ThePhilips: IMO Samsung needs:
1. NX300 with EVF. I might have bought it. Alas.
2. Pay Sigma and Tamron to make lenses for NX. Single vendor systems are too risky and is a competitive disadvantage in the eyes of the users.
Also. I assume their camera division loses money. IMO they should double down on it, and make NX system truly open for both lens and camera manufacturers.
MF lenses are for the old guys. Here. I said it.
Mr Olympian: I never would have considered Samsung, but a look at their history in other markets, along with the NX1 and the giant firmware updates has changed my mind. If you don't agree, get your hands on a NX1 and you very well may change your mind too.
Not interested in the NX1. But NX300 with EVF, plus the pancake lenses, would have been a sweet deal. Alas, there is no NX300 with EVF.
IMO Samsung needs:
HowaboutRAW: Samsung needs to provide free software (say for download) that will convert the H265 videos this camera shoots, at all resolutions, into the more editor/playback friendly H264 format.
Yes, I realize that GOM, LightAlloy and VLC will play this H265 format, but for some time editing is going to be real difficult sans conversion to H264.
And even the new 5K Mac struggles to play video from this Samsung camera--using VLC for Mac. The Panasonic LX100 4K files play without trouble on the same Mac.
It matters not that Samsung would be giving this software away free for use by any competitor which also chooses to use the H265 format to record MP4 video, since for more than a few months people will ignore the video features on this camera, if the video can be edited.
Windows 10 Beta plays H265 natively in Windows Media Player.
@HowaboutRAW: If Handbrake can do it, then do not both with ffmpeg and VLC. ffmpeg occasionally messed up the A/V sync. VLC conversion never worked for me.
> Yes, I realize that GOM, LightAlloy and VLC will play this H265 format [...]
1. Samsung simply needs to add H.264 as an option.
2. Try the "ffmpeg", a command line tool. According to the interwebs, it has recently gained support for H.265.
Alternatively, VLC can transcode any video it can play. Never worked for me, but they might have fixed it. Doubt it, but it's worth a try.
> And even the new 5K Mac struggles to play video from this Samsung camera--using VLC for Mac.
Don't blame the VLC or hardware. Video acceleration support is provided by Apple and probably at the moment simply doesn't support the format. As soon as the Mac OS itself would support the H.265 (== as soon as iPhone would support the H.265) the video acceleration would work in VLC too.
ThePhilips: Sony should make 35mm and 50mm f/4.0 (or darker) pancakes.
P.S. And 24mm too.
I'm pretty sure the lenses would be popular. If Sony would be smart and make them cheap, they would also serve well as kit lenses.
Otherwise, I'm interested in the "reversed equivalent" lenses: FF lenses which match (as good as they can, software correct and all) the size of m43 lenses.
Sony should make 35mm and 50mm f/4.0 (or darker) pancakes.
Carlos Taylhardat: I wonder when we will have a full frame medium format camera or 8X10 sensor's with hundred of thousands of megapixel's?
One of the promising research directions is actually a camera without lens. IOW sensor is capable of taking an image by itself. So, 8x10 *flat* digital camera isn't that unrealistic.
wetsleet: I'd like to know, comapring say FF with MFT and APSC, what differences in size and weight would result if all the photographic parameters were kept as near identical as possible.
The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture - i.e. each format would need a lens offering equivalent DOF (as well as angle of view, zoom range, etc), hence the smaller formats would need faster lenses.
I suspect that the apparent size/weight advantage of the smaller formats would be considerably reduced in this case .
Of course in this scenario, smaller formats having faster lenses, would give them other IQ advantages and disadvantages.
And what about the cost of such lenses - would they end up just as expensive as FF lenses?
In short, is the trade-off between the different formats really a trade of DOF control versus size-weight-cost?
> The oft-overlooked parameter for me would be equivalent aperture [...]
There is whole DPR forum almost completely dedicated to the topic of equivalence:
SmilerGrogan: Full frame is just a gateway format. The ultimate goal is a medium-format back on something like a Sinar view camera. Until you get 16-bit color and 50 or 100 megapixels, you might as well be fingerpainting.
> Crayola Giant Fingerpaint Paper
Only 16"x12"? What a waste.
And they say Canon doesn't make good imagers anymore...
nerd2: So many people are deluded by the hypes small format manufacturer claims.
a) Small format system is small and lightweight - true for very long zoom (e.g. nikon 1 series) but false for just everything else, if you consider equivalence. Yes, small format MIRRORLESS systems are smaller than FF SLR systems, but that has nothing to do with frame size. Both RX1 and A7 are not any larger than smaller format cameras systems.
> [...] if you consider equivalence.
I do not. Thus I win the whole argument. ;)
Emacs23: Obviously marketing material for amazon to help to sell tons of low quality APS-C crap. Funny to see bunch of nerds here in comments who either have several systems on their shelves or ones shooting crappy pictures who is now talking about "it is photographer". Obvious: in case of the same mount there is no need at smaller sensor at all, just make larger with higher density sensor and this will end up in the way D8X0 eliminated any need in 16Mp APS-C or A7r made old 16Mp NEXes obsolete in terms of IQ.
Why do you use a digital camera at all?
I though Emacs has everything built-in?
Sir Nick of High Point: I'm begining to dislike the term "Full Frame" Every system is full frame if it uses the full sensor area. Can we please use 35mm, or 135 format instead? Let's just all agree on that right now, thanks ;)
Ironically, in German, "full frame", the 135 format, is still called "Kleinbild": small image.
nfarrar: I just don't agree with the general premise. All things being equal a bigger sensor makes better images. Generally speaking better dynamic range, more vibrant color and better bokeh. Its more about physics. As an investment FF lenses are gold. I agree that APS-C lenses can be a little bit smaller and lighters. I own the Samsung NX 16-50mm and 50-150mm S Lenses. They are smaller and lighter than Nikon G equivalents. That being said I'm locked. I was willing to make that deal for the features of the NX1 but if I was going to Nikon/Canon the equation changes in in favor of FF. With Sony E/FE it's a different altogether.
> All things being equal [...]
Stop right there. In real life, the things are never equal.
> As an investment FF lenses are gold.
Unless in 2015, as expected, CaNikon would launch FF mirrorless systems. Which require new lenses (with step motors for AF). Then the "golden" lenses would join the vast ranks of the legacy glass which doesn't really work well on new bodies, can be bough S/H very cheaply, because most users started migrating to the new lens systems.
CameraLabTester: The moment a photography enthusiast removes the concept of "upgrade" in his/her mind... the more enjoyable that photography enthusiast and hobbyist's picture taking would be.
Upgrade spreads the curse of inadequacy, a useful tool of marketing.
> Settling down with "good enough" is what makes people stagnate and stop growing their skills.
Hu? Settling on "good enough" gear is precisely what helps people to grow their skills! Because otherwise they spend more time learning their new shiny gear than actually applying their skills to it.
Even more, settling on "not good enough" gear helps even better with the skill development. Because, without the help of the camera, you have to use the skills more often.
> I'd argue the 'upgrade path' to full frame is a myth.
"Arguing" with a belief is akin fighting the windmills. You might win in the end, but you will not make many friends.
IMO the whole notion of the "upgrade path" is wrong and assumes slow development and limited choices. Like it was in the film era. Yet now we have more choices than ever - and development is still in a high gear.
Things we crave for today, tomorrow are often simply forgotten. Because tomorrow there would be more different things to crave for.
How low Canon has fallen - not a single entry! /s
As not affiliated with any religion: Happy whatever! Get drunk! Get more drunk!! Buy new camera while drunk! Drink more! While wasted, buy the lens you always wanted! And finally: be happy!!
Zol Straub: Watch out for the Grinch ... I'm sure I saw him lurking in the forums.
"Watch out for the Grinch ... I'm sure I saw him lurking in the forums."
It must be the Pentax. Only they make green (and weird) cameras.
PowerG9atBlackForest: "...whatever you say in your part of the world..."
We say "Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes Neues Jahr!"