Pana produces real nice P&S.
I wish I have started with Pana and not Canon.
That deserves an extra comment.
The panel showing recently changed camera settings - very very very cool and needs to find its way into more cameras.
Good review. Thanks.
Sad to see that with NX cameras it is still better to shoot in RAW and develop JPEG elsewhere. Otherwise, NX30 packs lots of nice features.
Nice to see that Samsung now cooperates with Adobe on RAW support, but unfortunate that there are no 3rd party AF lenses for the NX.
P.S. A camera which doesn't require a proprietary USB cable!? Is that even possible?! /s
PhotoKhan: It becomes boring (...and motion-sickness-inducing...!) at, exactly, the third shot.
The beauty of "bullet effect shots" is the translation or wrap-movement AROUND the subject.
They should have determined, at the very start of the project, that putting the cameras on bi-dimensional arch would only put out a "meh!" effect.
THIS is a great use of the effect:
That video actually looks boring. The effect and the angle was used so many times in the movies.
IMO The perspective given by the Lumia Arc experiment is something new. "World spinning before your eyes".
Wow. "World spinning before your eyes"
The birds frozen in mid air - amazing!
P.S. So, cheap cameras have their use.And remote control, still weak spot for DSLR and EVIL, too.One can write a special app for smartphone. But try that with equipment from traditional camera manufacturers, who are entrenched in their mantra that if you want something special, you have to pay $$$$$$. And people still ask why camera sales sink: market is moving, but the traditional cameras are refusing to change.
wootpile: I think it's a fair review. 77% feels adequate (perhaps even a bit high?) and the graphs tell the real story. The silver award.. is just an award. A pat on the back for including a oddly tilting viewfinder.. good effort, better luck next time, etc.
> and the graphs tell the real story.
This is actually the weirdest part of the review.
I've seen images from prev gen NX cameras were people were pulling much better IQ from the RAWs. And here graphs make it look as if its DR is literally crippled.
D1N0: Just Pay 30% more and get a Fuji xt-1
@BarnET, you have just listed two most expensive Samsung lenses. Rest is considerably cheaper. While Fuji X...
JKP: SP3 seems to be quite rugged, they had confidence to drop it to floor during the show:
Lame demo. It was dropped on a carpeted floor.
You have to scratch the bottom of the bargain bin to find something what would not survive that kind of fall. And probably even then it would, since the plastic-fantastic cheapo gear weighs less and thus has less potential energy.
BTW, has Apple fixed the problem of heavy NR in Aperture 3 with the GX7?
fyngyrz: Unless something radical has changed, this isn't an update for Aperture 3. This is an update for, and requires, recent versions of OSX. Previous updates have NOT worked for Aperture 3 under OSX 10.6.8
Let me know if I'm wrong, nothing I'd like better than for Aperture 3 to work with my Canon 6D.
Update your Mac OS X. You need to. Apple doesn't support the OS version anymore.
The update to 10.9 is free. I haven't paid for Aperture 3. As OS got updated to the new version, Aperture was too automatically upgraded. (Open the App Store application, search for Mac OS X. It's really free.)
Since 10.9 Mac OS supports RAWs the same way as other image formats. It seems that Aperture 3 makes distinctions between the versions of the Mac OS X.
Otherwise, you can always try to download and install the update manually.
Wye Photography: There are many features in Aperture I really like. But, Adobe Lightroom has better, faster and easier to use features. Come on Apple, Aperture X please!
Read the manual. To use Aperture effectively, you have to read the manual.
For a laptop I still prefer the Macs.
But then, even Apple stopped producing laptops with the matte screen.
I'm not sure whose bright idea it was to make all screens glossy. The glossy screens suck for literally any kind of work. And even for movie watching, seeing half the time your own reflection in the screen doesn't really increase the entertainment value.
When my old laptop stops working, I'm not even sure what to buy next. Pro gear as if disappeared in the last few years.
Calvin Chann: Less is more?
No worries. The MP race would rear its ugly head soon enough.
Cameron R Hood: Wonder who they stole this design from?
"Wonder who they stole this design from?"
I don't know that.
But I know that you stole your comment from the Apple's marketing team. Or they have paid you to parrot it legally all over the internet? Or you stole it after all?
ThePhilips: Improved JPEG engine? Years on - nothing changes - I probably should stop asking.
P.S. $479 for the 20-50 kit. Nice price, Samsung!
@Caerolle: I was talking about MSRP. The X-A1 kit started with $600 MSRP, $120 above this Sammy.
AbrasiveReducer: Thanks for the thorough and quick review. Much more useful than that supremely obnoxious kid in Hong Kong who made a video of himself trying to stuff the camera into his jeans' pocket (check out the YouTube, if you can stand it).
It sounds like the original G1X, except with close focusing. Noise and clipped highlights have never been strengths for Canon. The problem is that by placing so much emphasis on these, it makes that other thing--image quality--seem a pretty minor consideration.
No doubt this camera is worse than the Sony, if pushed 4 stops or used at ISO 12,000 but if somebody is quality conscious enough to buy a camera like this and they keep the ISO reasonable, I'd be surprised if the image quality isn't noticeably better than the Sony. My original G1X has all these faults and more but the RX100 had less detail and much softer corners. I tried a second RX100, too. Looks like nobody's gotten it right but I'll take noise over blurry corners.
"Much more useful than that supremely obnoxious kid in Hong Kong [...]"
If you actually watched the video to the end, you would have known that the camera actually scored a number of positive points. Kai's overall presentation made me actually want to read the DPR's review, instead of flipping through it.
Photato: I don't know why people keep comparing this Canon to the Sony RX100. Different sensor size, different overall size and different zoom range.When compared to ILC cameras, then this Canon G1XII is not so impressive.For the same money people can get a much better package getting a Sony A6000, is like.... no comparison.I don't know what was Canon thinking by intentionally crippling this camera in features that wouldn't cost anything to implement, my ancient Canon Pro1 has features this camera doesn't have and lets not get started comparing it to what a smartphone can do these days.Unless Canon is happy to charge much less of the suggested price is my guess, but I don't see this camera selling well.Another camera for the landfill in a few years.Sony A6000 is much more interesting option for about the same price.
@Banhmi, you forgot to include lens into A6000 dimensions. Quoting Richard: "The a6000 is considerably larger, even with the slower and less rangy 16-50mm lens."
Marty4650: OK, now for the real question.
Why on earth would ANYONE pay more for this downgrade than the cost of a Samsung NX300?
Perhaps it might have "better WIFI" but in every other category it is inferior to the cheaper "old model."
* Fewer focus points (35 vs 247)* Lower top shutter speed (1/4000 vs 1/6000)* Smaller LCD screen (3.0" vs 3.3")* Lower LCD resolution (460,000 vs 768,000 dots)* Slower continuous drive rate (5fps vs 9fps)* Tiny memory card, easy to lose (microSD vs. SD)* No optional GPS available
I just don't see the purpose for this camera. If it appeals to you, then just buy an NX300 and get more camera for less money. The NX300 might even be better built, since it is supposed to be a mid level camera, and not an entry level one.
I will admit "better WIFI" is nice to have. But would you pay more for it if all the other features were downgraded?
"Why on earth would ANYONE pay more for this downgrade than the cost of a Samsung NX300?"
Marty, wake up. You are comparing the street price of NX300 to the MSRP of the NX3000.
Just stop for a moment and marvel: an APS-C based mirrorless kit (which isn't [*beep*] like Sony A3000) with the MSRP of $479. The lowest MSRP on a mirrorless kit so far.
AngryCorgi: Samsung has become the biggest "me too" company on the planet. Let's release an identical camera to every other one except we'll design the exterior "scheme" to mimic Fujifilm's X series or an old film camera. That will differentiate it.
Apple fanbois infiltrated DPR.
People, get a clue: Samsung NX was the first APS-C mirrorless system.
Improved JPEG engine? Years on - nothing changes - I probably should stop asking.