forpetessake: Has Metabones set some fire to Panasonic feet? Finally, they are starting to get that people want faster lenses. The 85mm f/2.4 and 300mm f/5.6 equivalent lenses are getting closer to FF standards, provided they didn't sacrifice image quality.
@ attomole:m4/3 is roughly a 2x crop from 24x36mm, so for equivalent depth of field with the same framing:1.2 x 2 = 2.42.8 x 2 = 5.6
I'm actually kinda wondering if Hasselblad will come out and say, "Oh, we were joking, here's what we actually came up with," then introduce a camera that shows some design thought beyond gluing random stuff to another company's camera.
Uaru: somehow I started to think about big fluffy pink cadillac.... this is no camera - it is jewellery, and of poor taste...
When I saw the headline, I felt something incredible might be happening - but when I saw those photos, and read the news - I understood the "incredible" can have also a negative meaning.
It made me think of large diamond stud earrings, orange fake tan, and Ed Hardy t-shirts.
fad: Yikes. I could be the target market.
Doing street in Soho and downtown Manhattan, I quickly learned not to dress like a ninja. I dress like a slob (usual), an artist, a businessman, or a tourist, I get general acceptance from this wealthy and highly sophisticated crowd. Another persona that works is dressing like a fop, and putting on a Billingham photo vest. This would be the perfect camera for that disguise. But it should be FF.
I pay attention to design. I don't dress like a slob. I care what my camera looks like. I really prefer the clean functional look of a NEX-7 to this gaudy monstrosity.
I actually had to do a split second mental check that it wasn't April Fools Day.
SDPharm: The best way to offend a photographer is to say "wow, that's a great photo, what kind of camera do you use?"
"Wow, you must own an expensive camera."
Nmphoto: A good photographer can take a good photo with anything. All you people who think you need the best gear, get ready to hang your heads in shame.
Well, it's the nature of time that all the best photos through history have been taken with gear that's now "obsolete." Partially, what you think you need just depends on what sort of photos you like or are expected to make. My favorite "bird" photos were taken on large format film with a normal lens, and the only "sports" photos that I like were taken with moderate wide angle lenses on 35mm film.
makeitworst: The days of responsible engineering at Olympus that produced wonderful top of the industry film cameras in the OM series is long over. I still cherish my early 70's OM-1 and OM-1MD, and my other OM-1N and OM-2N.
But since entering the Digital market, Olympus has repeatedly stumbled, often big time, with cameras that were seriously flawed by Engineering. I had (have but it's dead) an Oly E-10 DSLR, which for the time was a wonderful camera even though it had a fixed lens, because that lens was tremendously versatile and accurate. BUT it had a flawed Battery Circuit board designed that failed every two years like clock-work (Oly paid to fix it once, I paid the second time), then the AF circuit kicked the bucket at age 5. That's BS, even a DSLR should last as long as a Film SLR. ONLY recent Oly I loved is the C-7000. Spot on colors, a range-finder, great video recording, fast lens and it still works .. so far.
Sorry Oly, no buyer here till you get your Engineering chit together.
@ AnepoNo part of "Single Lens Reflex" implies the lens needs to be interchangeable. You can have fixed lens or interchangeable lens SLRs, TLRs, or rangefinders. It's the focusing and viewfinder mechanisms that define the "type" of camera, not whether you can change lenses or not. The E-10 was definitely a DSLR.
Gesture: Some of the comments are amazing. The NX 5/10/11 is one of the best-designed contemporary cameras. Period. The only thing I see comparable is the Panasonic GH2. From what I read, Samsung's sensor isn't quite up to snuff, esp. higher ISO. Still, for everyday photography, the NX10 image quality is excellent and it has favorable pictorial quality. The main thing I would improve is the manual focus assist. Panasonic does it quite well.
@ chadley_chad "Thats not my opinion, thats based on owning both"I don't think you quite understand the concept of opinion. Because I have owned and eaten two varieties of pizza, and prefer one over the other, does not magically transform my opinion that one "blows the other out of the water" into a universal truth.
dennis mol: Maybe I missed it, but why did they center the evf on the NX20 and not put it to the side like the NEX7? Most comments I have seen on the NEX7 finder like the finder to the side.
@ timedrun. Really? I own cameras that use both positions, and I find that the corner position is better ergonomically. The central EVF seems more like a design choice to resemble an SLR, which had that mirror placement due to the mechanics of the mirror mechanism. SLRs with offset viewfinders (the Panasonic DMC-L1 for example) needed more complex mechanisms and had smaller, dimmer viewfinders than comparable central viewfinders. To me it seems that centring the the EVF to resemble an SLR is at least as much as conscious style decision as offsetting the EVF to resemble a rangefinder.
Gavril Margittai: Hate to be a killjoy, but if anyone believes that possessing these two lenses will make them a better photographer he is wrong. Having these two lenses will not improve picture quality.
If serious about photography and with available money to spend I would rather buy studio lights if one works on portraits, or a good sturdy tripod if nature & landscape are your thing. Both these two will make much more impact. Oh and I almost forgot. Spend on Photography and Photoshop courses.
Soooo - who are you responding to? Have you ever actually met someone who thinks that lenses will improve her or his skill? Most people can easily figure out the equipment they want or require to take the kinds of pictures that they want to take. How about you mind your own "business" instead of attempting to give unasked for budgetary planning advice.
Pabloquiga: I understand that this D4 marks to a professional standard by capacity and design, but for my it is, my d7000 with some benefits but, 3700 Euros but expensive.
"price for a professional is irrelevant"This depends on the market, and on where said professional lives. Awhile ago, I read about professional photographers in Africa and many other parts of the world using D40s and other entry level models. In more affluent countries, cost/benefit analysis should still be at the core of any business decisions. Even if it works out that the most expensive equipment is the most cost effective in the long run, it's misleading to say that "price is irrelevant." If price was truly "irrelevant," manufacturers could charge anything they wanted. Instead, they create pricing schemes and succeed or fail based on how well these prices reflect what people are willing to pay. I suspect a $25,000 D4 (apply Sigma's logic for SD1 pricing, whatever that may be...) would rule out all but the most affluent amateurs and professionals alike.
munro harrap: It should be the same price as a Canon 5D MkII, because it does the same things
And a a high end restaurant should be priced the same as McDonald's.... because they do the same thing...
gonzalu: So far one of my favorite features are the Wi-Fi based Web Based controls... very useful. The illuminated buttons are a nice touch as well for working in the dark.
Remote operation via The Internet is literally a solution in search of a million applications. Just think of the possibilities!
Re: JoggerThe print is long worn off my d200's buttons, so even in the light I need to have them memorized. I didn't even realize how much so until I tried a d90 awhile ago and kept pressing the wrong buttons by reflex or going for a non-existent ISO button on top of the mode dial. If I had a D4 the buttons would probably end up a bunch of glowing circles in a few years...
(unknown member): Useful article but as an aside to the whole mirrorless debate here's a question - why are DSLRs so huge? Given that DSLRs do not need to accommodate a 35mm film or a take up spool why is it not possible to make a full frame DSLR the size of say an Olympus OM1 or Pentax MX/ME (if anyone remembers those)? Even coupled with a fast prime they were reasonably small and were far less obtrusive than today's digital giants.
I'm lucky enough to have an EOS 5DII. I love its full frame sensor quality and the ability to blur out backgrounds with wide apertures but it's no fun to carry around for any length of time. Even with a small fixed 50mm it's still pretty enormous. Many of us that aren't sports photographers don't really need a high number of frames per second let alone many of the features currently stuffed into cameras. But we do want good image and build quality. For walkers, travel, landscape and street photographers surely there must be a market for a small high quality DSLR?
Re: Joe Ogiba. Sure, adding a motor drive makes a small camera larger, but how many people actually do that? I know I would never use a motor drive with my FM2. If I needed a motor drive, I wouldn't have bought a small camera in the first place. Plus DSLRs have no need for anything like a motor drive: there's no film to move. I use a Hasselblad 500 c/m, a Pentax 645n, and a D200, so I know about large cameras, but I've been appreciating the small ones more recently. I would absolutely love a digital fm2: FF, high quality viewfinder, small size. If the viewfinder was up to FM2 standards I wouldn't even care about autofocus. Well maybe a more modern grip would be nice, but without the overall volume of my D200.
WhyNot: I'd like to suggest another disadvantage of the current CSC's – size! As an owner of a G2, I appreciate the smaller size and weight of these cameras: however, with most lenses they're never going to fit comfortably in any pocket that's not on a winter coat. Therefore, I'd like them to be a little wider so that I can hold them comfortably without always brushing a button or dial and find that I'm looking at a menu instead of the scene in front of the camera – give me a reasonable grip. Alternately, the designers could find room on the back of their cameras if they revolutionized the user interface in some acceptable way. Smallness is not necessarily an advantage just for smallness sake.
I mostly agree. Too often discussions focus on "pocketability," and some people, like the manufacturers, seem obsessed with making the mirrorless cameras as small as possible. For me, there's an optimum size that isn't just "as small as possible," and I don't have particularly large hands. My X100 and GF1 are towards the low end of this optimal size, and I found the Nex-3 too small, although I liked the grip style. I really like how the Nex-7 looks for ergonomics though: nice grip and decent size, although I've never actually held one.
Alexsfo: Live View is superior to OVF. I wasn't able to judge colors, WB, exposure, DoF, various color modes, accurately through OVF when I had Canon DSLR (Its live view is unusably atrocious). I much rather prefer Live View full time cause I know exactly how my shot is gonna look like so mirrorless is the way to go. With the arrival of Nikon 1 we now know that on-sensor phase detect AF is a piece of cake so I have no doubt we'll be seeing a lot of tracking and continous AF improvement next year making DSLR even more irrelevant and suitable only for folks who are too old to give up OVF.Mirrorless is not necessarily about size reduction. We now have a choice of large mirrorless system (Nex) and smaller compact Micro Four Thirds system.
I'm not sure I agree. There's something about a good OVF that, for me, can't be beat. Now, I have to qualify what I mean by "good" OVF. My FM2n is excellent, my D200 is mediocre. And my Pentax 645n is a whole different world. I use a GF1 and used to have a Nex-3 so I have plenty of experience with mirrorless cameras, but my favorite mirrorless viewfinder so far is the X100's, which I mostly use in OVF mode. Considering I just turned 26 this month, I don't think liking OVFs is correlated with being "too old."