N13L5: what good does the slim camera do in my pocket if it has a soda can style lens that won't retract?
There are some high quality cameras with built-in, bright, retracting zooms.
For having a DSLR sized sensor in a Sony Nex camera I can understand the design compromise. For a 1" sensor, what's the point?
Those collapsing zooms have compromises, eg the slow aperture of the lens, when fully zoomed out, on the Sony RX100.
AVISAN: Other than weight, I don't understand cameras that are thin with big lenses. There are so many options available that have most of the same accouterments as a multiple lens mount without all of the "stuff" that needs to be carried with you and are a lot more ergo.
I owned a Samsung NX7 that was the precursor to this type of camera minus the interchangeable lenses. It was neat but cumbersome and not all that pocket-able. Sensors have since improved and low light and Wi-Fi abilities have become common place.
I have a Cannon S120 with nearly all of the abilities of this new Nikon Mini with a versatile low light capable lens and sensor. It fits neatly in any pocket and shoots raw/jpeg snap shots.
There are more convenient options out there. If you want exchangeable lenses, use your full size DSLR. The last thing I need is to cart around more lenses. As for battery life, buy a couple extra batteries; they're small and fit in your other pocket. I like the flip-up LCD but it's a gimmick.
Canon S120, is that realistic to use at say ISO3200? Judging by the Sony RX100II, this Samsung will likely be perfectly useable at ISO 3200.
Is the lens faster than f/2.0? One of the Samsung lenses is.
Ammarz: the ISO is goodthe design is goodthe burst is poorthe screen is badthe battery is goodI give it 8 out of 10 for this linewaiting for sample photos
That's a bit of a rush to review, without samples and seeing the body+lenses in person.
Erick L: Would be more interesting if it had a phone in it.
The problem remains start up time from fully off, and fully off is something you want with a camera.
Then, right they could do a separate OS for the camera, but it hasn't happened yet.
The Samsung Galaxy NX has good image quality and there are very good lenses for that system, however Android gums things up.
Gesture: Neither fish nor fowl. Competes best against premium compacts like Panasonic LX7, Olympus XZ-2, Samung's own EX2, Pentax MX1-what with the much larger sensor.
Adapter should be $50-OR LESS. Anyone buying will be invested in NX system. Why punish your early adopters.
Hadn't heard of the firmware problems with the EX2F.
Samsung has fixed various firmware problems with the NX cameras.
Right, but the EX2f was discontinued.
Joseph Mama: I dunno. It seems pricey and I am not seeing a lot of advantages to this format being played to.
2.7x crop factor is awesome for long range. Nikon 1 has the 30-130 which is fairly small but great hitting range. They can also adapter to use a 300mm giving them 850mm equivalent which hits superzoom territory.
This camera doesnt have anythhing longer than 80mm. For that, I mine as well stick with a micro 4/3rds or APS-C that ALSO has relatively small lenses and takes much better pictures.OR, as many have said...get an RX100 which is totally fire-and-forget, with no need for lens swapping or lens capping, folding, storage, etc.
To keep me from just buying an RX100, this would have to offer SOMETHING. Range seems like an obvious bonus that I cant get from an RX100. That they are ignoring altogehter.
Right, I like the grip on the Nikon 1 V2. I just want Nikon to introduce more faster lenses, and ideally reduce the pixel count.
Clearly, Samsung has designed this body for putting in one's pocket easily. If this Samsung has a 1/4" tripod mount, one trick to making it grippable is to screw a small tripod head into the mount.
Jokica: If Samsung is my company, I would buy Pentax along with Ricoh.
The best Samsung NX lens, the 85mm f/1.4, is the equal of very good Zeiss and Leica lenses, not the best Zeiss and Leicas.
Pentax-Ricoh's best lenses are a joke compared to just good Zeiss and Leica lenses, therefore...
So clearly, you're both not familiar with excellent optics and also not familiar with Samsung NX lenses.
Samsung also has some other very good lenses, like the f/2.0 30mm, the f/1.8 45mm, and likely the new fast small zoom. The big zoom aint very good.
"Sad facts but a camera will probably never have a phone in it"
Give it 20 years and the introduction of instant-on for computers--it's coming thru RAM that can remember when off and faster solid state storage.
Then allow one OS to run the phone with a quick switch to a nearly separate OS running the camera thru physical buttons.
Quickly uploading say 3 gigs of raws is still going to be a problem for much longer though--barring the mass release of secret communications tech.
tecnoworld: As far as I'm concerned, I won't spend on Samsung anymore, unless:
1) they make a rangefinder styled APS-C camera with a non sequential OLED EVF at least as good as Oly, Fuji or Sony ones2) they have CAF at least on par with A6000 and Fuji X-T13) they have at least the same high ISO iq and dr as A60004) the model with 1+2+3 features cost as much as (or less) Sony A6000
Yes, I've tried the EVF on both the Sony A7 (months ago) and the Fuji XT1, they're not significantly better than that on the NX30. (I've noted no rainbow effect on the NX30.)
The LCD based EVF on the NX20 was also excellent.
It's a lot cheaper than Nikon 1 cameras, and good Samsung lenses are much much better than good Nikon lenses, including the good Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 (a lens for the Nikon 1 system that aint cheap).
Right, Nikon will win on raw frame rate.
No, it wouldn't, specifically because the OS for a smart phone would gum up the works--and have to be left on all the time.
I guess it could work with a normal dumb cellphone.
It's Samsung's replacement for the well liked serious P&S cameras known as the EXF2 and EXF1(TL500).
Frank C.: just use you cellphone for snapshots, why buy this? for more pro like and better IQ pics just use your dslr
This is a bit more than a "snap shot" camera, and it will of course shoot raw, unlike almost every cellphone. Bigger sensor too.
The RX100II is a good bit more expensive and mighty slow when zoomed. (I guess the RX100 is cheaper.)
ZAnton: Samsung... good in a digital technologies, but total loosers in optics.
Absolutely, and when other camera manufacturers start putting Optron lenses into their systems the optics will improve, while now in 2014, it's safe to call Optron lenses Samsung lenses.
Clearly some party at Optron/Samsung knows something about optical design and even the best lens manufacturers (German) should be very concerned by the optical quality of the best SamOpt lenses.
Even the best Pentax and Ricoh lenses can't touch the best Samsung lenses. So Samsung is vastly ahead in lenses (mirrorless) already. And sensors.
Bet Samsung already makes photocopiers.
Samsung already had a partnership with Pentax, and it didn't go far+Samsung did better image quality with the same sensors.
Right, Pentax has some loyal users with old lenses. But be honest, 20 years ago did you think of Samsung as a TV maker?
jorg14: Am I missing something here?The Sony RX 100 ll doesn't have an interchangeable lens, but doesn't need it. It's 28 - 100 covers almost the same range. It's f/1.8 vs 1.7 is hardly a big difference. It has the same sensor. Is has the 'flippy' screen. Its actually smaller considering the two lenses. It's cheaper if you figure the extra lens cost, and it's user interface is better. So you want to pay more for a heavier camera (camera + two lenses), want to change lenses, and have a harder to use interface, then buy the new Samsung?
BTW, I've had Samsung cameras in the past and they've been great, so I'm not knocking the brand.
Most zoom lenses, in particular the one on the RX100, let less and less light in the more they're zoomed out. This is a particular draw back of the Sony.
I think it's safe to say that there's Samsung tech in other products.
Don't see what the complaints are about the high ISO performance of the NX300.
Then the EVFs in the NX30 and Galaxy NX are excellent.
Too bad about Sony Nex lenses and Fuji X video, including that from the X-T1.
VaLeX: Samsung affords suicidal projects. They're big enough!What's the point of having interchangeable lenses, if they're not bright?What's the point of having interchangeable lenses, if you don't have quick access, through dials and clicks, to essential functions?What's the point of having interchangeable lenses, if the camera is a posh gadget for showing off? To much complications for such an intended user ....At least Pentax, with their Q line tried to produce some bright lenses. Nikon - as well!I'm only curious, now, how's the sensor performing.
17mm f/1.8 isn't fast?
Peter Bendheim: I can't help it but I have a strong dislike for Samsung - they are the copycats of the tech world - copied the iPad, iPhone, and they have a camera that is remarkably similar to the NEX range. Now a knock off of the Panasonic GM1..They might make ok household appliances, but I'm sure never going to trust my picture taking experiences to them.Design thieves, that's for sure.
AMOLED, and I'm a fan, is a 35 year old Kodak invention.
Other companies make AMOLED screens, eg LG, and 6 years ago Sony even sold a small AMOLED TV, under license from Kodak.