Canon G1 X, Samsung EX1, Pentax k20d, Oly E330, Canon AE1P, Nikon 990
Jogger: One-inch superzooms will eat up this market... something like the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 makes a whole lot more sense.
The truth is that the these two targets (superzoomers and enthusiast) are so different. I mean that I cannot think of a consumer who would have a dilhema between a FZ1000 and a Fuji XT1/18-135. This or other way.
stevo23: I have to say, the GH4 is soft and ugly compared to the A7s. I'm amazed that this little 12Mp sensor kicks the crap out of the flagship 16Mp Panasonic. I expected the fight to be more or less fair.
What do you mean "this little 12MP SESNSOR"? 16 to 12 Mp isn't huge difference while >4x photo site surface is dramatically larger
marc petzold: OMG..that's sooo.....exciting....zZzZzZzzzZzzzz....
Sorry... Why a photo competition isn't an exciting event? Are you sleeping untill the next BIG hardware announcement? Photography isn't (mainly) about gear but about photos (I beleive so at least).
ThomasSwitzerland: With the review and response one can see the unclear direction. This comes from the unclear positioning of the Nikon 1” camera itself.
I have to buy a horrible looking viewfinder to attach loosing a flashpoint. I have to buy a grip to get a decent handling. And completely new lenses for an inferior sensor. What a weird business concept.
I see your point but every system needs time to be mature (see μ4/3). Τthe 1'' sensor becomes better and better. A few years later the Nikon 1 may be a good alternative for telephoto work (small lenses, very good PDAF)
About total light.So, I have a question to DPReview?Do the Sony and Nikon FF cameras produce different noise at pixel level when used at different formats for the same sceen?
My point of view: the sensor does not behave as a whole. The electric signal from each photosite is not affected by the the total light. Sensor is not a sun light collector (larger surface, more electric power).Image (and noise and DR) is produced by pixels. Same tecnology and size pixels produce the same results. So the advandage of the larger sensor appears not because of the more light but because of the more (same sized) pixels or because of the larger pixels (for the same Megapixel sensors).
Very informative article by the way.
Daniel Lauring: Truly revolutionary would be a hybrid SLR/mirrorless. With both Canon and Nikon their live view plays a distant second fiddle. They should make it as good as mirrorless cameras with fast focus and focus peaking.
Ok.1. Interchangable sensor camera (not Ricoh GXR)2. Curved sensor for simpler lens design (rumored RX2)3. Focusing by sensor mooving and not lens mooving4. and many others that I'm not able to imagine.
As about the "mirrorless features": How can Nikon compare to Panasonic or Olympus in focus speed? P & O have 6 years experience while Nikon has ~0. And so on. There is room for all. Adn time too.
Sorry, you really think that the revolution in camera technology is the SLR/mirrorless hybrid? Don't you have any other ideas?
Too low resolution for too small advandage
steelhead3: Does Samsung have to copy Sony even down to the numbering system
My friend, your favorite brand announced the NEX system months after the NX system. (And both years after μ4/3 announcement)
bakhtyar kurdi: There is some acceptable pictures there, not great, but most of them are just a snap shots that everyone of us delete hundreds of them because we get embarrassed if someone accidentally saw them. or to clean our hard drives.I am quite certain that the art of photography is getting worse and worse, not because there is no great artists, but because the media and so called freedom were succeeded to make people believe that there is no difference between beauty and ugly, right or wrong , justice or injustice, there is no black and white anymore, everything is grey.I know what is your reaction for the above, so please don't tell me : do you want to teach me what is ugly and what is beautiful? do you want to control me and decide for me what is justice and injustice? I am free and I decide for myself , so we are giving away all experiences that we learned from the time of Adam, and mixing everything together, no standards, no worthy values, everyone is a superman,but they still smoke.
"There is some acceptable pictures there"Are you looking for 'pictures'? You are at the wrong place. And the fault is yours.Acceptable??? Did you look at them? Did you spend a little time before you make your judgement?
jst13: Not one of these 1.place images is a good one may be the last one. they should look more to the dpreview users..much better images here in the forum!
"...much better images here in the forum!"Well said! Much better IMAGES. not photographs
tecnoworld: Very nice bokeh and nice IQ. But I still prefer my 85mm f1.4 as a focal lenght on APS-C. Of course this 56mm is smaller, which is nice on mirrorless cams.
Actually, the panasonic is a fast, fast AF, IS lens for movies. Videographers pay these 3 thinks easily.
mermaidkiller: Why not an APS-C sensor for a rather bulky 'compact' ?An EOS 1100 or 700 is cheaper and not heavier. Or an EOS-M.
....with 2.36 million dots (a 1024x 768 pixel display)....They cannot calculate: 1024x768 = 786432 dots and not 2.36 million !
Unfortunatly you cannot edit it again
steve ohlhaber: If this shot 60fps at 1080p, I would be more interested as a solid backup to an SLR for still and video. Sony does it on many models.
It would be nice to see a 1inch sensor that has a better zoom range. I would love a camera that can cover 24-300mm AND shoot raw with a big sensor and pocketable. That should easily be doable given a 1 inch sensor is much smaller than this camera. Its like it forces you into a narrow zoom range AND no movie mode. So if you need tele or video, you need 1 or 2 other cameras. That just makes no sense to me. It seems hard to own this as your only camera due to those missing features. My father just got back from a trip around the world with the rx100 and his big complaint was predictable, not enough zoom range on either end. I think 24mm is enough on the wide side, but 120mm just isn't much for long zoom.
Ahh, people, people!!
select: I would never buy a Samsung camera... it's crap
It was my opinion too; until Ibought the samsung ex1. Great build quality.
Joel Benford: If very shallow focus was my great interest in life, MFT is not the system I'd buy into. So I'm not really sure who this is for.
Maybe it's for people who don't do shallow focus much, but when they need it they need it bad?
Are there people like that?
Or is for people who like a Leica badge...
@jennyrae. I see your point and it's valid. The problem is with people who cannot understand that other people have different views. The nokton .95 is a much better value-for-money lens than this panasonic 1.2. But the latter having OIS and AF would be a dream lens for GH3 videographers.
"So I'm not really sure who this is for."Dear friend, can't you really think of people who can use and enjoy the benefits of this lens? You mean that you saw the samples and your thoughts are 'what a waste of time and money'?
thx1138: The ISO 6400 is really mushy at least as a jpg. I would hope the RAW are vastly better.
Yes, it's the first thing I do when I saw samples like those here. I tried a 3200ISO printed ona laser printer. I asked from FastStone to print 1.2m X 0.8m and the A3 crop was amazing
Yanko Kitanov: Good lens as long as these shots are concerned, but nothing spectacular.
Why is there a subtle NR engaged at ISO100? Is it possible to switch it off and make less flat shots with a less plastic feel to the fine/low-contrast detail?
I had in my mind to write the exact same thing. About plastic feel, oise reduction but mainly the loss (or the feel of loss) of microcontrast