Reading mode: Light Dark

The biggest problem with Samsung's NX system right now

Go to last post
0lf said:
About the price of in-body/in-lens stabilisation system, I think it
is about the same. It is same if we consider that users keep lenses
longer than bodies. So, for the first kit, the cost is higher, but it
will be amortize when people changes the body.
Click to expand...
==============

That's a sensible way to look at the economics. The buy-in per-lens is a bit higher; but since the majors all depend on IS in lenses, the choice is simply having IS; or not having it - but on a per-lens basis. There's less need on a wide-angle, for example. The basis of Pentax' IS was really to allow a slower shutter speed when a bump in ISO was not desirable - but someone shooting a wide angle in daylight should not have the problem to the same degree as shooting a tele.

With a higher-magnification tele, in-lens IS allows for a stabilized image when viewing, which is more comfortable to deal with, and keeps a spot-meter reading on the desired AF point. If the subject moves laterally, you can pan and switch off horizontal stabization right on the lens, while maintaining vertical stability.

There would be less repair cost on a body without either internal-IS, or a screw-drive supporting the AF. Let the lens do both. The body-maker then does not have to design the next model around those 2 functions; and be concerned with maintaining legacy functionality (as Pentax had to with the latest lens series), which annoyed the 6 MP'ers still using those bodies.

The micro/hybrids point up the benefit of eliminating the mirror box, and the attendant mechanicals and weight - and Panasonic G1, in reviews, is being praised for an improved contrast-detect - which will get more out of an f/4.0 lens.

Your main point about the longevity of lenses is important - because there are now rapid technological gains coming in bodies; whereas lenses out there are already of high caliber, including modern optics. This allows a (C) or (N) owner to have, say, a FF body, or a body with movie mode - plus a very inexpensive backup in the form of the XS, as one example. The FF lenses will operate on APS-C; but won't perform as well in some cases as a lens with the appropriate image circle. When lens-makers run out of features to add (and compete with), the price should drop. What's needed is sales volume, and whatever the lens, more 3rd-party can be sold in (N) or (C) mount than anything else; since the OEM lenses tend to be expensive.

Anyone serious about fast-AF in a zoom should seriously check out the f/2.8's; and those are stabilized these days, with ring-USM or the equivalent. Pentax does not have the user base to support marketing those lens equivalents, and is charging about $1500 for the new f/4.0 zoom.
 
--

One of the main advantages of removing the mirror box is reducing the distance from the sensor to the back of the lens. This reduced distance makes smaller and lighter lenses possible. Panasonic and Olympus have understood this advantage, and their micro 4/3 lenses are indeed smaller than digital SLR lenses including 4/3 DSLR lenses. Samsung will need to design new lenses too in order to take full advantage of their NX design. Of course, as a stopgap, one can use an adapter to use DSLR and film SLR lenses on one of these cameras. However, as the new lenses are designed, they will allow the most compact camera/lens system to be assembled.
 
herbzeman said:
--
Samsung will need to design new lenses too in order to take full
advantage of their NX design.
Click to expand...
============

Samsung seems reluctant to offer details; but everything I've read indicates that there will be lenses OEM'd for the NX mount. There are a lot more details out on the G1 mount.

Samsung needs to get NX mount specifics out to the industry, if they're looking for partners. That can be done under NDA's; and there's no reason to think that others have not seen the specs. But note this:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/New_Samsung_NX_Hybrid_camera_with_artificial_intelligence_to_revolutionise_camera_industry_news_279500.html

"SS Park said the hybrid sector is going to be very important, and that the 'industry' expects it to eventually account for 20% of the entire camera market by 2012 – at which point Samsung aims to be the market leader. He hinted that once Samsung has established it's own position other brands will be invited to manufacture under licence, though it was not clear whether he meant other companies making parts, lenses and accessories for the Samsung NX series or whether the 'standard' would be made open in the way that the Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds specification is shared amoung members of the system.

What was clear though is that Samsung will be manufacturing its own lenses from the beginning, and that all the components of the cameras will be Samsung-made, including the APS-C sensor."

--------

(That's pretty definitive - there will be Samsung-brand lenses; and with the register probably similar to the G1; I'd expect the zoom ranges to also be similar to Panasonic's.)

"The use of an EVF has allowed Samsung engineers to significantly reduce the size and weight of the new camera system by decreasing the distance between the lens and image sensor (flange back) by approximately 40% compared to traditional DSLRs."

(They will be very likely be stabilized lenses, as are Panasonics - while Olympus clings to in-body IS because of the legacy user base. PK already offers a stabilized body - so why duplicate that?)

http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/03/samsung-nxseries-has-apsc-sensors-with-evf.html

"However, by looking at the top view of the camera (see picture) we see that there is a movie mode, hot-shoe (investigate the contacts!), and "PASM" (manual exposure, shutter and aperture priority). Focus Numerique has new pictures from Samsung France and they show zoom lenses, and FN goes on to speculate that they look like image-stabilized lenses."
 
The photos from Focus Numerique show the same modified Pentax lenses as what we have seen before. If Samsung desires stabilization, they would be better off using the Pentax system.
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
The photos from Focus Numerique show the same modified Pentax lenses
as what we have seen before. If Samsung desires stabilization, they
would be better off using the Pentax system.
Click to expand...
===========

That's obviously all they had to mount on the bodies for the show. But what are the external switches?

Since they have the GX with stabilization, and the competition (Panasonic) is using stabilized lenses, and the GX will (per the controls) have video mode ...

... AND Samsung is providing their own lenses ...

Don't expect that internal stabilization in the NX, which is a totally different body than the PK. In-body is the cheap way out; and Samsung is not looking for that. You also lose the added profit from the OIS lenses. Since it appears (for now) that only Samsung will provide the lenses, they figure they can charge what they want - Panasonic is doing the same thing.

What the makers are looking at now is how well the G1 lenses are selling. The pricing of the GH1 has turned the G1 into a relative bargain - and if you read the forums, many buyers will be perfectly content to save a bunch, and leave video mode to their videocams.

Check the pricing on the Pentax SDM lenses on Amazon, and the very steep discounts. If someone without a body is going to spend that kind of money, they'll buy a major body brand, and a Ring-USM stabilized lens; not screw-drive.
 
... correcting prior:

Since they have the GX with stabilization, and the competition
(Panasonic) is using stabilized lenses, and the ! NX ! will (per the
controls) have video mode ...

... AND Samsung is providing their own lenses ...

Don't expect that internal stabilization in the NX, which is a
totally different body than the PK.
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
The photos from Focus Numerique show the same modified Pentax lenses
as what we have seen before. If Samsung desires stabilization, they
would be better off using the Pentax system.
Click to expand...
=========

Nearly anyone moving UP from a megazoom already has a stabilized lens, so they're used to that functionality. With the FZ-28 as an example, their long tele shots, and viewing, are stabilized.

If you look at the total brand universe:

a). Pentax never had stabilized lenses; Nikon and Canon did; pre-DSLR.

b). Olympus is another legacy brand, and quite proprietary. Their most logical target market for their MFT is people who already own Olympus lenses. The way to keep them happy is to retain the in-body sensor-shift that they already have on a lighter-mass 4/3 sensor.

c). Sony bought their way in via K/M, and has a similar situation to Pentax. The A900 is out in full-frame with sensor-shift. That's a lot of mass to move around, requiring substantial power as compared to APS-C.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page18.asp

"With 'Super SteadyShot' switched on you can see an immediate improvement. Even down to 1/15th second we're getting at least one sharp shot in four, and almost all are usable to some degree (with just a little softness due to camera movement). As a result of more extensive testing we estimate that the Super SteadyShot system can be consistently relied on to deliver a 2 to 2.5 stop advantage, and can mean the difference between 'usable at a pinch' and 'totally blurred' results at shutter speeds well below the 'one over focal length' rule."

(2 stops is smack where Pentax is; while OIS lenses can handle 4 stops)

---------

Sony says: "The camera’s newly-developed, body-integrated SteadyShot Inside unit achieves an anti-shake effect equivalent to shutter speeds faster by 2.5 to 4 stops. This new unit provides stabilization for Sony, Minolta and Konica-Minolta wide angle, large-aperture lenses, which is difficult for lens-integrated systems."

(and nearly an irrelevant portion of all lenses in terms of focal length; and their need for WA stabilization)

Meanwhile, the two major brands holding over 80 percent of the DSLR market use stabilized lenses; and have done a fine job in engineering them. I've seen the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 in action, and banging off 7 well-focused shots in 6 seconds on a Mark II (that's the body I saw it on) is routine for Ring-USM. Credit the AF in the body as well. The only ambient light was the modeling light on the strobe head, shining through a Westcott Halo.

Other than video-mode, Pentax will not suffer with a 6 percent market share using sensor-shift - especially when shoppers are price-conscious as with the 2-lens kit on the K2000.

If you check all camera best-sellers on Amazon, Canon holds 14 of the top 20 spots. When those P&S-ers move up to a DSLR, they'll favor Canon. Of that top 20, there are 2 Panasonics, 1 Sony, and zero Nikons.
 
philbarton said:
philbarton said:
K110D is 585 gm with 4 batteries and without IS

K100D is 660 gm with 4 batteries and IS

That's just over 12.5 percent weight penalty (75/585).

Pentax K20D weighs 800 gm with Li-Ion
Click to expand...
Pentax K2000 / K-m - 625 g (1.4 lb)

Canon EOS 500D - 524 g (1.2 lb)

---------------

(500D has 15 MP and movie mode and LI-Ion; and still comes in 135 gm
under K100D)
Click to expand...
The IS in body makes for better handling than putting that OIS weight in front of the body, in the lens. You also have to realize that the heavier P bodies are far more solid than the low end C models. Pentax also makes lighter lenses and they all are stabilized.

If you buy or paint by numbers, go ahead and buy a Canon. For me, I will shoot Samsung and Pentax, since an M8 and lenses are a bit too pricey for me to justify.
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
The IS in body makes for better handling than putting that OIS weight
in front of the body, in the lens. You also have to realize that the
heavier P bodies are far more solid than the low end C models. Pentax
also makes lighter lenses and they all are stabilized.
Click to expand...
Pentax LENSES are stabilized??? I thought the IS was in the body. The weight of the element doing the stabilization is minimal, as the USM motor in the lens and the larger barrel are there already. There were some rumors back in 2006 about a Pentax FF, and stabilized lenses for that. The performance of the Sony 900 is 2 stops; just like the K200D.

If I put a camera on a tripod, everything is stabilized.

If you're talking about stabilized lenses, you cannot just inject the body into the discussion as a red herring. The dead-weight of the K20D far exceeds that of a 500D PLUS the Lens. 2 stops won't cut it for a long lens; when you can get 4 stops with OIS.

Pentax makes f/4.0 zooms, and the competition makes f/2.8. Which will deliver better AF performance' no matter which camera? Is the new PK lens worth $1500 with f/4.0?

Pentax K20D weighs 800 gm with Li-Ion

Canon EOS 500D - 524 gm (1.2 lb) (then, add the lens)

=======================
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
If you buy or paint by numbers, go ahead and buy a Canon. For me, I
will shoot Samsung and Pentax, since an M8 and lenses are a bit too
pricey for me to justify.
Click to expand...
===

What does a Leica M8 have to do with anything being discussed? Actually, I find the Nikons more interesting than the Canon - especially the D300 at current prices.

Try sticking to the facts under discussion. OIS gives you 4 stops, sensor-shift gives you two. OIS lets you have stabilized viewing pre-shot - sensor-shift does not. OIS handles panning; sensor-shift does not. OIS is better for pre-metering, since that relies on stabilized viewing.

OIS is a cheap solution, and made some sense for Pentax - cheaper than producing OIS lenses; which the majors have had since the 1990's. Samsung NX will break away to OIS; just as Panasonic has with the G1.

Samsung NX will use OIS lenses - does that mean you're not interested? After all, this is the Samsung forum. If you're happy with sensor-shift, fine - but don't try to pitch it as superior tech.
 
Brand-new d5000 announced tonight - with video mode.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond5000/page6.asp

"As with recent small Nikons, there is no AF motor built into the body, meaning only lenses with autofocus motors will AF on the D5000. All three major third-party lens makers (Sigma, Tamron and Tokina), now sell lenses with built-in AF motors for Nikon."

(As cameras get smaller, more and more you'll find the AF/USM and OIS functions going into the lenses. The 3rd-party makers just have to communicate with the various systems within the bodies. Since these lenses carry a higher profit margin, I expect fewer of the new lenses to be provided in PK mount - but all will fit Canon and Nikon.

One example is the upcoming Tokina 16.5-135mm.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032301tokina16p5to135.asp

This is particularly interesting because of Tokina's close ties to Hoya.)
 
SSS handles panning in olympus cameras.
philbarton said:
Try sticking to the facts under discussion. OIS gives you 4 stops,
sensor-shift gives you two. OIS lets you have stabilized viewing
pre-shot - sensor-shift does not. OIS handles panning; sensor-shift
does not. OIS is better for pre-metering, since that relies on
stabilized viewing.
Click to expand...
 
0lf said:
philbarton said:
Try sticking to the facts under discussion. OIS gives you 4 stops,
sensor-shift gives you two. OIS lets you have stabilized viewing
pre-shot - sensor-shift does not. OIS handles panning; sensor-shift
does not. OIS is better for pre-metering, since that relies on
stabilized viewing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
=========

If you mean Super Steady Shot, that's exclusive to Sony.

This is from the write-up on Olympus E-520:

Enhanced In-Body Image Stabilization -

For the first time, in-body Mechanical Image Stabilization has three modes for increased versatility. IS-1 mode for general shooting adjusts the sensor on both the X and Y axes to compensate for movement by the photographer so images stay sharp even at slow shutter speeds. To capture the motion of athletes and animals, and other moving subjects, the E-520 offers two specialized modes. IS-2 mode is ideal for capturing a racecar flying down the track, preserving the sense of motion while panning with the moving subject and holding the camera horizontally to dramatically portray the car’s high speed. For sharp images of moving subjects like a basketball player charging up the court, the IS-3 mode allows a photographer to hold the camera vertically while panning. The artistic effects of panning enhance the shot and render the player in sharp detail with blurred background.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusE520/page15.asp

"Our tests suggest a clear 2 stop advantage, which is undeniably handy in the real world."

(Again, 2 stops of stabilization - same as Pentax and Sony A900; but with software enhancement to allow horizontal motion. Since the Olympus has to handle less sensor mass, I'd expect better. It does appear that sensor-shift helps with slow shutter speeds; but is no guarantee of sharpness with each shot. The problem would be that someone shooting outside in daylight won't gain from this; but a LENS that stabilizes will even help in bright light to avoid the "wiggles" of long lenses - plus you get stabilized pre-shot viewing. While DPREVIEW is correct in noting that any stabilization is better than nothing; they're not about to get into the debate about which technology is better - they have to review all of the brands on each one's merits.)

-----

"We're not going to weigh in on the in-lens vs. in-body stabilization debate (as each approach has its own advantages), but we do feel that it's really useful to have stabilization of one form or another. Even if you are an experienced, steady shooter whose friends sometimes mistake you for a tripod - you'll find you get a better number of perfectly sharp images if you have IS."
 
philbarton said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
The IS in body makes for better handling than putting that OIS weight
in front of the body, in the lens. You also have to realize that the
heavier P bodies are far more solid than the low end C models. Pentax
also makes lighter lenses and they all are stabilized.
Click to expand...
Pentax LENSES are stabilized??? I thought the IS was in the body.
The weight of the element doing the stabilization is minimal, as the
USM motor in the lens and the larger barrel are there already. There
were some rumors back in 2006 about a Pentax FF, and stabilized
lenses for that. The performance of the Sony 900 is 2 stops; just
like the K200D.

If I put a camera on a tripod, everything is stabilized.

If you're talking about stabilized lenses, you cannot just inject the
body into the discussion as a red herring. The dead-weight of the
K20D far exceeds that of a 500D PLUS the Lens. 2 stops won't cut it
for a long lens; when you can get 4 stops with OIS.

Pentax makes f/4.0 zooms, and the competition makes f/2.8. Which
will deliver better AF performance' no matter which camera? Is the
new PK lens worth $1500 with f/4.0?

Pentax K20D weighs 800 gm with Li-Ion

Canon EOS 500D - 524 gm (1.2 lb) (then, add the lens)

=======================
philbarton said:
If you buy or paint by numbers, go ahead and buy a Canon. For me, I
will shoot Samsung and Pentax, since an M8 and lenses are a bit too
pricey for me to justify.
Click to expand...
===

What does a Leica M8 have to do with anything being discussed?
Actually, I find the Nikons more interesting than the Canon -
especially the D300 at current prices.

Try sticking to the facts under discussion. OIS gives you 4 stops,
sensor-shift gives you two. OIS lets you have stabilized viewing
pre-shot - sensor-shift does not. OIS handles panning; sensor-shift
does not. OIS is better for pre-metering, since that relies on
stabilized viewing.

OIS is a cheap solution, and made some sense for Pentax - cheaper
than producing OIS lenses; which the majors have had since the
1990's. Samsung NX will break away to OIS; just as Panasonic has
with the G1.

Samsung NX will use OIS lenses - does that mean you're not
interested? After all, this is the Samsung forum. If you're happy
with sensor-shift, fine - but don't try to pitch it as superior tech.
Click to expand...
I do not see any reason for OIS lenses. They add the weight in front and do take away from the handling of the camera.

The real joy of using a smaller body is having the smaller lenses to create a better handling package. So far, the only companies to offer small, nose bleed level lenses are Leica and Pentax. Making a small body and then throwing on an OIS tourist zoom sort of defeats the purpose. Stabilizing those small lenses makes the experience a lot better and the only way to do that is to stabilize the body. In real world emperical experience, users are getting 3-4 stops. You quickly learn that careless swaying and bobbling are what takes away your effectiveness. A little awareness gets you the great results.
 
I mean Sensor Shift Stabilisation
philbarton said:
0lf said:
philbarton said:
Try sticking to the facts under discussion. OIS gives you 4 stops,
sensor-shift gives you two. OIS lets you have stabilized viewing
pre-shot - sensor-shift does not. OIS handles panning; sensor-shift
does not. OIS is better for pre-metering, since that relies on
stabilized viewing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
=========

If you mean Super Steady Shot, that's exclusive to Sony.
Click to expand...
 
0lf said:
I mean Sensor Shift Stabilisation
Click to expand...
=====

OK - we are all too acronym-happy these days; and different companies use different names for essentially the same thing - making it more confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor

The (ultrasonic motor) technology has been applied to photographic lenses by a variety of companies under different names:

Canon – USM, UltraSonic Motor
Minolta, Sony – SSM, SuperSonic Motor
Nikon – SWM, Silent Wave Motor
Olympus – SWD, Supersonic Wave Drive
Panasonic – XSM, Extra Silent Motor
Pentax – SDM, Supersonic Drive Motor
Sigma – HSM, Hyper Sonic Motor

In Canon's case, the Ultrasonic Motor is screw-drive (similar to Pentax); and USM is Ring-USM. There was also micro-motor, just to make it worse.
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I do not see any reason for OIS lenses. They add the weight in front
and do take away from the handling of the camera.
Click to expand...
========

Therein lies the problem - you don't understand the advantages of stabilized pre-shot viewing, or panning (which the PK lacks), or more accurate metering. The OIS lens is continually functioning - which means, when shooting action, you can get a good idea of what's being imaged WHILE shooting a sequence, in terms of stability. With sensor-shift, you'd have to examine each image individually ... and based on the poor hit-rate per the tests, shoot extra frames. If you're shooting a static scene, fine. But if you're trying to "catch the moment", you want maximum stabilization (4 stops, not 2 stops, and a stabilized image as you're about to take the shot) - that requires OIS.

Sensor-shift buys little to nothing at a shutter speed of 1/125th or faster - the fast shutter is doing the "stabilization", so to speak, based on the brief exposure. This is dependent on the actual camera - for example, on a Spotmatic, the slit in the curtain closed ... but it still required 1/60th of a second for the curtain travel - even when shooting at 1/500th. That's the basis of the X-sync speed. DSLR's are faster, but the sync speed is still the clue.

For high shutter speeds and a subject in motion, you may have to shoot while panning (gives you that nice blurry background); or otherwise judge the moment to press the shutter. With a stabilized image view, you can compose better, and pick the moment better. You can concentrate on the subject (wherever it's headed), and let the lens compensate; rather than depending on your timing (and sensor shift) to get lucky. You can stop worrying about a gust of wind.

If you don't need that kind of capability, you have the right camera. If you're willing to take 10 shots at slow speeds to get two, you have the right camera. And there's no point in discussing it further.
 
philbarton said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I do not see any reason for OIS lenses. They add the weight in front
and do take away from the handling of the camera.
Click to expand...
========

Therein lies the problem - you don't understand the advantages of
stabilized pre-shot viewing, or panning (which the PK lacks), or more
accurate metering. The OIS lens is continually functioning - which
means, when shooting action, you can get a good idea of what's being
imaged WHILE shooting a sequence, in terms of stability. With
sensor-shift, you'd have to examine each image individually ... and
based on the poor hit-rate per the tests, shoot extra frames. If
you're shooting a static scene, fine. But if you're trying to "catch
the moment", you want maximum stabilization (4 stops, not 2 stops,
and a stabilized image as you're about to take the shot) - that
requires OIS.

Sensor-shift buys little to nothing at a shutter speed of 1/125th or
faster - the fast shutter is doing the "stabilization", so to speak,
based on the brief exposure. This is dependent on the actual camera
  • for example, on a Spotmatic, the slit in the curtain closed ... but
it still required 1/60th of a second for the curtain travel - even
when shooting at 1/500th. That's the basis of the X-sync speed.
DSLR's are faster, but the sync speed is still the clue.

For high shutter speeds and a subject in motion, you may have to
shoot while panning (gives you that nice blurry background); or
otherwise judge the moment to press the shutter. With a stabilized
image view, you can compose better, and pick the moment better. You
can concentrate on the subject (wherever it's headed), and let the
lens compensate; rather than depending on your timing (and sensor
shift) to get lucky. You can stop worrying about a gust of wind.

If you don't need that kind of capability, you have the right camera.
If you're willing to take 10 shots at slow speeds to get two, you
have the right camera. And there's no point in discussing it further.
Click to expand...
--

Wild speculations make good reading but have little bearing as far as what happens in the real world. I have read so much about how my Antishake only gives me 1/4 the benefit it actually and consistently provides in real life. I read about how my JPEG engine sucks and I need to shoot RAW, when ACR pales in its abilities compared to the stinky JPEG engine. There is too much variance and variance is evil. I will stick with the consistent, emperical truth.
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
If you don't need that kind of capability, you have the right camera.
If you're willing to take 10 shots at slow speeds to get two, you
have the right camera. And there's no point in discussing it further.
Click to expand...
--
Wild speculations make good reading but have little bearing as far
as what happens in the real world. I have read so much about how my
Antishake only gives me 1/4 the benefit it actually and consistently
provides in real life. I read about how my JPEG engine sucks and I
need to shoot RAW, when ACR pales in its abilities compared to the
stinky JPEG engine. There is too much variance and variance is evil.
I will stick with the consistent, emperical truth.
Click to expand...
======

Wild speculations? You mean the way a pro shoots? If you don't need more than you have (whatever that is), it would be a waste to spend more.

Those who understand the benefits contribute to the 80-plus percent market share of Canon and Nikon; because they had access to OIS lenses. With film, the shooter had no firm knowledge of what would develop later - and OIS was a good insurance policy, where a tripod was not usable.

The JPEG is the same problem - those who review cameras know what the competition has, and what Pentax has - and they rate the JPEG according to what else is out there (not what makes you happy).

Variance in digital is far greater than with film - because of the difference in sensor characteristics; as well as the post-processing in the camera. Canon produces their own chip, and does the noise correction up front; not afterwards. If you're looking for absolutes ... who about the front/back focus problems that need correction? The result is that many buyers try different cameras - but you can do that with Canon and Nikon, and keep the same lenses - just try a different body. You can also rent those major brands; and the lenses as well - which can help to determine which one suits you best.

I gave up on buying "the next Pentax" years ago - branding was secondary to capability. Pentax, frankly, owes their loyal base more than they've gotten, IMO. That said, I don't think that they can accomplish that with a 6 percent market share.

The NX will be a radical departure, and not an "automatic" purchase for the Pentax owner - unlike Panasonic, which shares the 4/3 sensor. The question for Pentax is this "mystery" due to arrive in June. My own feeling is that since it has not been defined (I've read more about what it ISN'T than what it IS), a number of legacy owners won't be satisfied with it. The Canon or Nikon DSLR path, on the other hand, is very well defined - with a large choice of models to try out, with the same lenses. Less "variance"; so to speak .....

Bye .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top