NicoSi: Min shutter speed setting in auto ISO. That would be a great update for these cameras. My hope dies today :(I will not buy an a6300, Sony.
In the context of a shot, yea, turning a dial to find the right exposure or shutter speed to freeze motion can be "ages" if doing so means missing the shot. There is no downside or cost to having a minimum shutter speed setting, stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Not at all, actually. If you are moving between varying conditions this is actually pretty worthless. You will be fiddling with shutter speeds while the shot passes you by.
Could this be it?
marmotto: this is a bad message for the all samsung customer... also TV, Phone, etc. if i buy a samsung product can i hope for next year customer service ?
Being that they have been making TVs and phones way longer than they have ILCs, and have much bigger market shares in those markets, I would say those customers are fine.
And as far as customer service goes, I have a Samsung TV I bought in 2009.... it had a problem with the power adapter. They sent someone out free of charge to replace the power unit. I didn't have an extended warranty or anything and this was several years after I bought it. A lot of companies would have just said "oh well too bad" but Samsung fixed it. So their customers are OK.
Samsung could not make $$$ with these, bottom line. Pulling out of the market was the responsible thing to do. Look how people are rushing to buy NX gear now that the prices have dropped below what made sense for Samsung.
FRANCISCO ARAGAO: Whats the advantage of this over the Samsung K with 10 x optical Zoom?
Size, I'm guessing.
So much photographic functionality packed in. I'm not going to lie, I'm jealous! I hope they make smaller/cheaper/non WR one, maybe with a 24 MP sensor instead.
$250 question is whether or not it will work for non Sigma glass. If the answer is no I would rather forego Eye-AF and get a conventional adapter like a Fotodiox + IBIS in an A7II. Compared to this + an A7I it's only another ~$200.
This is probably a bigger deal for crop shooters looking for a decent basic zoom. A6000's nonexistent grip will kill the handling though.
Bram de Mooij: Please stop looking at smartphones as being cameras. They are not. They are phones. OK, they are the reason for the decline of the cheap point and shoot cameras. That only shows me that these point and shoots were not really cameras either :-) They were just toys with limited use. Most obvious shortcomings of those toys was the lack of features like mp3 playing, navigation and making phone calls. Just kidding of course.
The fact that the iPhone is the most popular camera on Flickr is misleading in my view. Since the iPhones and other smartphones exist a lot of people that never owned a camera in the first place started to shoot images. They were never potential enthousiast compact camera buyers. Maybe they will be some day :-)
@webrunner I have several prints in my house and at my office. Sadly enough some of the office prints are of Facebook pictures I downloaded
Bram clearly it does matter to you as you have been going back and forth about it for the last day or so.
Is there a market for compact digital cameras? No, as the collapse of the compact digital camera market has proven.
Why does it matter to you what people you don't know and will never meet take photos with?
Exactly. I think it's great that people are interested in photography at all. Sony makes phone sensors so that money and profit still benefits us.
There is no market for a standalone camera that has the same IQ as a smartphone.
You have to realize 20-30 years ago the people shooting smartphones today were shooting with crap 28mm F/8 35mm film compacts or disposable film cameras. Most people don't care about image quality beyond being able to decipher what the camera took the picture of.
Not to mention smartphones today outperform a lot of old ILCs in IQ. Everything is relative. Cameraphone photography is not a crime
If I am going to pay for and carry around a dedicated camera I want the best image quality and the most DoF control I can get for my $$$. For example an RX100 IV has the same DoF control as the 16-50 PZ. Is that little bit more portability really worth the drop in IQ and significantly higher cost vs an A6000 kit? An RX10 II is not fitting in any pocket and weighs 800+g!!!! An A6000 + Tamron 18-200 costs less and almost weighs less and you will be able to use other lenses if you want. I don't think it's any slower either. What utility are folks getting out of these? Seems like the worst of most worlds.
sportyaccordy: Only two important questions.... 1 will it work on the original A7.... and 2 will it work with non Sigma glass? If the answer to either question is no, kinda useless....
Well Entropy512 as you demonstrated with the Techart adapter for full on functionality with EF glass certain parameters have to be looked at and used within the hardware. Unless some "fourth" party (ha ha) comes in and hacks these to use on all EF glass...... it's not looking good. We will see what the tests say though.
Other biggie is the price- again if this doesn't work on the A7/A6000 it's a paper weight. Sigma stuff already works on a $100 Fotodiox.
sportyaccordy: 18-50 sounds like a nice vacation camera. Key will be performance of course- how well will distortion be controlled? Will the lens be sharp? At $849 this could be a viable alternative to a lot of crop UWA zooms, and the extra reach makes it versatile too. Gonna wait and see what prices do.
Big question in my mind is what becomes of Nikon 1?
I just don't see the point of an ILC system for such a small sensor personally. I think this approach makes more sense. I do wish the cameras were a little cheaper but that will come with time. That 18-50 is really enticing though. For ~$500 or so I could do it as a second/wife camera.
18-50 sounds like a nice vacation camera. Key will be performance of course- how well will distortion be controlled? Will the lens be sharp? At $849 this could be a viable alternative to a lot of crop UWA zooms, and the extra reach makes it versatile too. Gonna wait and see what prices do.
sportyaccordy: $339! Don't stop here Sigma.... make something for us FE guys!!!!
3rd party glass is always more affordable. Plus their 2.8 DN primes are even cheaper and are excellent. Way better than Sony's offerings either on IQ, value or both.
Bipbip I don't think there will be compatibility for any non-Sigma lenses, considering not all Sigma lenses are included.
Looking at what I think are the Global Vision lenses, there are some SERIOUS ommissions... both the 17-50 and 24-70 2.8 zooms are not included for example. Hopefully they update them soon, or come out with some new DN versions. Either way, the more I learn about this adapter the less I like it.
This is what the 1 series should have been from the get go