Digital Suicide: All photography gear sites should ignore pointless cameras like this.
Why? If it's pointless to you, then your simply not in the target market. This site is for all kinds of photographers, not just enthusiasts.
RichRMA: Sony barged in, guns blazing and took something like 23% of the interchangeable lens market away from creaky old Nikon and Canon. What has Samsung achieved?
No, they didn't. Sony has around 10% of the interchangeable lens camera market, IIRC.
ambercool: What's with all the hate before trying it first?
Samsung products always seem to provoke knee-jerk reactions of the negative kind. Also, the sensor is not FF, which to some people apparently means the same as 'tiny'. And any press release that mentions 'selfies' and 'baby monitor', is likely to not meet the approval of the expert photographers, who frequent this kind of forum.
AdamT: Well it has one major thing the Nikon 1 series have been desperately lacking - the RX100 / RX10 sensor , that`s a Biggie . OK it`s no NX1100/NEX7 in the RAW IQ department but it`ll be a good alternative to an RX100 which the Nikon 1s are not ....
What Samsung need to desperately do is vastly improve their JPG engines, smeary Streaky ISO3200/6400 images on APS-C were expected 7 years ago but not now, their 20Mp APS-C sensor is more than capable (RAW proves this where it comfortably betters the NEX7) but the JPGs are well behind the times . if they want their 1" sensor mini to work, they`ll need to get the high ISO JPGs up there with the RX100-II
Are we sure that it has the Sony RX100 sensor, and not a Samsung-made one?
ybizzle: This is truly an act of robbery. Samsung stole the Fuji XF-1 design and made into an interchangeable lens mount. What they couldn't steal was the feeling of holding a magnificent photographic tool with a manual zoom twist lens. The XF-1 along with higher end X cameras take us back to pure photography. Think Leica M6 Titanium if you have the tan XF-1. Truly a masterpiece in design with image quality to match!
They explicitly made this for the selfie crowd, so I don't think they set out to make an enthusiast's camera, wherever they found inspiration for the design.
Lucas_: I still don't get it, the Oly OM-D E-M10 seems pretty nice, but how can it get a "gold" and the Sony A7 FF a "silver"? IQ, AF, ergonomics, technology, don't matter any more, only a retro look and lower price? Whatever... DPR is really not to be considered serious on their conclusions/ratings any more!
The awards are based on the subjective user experience, how much the reviewer enjoyed using the camera, taking into account all aspects that are important to the reviewer in question. It's like an "editor's choice".Also, the two cameras are in different categories, and therefore not directly comparable.
Also, I think it's up for debate whether the A7 really has better AF or ergonomics. The CDAF systems in the latest m43 cameras are better than some hybrid CDAF/PDAF systems. And ergonomics is very subjective; some people are not happy at all with the ergonomics of the A7.
foivosloxias: Goodbye freedom of the press.
It seems that the 2014 index is already published, and Hungary is #64. So the 2015 index, which will reflect this new Hungarian law, will probably see the country falling even further.
Reporters Without Borders currently ranks Hungary as #56 in their Press Freedom Index for 2013. I guess the country will be found further down the list in the 2014 index.
Photographer Jonathan: I see allot of comments about who needs 400.000 ISO, because no one would ever shoot using ISO that high, but I don't think these people get what ISO really is, but I compare camera ISO to a guitar amplifier, and if you turn a guitar amp up to 10 you can hear the buzzing of the amp, and maybe the buzzing starts at 4 but gets strongest at 10, but with a sensor when you turn it up to 10 witch is the highest ISO, you can see the noise the most, so with a guitar amp, the more powerful the amp is, the less you need to turn it up to get volume out of it, so you get the volume with out hearing the buzz, and with a camera sensor, if it goes up to a higher ISO, it's the same as a more powerful amp, it means that at 12800 ISO it isn't working as hard to amplify the sensor, so at 12800 ISO it's going to have less noise than a sensor that only goes to lets say 24.000 ISO, or 200.000 or so on, so in theory if the sensor went up to a million ISO, maybe 12800 ISO would look like the noise of ISO 500
Well, that's true, but it would still be true even if you weren't given the option of using those highest ISO settings. The fact that you are given that option, makes people ask: "What do I need it for?".
Anyway, I don't think that it's always true, that if a sensor goes up to a higher ISO, then it's because the hardware is better. Often those higher ISO settings are made possible by improved NR algorithms, which may be applied even to the raw files.
Brilliantine Stick Inesct: Nikon and Canon are rapidly becoming dinosaurs. Mirrorless cameras will kill their business model. The mirror less efforts from both these guys have been poor. Olympus and Fuji are showing the way.
And to vesa1tahti, I'd like to reply that it's ridiculous to suggest that there is one camera size that is best for everyone. People with small hands might not find a D4 to be optimal.Also, I don't think the majority of people want to carry around a camera of that size for everyday purposes. If you're just going out for a stroll, wouldn't you want to take something more convenient with you?
Also, nothing prevents a mirrorless camera from being as large as a DSLR, or from having the same ergonomics. The benefit of mirrorless (from the manufacturers' point of view) is that you get rid of the mechanical complexity and cost of the mirror assembly, regardless of the size of the camera.
We've heard talk of this coming mirrorless empire for half a decade now, but like oselimg suggests above, I don't think mirrorless will take off in a major way until Canon and Nikon release truly competitive systems.
The large masses, who don't really read reviews or visit forums like this one, are mainly aware of the two market leaders, and buy whatever they release. When Canon and Nikon put as much R&D and marketing muscle behind their mirrorless systems as they now do behind their DSLRs, then maybe things will start to change.
Lee Jay: To me, a carefully preplanned setup shot is just as bad as CGI. Neither one is real or spontaneous and they look equally fake.
I think there's a distinction between 'capturing the moment' or documenting reality, and using photography as a means of artistic expression. Both are equally valid, and serve different purposes. Think of the difference between taking spontaneous portraits in the street, and creating visual fantasies like fashion and glamour photographers do.
Carefully planned concepts and well thought-out compositions can be just as striking and interesting as spontaneous creation.
Eric Calabros: Looks more CGI Art than Photography
Yes, but it isn't. Some artists make the unreal look real, but this guy makes the real look unreal.
Jogger: Can they change the law of physics can make a 1/3.2 sensor capture as much light as an FF? If not, gtfo.
Yes, a larger sensor always have an advantage over a smaller one, but when the smaller sensor becomes good enough for the majority of people, other things become more important than improving image quality further. Like convenience, for instance.Arguably, APS-C, or even m43, is already good enough for most people, who have no specialized photographic needs, and in the near future 1" or even smaller sensors might be good enough.
beavertown: If Dpreview decides to review the V3, I hope they will also seriously consider the ridiculous price tag.
Because you should get what you pay for.
The value of a product is not an intrinsic property of the product itself. Rather, it's worth as much as people are willing to pay for it, so the market will decide if it's overpriced or not.
In other words, you do get what you pay for, because, presumably, if you choose to buy it, it's because you think it's worth the money.
twfsir: One point everyone seems to miss, is that Sony was smart enough to have Zeiss make the lenses for the camera. Next to Leica, Zeiss makes the best glass in my opinion. I agree the sony name in cameras is not near as great as many others, but I do think they did build a unique camera with the Zeisss lens.
Sony Zeiss lenses are not made by Zeiss, but by Sony, just as the Panasonic Leica lenses are made by Panasonic, not by Leica. I suppose that Zeiss has approved the designs and/or manufacturing methods, but they aren't involved in the makiing of the lenses.
RichRMA: I think Nikon missed something. They degraded the D300 by replacing it with the D7000 and degraded the D700 by replacing it with the D600. Shouldn't the D4s have a body something like the D800 (if the progression is right) or will that wait for the D5?
The D7000 replaced the D90 as the top consumer DX model. The D300s is the prosumer/pro DX model, and sits above the D7xxx models in the line-up. It hasn't been replaced yet.Likewise, the D600/610, are consumer FX models (essentially the same bodies as D7100), whereas the D700 was a prosumer/pro FX model, which was, arguably, replaced by the D800. Some people still wait for a 'true' D700 successor, though.
straylightrun: Super fast AF, complete silent shutter, unique modular concept; I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I will definitely get one
when they go on sale at the end of next year for $299.95.
I wouldn't call an external EVF and an add-on grip a unique concept. There are grips for E-M5, E-M10 and X-T1, for example.
Mark Alan Thomas: SONY MIRRORLESS FUJI MICRO FOUR THIRDS NIKON NO INNOVATION DIE DIE DIE HEAD EXPLODES
Joseph Mama: Um, waht about the sensor? The Nikon 1 sensor is 1 inch and ought to be as good as the RX100 but it really isn't. Aren't they gonna rework the sensor to improve image quality?This seems a lot smarter than wrapping it up with all these 'extras'.
The strength of the Nikon 1 is that is interchangable but SMALL, and provides a platform for really long range photography without a superzoom. The 70-300 is a good step in the right direction since with 2.7 crop factor it can hit some serious range (800ish).Its also CHEAP, making it a good entry level option for those that want the image quality of at least an RX100 but also want a bit more versatility without breaking the bank.
I am not seeing the V3 cater to ANY of their strengths. Instead adding a bunch of 'stuff' to jack up the price.
We don't yet know if the new 18 MP sensor have been improved compared to the two earlier Aptina sensors, or how it compares to Sony's sensor.