Hubertus Bigend: If they'd given it a finder, and a hotshoe, they could have made me interested.
right, cause that's what everyone's looking for on a $300 compact.
some EVF accessories cost $300 by themselves.
why a hot shoe for a compact? if you're going to add big accessories on it you might as well use a mirrorless/DSLR.
people get so fixated on features that they can't get their heads out of their butts and think about a market audience other than themselves.
but will it be better than a gopro?
maybe panasonic and canon are trying to say "look, our cameras are so small you won't mind having them alongside your better smartphone"
connectivity is nice but a little wi-fi and a few apps aren't going to save the compact sector.
why canon came out with 10 new compacts this year is beyond me.
seriously, are they even making any money off these? it's like they're stuck in the cycle or clutching to the past.
just cause you make a camera smaller doesn't mean people are going to want to carry it around.
bigger sensors and zoom are the right decision- image quality is the only reason anybody's going to still buy a compact alongside a smartphone, along with the ability to zoom farther. smartphones have everything else and do it better (stupid scene modes vs actual apps? 3g connection w/out having to pay for an extra device?).
what companies need to figure out is how to advertise this information to consumers so they become educated about what's important and what's not.
Vlad S: Samsung has some interesting ideas, but it's always a step behind the competition in the areas that really matter. The NX sensor performance is worse than even micro 4/3, despite the larger size. The lens line up is lagging behind. It's just not a particularly compelling system. I wish it was, because competition drives development, but it's simply to easy to write off as an "also ran."
well....i would say that the first generation nx sensors are definitely worse than the gh3 and omd, and slightly better than first gen. m4/3 sensors. but the new nx sensors are definitely better than the first gen. m4/3 sensors, and perhaps mildly worse than the gh3/omd. who knows about the nx300 sensor though
jj74e: You know, I usually expect a good number of negative comments on any new Samsung products, but I was genuinely surprised at this one since the NX300 seems like such a decent product.
1/6000 shutter speed is better than most products. They've added a bigger screen which helps with quick review and using the touch feature (although hopefully battery life won't take too big a hit). Video is improved, there's phase AF now too (hopefully it will be more useful than Canon M's use of it ;)), and it says it uses an all new sensor- and you guys are already shunning it without seeing what it can do.
Idk about you guys but I love the camera's looks- retro yet modern and elegant. Honestly I think tilt screens are the worst of both worlds- thicker body and not full flexibility- I was hoping Samsung would be first to put an articulated screen on a rangefinder, but it's better than nothing.
Faster performance, and its movie button looks smartly placed out of the way unlike Sony.
I'm not saying it will be perfect- a faster shutter speed and burst fps doesn't mean samsung has fixed its RAW file sizes or buffer times, and a lot remains to be seen when people actually can do hands on reviews- but likewise people shouldn't be writing it off as worthless so quickly.
One unrelated thing- on the black model, the hand-grip sided neck strap lug looks well hidden and out of the way so you don't have to awkwardly grip the camera around it, but on the white model it is sticking out. Interesting inconsistency there, but I'm glad Samsung is improving its ergonomics.
You know, I usually expect a good number of negative comments on any new Samsung products, but I was genuinely surprised at this one since the NX300 seems like such a decent product.
Donald Duck: "The larger the sensor the easier it is to get very shallow depth of field effects. The flip side of this is that it can be harder to get everything in focus when you do want to."
Incorrect, there is no flip side. You just need to use equivalent f-stops (and equivalent ISO, if needed). When you do want the same DOF, you should know a thing or two about that.
"easier" "harder" not "impossible"
changing f-stops and ISO isn't always the ideal change of settings. When you want to do some photography, you should know a thing or two about that.
kind of cool, kind of boring.
Nice, but if they were going to add functionality to the movie record button, why didn't they just let you map out another function to the button.
I'm confused as to why the Blackberry Playbook is included in this article if it is rated so low compared to the other offerings. That in addition to the lack of some kind of order (e.g. best to worst) makes this article feel a bit unorganized, like a random list rather than a helpful tool.
That's not to say it isn't helpful; it's just a bit odd.
jj74e: Ugh, people try to be such purists all the time.
I'm guilty of gear hunting sometimes too- the technology fascinates me; who can blame me?
And while I agree that the bulk of successful (success being defined on whatever grounds you desire) photography comes from more intrinsic qualities such as a trained eye, experience, and passion, that doesn't mean we should feel guilty or obligated to be negligent of what gear we choose since "they all produce the same image quality, more or less, these days" anyway.
Gear matters. A craftsman might be able to do the job with the wrong or outdated tools, but a craftsman with the right tools can do the job that much better.
Have I exceeded the capability of my current camera? No. But a camera that can actually shoot in low light, something that focuses fast enough where MF isn't practical, customization that makes your workflow easier- these will improve my photography, and even reinvigorate my passion.
Then you might say, does a real photographer need new gear to reinvigorate their passion for photographer?
Well, no, of course not. Sorry, but we're not all purists. Similar to mobile photography and the onslaught of smartphones, maybe not everyone's looking for gear as the only way out of their mediocre photography. Maybe- GASP- it's just a hobby, and the gear goes along with that hobby.
Should you buy every new body that comes out every year, or even less than that? Probably not. Should you hold off on a purchase because you feel you haven't improved intrinsically enough that it's your actual gear that's limiting you and not your own abilities?
Of course not. New gear can = new passion can = new experiences can = improvement. Whatever the case, photography is in the eye of the beholder; to each his own- make it your own, gear and all.
Ugh, people try to be such purists all the time.
jj74e: Is anyone else not that excited?
I mean, the site looks great- similar to other tech sites but a bit cleaner.
However, given the rate of reviews- the meat of dpreview's content- I'm not sure dpreview can provide enough content to keep readers interested.
When a new review comes out, it's great. But for the other weeks, I scarcely check dpr. Now there's an entirely new section and lens reviews? I'm not so sure..
Well, honestly, I'd be OK if the reviews were less thorough if it meant more reviews.
But I just meant, given the rate of new content now on just this site, I'm in doubt of whether or not DPR has the manpower to produce enough content for lens reviews and this new site. But I guess they hired more people...?
Is anyone else not that excited?
kewlguy: Samsung... they know how to make a gadget with a pile of features... but that's it, just gadget. My Galaxy Note with its yellowish display and bad ergonomics is a proof to that...LOL
....so why'd you buy one...troll.
micksh6: For Samsung it's just a way to sell $300 camera for $500+. For customers it's a ripoff.Samsung WB850F costs $300. IMO it's overpriced already and probably is a tough sell.
So, they change display and CPU, add broadband chip (which together would add something like $50 BOM) and give to wireless carrier such as AT&T.AT&T will probably sell it for around $200 and will subsidize Samsung another $350 (equals contract early termination fee).
Customers will pay $200 + $30 * 24 contract months = $920 over 2 years contract. Or more if they exceed monthly bandwidth allowance (16MP images are large).
A proper connected camera should not require adding another data plan. It should be able to tether to cellphone with bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Just like tablets and laptops do - allow to reuse existing cellphone data plan.
Unfortunately, many don't know how to connect laptop or tablet to cellphone without paying extra for tethering. Or, maybe people don't count monthly bills.
I mean, plenty of people are willing to pay for an extra data plan for their tablets. You can't really add data plans to the cost of a camera; if people want to pay for it, they'll pay for it.
The WB850F is cheaper than other travel-zoom compacts in the same market sector; it's not really overpriced in comparison to other companies' cameras.
It can still share files via Wi-fi direct, so you don't necessarily need to pay for a data fee as long as Samsung decides to sell the camera in conventional stores and not just through carriers, just like their tablets and stuff.
"legendary in-depth reviews"
lol. not that i'm saying dpreview's reviews aren't good. but legendary? eh...
smartcam sound like a cheap plastic toy you give to your kid.
it doesn't flow the same way smartphone does, partially because of the actual sound, partially because it wasn't a true product innovation and it was more of a necessary step to keep the market alive.
also, not sure on this, but hasn't samsung been calling their wifi enabled cameras smart cameras already? another score against that name?
camera...phone....wireless...just call it the cameroneless.