I keep seeing strange pixelated halo-like artifacts near the edges in photos...must be the software correcting the distortion, but the artifacts are pretty strong. I guess the lens has a lot of distortion or fringing that's being corrected. This is a very unimpressive camera so far.
straylightrun: The Samsung 17mm 1.8 looks promising. Not only is it smaller than the Nikon 18/1.8, but it also has IS.
Smaller?? I have not seen the dimensions or a mockup of the 17/1.8. Can you link to the photo and/or specs??
T3: Samsung is simply shameless in their copying and design theft, from their smart phone designs to their cameras. But at least the pricing of this NX mini is more reasonable than what what Nikon wants for their 1" cameras and lenses. Samsung's positioning of this system is more realistic than Nikon's. Nikon is still attempting to position their 1" system as a higher-end system for pro-ish use, LOL. Also, unlike the recently introduced Nikon 1 V3, this Samsung takes microSD *plus* standard SD. With the Nikon V3, even at $1200, Nikon only allows you to use microSD. What's up with that, Nikon? It's nice that Samsung allows you to use either one.
Uh...both cameras REQUIRE microSD and NEITHER supports full size SD.
Interesting and competitively priced. Wonder who they sourced the sensor from or if it's an in-house job. The rumored price of $249 for the upcoming 17/1.8 is also competitive.
Thoughts: If Nikon didn't charge this sort of money, they would make a bigger loss from 1 series.
So having no sales in the US is preferrable to a price cut or maybe at least a non-EVF and non-grip option? Zero sales = big loss.
$1200??? Go home, Nikon, you're freaking drunk!!!
I'll hold off on praise or criticism until we see actual results from this technology. In the past, Samsung's forte has NOT been their image sensors of ANY size. Here's to hoping that trend gets reversed, and they are able to apply some competitive stress on the industry with a successful product!
Canon has now become the most boring digital camera manufacturer around.
Actually, the 1" sensor is 4x the size of the 1/2" sensor. When comparing sensor sizes, you compare surface area, not linear #s. Area, or rather photosite area, is a good indicator of SNR, which is always a square of the linear difference.
AngryCorgi: Weak camera is still weak. 512pix x 512pix photos for $400 is comical.
Actually, the hardware resolution is 540 x 540 (sorry, I was a hair off). They say the native resolution is 1080 x 1080, but that is interpolated up.
$800??! If that rumor turns out to be true, that's some serious sticker-shock!
Rehashing a great camera is fine, but not at a HIGHER price.
Weak camera is still weak. 512pix x 512pix photos for $400 is comical.
It's a shame that it shall be obscenely overpriced. :(
Greynerd: Living in gale battered England it is always intriguing how in the US you can build houses on the beach. You must have very good weather most of the time punctuated occasionally by storms of the like we never see.
The reality is that there will always be an occasional bad-weather-event, so even if there is usually reasonable weather, building a house almost in the water to start off with is moronic. It never fails that the same idiots who build their houses on the beach or below sea level act surprised and shocked when weather does arrive. We are all supposed to pretend its a tragedy, but the real tragedy is that anyone was foolish enough to build in these locations in the first place. Stupidity is tragic.
absolute waste of money...
They should be selling this for right at $1000. Not sure what the extra $300 on the price tag is all about.
Image (a) is ridiculously awful, while image (b) is just plain terrible. I'd prefer NEITHER please.
Meh...I have seen very, very few complaints on DPR of people getting bad results from adapters, and I swear the pickiest people on Earth use this website. In practice, its just not a real issue.