Boerseuntjie: I can not wait for all the Samsung fan boys to go.... see Fuji just ripped off Samsung now you know how it feel when your competitor takes your ideas looser...LOL
@BoerseuntjieYou seem amazingly obsessed by Samsung. I have been looking at your comments and a tremendous amount are about Samsung. I reckon you are a fan but just do not want to admit it. It is easy to see denial when someone protests so much yet is obviously thinking all the time about something.
magneto shot: 1/2.3 sensor...with 18 mp ? sigh...thats like putting an 18inch sports rim on a 1.1 liter car and thinks it will perform better.
In a big technology store the display compacts cameras had a card behind them and at the top all alone was the megapixel number. It is probably the only bit about the camera most people think they understand. Just count yourself lucky that you know that you should go for the one with the lowest number. The people who buy this camera are not really going to notice any problem so I doubt if it really does any harm. The Sony forum will soon be billing and cooing over each others' pictures taken with this camera in perfect contentment.
Timmbits: I don't care! Korea has decided to start hunting whales, and I am participating in the international boycott of all Korean products!
What are you going to do with your Japanese cameras. I think you should destroy them and post the picture in DPR to show your comitment to whales. What make would you suggest that has no links with whale hunting countries?
I note the way in just announcing a price decrease they emphasis that the lens slows to 2.7. As most cameras drop to far worst apertures it is interesting why the fairly wide maximum aperture on the Samsung is described as slow.
You have to remember if you are looking for a broad view of the market that DPR only focuses on a limited sub-set of super zooms. The last review on the Canon equivalents was the SX20 in 2009. The Panasonic and Nikon mentioned above get instant reviews.
Joo Prates: The problem is the greed of big companies that cut costs, by using bad material, to make more money. It is incomprehensible that a company like Canon put defective, or in this case, dangerous products on the market. Perhaps they transferred people from quality control to costs control. I am a Canon customer for years but I think is inadmissible the use of bad materials in such products, to save a few cents. And it is true that these problems are happening more and more, because the millions in profits are not enough…"wash your hands with water if they have come in contact with the rubber grip"...it seems that to grab a camera is like playing with poisonous substances. whatch out ! wash your hands.
I do not think that quality issues are just greed. There is a battle for survival going on in these companies as the model of poor Asian people being paid very small amounts of money to make cheap but sophisticated toys for rich westerners is unravelling rapidly. Most western wealth is borrowed or based on synthetic paper valued with absurdly elaborate mathematics which is in fact worthless when a modicum of common sense is applied instead. I doubt if any of these companies are actually making any real money. Expect these sort of goods to get very expensive in the near future and in the interim quality issues to increase before they inevtably have to be sold at their real cost.
villebon: HDR Photography.
That used to be a valuable tool until the amateurs started doing just about anything with HDR and ruined it for everyone else and gave it its bad rep.
Now, HDR resides in the basement of color photography from where it may never come out.
Are you actually a professional or do you mean by amateurs people who cannot match your high level of achievement? This book is written only for people with SLR cameras so it is not for people with SLT, compact or mirrorless cameras so hopefully it will not be read by amateurs and will make HDR suitable again for a better sort of person.
Wally Brooks: Not so sure! With Inter changeable lenses, an EVF, Hot Shoe, manual controls, and a sync port for flash Sony has my compact business! From a Happy with my Nikon D7000/pocket wizard shooter who is not happy with Nikons mirror less entry user.
My wife also thinks it's a cute camera and she does NOT want it in pink! Simple concept, easy to understand, get it? NO COLORS!
My wife said to me that if I was buying a different colour camera she would understand why I keep changing them otherwise they were just cameras. So having cameras in different colours might spare us a bit of grief.
toomanycanons: Did all the major camera makers get together and agree to be done with viewfinders? Is their consensus that us buyers don't want them (WRONG) or what?
I love my DSLRs, don't find them too bulky, love their IQ and versatility. A camera such as this Sony comes along, looks great...but alas, no viewfinder so I immediately cross it off my list of potential next buys. Pentax just did that as well. What gives?
@Jens_GThe problem is it is nice to know on a bright sunny day if you are pointing in the right direction. It is best to see how this extra white display pixel works which might minimise the problem and make it worth losing a veiwfinder. I once had a very miserable holiday with an early Olympus camera without a viewfinder where the display completely disappeared in sunlight which was a case of BLINDLY GUESS AND SHOOT. More recent cameras I have had not been much better.
Greynerd: I think this is more of a marketing excercise of mega megapixels in a mega sensor in the smallest box. The cost is the slower aperture at maximum zoom which would put me of buying it. A 2/3 sensor with a lower pixel count and a fast lens throughout the focal length range would seem a much more sensible design.
I think the size of the sensor in camera has been determined by the megapixel number they wanted to market. To get a good quality at this sort of pixel packing it was 1" which was also a good marketing point. This has however compromised the lens making it pretty slow for a modern top end compact. If you look at a light meter it says nothing about sensor size, just the combination of aperture, shutter speed and ISO for correct exposure. This means indoor without flash you are going to have to push the ISO or slow the shutter at f4.9 and already at 50mm it is down to f3.5. Given that pixel packing pushing the ISO is not going to be as good as if the sensor was less stressed by its pixel size. When I first saw tis camera I said wow but that lens is slow and purely I think because cramming in the pointlessly high megapixels was the main driver of the design. People seem to fuss about tiny sensors but see no problem in tiny pixels.
I am presuming the sensor size makes getting a fast lens more difficult. From my point of view I would prefer a smaller sensor if this means a brighter aperture at long focal lengths for taking indoor pictures of the grandchildren. I had a XZ-1 but did not like the image quality and the Fuji X10 does seem the ideal compromise but not with the rather eccentric EXR sensor. The XR100 seems a brilliant concept but the lens is already down to f3.5 at 53mm which is a pity. Not the strongest camera indoors I would think but useable I am sure.
I think this is more of a marketing excercise of mega megapixels in a mega sensor in the smallest box. The cost is the slower aperture at maximum zoom which would put me of buying it. A 2/3 sensor with a lower pixel count and a fast lens throughout the focal length range would seem a much more sensible design.
fberns: If this camera size, sensor andlens is possible, why the heck didn't anyone build a camera like that before???And why are all the peers much larger?
I'm at the same time happy about the seemingly great package in a small size and wonder what the camera engineers have been working at if not a camera like that?Dpreview got it exactly right: Size versus image quality and the capability for a shallow depth of field is the main problem that is to solve for a compact enthusiast camera!
@fberns. I think it is called technical development. Do not forget that Sony may not have the tight hold on development budgets that other more financially frugal companies have. This is why the best ideas often come out of the biggest bankruptcies.
Looking at the feedback over time on some cameras it might be an idea to carry a compact fire extinguisher with you when taking extended videos on a camera designed for stills, just in case the heat cutout fails to trip. Just a little tip.
Boerseuntjie: That flash looks really useful pointing down at the lens….LOLI said it once and I will say it again Sony copy done South Korean bad.
Saying the NX100 is a copy of the NEX 3. That is just being too silly.
Ibida Bab: A few more Samsungs that will sink into oblivion real fast.
@audjam. I am sure a pro at the olympics would want a much longer zoom than you can get with NX. I am not sure why you have brought the Olympics up for this camera as I expect Samsung did not really have this in mind for the release of the camera, especially for professional sports photographers. I am sure the release date is just a coincidence.
mark625: How about Fujifilm's EXR Superzooms? Will they be reviewed? I was hoping that the HS20 would have a review of its own but that never happened... Now its the HS30 that's waiting in line...
I suppose we are looking for some logic in the reasons for which cameras are tested and there just is not any.
It looks like the Canon SX IS superzooms are obviously being specifically excluded for review by DPR. The last one reviewed was the SX20 in 2009. As the SX40 is a popular contender in the class of cameras of which the HX200V is part it is starting to look conspicuous in its absence. The SX30 was never reviewed and it would be nice to compare the see how the SX40 compares against the Nikon 510, Panasonic FZ150 and the Sony whose reviews have been rushed online.
I am not sure why there is an inference that Super-Fine JPEG is unique to the OM when all top end Samsung compact cameras and NX have it. This seems to be hyping up the camera a bit.
Max Privette: Why so ugly !!!
This is a designer item. It is like modern art, the actual object is not as important as the long pretentious description that goes with it. You are just so 19th century when everything stood on its own merits.