Sadly it's Apple who should have done this awhile back. I have been saying for years that Canon or whoever should make a camera that takes an iPhone inserted in the back and uses it for the control interface.
But kudos to Samsung for innovating. The claim of DPreview that it somehow lacks "external controls" is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Hasn't DPreview ever heard of gestures? They could easily make certain gestures correspond with certain controls, completely obviating the need for dials and buttons. You know, swipe right while looking through the finder to see ISO. Swipe left to do exposure compensation. Double-tap for AE-lock. Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
People lack imagination and clarity of thought these days. It's just pathetic.
Victor is rolling hard right now. That 18-55 on there makes me want to puke. What's next, a Mamiya Nikon J3?!
Hell yeah! C'mon Olympus, you're next!
flipmac: For the price, you can get an E-PL5 kit + 45/1.8 with enough money left over for a nice SD card. Might be a better compact mirrorless set for portraits.
Or just get an E-PL5 and the 75mm f/1.8 and it's better and cheaper...
SunnyFlorida: $900 for the lens + $900 for a V2 14mp camera= $1,800,... or you can get a D7100 24mp camera with an 85mm F/1.8g Nikkor for the same :-)
Or an E-P5 with a 45mm f/1.8, 17mm f/1.8, and VF-2 :=p
Jimmy jang Boo: $900? Even if it were $200 I'd pass. I waited a long time hoping to see just one real FW update that would address some of the simple quirks that cripple the V1. It ain't gonna happen. From my perspective Nikon doesn't believe their products or customers have any value after the sale. Going forward I'll pass on all things Nikon.
You had to buy it to figure that out? I am sorry man. There are a few good uses for that camera like for some video stuff, but yeah, it was really beta hardware and they've washed their hands of it.
alexander kooistra: crop or no crop the aperture stays 1.2 is it not? I see people multiplying aperture by crop, but thats not the case. So it's a 32mm 1.2 lens with a price that suits a 1.2 lens...
Light intensity is f/1.2 level meaning it will AF in very low light, OK. But depth of field is NOT the same as an 85mm f/1.2 or a 45mm 1.2 etc. The people who are saying the smaller apertures at the higher focal lengths are telling you what would give you the same DoF, light-gathering ability, and AoV ("equivalency"). Of course the Nikon 1's terrible dynamic range will make it suck anyway.
Zalan: 900 USD?? That is insane...
The entire 1-system is insane. It's all about Nikon making lots of money, lets be honest.
MarkInSF: I do think Nikon was a little too... ambitious in the design and pricing of this lens, but I don't doubt for a second that it's a high quality lens. Nikon has been introducing CX lenses into a publicity vacuum, so nobody who doesn't shoot with a Nikon 1 knows that the lenses are getting to be a strength of the format. This is the first one to feel overpriced, but to be honest, quality fast portrait lenses are always expensive.
Many other Nikon 1 lenses are also beautifully made (think Olympus build quality) with metal barrels and mounts. They're also small, fast to focus, and quiet. The telezoom 30-110mm, wa 6.7-13mm, and superzoom 10-100mm are all very nice, with the superzoom being remarkably small and far better optically than typical 10x zooms. The 18.5 standard prime is also a very nice lens and under $200.
Now we need a macro lens and a 35mm equivalent. A little cheaper than this, please, Nikon.
There is no such thing as equivalent. You want a 54.4-degree horizontal AoV. Just say what you want, instead of casting things in terms of nearly-dead, minority formats all the time.
ogl: 85/3.2 in 35 mm.
43.6mm f/1.8 in 4/3"
That's like putting racing tires on a golf cart.
Your customers don't want subscription-based software. We want to buy and own it. PERIOD
Adobe, you just don't get it.
Everyone, flag gw5815's spam posts. Obvious Adobe employee is obvious...
CFynn: Seems like they are imitating the marketing tactics of the narcotics and tobacco industries. Get users completely dependent on a regular, time limited, fix of their product and they have a steady income stream.
Once users are hooked they can also jack up the prices whenever they like.
Nah it's the Comcast model! And the cellphone company model!
Smokeypossum: Aahh I love major life changing times of choosing between this system or another system. having been a long time user of Photoshop I will be moving to another platform for my life work after my current 5.5 becomes too obsolete. By then the "bleeding edge of technology" will have become the established front and I am more than happy to let others who think they "need" the latest find out how to solve someone elses problems. Like many of you I don't accept that I have to store my work on their machine in the cloud, only be able to access it when I have internet access. I've always paid for my software so have no problem with piracy. Some people thought they could get away with it! LOL
GW you are an obvious Adobe plant, I am flagging all your posts as spam. You keep spamming the same URL to Adobe as if we can't go there ourselves, and you are lying (there is nothing inherently faster about updates to subscription-based software).
Horshack: It's kind of comical how Adobe refers to their CS offering as "the cloud", even though it's no different than their existing distribution model. The software is still downloaded once and executed locally, same as existing digital distribution; the only difference is Adobe gains an excuse to implement DRM/piracy controls, controls that would be unacceptable for stand-alone software. And they can charge more and earn their income on a more predictable basis. Adobe has become the vampire squid of the creative software world.
Amen Micheal. GW obviously works for Adobe.
qwertyasdf: How can I edit my polar bear shots taken in North Pole?
How many months? I have a machine in Costa Rica that's been out of internet service for two years.
If I buy software, I want to own it, period. It is insane to think that anyone other than total suckers will pay you money to "get" to use the software for a limited time. If you made it much cheaper than the actual owned version, then I might perk up, but no, you make it the same price (over time). Actually more, really.
Companies either innovate, or they invent rape. This is the latter.
CFynn: With the current model you get to choose whether what's onoffer is a compelling upgrade. Moving to a subscription model seemsto be resignation to the fact that the vendor really has nothing new to offer in the future - so they have to shut down or find a new revenue stream.
If Adobe follow their current pricing practices, the cost of renting your app will inflate by 50-100% by the time your cloud data crosses the Atlantic and arrives in the EU.
BS, GW. Your argument about updates is invalid. Many companies with standard, ownership-based licensing models issue updates far too often; moving to a subscription model in no way improves product-release times for new features. Adobe uses a cloud-based update system for the standard CS6 already. No, this is purely about control, and greed: forcing people to buy updates they might not need or want.
I have been using Photoshop since 1993. I am a long term customer, but I will NEVER! EVER! subscribe to ANY! software. It is the reprehensible, blatant removal of ownership of a purchased product away from the buyer, and ought in my opinion to be simply illegal.
5DMkIII Shooter: The only option is that no-one registers / sign up to make use of the service. All just stick to what they are using now. The creative "Genius" at Adobe who came up with this utterly brilliant "stab your users in the back" idea would then soon realise that photographers own their gear and that gear also includes their software. No Adobe, NO!
Amen... my studio Mac has never been online and will never be. How do they protect against Class X5 solar flares frying all your work and prefs, etc.? What if the cloud is down, like happened to our AWS servers twice recently?