mpgxsvcd: I think most people are missing the big picture here. This camera is a huge leap over its predecessors. It has great AF, excellent video features including very good 1080p @ 60 FPS, class leading 20 FPS burst, a very small size with a decent grip, a built-in flash, and most importantly a very reasonable initial price.
Sure everyone wants 4K @ 30 FPS, a hot shoe, a built-in EVF, and a faster aperture kit lens. However, those things all cost a lot of money. For this camera to be successful it has to appeal to customers who aren’t willing to shell out the money for an LX100, RX100 MK III, or a G7x.
This camera is meant for people that want a small interchangeable lens camera that takes better photos and videos than their phone. This camera will do that for a very reasonable price.
I wouldn't buy this camera myself because I have the LX100. However, I would recommend this camera to someone who isn’t willing to pay that price but insists on getting an interchangeable lens camera.
@ godspeaksThat's just means this isn't the right piece of equipment for your particular obsession with 4k. Not everyone sees 4k as being mandatory and for those that believe so, there are plenty of other choices. I don't want to pay for 4k in a camera like this and neither do most of the target audience.
BeaverTerror: The first as of yet unreleased products to become available will be the 90 and 16mm lenses, not the teleconverter. Did the writer of this article even look at the map?
My God ... The minutia....
Caudata: Now if they just make the XF120mmF2.8 R Macro a "WR" lens then I may just switch systems. I actually need the WR for when I am shooting wildlife photography and that lens would be a very nice option.
You shoot butterflies in the rain?
JhvaElohimMeth: I think that to compete in all aspect with micro 4/3 fuji would need a cheap and portable 56mm f/2...And maybe a small camera like x-m1 but with a decent electronic viewfinder...
So you can have Fuji quality and a very small set of good quality lenses:18mm f/227mm f/2.8and the 56mm f/2 (maybe they won't never produce it...).
Now I have GX1 with elec. viewfinder, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and sigma 60mm 2.8
I would like to try Fuji quality but I would be obliged to have a bigger body just to have finder, and there's no small fixed focal tele lens for that system...
@ crwl ... Nail on the head. The 60mm on an xe-1 or 2 is absolutely inexpensive and everything Jhva is looking for.
select: I think that actually Fujifilm is the one who's investing more in producing great lenses, small, light, high quality... the perfect match... good job guys! the other companies should learn from you
Yeah, but.....not everyone would agree that some of these latest lens releases are exactly "small" or "light" even though this is mirrorless APS- C. The latest 16-55, 50-140, and upcoming tele-prime and 140-400 are good-sized gear, albeit still small-ER and light-ER compared to FF. Still, good to have these in the lineup for anyone who needs them, but there can come a point in the telephoto realm where m4/3 starts to make Fuji gear look large and heavy comparatively speaking.
Anastigmat: Fuji is making the same mistake Olympus made with the 4/3 standard. They straight-jacketed themselves with a sensor smaller then FF, and therefore they will always have the disadvantage of fewer megapixels. Canon has just announced a 50mp FF camera. No micro 4/3 or APS-C sensor camera can come close to that many pixels for the foreseeable future. Canon can also increase pixel density further in the future because 50mp still has much larger pixels than their 24mp APS-C models. A FF sensor with the same size pixel as a 24mp APS-C sensor can pack 63mp.
Another "bigger", "more is better" forum fighter. Maybe Anastigmat should consider shooting LARGE FORMAT exclusively.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton coined the phrase, "it depends on what 'is' is" during congressional hearings. With regards to this particular matter of upgrading I would suggest that an upgrade in the photographic equipment realm doesn't mean just a bigger sensor or faster lens or sturdier tripod, etc. in other words, one can "upgrade" by selling his FF gear and going APS-C or m4/3 if it means the new gear will be used more, or for a different purpose that's appropriate.
The problem here is the ongoing perception that bigger and faster are "better", when in fact they're just different. You can dig a hole with a pick and shovel or use a backhoe. It will take longer to do manually versus mechanically, but has the benefit of physical exercise that the excavator cannot provide. If someone is a professional hole digger it would probably make sense to own a backhoe even though it costs much more than a pick and shovel but is necessary in the interest of production for income.
xsamie: If you are doing some woodwork at home you can pretty much use anything. If you do enough woodwork or if you like it enough, you may want to invest on some more equipment. Similarly, if your woodworking is a source of income and you only have a carving chisel, you might actually be losing money. A 10k machine might be a better deal if can get better quality in less time.
It is the same thing with photography, the camera is just a tool. You have to balance quality/price/use ... and size!
These days we have a broad range of prices and sizes to achieve amazing quality for any use.
Of all the comments made here, this is by far the most sensible.
I love shooting my nikon d600 with sigma 24-105 and 120-400 lenses. For the type of travel documentary stuff I do I find it to be fast and the results are Impressive as all get out.
I just returned from 3 days off on the central California coast, where I shot a couple hundred pics with my also-fantastic fuji xe-1 and 18-135 lens while on a holiday weekend. I shot video using my fantastic Sony RX100. I took those cameras because they're excellent at what they do, just like my FF Nikon and they take up less space and are less conspicuous.
There is no "better" .... There's just different. It's all good stuff. Just shoot and quit with the divisiveness about which format is better and why.
M.B.: Win what? Is it just going to be failed marketing plot to sell pricy low range and inadequate products? We have mass market full frame compact auto-focus film cameras 30 yrs ago. There was so little difference in image quality to mirrored counter parts back then. Since digital compact camera appeared in early 90's, consumers had been getting stone age quality stuffs unless you can afford premium price in R1. Like high resolution music and vinyl discs are now only enjoyed by privileged few. In the last 2 decades, consumers pay for update versions of camera housing nothing more than extra bits of computing power to cover up for the deficiency in smallish sensor. As we can see phone companies can do computing job better than camera companies. RIP for point and shoots until the firms do what they had done 30yrs. ago. Having been in the market since the very beginning of digital point and shoots, I stopped buying since 2010. There simply isn't anyone with quality that is reasonably priced.
Total nonsense. So don't buy new --- there are any number of excellent quality models that can be had at very reasonable cost (less than $1000) once they're 1-3 years old. If you're looking for a top model for $100 then stick with what you own.
ThePhilips: NX1 is good but expensive.
I want to see what of the tech would trickle down to the NX400 and the NX3000.
What chances are that Samsung would do a low MP (e.g. 12MP) BSI sensor for the entry level cameras?
It's only expensive for a gear head who thinks he needs multiple systems from compact to APS-c to FF, and yeah ... There are a whole lot of enthusiast photogs that do own multiple systems.
But like any other system, people sell what they own to buy the next great thing. A newbie photographer isn't likely to plunk down 2800 for a high-level camera like this anyway.
Kudos to samsung for getting involved at this level.
brelip: interesting for sure, but a lens no one is asking for! They should have made this a DX and half the weight and cost!
I agree, but DX-specific lenses tend to be cheaper and use 100% of the glass rather than just the center on FX.
Zerixos: I've got both the 28 and the 85 1.8G what are great lenses to use, even on the D800. This will be a nice add to the bag for landscapes. If They come with a new 105 or 135G, my bag will be pretty much filled for the next coming years.
You might like the tokina 16-28 ... I certainly do.
fakuryu: It may be APSC but that XF50-140 f2.8 and FW update news from Fuji sounds more exciting than the D750.
LMAO...they're ALL "usable" at ISOs over 6400. I said quality, and professionals agree. I also didn't say that the nikon and fuji were the same thing. I said they're equally great for what they offer. If the 750 just blows your mind and you gotta have it and don't care to know what real nikon pros like hogan think about it that's your call, but at the end of the day this is just another DF approach to regurgitating product. When they really make something different then it might be worth getting excited about. There will always be those that have to have the latest gizmo tho....more power.
LukeLT63: In 2008, for those who wanted to buy a full frame SLR Nikon had only two alternatives, including assessment of: the expensive, professional Nikon D3 or the more affordable but still powerful Nikon D700. Then there were the D300 Semi-Pro (for those in need of speed) and the D90 (for the amateur photographer is not sports). Only four cars between FX and APS-C. All different from each other but with a gradual improvement continues from body to body according to need (D90 - D300 - D700 - D3).
Let's not forget the used market because it's not exactly extinct here --- D600, D700, D3, D3S, D4, D4X, D800, and D800E means there are a total of 13 different variants of full frame. Craziness when you consider the non-development of the DX format D300 / D300S.
samfan: It's hard to believe how much they managed to frak up another thing.
Except that the d750 is another Frankenstein approach to camera regurgitation in the same way the DF is....cobbling parts together from already-existing models isn't exactly making anything new, just different.
venancio: I would have concluded that a lot of intellectual thinking had been made in conjuring up this new offering except that a lot of shooters and thinkers believe this is not a D700 successor, even if mathematically, 50 was added to 700. While we must give the D750 the benefit of the doubt and welcome it as a new tool, sort of, it can't diminish the suspicion that the old strategist at Nikon is whispering this is the best that can be done for the moment, deal with it, because Canon is not even doing anything better, for the moment. It's like saying this is the duct tape that acts as palliative to the diminishing inertia of the DF. What's up, Sendai? Anything new cooking yet?
Dimit: Boring,boring..500 men commenting on minor upgrades/downgrades of the same and the same Nikon FX variations.Get a Nikon FF-if this is what you like- and stay there for 5,6,7, years..nothing spectacular is going to change..4 (!) ff models just to keep naive interested..
Nail in the head there Dimit. Yep.
Oh please ... Spare us the fanboy nikon rant. Read Thom Hogans report on the d750. ... It's not the big deal you think it is. I shoot a d600 with all the best glass as well as a fuji xe-1 with their 3 zooms (10-24) (18-55) (55-200). Both systems do great for what they are. The D750 is no ISO 10k wonder and anyone who knows their stuff would tripod-mount in light that requires an insane ISO like that if quality mattered.
Sannaborjeson: Got lost in Fuji's model range.Too many same-looking cameras with nearly identical features and IQ.
This is true -- they have released a dozen models that are all similar.