mediasorcerer: that nx1 is HUGE for a mirrorless, when samsung gets the quality of ther lenses up to fuji/ oly/sony zeiss standards then it may help there sales, but the nx1 was a poorly thought out mirrorless camera as its way too big/ its a dinosaur and way too expensive, the lenses are huge too, defeats the purpose of milc.
no firmware can change these facts/nor marketing spin, thats why its a flop of a camera.
for the money, your way better off with ff canikony or equiv.
The main reason why manufacturers make mirrorless cameras, and why they eventually will replace DSLRs, is because they are cheaper and less complicated to make (and repair). It has nothing to do with small size from the manufacturers' point of view. It's about cutting your costs in a shrinking camera market.
Canon and Nikon will eventually do it too, and they will offer enthusiast/pro bodies with the same size and ergonomics as their current DSLRs, in addition to smaller more consumer-friendly bodies.
Mateus1: X-A2 specification: "Rangefinder-style mirrorless". Where is VF? :)
They use the term 'rangefinder-style' for all ILCs that aren't 'DSLR'-styled, even those without a VF. Young photographers today will grow up thinking that rangefinder means 'rectangular box'.
Nukunukoo: I know that these cameras are so pointless in the age of better sensor tech in phonecams today, one wonders what Nikon is thinking these days. But I suppose there probably still is a market for them. I think. At least Nikon thinks that. Maybe.
I guess we have to assume that they are making them because people are buying them. Anything else wouldn't make any business sense.According to CIPA, the production and shipment volume of fixed-lens cameras is still roughly 2-3 times as large as for interchangeable lens cameras. That's a much smaller volume than before the smartphone onslaught began, but still a sizeable market.
pew pew: the only thing is dislike about samsung is that they are copycats specially in phones but also in their cameras, the 1.2 firmware with changeable af speed for video is a feature they copied from sony cameras.
People usually complain when a camera lacks a feature that the competitors have. But if the manufacturer adds that feature, then they are copycats. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
helltormentor: Samsung has not yet realized that one major attraction of mirror less bodies is their capability of adapting lenses. With adapted lenses on, only, the center of frame is magnified!!! As far as I learnt from forums, this was a problem in previous Samsung cameras as well. It shows that Samsung cannot fathom that one might not like to put his subject at the center!!!When a company still have difficulty understanding needs of photographers cannot predict future of mirrorless vs DSLR.
To be honest, only a small subset of customers see lens adapting as a major attraction. Most camera buyers don't use lens adapters. Some enthusiasts do, but they aren't that many compared to the size of the market Samsung is targeting. Of course, it wouldn't hurt them to fix that problem.
Mike FL: Good brand, but now I know why the company goes to downhill
>>> "guide number 26 with ISO 100 and 85 mm"..."Included tele attachment for 85 mm".
For GN, I do not like to see mfc makes SPEC senseless.
>>> "wide-angle diffuser for 24 mm".
For a diffuser, is it wider enough? what is "mm" w/o "diffuser"?
>>> it is "for a novice shooter"
IMHO, "novice shooter =/= zero knowledge" as mfcs hope so.
@nplanetThe press release above is dated January 13, 2015, so that's why it wasn't published earlier. The earlier announcement probably was for the European release.
extraone: the problem I see is not the QC but the work ethics.
out of all the asian countries, japan is the only country that has a very hard work ethic.
they live to work. all the rest work to live.
If we take the so called "Four Asian Tigers" as an example, namely South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, then they managed to transform themselves into fully industrialized, modern high income countries in a relatively short time during the latter half of the 20th century.You don't achieve something like that, unless you have a work ethic that is no different than the rest of the industrialized world. The Japanese may work harder than most, but that doesn't mean that people in other countries don't take their work seriously.
Besides, working to live sounds more healthy to me, than living to work.
ecube: As I recall, Sony was the first to offer [essentially] digital camera in 1981, the Mavica. In 1995, I used Mavica to document field work. I'm not sure but it seems that Contax was the lens used by Mavica. Around 1997, I tried Minolta D'Image at a traveling Minolta trailer. The so called "Minds of Minolta" merged with Konica and years later, Konica-Minolta was purchased by Sony
Why bring this up? Contax, Minolta, and Konica had GREAT lenses for SLR. Minolta, Canon, and Nikon produced GREAT Japanese lenses that competed with the best of German lenses since the late 1940s. I don't know when Sony stopped using Contax but I assume Sony owns all the lens design and technology pf Minolta and Konica. That said, I am puzzled why Sony seem well behind Canon and Nikon in producing lenses for their DSLR
On an "aside", the best Japanese lens I ever owned was the Takumar lenses from Asahi Optical Company, aka Pentax. That was in the mid-1960s
Be free to correct any of my errors
@ecubeYes, the camera division included production of lenses. But the question is, did Sony acquire all the intellectual property pertaining to lens making? I have no idea, myself.
As I said, Sony didn't acquire the whole of Konica Minolta, only the camera division, so the company named Konica Minolta is not a division of Sony. It's a separate company, and they are still in the optical business.
AbrasiveReducer: I'll miss that great Chinese quality.
"Leica Typ 109 is made in China."
I have read that it's made in Japan, whereas the LX100 is made in China.
lacix: Mockups? That's the new way for marketing strategy?
I'm pretty sure that mockups isn't something new to the camera/lens industry, or many other industries, for that matter.
Konica Minolta still exists as a company. Sony only acquired the camera division. I have no idea if Sony owns all the lens designs and technology, but the current Konica Minolta does make lenses and optical elements for compact cameras, DVD players, projectors and other devices, and there was talk a while back about them making lenses for the m4/3 system.
papa natas: Mockups?Sony is making a mockery of themselves ever since Panasonic sent them to the corner.What happened to the Cybershot Department?No RX10 II?No new A7000?No 4K?How can I be a better photographer without some new Sony beefed up models for 2015?
Well, if the last sentence isn't sarcasm, then there's something wrong with my sarcasm detector.
Photoman: So the firmware fixes the IBIS problem?
No, the camera will still have IBIS.
krassphoto: Unfortunately, Kodak is not a Kodak anymore, even if it says "Kodak" on it. It was sold out, and now whatever Chinese company that bought it is piggybacking on it's name hoping to sell their sub-par crap. Too bad, I loved Kodak...
The Kodak brand is apparently licensed to different companies for different products. This smartphone is made by the Bullitt Group, a British company, and the cameras by JK Imaging, which is American. So the Kodak brand wasn't bought by any Chinese company.Of course, both of the mentioned companies likely outsource their production to Asian companies, but that's another story.
Peiasdf: An exciting downgrade. Pretty soon all DSLR will be a downgrade from EVIL/mirrorless.
I actually want Canon and Nikon (and to some extend Pentax) to fail ASAP. Their continuous pumping out of low-end DSLRs that's not an upgrade of the previous model is taking money away from EVIL/mirrorless companies that could use the money to innovate even faster. Canon and Nikon are playing the role of Kodak, trying to prevent the rise of digital/EVIL/mirrorless.
I know what an oligopoly is, and I didn't claim it to be a good thing. What I'm saying is that innovation is mostly stimulated by competition, so removing the big two from the market wouldn't necessarily lead to more innovation, like the OP suggested.
Joe Ogiba: If Ricoh does not show the rumored full frame Pentax at CP+ 2015 it will be party over for Pentax since Pentax showed a full frame DSLR in September 2000.https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7477/16022494430_a29c87dc06_b.jpg
Since the camera division is so small a part of Ricoh's business, that it's basically a "rounding error on their financial statements" (to borrow Thom Hogan's expression), they can afford to keep it running until the end of times. And they can afford to let it die tomorrow, too, of course.
Sad Joe: Nikon like Canon needs to get it mirrorless cameras sorted- now that would be worth DPNEWS giving a new Nikon such airtime - the EOS-M (hated by almost everyone I have two and I love them) and the 1 series have totally failed and DSLR sales continue to fall as does their retail price. This is affecting Nikon much more than Canon for two important reasons: 1: Canon rely far less than Nikon upon camera sales - so Canon can stand the pressure for longer. 2: Nikon have to give SONY a high percentage of their profits for each camera sold as they rely on Sony for sensors. Again Canon can play the waiting game - and do.
Sad Joe, buying components from other companies is not the same as licensing their technology. Besides, it may very well be more expensive to develop and produce your own sensors than to buy them from another company.
So basically Canon and Nikon are ruining everything for the mirrorless makers by competing with them? And the loss of this major competition would somehow stimulate innovation?That's not how it works at all. If other companies were to take the place as market leaders, they would behave exactly as Canon and Nikon do. The smaller players are more innovative because they have to be, given their position in the market.
northwizard: First Panasonic removing the GPS module of it's travelzoom compact, now Nikon! Why?
I think the most likely explanation for removing the GPS is cost cutting. Keeping the GPS while adding the touchscreen would likely make the manufacturing cost higher than for the previous model, so Nikon chose to not include it. Manufacturers have always been adding and removing features like that, so it's nothing new.
(unknown member): Why it has no GPS? Didn't D5300 have GPS?
They added a touchscreen, and therefore had to remove something else in order to keep the same manufacturing cost as the previous model. That's my guess, anyway.