I just don't know. Where is the market for these cameras? How is the market for these stronger than the market for phones equipped with legitimate cameras? I'm still not convinced that these are better than the Sony NEX + new pancake lens.
utomo99: I think main Go pro problems is the lens distortion. They need to reduce this. so the videos look better.
Not many people need a matrix like effect. but many are need good videos
@LeonTheremin, I have a Ninja 650R.
As stupid as this will sound, GoPros need to be fish eye lenses to catch all the action. When you are surfing or skydiving optical optimization isn't really as much of a priority as just getting the footage.
One place GoPro really does need to improve is with sound. I want to record my motorcycle rides and GoPro's mics are terrible in that regard. They pretty much don't capture anything below 100Hz, I am guessing to minimize wind noise.
When o when o when will a manufacturer get its head out of its butt and combine a proper cell phone with a proper P&S camera? Can you imagine something with a 1/1.3" sensor + zoom + Android Jelly Bean that you could make calls with? I have money locked away for when this device hits the market.
I like my Sony NEX, but like dude said, a camera is no good if it's not on you.
Marvol: I don't think I've seen anybody explain why you shouldn't just get the NEX 3N and stick the 20mm pancake on.
The 3N comes with the 16-50mm lens for around £400. Sell the lens and fetch a decent price for it (£75 to £100). Buy the 20mm for around £280, the combo will cost you a grand total of £680 max.
Both have: RAW,1080p 25 & 50p video, 4 fps max, built-in flash.
+s of the NEX: flipout LCD screen, 2x battery life, 1/4000s v 1/2000s, at least £300 cheaper. with 20mm pancake it's lighter than the Coolpix (!): 280 g v 299g (maybe this excludes the battery; regardless, the difference is not big either way). NEX-3N is 110mm x 62mm x 35 mm (55 mm with the 20mm lens); Coolpix A: 111mm x 64mm x 40mm. I also call this marginal.
+s of the A: higher screen resolution, hotshoe, ISO 25600 (v 16000) and more customisable.
You can buy bodies separately as well. I bought my C3 as a body only, and then got the stock 18-55 all for about $400US. Also don't forget the Sigma 19 2.8. Not pancake, but again, even with the pancake a NEX is not fitting in a pocket.
tommy leong: Much better than that pathetic Canon EOS M
How? Only thing this is better at is fitting in your pocket.
Valentinian: Yes, yes... but why would I buy this $1000 camera when I could buy the $325 panasonic 14mm/F2.5 for my E M-5?and... for those who don't have the E M-5, you could have for about the same dollars this camera with the viewfinder or the E M-5 with the 14mm/F2.5.
The diff in weight between an APS-C mirrorless camera and a 4/3 mirrorless is pretty much nonexistent. As is the difference in price. But the difference in IQ is immediately obvious.
I think Nikon should have made their V1 system APS-C, and made this full frame. As is both are bad ideas and not competitive.
marike6: Same exact size as the RX100, but should have significantly better IQ/high ISO ability and $1100 USD sounds expensive, but it's really only $450 more expensive than the Sony, and well over half the price of the RX1.
28mm is the classical street photography focal length, IMHO. Think Ricoh GRD. There's a reason Ricoh chose 28mm for the legendary GRD, the prototypical street shooter. Many say 35mm is, but shooting in close quarters, Manhattan, Paris or Athens for example, you quickly realize that 35mm and 50mm are not nearly wide enough, especially in the small streets of Europe.
Should be of interest to landscape and architectural photographers because of the high IQ, and lack of AA filter. f2 like the X100 would have been better, but f2.8 on a wide is in no way a deal breaker for me. This camera is significantly smaller than the X100 and smaller than the DP2 Merrill as well.
It's not perfect, but has the potential to be great, and with the VF it sure it pretty.
I am just not sure "pocketability" is really that big of a deal to a sizable market. When I bring my camera out I keep it in a discreet leather doctor's bag or my wife's purse. People are willing to sacrifice a lot for pocketability- the cameraphone speaks to this. I get the feeling it would be smarter + more profitable for Nikon to either design or license its technology to a big phone maker and spread "pocketable IQ" through that avenue. Something like the Samsung Galaxy Camera with "Nikkor Optics" and a good low light Sony sensor (and a PHONE) would be awesome. I would buy one in a heartbeat.
Because 4/3rds mirrorless doesn't make much sense. Why pay full price and deal with the "unpocketability" of an interchangeable lens camera only to get 3/5ths the sensor area? Different strokes for different folks but I'd rather pay $1000 for this than $500 for a 4/3rds
I take back anything bad I had to say about the EOS-M. That is basically Canon's NEX. This is a really expensive toy.
Why are people so obsessed with binning? Using actual larger pixels wins out both logistically and optically
Plus lets be honest. Whats more of a priority for 99% of photographers... pixel peeping a 30 by 40 foot print, or speed? I would be OK with a 4MP sensor if it legitimately went up to something like ISO204800. When in doubt, K.I.S.S.
There is definitely merit to the idea of trading resolution for sensitivity. 2MP is pretty low but I would be fine with something like 6-10MP if I could legitimately shoot at ISO25,600. This could usher in a whole new frontier of low light IQ. This development is long overdue.
That is like eye-wateringly expensive.
Sensors are priced exponentially based on area though due to the odds of defects increasing w/sensor area, so hopefully an FX sized equivalent would only cost $2K or so. Personally I would still rather have a bare-bones FX cam w/the form factor of an old SLR but a legacy mount for <$1000.
Talk about photos telling a story. Wow
I feel like a lower pixel density could yield a much wider dynamic range. But if this tech lets us have the best of both worlds, I can't complain.
sportyaccordy: Samsung is angering me. Why not go the other way and give this... ummmmm.... PHONE CAPABILITY????????????
@timbits... if your cell phone has a camera on it... you already talk into your camera regularly :)
I still think the marriage of the cell phone and camera hasn't been fully fleshed out. This thing along with a conventional cell phone is an absolute no brainer. ESPECIALLY with a full size SD card instead of the dumb microSD crap. Add the capability for an expandable battery pack, I would buy the whole thing TODAY.
vapentaxuser: I like what I see, overall. It uses that tried and true 16MP sensor. I like that the battery life has improved (according to Sony), and I like that they are using the 16-50 lens as a kit lens, which I think is better optically than the old 18-55 (not to mention more compact). I noticed they cut the screen resolution in half over the NEX-F3, which is unfortunate, but not the end of the world.
But really, how much can you knock a camera which gives you the same quality as DSLRs in its price range but can fit in your pocket?
I am saving my pennies for the CZ 24 1.8. I've wanted a lens like that for years and am OK with paying an arm/leg for it. It strikes to the heart of the bulk of the shooting I do. That, the 50 1.8 and a fast tele MF... I will be covered.
io_bg: LENSES, Sony, lenses are needed to make the NEX system attractive for more experienced shooters!
I have the old kit 18-50 and it's fine for 99% of my shooting. I use it a lot too, I must have taken 5K shots since last September when I bought it.
My only "gripe" with the lenses available is that they are pricey. But I would be fine with an 18-200, a ~20-25 f/2 prime and *maybe* a ~70-90 f/2 prime. On a regular DSLR that's maybe $1500 in glass... on this system it's probably double that.
Samsung is angering me. Why not go the other way and give this... ummmmm.... PHONE CAPABILITY????????????
sportyaccordy: Who cares about pancake lenses... the NEX bodies are too big to throw in a pocket, and its a waste to have that big sensor be hampered by a crappy pancake lens. I would rather a 2.8 standard zoom or 1.8 wide angle prime (<24mm). Even if those would be bulky its fine; you dont buy a camera for pretty form factor, you buy it to take pictures!!!
@Einstein Ghost, that's a good picture, but a very specific shot. A wide prime is much more versatile. I analyzed the shots I did over a summer with my 18-105VR and found the bulk of my shots were at the wide end. Furthermore since I got the C3 I have been making extensive use of the panoramic feature. Panorama mode is not perfect though, as you can't control exposure levels, and of course the shutter clicks off like a paparazzi.
If this lens performs on par with or better than the Sigma 19mm then I will pay a premium for it. Still though I would really love something faster.