People rave about Fuji's output, but every sample picture I see doesn't strike me as being anything special, in fact I dare to say very 'average' looking. I know I am missing something here, can someone help me understand this ?
I guess color truly is subjective. I don't own a Pentax, but the colors from the JPEGs in this review are extremely attractive. Dpreview loves Olympus's color response (I'm a former owner of the OMD EM5) and always felt Olympus was highly artificial looking.
Greg Summers: what about a droid version??
As an app developer I can tell you it is extremely costly to develop for the Android platform due to fragmentation. Maintaning multiple branches of code is both time consuming and complex. XCode is also a more sophisticated and refined development environment and the whole process Apple has created for developers is very streamlined (even if there approval process is a bit challenging at times).
beavertown: Pentax Q sensor scores 47,
Q10 Scores 49,
It is likely Q7 will score 51,
Why do I take the V3 over the Q7 while V3 scores only 52 and charged triple?
Maybe you should quit caring about scores which have absolutely no meaning and actually try the product, no that would be too easy in an age in which we let other people make our decisions for us....
rhlpetrus: One more reason for anyone looking for a compact system to go for m43, congrats to the users of the system (and to future ones).
I am not sure I follow, why is this another reason ?
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW: There must be a market for these things,
Nikon keeps investing in their 1 series, now Samsung.
I don't get it really, The NX300 costs almost the same, with a18/55.
Probably a style exercise, a model to create as thin lenses as possible.
Now their engineers have a platform to try thsoe thin lenses, if it fails, than it is because of the mini, so the mini dies and the other cameras do not suffer from it.
Still i don't get it, there is absolutley no benfit whatsoever in using a 1 sensor over a 1/1.7.
Enough enthousiasts cameras in the same price range that perform just as good.
A 1 cannot create bokeh with these small and slow lenses anyhow.
Easy answer. We assume that Fuji or Olympus or Panasonic will take the cake, but you need to think about the average consumer and what he/she wants. Fuji/Olympus are catering to enthusiasts, camera geeks, and hipsters - not average joe consumer. For mirrorless to take off, it needs to reach a broader user base. I believe the 1 inch sensor is the absolute best option. Nikon has proven the speed and performance of this sensor, Sony has proven SLR like quality from this sensor and now Samsung has decided to jump into the game. I just wished their was a univeral lens mount for the 1 inch system.
jonikon: The Nikon One J1 with 10-30mm VR lens can be purchased for under $180 in the US, and the V1 with EVF for less than this Samsung as well , and (unlike the Samsung), both have fast and accurate on sensor phase detection auto focus capability for stills and video. The Nikon NI cameras also have a much larger and better native lens selection going out to 300mm (same FOV as 800mm on FX), and the ability to use Nikon FX and DX lenses in full auto mode with the FT-1 adapter. For these reasons, I don't see Samsung's 1" sensor cameras competing successfully with the Nikon 1 system cameras, (especially in the US where Samsung is only thought of as a television and appliance company.)
I don't look at it that way. I believe this is good for Nikon. I think there is a growing trend towards the 1 inch sensor. Sony, Nikon, and now Samsung is aboard.
MFiftysomething: Samsung v Nikon 1 = a race to the bottom $amsung alway discount fast, there are so many J1s on the market at the moment Ebay is awash!
Yes, and people are picking up Nikon J1's left and right due to the firesale which is only helping push recognition of the system. I bought a Nikon J3 on discount and everyone I show it to wants one, but know one really ever heard of it (bad marketing on Nikon's part). To be honest, I think the 1 inch sensor will win the mirrorless sensor war, you have to remember this about consumer adoption and not what forum enthusiasts on dpreview like, we make up a very small percentage of the market. it's your "soccer" mom and dad that will eventually migrate away from the DSLR and they will want something portable in the process.
tjobbe: BTW: the new NX mini draws more attention to the DPR public compared to the OM-D E10 when you just count the number of comments
...and remember: any news is good news
Personally I think it's because the m43rds buzz has fizzled out. All you see on for sale forums these days is piles of m43rds bodies. I think the 1 inch sensor is the new craze and has more potential. Nikon has proved that the Aptina sensor can offer pro level focusing and shot to shot times and Sony had proven that DSLR quality can be obtained from the 1 inch sensor. People want small, but they don't want to compromise on performance, the 1 inch sensor is proven to have this potential and big names like Nikon, Sony, and now Samsung are behind it.
Ivan Azzopardi: From past experience J1 and V1 Image Quality "IQ" is not that good just better than compacts. They were 10mp and they suffer a lot from noise now 18mp?? For small prints they where acceptable. One good point I never went to clean the sensor a good point due to the very small sensor. Hope it will get better IQ. EXT flash same as the dslrs another good point. Now we have to wait and see.
I have the J3, at base ISO the IQ is very hard to distinguish from an SLR in terms of dynamic range, color production and fine detail.
Tripeiro: Let me see, for 800$ you can buy a beautiful e-m10 with a m4/3 sensor and wide selection of great lens. Or for 1200$ you can buy this ugly thing with an attachable EVF, compact camera sensor size and a crappy selection of average lens. Tough choice for the consumer...
This will probably be selling for 600$ in six months.
Hmm, you sound a bit jealous ?
I for one will probably buy the V3. For the last few years I have tried various mirrorless bodies in attempt to sway myself away from DLSRs only to be disappointed: I owned a Fuji XE1 only to find the focus was horrific. I then bought into the OMD EM5 to find the image quality lacking and menu system/button placement to be a mess, and then I tired a Sony NEX 6 (which had superb IQ), but lackluster focus and rather big lenses for the tiny body (save for the 16-50 kit). Just before I was planning to return to a DSLR O tired the Nikon J3. Like many here I discounted the tiny 1 inch sensor and branding without even trying the system. To my surprise (and I do mean Surprise), the image quality was rather stunning in RAW. Operational speed was as quick as any DSLR I have owned and focusing was an easy match for semi pro SLR bodies (with FPS exceeding even Pro SLRs). The metering is rock solid, lenses are wicked sharp and small and the camera delivers IQ than IMHO is superb especially so at low ISO. It's a very balanced system, one that I do believe has more potential than other system, only poor marketing and high prices keep it from being a mainstream product. It was good enough to replace my SLR and the recently acquired 32 1.2 is one of the best lenses I have ever used. I do hope people will try before they write this system off, you might be surprised at what you are missing.
Jimmy jang Boo: dpr writes...
"The X-E2 isn't a great all-rounder... Not so good for sports or action photography."
No wonder MILCs can't gain any traction against DSLRs. Even the latest greatest are handicapped.
My Nikon J3 can shoot 15 FPS raw + JPEG with focus tracking and up to 60 FPS fixed focus. It's easily on par with professional DSLRs, so mirror less can be used for sports and action.
retro76: It a shame I have used Canon since the original Rebel, but over the years I have watched other companies produce better sensors (such as Nikon) and have been disappointed that Canon hasn't updated lenses such as the 50 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, 1.2. Canon is focusing on video, not still photography. Canon has lost me as a customer.
Yes, I know Nikon doesn't make it's own sensors, but it works with Sony and other companies on sensor design. Regardless Nikon has upped the ante over Canon. I am not interested in third party lenses, I know there are good options, but I am big fan of staying OEM when buying into a particular system (for various reasons such as compatibility, performance, resale value etc)
It a shame I have used Canon since the original Rebel, but over the years I have watched other companies produce better sensors (such as Nikon) and have been disappointed that Canon hasn't updated lenses such as the 50 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, 1.2. Canon is focusing on video, not still photography. Canon has lost me as a customer.
Sir Nick of High Point: I feel like the primary reason that compact mirrorless has not caught on in the US, like it has in the rest of the world, is that Americans generally want to look like "real" photographers. We have this misconception that a big camera automatically makes you a professional, and with the disposable income that we have in the US, people simply go out and purchase a DSLR to impress their friends. Just go to a local park and look at all of the parents lugging around massive Nikons just to take pictures of their kids on the slide. It's silly. The Asian consumer understands the benefit of a smaller camera IMO.
It will take a few more years for mirror-less to become mainstream. Remember DSLRs ? For years only pros and advanced amateurs owned them. Now look around and every soccer mom and dad owns a Nikon or Canon DSLR. People in this particular market segment seem to be a few years behind.
Wow that was a very honest interview, something you don't see very often. I am impressed and will definitely take a strong second look at Olympus in the future.
The one thing I cannot figure out: Reviewers absolutely love Fuji cameras, but consumers do not - why is that ?
M DeNero: I see comments like "Wonderful controls!" and "Great ergonomics!" Pardon me for asking, and I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but is there really any benefit to these retro designs other than aesthetics? Modern SLRS have precision, customizable controls that mostly lie right under the finger tips of one hand. You can make adjustments without even thinking about it, while keeping the other hand on the zoom or focus ring. These retro designs seem to have nicer industrial design, but after handling several they seem very clumsy to me operationally. Please enlighten me.
Nope, the retro styling is beautiful but not practical IMHO - in fact I find on these smaller mirrorless bodies that the excess wheels and controls are just more accidents waiting to happen.
Peter Gregg: What a difference a day makes. The new images are representative of what I expect - and was hoping for - from this lens. It is pro level and the results certainly look like it. It seems on par in quality with the 85L II by eyeballing these images. Having both lenses in hand would confirm it, or show the deficiencies. The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field. For most folks this is an advantage making full frame a disadvantage because of the razor thin depth of field. For most purposes this is a big plus, except for those that are looking for an ultra thin range in their DOF envelope.
@Barney, love you man, but asking why someone would take pictures at 1.2 - I can give you a million reasons. On a small sensor such as m4/3rds you can keep the entire subject in focus while achieving the type of shallow DOF you can only get on a bigger sensor. I have the Nikon 1 32 1.2 and all I do is shoot wide-open, to me that is the whole point of owning the lens. Stopped down just about every lens on the market (kit, prime, etc) will perform pretty close these days in terms of sharpness, color and contrast.
That being said I understand it was hard to find good pictures, I think people don't understand that during the day in the desert the lighting is harsh and very "unattractive"