AngryCorgi: $350 for a filter-ring-TC?? Ehhhh...
Yeah, but the WA converter is a different animal. It is offering something not otherwise available - a wider FOV. A narrower FOV is readily available via cropping. So now, if the optical quality isn't good enough to soundly trump cropping and upsampling, the price is going to be hard to justify. You can't gather a wider FOV with software manipulation using only one exposure. We'll see, but even the best, most expensive TCs I've seen leave a lot to be desired.
Ummm...this will surely result in the downfall of their mobile devices. I have zero faith that Microsoft has the necessary creativity AND restraint to allow Nokia phones to continue to improve without going off in some bone-headed direction to push some useless technology or software.
I commend Lytro for not giving up on their dream, but until this reaches resolutions in the 4-5MP range (native, not the pixelated mess they have right now on their sample stream), I don't see who is going to be taking the leap. I find the samples much more usable (at least web-sized stills can be made) than the old lytro, but its still not where it needs to be and the price is just nuts.
Mssimo: My guess is that actual image size is around 3.78 MP
After they upsample, yeah...I'm guessing native resolution will be roughly 975x975. I'll pass.
$350 for a filter-ring-TC?? Ehhhh...
Wowzers...the way reflective objects "glow" at f/2 reminds me of shooting with my old radioactive Takumar 50 at f/1.4. Ewwww...
Mikael Risedal: there is nothing new with this camera, same old sensor tech, inferior color resolution and dynamic range compared to modern sensors from Sony,Toshiba,Panasonic, Aptina etc
Aptina? Why did you toss that in there? Aptina sensors are actually WORSE than Canon sensors across the board.
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.