DSLRUsers.com

PMA 2009: Samsung has today officially unveiled its new 'hybrid digital camera' system, in the shape of the NX series. Similar in concept to Micro Four Thirds but using a larger APS-C sensor, this new system is designed to combine the performance and quality of an SLR with the convenience and portability of a point and shoot. By replacing the mirror box and optical viewfinder of an SLR with an electronic viewfinder, the NX series is designed to allow smaller and lighter bodies and lenses. The first model of the NX series will be available in the second half of 2009.

For more see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp.

Is this the trend of the future?

That looks interesting. Now that there is a a 4/3 based system AND an APS-C based system I hope that Nikon and Canon follow suit! Bring back those pancake lenses (I would prefer to have an interchangeable lens system).

Waste of time, I'm afraid.

The lack of a mirror box creates as many problems as it solves: live view is never as reactive as reflex view, and that, for me, is a deal breaker.

Apart from the fact that Samsung make how many premium quality lenses?

i gotta say, i dont understand this. its still not gonna fit in your pocket or your girls handbag so whats the point ? to me its either a dslr or a P&S for convenience. micro 4/3rds i can understand alot more that this. no way will i sacrifice my OVF just for the sake of 10mm and 100 grams.

It's a new market segment that has been building for some time. First was the Sigma DP1, then the Micro 4/3rds, now the Samsung.

As much as we don't want or even maybe need another format, eventually, one of these cameras is going to hit a sweet spot and then watch everyone jump in.

It doesn't really matter Gary, that Samsung has no premium lenses yet. What does matter is that the mount to film plane is very short, so just about any other lens should be usable on this camera with an appropriate adapter.

At the end of the day, some people are trading image quality for weight. In fact, we probably all are, otherwise we'd still be using 4x5's

Put me down as 'watching with interest', but still not ready to park my DSLR yet...

photohiker wrote:It's a new market segment that has been building

Building?

That suggests growth. Of the positive variety. Of which there is not a whole lot.

for some time. First was the Sigma DP1, then the Micro 4/3rds, now the Samsung.

All of which - combined - have had the impact of dropping a grain of sand onto Bondi Beach.

As much as we don't want or even maybe need another format, eventually, one of these cameras is going to hit a sweet spot and then watch everyone jump in.

Yep. I've been watching ... it's almost as exciting as watching the grass grow.

It doesn't really matter Gary, that Samsung has no premium lenses yet.

Yes, it does.

The market segment for which these cameras are targeted will not go out looking for adaptors to that they can fit their 70-200 f/2.8 IS or their 24-70 f/2.8 ... or whatever. They will all be manual focus, manual exposure, stopped down focus too ... all the realm of those who are fluent in the language of photography.

Why would any such person even consider something like this Singsong, which will undoubtedly not have anything like the performance of even a D40, yet it won't be significantly smaller than the D40?

This is pure folly: a marketing idiot (tautology alert) gone troppo. And the sooner he starts to take his meds, the better.

At the end of the day, some people are trading image quality for weight.

A role which the Canon G9/G10 models fill better than this Swansong will ever achieve.

And of course, this is totally contrary to your suggestion that people will buy adaptors and then use their existing glass (which will increase the weight, not reduce it) on this body.

Put me down as 'watching with interest', but still not ready to park my DSLR yet...

I think that this Singsing is dead in the water ... and the sooner the whole concept drowns, the better.

Talk of lenses is irrelevant imho. What's the point of getting a very small body and then lugging around a 70-200 f2.8 monster? So what's the point for such a camera?

gstark wrote:Waste of time, I'm afraid.

The lack of a mirror box creates as many problems as it solves: live view is never as reactive as reflex view, and that, for me, is a deal breaker.

Apart from the fact that Samsung make how many premium quality lenses?

They won't be able to compete with Canon and Nikon with their many hundreds of lenses and tens of bodies...not to mention image quality, build quality, support, reliability etc etc etc etc

They should just give up while they can...especially in this economic climate... not the best time for glamorous failures... I bet this would be like original APS film market!

gstark wrote:

At the end of the day, some people are trading image quality for weight.

A role which the Canon G9/G10 models fill better than this Swansong will ever achieve.

Maybe. As good as the canon is, it is still packing 14.7mp out of a tiny 1/1.7" sensor. A typical APS-C Sensor (like that in the 'Singsong', and the DP1) is over 8 times the surface area. Even the 4/3rds is over 5 times the area.

The G10 is a great camera for when you can't take the DSLR for whatever reason. These cameras are not in that space.

But then, I'm the guy who loved the Olympus Pen F and thought the baby Minox and Minolta were amazing, so no wonder the suggestion of DSLR quality in a smaller package interests me.

Be a boring world if we all wanted the same things! At least I know that when Canon releases one of these I won't have to fight off Gary to get mine

Michael

photohiker wrote:The G10 is a great camera for when you can't take the DSLR for whatever reason. These cameras are not in that space.

The Thamthung is in neither space.

As you correctly point out, the G10 is a great camera for when you can't take the DSLR. There would be, by definition, those times when you can't take the DSLR, or those times ... when you can. The Hamstrung is neither a G10, and thus it will not be the great camera for when you can't take the DSLR, and as it's also not your DSLR, it self-excludes itself from both of your described scenarios.

But then, I'm the guy who loved the Olympus Pen F and thought the baby Minox and Minolta were amazing, so no wonder the suggestion of DSLR quality in a smaller package interests me.

Ok ... do you really want to play in this sandpit?

The Pen F was a great camera with great glass. Likewise the Minolta. The Minox fitted into an entirely different space. And not one of these three cameras was ever viewed as a replacement for one's SLR body. There was an Olympus compact 35 - the Trip - that did, and there was (and still is) the Leica. Both were viewed as very capable SLR alternates, and both used, oh yes, 35mm film.

As did the Pen F!

But if you are looking to get DSLR quality in a compact digital body, then you need to look towards the Epson RD-1. And it's just announced replacement. No problems with quality glass: thus throw a Leica lens at it.

That is the correct answer to the problem that Sam-can't-sing are creating with this wonderful new waste of shelf space.

At least I know that when Canon releases one of these I won't have to fight off Gary to get mine

Actually, I suspect that you'll find the queue will be precariously short. Fortunately, repairs will be easy to effect, because there will be lots of unused NOS bodies available to canibalise for spare parts.

gstark wrote:Ok ... do you really want to play in this sandpit?

The Pen F was a great camera with great glass. Likewise the Minolta. The Minox fitted into an entirely different space. And not one of these three cameras was ever viewed as a replacement for one's SLR body. There was an Olympus compact 35 - the Trip - that did, and there was (and still is) the Leica. Both were viewed as very capable SLR alternates, and both used, oh yes, 35mm film.

As did the Pen F!

Well there you go. You have pretty well described the reasons I show interest in these cameras. Clearly you understand the issues, but you seem to be in denial that there is a place for a digital equivalent. Given the Trip 35 came out in the mid-late 1960's, it's just a matter of time before someone does it again. Compact camera with a 35mm format, who'd have thought? Have you counted how many compact 35mm cameras followed it, from all the major manufacturers?

The only reason the Pen F wasn't viewed as a replacement for a full size SLR (apart from the fact is actually was a SLR) was that it was half frame. Everything else was right up there compared to cameras of the day. That's not the reason I suggested it BTW, my interest in it was because it was an innovative camera, like the Minolta and Minox.

The other reason such a camera interests me is embodied in my username.

Michael

Please keep this debate going, I'm looking forward to see how many more acronyms Gary can come up with for Samsung.

photohiker wrote: but you seem to be in denial that there is a place for a digital equivalent.

Er, no.

The digital equivalent is already in existence, and has been for about about four years. Please reread my earlier post, and in particular pay close attention to what I said about the Epson RD-1. If you want DSLR quality in a compact body with interchangable lenses, that is the camera to consider.

Its successor has just been announced. No, it's not cheap. But it will do what you seem to believe that this Hamstrung half-baked half-camera is capable of doing, but it will do it faster, better, with a better quality and larger sensor, and with some of the best glass available.

No need for adaptors. The glass is light and compact, as is the camera. Why on earth would anyone even think about a hamstrung? If the hamstrung were a horse, I'd shoot it: it's lame!

Given the Trip 35 came out in the mid-late 1960's, it's just a matter of time before someone does it again. Compact camera with a 35mm format, who'd have thought?

You are saying this as if this was a new concept at that time. It was not. Consider, for instance, the Nikon S from around 1954, or the Canon P from a couple of years afterwards. Then there were (even older) Voigtlanders, Leicas, even (newer) Seagulls and Hanimexes (Hanimexii?) all of which were compact bodied full frame 35mm film cameras.

And way quieter than any SLR of their day. Or today.

I'm sorry, but I see only one use for this Hamstrung - as a potential useless gadget on The Gadget Grill.

gstark wrote:the Epson RD-1. If you want DSLR quality in a compact body with interchangable lenses, that is the camera to consider.

Its successor has just been announced. No, it's not cheap. But it will do what you seem to believe that this Hamstrung half-baked half-camera is capable of doing, but it will do it faster, better, with a better quality and larger sensor, and with some of the best glass available.

Glass: Yes.
Camera: No. Seriously, these things have D100/D70 Sensors. Harking back to 2001. 6Mp, Noise. Worse than the 10D in the cupboard.

No thanks. Innovation involves of doing something new and creative to solve existing problems and advance the capabilities. A Modern sensor will be required. I haven't even looked at what sensor flamflung has, but I somehow doubt it is as old as the RD1/x or whatever the camera unknown* Epson has dragged out of the reject pile to prod into their expensive machine. No sign that the 'new model' will be any better, but happy to be proven wrong...

* Google tells me that flamflung was 6th largest Digital Camera seller in 2006

Like I said, I'll wait, it will come, and I'll be in the queue ahead of you Gary

can't see the point of it myself but then again i can't see the point of the Fuji' etc
[or the New Pentax X70] http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030 ... erzoom.asp
for me its either the compacts that will fit in your pocket or the DSLR's

Maybe if they did a Pentax 110 in digital i would think about it as its no bigger than a mobile phone but any bigger is not pocketable
http://bigred4x4.blogspot.com/2008/11/p ... ystem.html

photohiker wrote:

gstark wrote:the Epson RD-1. If you want DSLR quality in a compact body with interchangable lenses, that is the camera to consider.

Its successor has just been announced. No, it's not cheap. But it will do what you seem to believe that this Hamstrung half-baked half-camera is capable of doing, but it will do it faster, better, with a better quality and larger sensor, and with some of the best glass available.

Glass: Yes.
Camera: No. Seriously, these things have D100/D70 Sensors. Harking back to 2001. 6Mp, Noise. Worse than the 10D in the cupboard.

Actually, the D70 sensor is not the same as the D100 sensor, and neither were slouches. Both of those models, as well as the 10D and 300D, were capable of producing some very fine images. I would certainly prefer any of those sensors over anything from Hamstrung.

but happy to be proven wrong...

Prepare to be ecstatic, then.

* Google tells me that flamflung was 6th largest Digital Camera seller in 2006

And the relationship between image quality and sales performance, or product quality and sales performance, might be ??????

I'll be in the queue ahead of you Gary

Well, no. You may be in the queue, but to be ahead of me, I would also need to be in that same queue. I have better things to do with my time than to wait for a camera that will be slow and pointless, and will not do a damn thing even half well.

Perhaps it will have a phone and PDA included in the specs as well? Then they could add Windows Mobile 6.5, and it would be a hamstrung hamstrung.

gstark wrote:Prepare to be ecstatic, then.

Details?

gstark wrote:And the relationship between image quality and sales performance, or product quality and sales performance, might be ??????

Taken out of context, but the inference is that Samsung is a company with a lot of camera sales. If they wanted to move into quality cameras, I have no doubt that they have the necessaries. Epson wasn't even in the list.

gstark wrote:I have better things to do with my time than to wait for a camera that will be slow and pointless, and will not do a damn thing even half well.

Well, I can well imagine that you are not in that particular queue. I'm not in it either, but I think you already knew that.

Michael

I can see at least one advantage of this design, which is that the electronic view finder should mean there will no longer be any excuse for not having 100% coverage. I suspect the choice of APS-C was the result of Samsung looking at Olympus and the 4/3's poor market penetration.

I suspect Samsung also looked at Sony's experience and decided that taking on Nikon and Canon at their own game was a mistake, so the NX is an attempt to define a new segment of the mid-range market in which they would have a natural early advantage. Using electronics to replace the mechanical mirror is intuitively obvious in the C21.

That Samsung simultaneously announced the creation of the Samsung Digital Imaging Company to vertically integrate Samsung's vast resources in attacking this market shows they're serious about giving this a decent crack.

if S DIC is having a crack at it there must be a market for the NX ... they didn't get to be as big as they are without some nouse.

can't see me getting one though

Potoroo wrote:I suspect Samsung also looked at Sony's experience and decided that taking on Nikon and Canon at their own game was a mistake.

i think i read somehwere not long ago that their dslr sales were actually pretty good.

i think tamorn and sigma are doing just as much damage to sony as CaNikon. sony's great advantage was the in body IS. now not only are CaNikon churning out the consumer IS/VR lens' but tamron and sigma are rolling them out aswell, even on tiny little budget zooms like the 18-50mm. thats gotta hurt the competitive advantage claimed by the in-body IS crew.

photohiker wrote:Taken out of context, but the inference is that Samsung is a company with a lot of camera sales.

So, let me repeat my question: what is the relationship between sales and a quality product? I contend that there is little to none: sales figures are a measure of popularity, and rarely equate to usability or inherent quality or design.

Here we start with a design that is flawed from its initial concept, find a product with no practical extensibility and will be hamstrung with poor performance, and end up with .... ah yes .... "marketing".

If they wanted to move into quality cameras, I have no doubt that they have the necessaries. Epson wasn't even in the list.

I suppose Leica weren't in the list either.

The market segment they want to address with this camera is not going to be in the top sales tier, which will be littered with mediocre me-too PHDs costing less than $300 and all boasting 6 billion gigapixels. And all of them come with a seeing-eye dog, such is their optical excellence.

You state that you have have no doubt that they have the necessaries. Would you say something similar about Kodak? Olympus?

What about the new Ford-Harley Davidson F300 truck-phone with camera ?

Rooz wrote:

Potoroo wrote:I suspect Samsung also looked at Sony's experience and decided that taking on Nikon and Canon at their own game was a mistake.

i think i read somehwere not long ago that their dslr sales were actually pretty good.

Chris,

That's probably a relative term: we have no idea of what their budgeted sales might be, and if they budgeted conservatively, and are coming in above budget, that could be viewed as being "good".

Also, Sony have lots of commission to play with in terms of sales incentives. When you go into a great many stores, too often the sales-person's focus will be his bottom line, rather than the buyer's needs.

As much as they might like to make noises about trying to hurt Canikon in the pro arenas, these is no evidence that they have even scratched the surfaces here, with their sales all seeming to be going into the -sumer market. Note the absence of the "pro" prefix.

Basically, the greater washed - those with money, who know the brand name and are prepared to pay for it, without giving intelligent consideration to the fact that Sony is not a camera manufacturer in the way that Canikon are. Yes, the Sony fanbois.

gstark wrote:What about the new Ford-Harley Davidson F300 truck-phone with camera ?

That would be the one linked to the Reverse Sensors / Cameras that tries to dial 911 when they run over something getting out of the car park at the local school (fighting off all the other SUVs out there) would it ...

rflower wrote:

gstark wrote:What about the new Ford-Harley Davidson F300 truck-phone with camera ?

That would be the one linked to the Reverse Sensors / Cameras that tries to dial 911 when they run over something getting out of the car park at the local school (fighting off all the other SUVs out there) would it ...

That's the cheaper model, Russell.

The one I'm referring to comes with the double overhead shotgun rack in the cabin, 17 litre V16 engine, 14 cupholders to placate the 3 PAX, uses a 1MP webcam as the reversing camera, and has a 9MP digital Holga affixed to the tiller.

I mean steering wheel.

gstark wrote:So, let me repeat my question: what is the relationship between sales and a quality product?

I didn't make that connection, but you assumed it.

I have suggested that Samsung's sales success puts it into the position where it has the necessaries (ie dollars, capital, R&D spending, etc) to enter the quality end of the market if they so chose. Note that I haven't said that they have. You on the other hand seem to have concluded that Samsung are incapable of doing so.

You also seem hell-bent on belting me around the ears with the 'failed' Samsung product that has only just been announced. That's fine, I have a thick skin, but my interest in the format is not with Samsung, it is with the market segment gaining sufficient numbers through this camera and others before and after it, so that it becomes populated by modern cameras with modern sensors and capabilities. I believe that will eventually happen, it may have to wait for the DSLR market to saturate, or for some manufacturer to decide they want to own the space.

Epson in the RD1 and Leica might make beautiful cameras, but they set their sights on low volume, and as such, the cameras are expensive, iterations are lengthy, and specifications (especially sensors) are consistently well behind the state of the art.

Michael

photohiker wrote:

gstark wrote:So, let me repeat my question: what is the relationship between sales and a quality product?

I didn't make that connection, but you assumed it.

No. I assumed nothing. I merely asked the question.

In point of fact, my belief is that there is no such connection, and this is all too frequently proven to be true. Consider VHS vs Beta. Hyundai (so-called) cars. Big Brother, Strayan Idle and the like.

I have suggested that Samsung's sales success puts it into the position where it has the necessaries (ie dollars, capital, R&D spending, etc) to enter the quality end of the market if they so chose. Note that I haven't said that they have. You on the other hand seem to have concluded that Samsung are incapable of doing so.

Actually, what i have said is that the newly announced camera is a total waste of time. Like many marketing based solutions, it's an answer looking for a problem to solve. As the problem is but a minor one, and has already been solved, in a much more elegant manner, this product will go the way of the dodo.

Or perhaps Doggy Doo.

You also seem hell-bent on belting me around the ears with the 'failed' Samsung product that has only just been announced.

No. I'm merely trying to point out to you just how silly this product is. Its specification ensures that it will do nothing well, and be unsupported in the field through any form of quality glass. This is not even a niche product, so flawed is the entire concept.

Sorry, my mistake: the concept is not an entire: it is gelded!

That's fine, I have a thick skin, but my interest in the format is not with Samsung, it is with the market segment gaining sufficient numbers through this camera and others before and after it, so that it becomes populated by modern cameras with modern sensors and capabilities. I believe that will eventually happen,

There's the problem: there is no market segment. Never will be.

People will either move to a PHD, and for a quality PHD they will go with either the G9/G10 or the Panasonic, or they will go with a fully functional DSLR, either in a very compact format (D40/D60) if portability is an issue, or a larger one where weight/size is not a concern.

The sensor size (and noise characteristics) in the PHD is slowly becoming less of an issue, as the technology improves.

Epson in the RD1 and Leica might make beautiful cameras, but they set their sights on low volume, and as such, the cameras are expensive, iterations are lengthy, and specifications (especially sensors) are consistently well behind the state of the art.

Yet the RD1 will outperform the hamstrung every which way it can. And it will make images that are sharp too, because it can use quality glass. The hamstrung suffers congenital defects in this realm. Its seeing eye dog needs a seeing eye dog.

And you have overlooked one vital factor: this segment is low volume probably because it's low demand.

I think the bottom line is that I doubt that there are too many people who would want a camera that is slow to start, slow to acquire focus, unable to accurately follow action, and then makes images that are just not sharp because it's wearing a coke bottle.

Not when there are other, better options.

And better options are in abundance.

gstark wrote:
Chris,

That's probably a relative term: we have no idea of what their budgeted sales might be, and if they budgeted conservatively, and are coming in above budget, that could be viewed as being "good".

Also, Sony have lots of commission to play with in terms of sales incentives. When you go into a great many stores, too often the sales-person's focus will be his bottom line, rather than the buyer's needs.

As much as they might like to make noises about trying to hurt Canikon in the pro arenas, these is no evidence that they have even scratched the surfaces here, with their sales all seeming to be going into the -sumer market. Note the absence of the "pro" prefix.

Basically, the greater washed - those with money, who know the brand name and are prepared to pay for it, without giving intelligent consideration to the fact that Sony is not a camera manufacturer in the way that Canikon are. Yes, the Sony fanbois.

yes, all true. i think the figures were more focussed on them gaining a good increase in market share from the previous year, hardly suprising given they have 4 models compared to just the one model in the a100 i suppose. nevertheless, they were in a clear 3rd position in the market. i imagine oly/pentax execs wouldnt like the look of that.

i'm personally surprised to see oly being the first to implement a proper flip lcd and sony being behind in video. regardless of whether people find these useful, its the sort of thing you would have expected sony of all companies to try and pioneer given their gadgety-teckkie kind of background.

There's the problem: there is no market segment. Never will be.

For the sake of the segment argument, here is another one, just announced the other day:

Panasonic premieres DMC-GH1 with HD video recording

It has the 4/3rds format Sensor. "newly developed 12.1-megapixel high-speed Live MOS sensor" and 1080/24p or smooth 720/60p HD Movie mode.

It's probably a dud too, (I wouldn't pretend to know either way at this point in time), but if you have been paying attention, that is not my point.

Michael

i dont think its quite the same thing. micro 4/3rds is a much more compelling "mini dslr" format imo. primarily becasue, not only is the camera much much smaller but the lens' are far smaller lighter aswell. not to mention that some of the glass available is outstanding.

its not something i'd buy personally, but i can see the logic in m4/3rds.

Rooz wrote:its not something i'd buy personally, but i can see the logic in m4/3rds.

Exactly.

And at least 4/3 is a standard, of sorts. This new hamstrung format .... is .... what ?????

Apart from an error of judgement?

gstark wrote:And at least 4/3 is a standard, of sorts. This new hamstrung format .... is .... what ?????

Hello, Mr Wood. Please meet Mr trees. Mr Trees, I am pleased to introduce you to Mr Wood.

Move back a little guys, and with (I admit, an awful lot of) luck you may view the picture from where I sit.

Returning you to your normal programming, I have a practical tomorrow, you won't be hearing from me for a while. (Don't all cheer at once!)

Michael

photohiker wrote:Move back a little guys, and with (I admit, an awful lot of) luck you may view the picture from where I sit.

Yes, but with no usable glass, it's just a big blob of out of focus nothingness.

Just to inflame the issue again. I had another look at the pictures, there appears to be lens release button on the LHS of the body, now Samsung's DSLR's are essentially rebadged Pentax bodies, and share a Pentax K-mount, wouldnt that mean it would be logical for Samsung to continue to use this mount on this new "micro-APS-C" format (sorry I may have created a category for it)?? If this is so, wouldnt that open up Pentax's good lenses to this camera? Are there not any good lenses for the K mount??

I just had a look at Samsung's lens line up (on their website) and some look suspiciously like they are OEM'd by our friends at TOKINA, esp their 10-17, 12-24 and the 100 macro.

http://www.samsungcamera.com/product/pro_acc_list.asp?sac_gid=1&cat_uid=13

aim54x wrote: wouldnt that mean it would be logical for Samsung to continue to use this mount on this new "micro-APS-C" format

Well, a major part (boast) of this design is that, with the removal of the mirror box, it makes for a smaller, more compact body. An intrinsic part of any lens's design criteria is the distance between the mount flange and the focal plane - essentially, the depth of the body for which the lens has been designed. That determines how the lens is able to acquire focus.

With the removal of the mirror box leading to a thinner, more compact body, any such use of a typical APS-C lens mandates the use of a (bulky) adaptor. And unless the adaptor also contains some electronics (== expense) to handle the AF and AE functions of the camera, you are now down to using a lens plus adaptor, but with no automated functionality.

So, it's either an expensive bulky adaptor with some automated functionality, or a less expensive but still bulky adaptor and no automated functionality.

Now consider what is the target market for this camera: primarily the PHD set. Will they want to use this camera, plus a bulky adapter, when the principal advantage is touted to be the camera's (lack of) size? Will they want to be using this camera with no bells, and no whistles?

In order to succeed, this camera needs to have its own set of lenses that either of quite high quality or hideously inexpensive. Neither will be forthcoming; the last thing we need is a whole new format that offers no obvious new benefits, but that is all that is left.

That is a good point, an APS-C sized lens will never be as compact as a 4/3 lens. I guess 4/3 also has the advantage of onboard motors as well. So to succeed there needs to be an inline AF module and onboard motors on their lenses (which will either have to be cheap - and nasty, or expensive) all in a small package.

SO if Nikon/Canon took their D60/1000D and chopped off the prism and mirror and added an inline AF module (not sure how, but an if) then we would be laughing in joy (smaller but still with good glass options and AF/metering) but not have saved much bulk. Am I anywhere near possible?

Give me a D60!

yepp, cameron everyuthing you and gary said is spot on. essentially all samsung did was make the body smaller and lighter. maybe in 10 years there will be smaller/ lighter apsc lens' but as of right now these arent available. so i dont get the point of saving 200grams on a body only to put a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 lens on it which weighs a ton. the tradeoff is not enough for loss of the VF.

where 4/3rds and m4/3rds has the huge advantage is that not only is the body much smaller and lighter but the glass is much smaller, much lighter and most importantly there are some pretty kick ass zuiko lens' out there now giving you awesome reach for very little wight comparitave to DX/ FX. thats why it makes sense cos the system has ben built from the ground up with this specifically in mind and the tradeoff is much more appealing.

to me, a compact apsc camera thats worth anything would be a fixed lens compact body. put a a d300 sensor into a G9 sized body with jsut a fixed f2.8 24 or 35mm lens and i'm prepared to shell out for it.

Chris,

Rooz wrote:to me, a compact apsc camera thats worth anything would be a fixed lens compact body. put a a d300 sensor into a G9 sized body with jsut a fixed f2.8 24 or 35mm lens and i'm prepared to shell out for it.

Which is the Epson RD1, except that the sensor is basically the D70 one, body size is G9 (Leica 35mm) and rather than have the one fixed lens, it takes the various Leica R/F lenses. Fast, light,compact, high quality.

aim54x wrote:SO if Nikon/Canon took their D60/1000D and chopped off the prism and mirror and added an inline AF module (not sure how, but an if) then we would be laughing in joy (smaller but still with good glass options and AF/metering) but not have saved much bulk. Am I anywhere near possible?

Is it a prism, or a pentamirror, in these bodies? I suspect the latter, which makes the weight saving even less of a differential.

With the addition of LV to the bodies, then you could remove the mirror box and prism, but I think that these bodies are already verging on "small enough" anyway, which leads me to suspect I'd prefer to travel with a D60 + 18-200 than a G10 simply because of the performance factors of a live VF as against the digital, as well as the sensor size, but the IQ of the G10 is certainly up there.

gstark wrote:Is it a prism, or a pentamirror, in these bodies? I suspect the latter, which makes the weight saving even less of a differential.

With the addition of LV to the bodies, then you could remove the mirror box and prism, but I think that these bodies are already verging on "small enough" anyway, which leads me to suspect I'd prefer to travel with a D60 + 18-200 than a G10 simply because of the performance factors of a live VF as against the digital, as well as the sensor size, but the IQ of the G10 is certainly up there.

I meant remove the pentamirror (yes they have pentamirrors and not pentaprisms, my error) and the mirror assembly (but keep the distance beween sensor and lens flange).

I would take the D60 over the G10, it is weighs that much I will deal with a bit more bulk to get the optical viewfinder and APS-C sized sensor.

HOWEVER, Nikon could build me a mirrorless D60 and 24/35/50/85mm f/2.8 pancake lenses i would be inclined to take one of those combinations (most likely the 24 or 50mm.

Rooz wrote:i dont think its quite the same thing. micro 4/3rds is a much more compelling "mini dslr" format imo. primarily becasue, not only is the camera much much smaller but the lens' are far smaller lighter aswell. not to mention that some of the glass available is outstanding.

its not something i'd buy personally, but i can see the logic in m4/3rds.

Actually, the micro 4/3rds won't really be smaller than a micro APS-C, just like the original 4/3rds wasn't that much smaller than the APS-C DSLRs.

Rooz wrote:not to mention that some of the glass available is outstanding.

uh.. micro 4/3rds only currently has 2 lenses (14-45 and 45-200) and I wouldn't call them outstanding. I think you're referring to the original 4/3rds lenses - which weren't really small btw.

Not sure why some are panning this over the micro 4/3rds. The cameras in both systems will be similarly sized, so will the lenses. Take the leica and voigtlander m and lt39 lenses for example - the prime lenses for both systems will be similarly sized. (actually as an aside, i know quite a few dentists who have leicas (yeah, it is a dentist camera brand) who have now bought the panasonic g1 micro 4/3rds to use their M lenses on (via adapter) as a cheap body to play with when they - even with the crop is 2x, they seem to love it, because they don't get rangefinder focusing issues with any of their lenses anymore, it's all accurate with live view or through the EVF - think they might like the 1.5x crop of APS-C size better though)

With samsung having close ties with Pentax (since samsung makes pentax k-mount DSLRs), you might even see some nice Pentax pancake lenses on this system (we can only hope) btw have heard another camera manufacturer building another APS-C sized EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lense) camera

gooseberry wrote:(actually as an aside, i know quite a few dentists who have leicas (yeah, it is a dentist camera brand) who have now bought the panasonic g1 micro 4/3rds to use their M lenses on (via adapter) as a cheap body to play with when they - even with the crop is 2x, they seem to love it, because they don't get rangefinder focusing issues with any of their lenses anymore, it's all accurate with live view or through the EVF - think they might like the 1.5x crop of APS-C size better though)

That has always been an attractive feature of the 4/3rds mount, shared with the the Leica Digilux and the availability of a M adaptor (Leica makes one!).

gooseberry wrote:With samsung having close ties with Pentax (since samsung makes pentax k-mount DSLRs), you might even see some nice Pentax pancake lenses on this system (we can only hope)

I hope so!

gooseberry wrote:btw have heard another camera manufacturer building another APS-C sized EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lense) camera

WHO??? Does this mean I will get my mirrorless D60 with pancake 24mm lens???
That has always been a

aim54x wrote:That has always been an attractive feature of the 4/3rds mount, shared with the the Leica Digilux and the availability of a M adaptor (Leica makes one!).

Yeah, but you should be able to build an adapter for any of the new EVILs to use M (or other rangefinder) lenses. I'd expect one for this NX system (it'd be disappointing if there wasn't)

aim54x wrote:WHO??? Does this mean I will get my mirrorless D60 with pancake 24mm lens???
That has always been a

Well, I have been told that there is another manufacturer bringing out an EVIL system, but wasn't told who.... I've also read reports that Nikon conducted a survey on APS-C sensor sized compacts and that there were Nikon prototypes floating around - unconfirmed if this means that Nikon is that other manufacturer or not.

gooseberry wrote:unconfirmed if this means that Nikon is that other manufacturer or not.

You're dreaming.

There is no market for this sort of thing. There is no quality glass. Ask Gary.



Ooh yeah. I'm waiting, shouldn't be long now. Maybe a year or so.

Michael

Michael,

I'm trying hard to get your point. The Lumix G1 is a 4/3 camera (Micro 4/3, but still a 4/3), not some half-arsed format that Sam sung up at the whim of some stupid dickhead in marketing.

Yes, it has some good glass available, but that still says less than nothing in terms of what glass will be available for the hamstrung. As I said, what is your point?

Further, would you really call the Pentax 110 24mm f/2.8 a high quality lens? It was fine on the 110, which, btw, did not have a solid film plane (such was the design of the 110 cartridge), but on a digital, I would call it more of a fun item than high quality glass.

Further again, none of these lenses will provide any auto functionality within the configurations shown. These are photo-geek setups put to effect purely because .... they can be.

But where is the value?

I'm trying hard to get your point. The Lumix G1 is a 4/3 camera (Micro 4/3, but still a 4/3), not some half-arsed format that Sam sung up at the whim of some stupid dickhead in marketing.

Fair enough. I've tried making my point, but I keep getting responses that indicate you are seeing the trees (individual manufacturer's efforts and producing a large sensor small camera) and not the wood (that there is in fact a market for such a format, and it has been growing for some time).

I'm not focussed on whether the individual efforts of Samsung, Panasonic, Sigma, Olympus, and whoever else decides to join the party are notable successes or failures like you seem to be driven to do. I'm a step back from there - I see this as a potentially great hiking and travel camera solution, and the more examples the merrier - competition improves the breed.

By the way, I really doubt that Samsung's effort is at the behest of a single stupid dickhead in marketing. Companies don't get to be as successful as Samsung without a bit of corporate nouse about the way they approach product development. Even if their NX turns out to be a load of rubbish (for which we have no evidence either way) you can be sure that it is the result of a thorough development process in both technical and marketing aspects. Whether it makes the grade remains to be seen.

The lens adapter possibilities of these cameras is attractive because out of the box, they have a very short 'mount - to - film plane distance'. Almost any lens is adaptable. People are even digging up old cine lenses and finding all sorts of jewels to go along with the more readily available M Mount lenses. Yes there are tradeoffs. Most users could not be bothered, and will go with whatever standard kit is available, but that is not to say that those with the patience and interest will be unrewarded. No, I wouldn't go to the effort of installing a Pentax 110 lens either, but it's great that you could if you wanted to.

Have I explained my point yet?

Michael

photohiker wrote:I'm not focussed on whether the individual efforts of Samsung, Panasonic, Sigma, Olympus,

Neither am I. Who does it is totally irrelevant. The problem is simply what they are doing.

And that, too, is irrelevant.

THAT is my point.

I see this as a potentially great hiking and travel camera solution,

Potentially, perhaps.

Practically, not a snowflake's chance in hell. Not of commercial success.

It's a new format.

One that is unsupported.

One that is unproven.

And not needed.

With sensor technology improving - as it has been for the last 12 years - the issues of noise on the smaller sensors will - like this stupid camera - go "bye bye". The only question I have is which will occur first.

There are already many PHDs that will satisfy about 80% of your needs. Smell the coffee: this camera will not have the horsepower to even meet that 80%, let alone exceed it.

By the way, I really doubt that Samsung's effort is at the behest of a single stupid dickhead in marketing.

Sadly, I suspect you're correct. They travel in packs: it would be a camel of marketing dickheads.

you can be sure that it is the result of a thorough development process in both technical and marketing aspects.

I'll grant you one of those two. You get to guess which one.

The lens adapter possibilities of these cameras is attractive because out of the box, they have a very short 'mount - to - film plane distance'. Almost any lens is adaptable.

Yes, but for the vast majority of the people to whom this camera is targeted, they are totally unusable.

No AF.

No AE.

No nothing!

This camera is not going to be targeted at people who understand f-stops, exposure settings, depth of field, depth of focus, and so on. For them, the adapters will be as useful as a bicycle is to a fish.

Yes, you may use the camera, and you may well buy the adapters. How many adapters will you be buying?

More importantly, how many instances of the camera would you be interested in buying? So, for the vast majority of buyers, the availabilty of this older glass, and the adapters, is simply unimportant. Irrelevant. Like the camera.

Now, let's get back to your situation for a moment: you are going to buy this camera because it's small and light.

And then you're going to try and find several old lenses, and then you're going to get adapters for those lenses. How much stuff are you now going to be carrying with you? By adding all of this extra gear to the equation, you have totally demolished the whole reason for wanting to get this silly camera in the first place.

It just defies all logic.

Most users could not be bothered, and will go with whatever standard kit is available, but that is not to say that those with the patience and interest will be unrewarded.

Ask yourself exactly how many of the people, to whom this camera is targeted can be bothered with all of this? In so doing, think seriously about the photographic market space that Hamstrung lives in. It is not a professional market space. It is not a photographic enthusiast market. It is very much the snapshot market.

How many people? It will amount to less than a poofteenth of a percent.

That is why this is such a stupid idea!

photohiker wrote:The lens adapter possibilities of these cameras is attractive because out of the box, they have a very short 'mount - to - film plane distance'. Almost any lens is adaptable.

This is the point I don't understand at all.

Each and every interchangeable SLR lens is designed to be mounted a certain distance from the film/sensor plane. The range of the lens when mounted at that predefined distance is between infinity and the closest focusing distance for the lens. When the lens is focused on infinity, the lens element is basically at its closest distance from the film/sensor plane and as you focus on closer objects, the element effectively moves further from the film/sensor plane. The closest focusing distance of the lens is dictated by the maximum travel of the element. Yes, in modern lenses, especially internal focusing ones, the mechanism is a little more complex than this, but it is the same basic principle.

So, now we have this "new format". If the lens mount is closer to the film/sensor plane, the lens won't focus on infinity when it is focused on infinity. In fact, you'd have to focus in closer just to get it to focus on infinity. What's the point of that? Where's the value? To make it work, you'd have to effectively place an extension tube between the mount and the lens to get back the correct lens to film/sensor place distance, negating any benefit of the format.

ATJ wrote:If the lens mount is closer to the film/sensor plane, the lens won't focus on infinity when it is focused on infinity. In fact, you'd have to focus in closer just to get it to focus on infinity. What's the point of that? Where's the value? To make it work, you'd have to effectively place an extension tube between the mount and the lens to get back the correct lens to film/sensor place distance, negating any benefit of the format.

Exactly. Your adapters must be big. That translates to bulk. Yet Michael wants this because it's small? Only in its default configuration, which is destined to be crippled.

And still, for each different lens mount, you need to have a new adapter.

And none of those adapters give you any sort of automation. No AF. No AE. In fact, probably no exposure information at all will be passed from the lens to the camera.

Certainly, the Pentax 110 lens comes from a time when AE and AF simply did not exist, and it would be regarded as being more of a Coke bottle than high quality glass. It simply did not need to perform, such were the limitations of the media.

Just because one can do something is by no means a recommendation that one should do that thing.

Hi.

Where's the value?

Ok, let me respond to the camera mount question, specifically for the m4/3rds G1, although I think I have made it clear I'm not in the market for any of the current cameras. The issue for me is actually not the bulk, it's the weight.

ATJ, you surmise correctly. If you want infinity focus, the distance from the film plane to the outboard end of the lens will remain the same as the original format regardless of the camera. That difference will be made up by the adapter. From memory for an OM lens on a Canon DSLR mount, this distance is 1.1mm the same lens on a m4/3rds will require something in the order of a 20mm adapter. A leica M mount adapter is maybe half that. Cameraquest (one of many) adapter info here if you are interested.

The adapters weigh essentially nothing. A few grams. The G1 weighs 380g. My OM 21mm weighs 250g. My Canon 5d body weighs 890g. The 17-40 is 475g. The 20mm prime is 405g (and not as good as the OM) You can probably guess where I am coming from with that.

Michael