as this severely limits the possible enlargement and should be listed in the specs. NEX 7-24.4MB; D700-25.4MB.Best regards,Skipper.
Your review is incorrect. The NEX 7 does not have an uncompressed file option. The manual clearly states that ARW files are compressed and this is born out by the size of the files. This results in artifacts at fairly small enlargement.
How can a M4/3 sensor possibly compete with the NX1 and its APS-C sensor?
Easily outperformed by the older Sony NEX 7 or the later Sony a6000, both with interchangeable lenses and lower in price.
Like most Fujis since the S2 Pro, overpriced and underperforming, compared to the competition. A Nikon P7700, or even the P340 is a better buy. Although considerably larger, the Panasonic FZ70 is a fantastic camera.
No comparison to higher resolution APS-C offerings from Sony and Samsung.
I think it's better to convert to 16-bit tiff with View NX2 and process in whatever program I prefer.
Agreed. Always persona bias comes into the mix, never objectivity.
Another holster that's backwards. Their site shows it worn on the right, so the camera grip is to the rear, very awkward.