My review of the Samsung NX1000 is now posted at http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/samsung-camera-reviews/samsung-nx1000-review.html
8 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 18 previous comments
- Stumbled upon your review. Costco has a great 2 lense deal on the Samsung. Thinking I'll go for it over the Nikon j2 or SonyFeb 3, 2013
- The Nikon comments are interesting. I am disappointed that Nikon didn't jump into the mirrorless game with a large sensor like SONY, but I tend to be a bit more bullish about their future. It seems to me that Nikon may be many things but being blind to the future isn't one of them.
So, the question, really, is what then? If you assume that point-and-shoots die by phone cameras and entry-level DSLRs get eaten by small sensor systems, it seems only natural that Nikon would want to get in early on the small sensor/big performance game early, at the smaller end of that sensor size spectrum. Voila, the Nikon 1.
Nikon 1 was never going to be a serious-photographer's tool, but as an anchor for the next wave of changes in the photography industry at the better-than-cell-phone end of the market, it makes total sense, especially when, in a couple of years, the Nikon 1 will already be a well established small sensor brand leader.
The big question is what about DX? My guess is that DX will eventually become a Mirrorless DX system, much like the Canon-M. That Nikon isn't following suit now may be puzzling but if you take a conservative-ish market strategy, it sorta makes sense to lead in a new product segment and resist the temptation to be too far ahead of the curve in the segment you are already entrenched, particularly when it requires a new ecosystem of lenses and accessories to follow. Note that SONY's NEX system is still being weighed down by crappy lens selection; and the really decent ones (aka that one Zeiss 24mm f/1.8) makes the NEX-6 about as big as a Nikon D3200 which is also nearly 2/3 the price of the NEX. About the only thing the NEX really has going for it at the moment is weight and a handling as a video camera. My guess is Nikon understands that price is going to be a biggest factor when convincing someone to step up to a APS-C sized system.
That said, Nikon seems destined to get into the DX mirrorless game; particularly since that's what DSLR shooters seem to want--with a few decent small primes and an adapter for DX and FX lenses, it'd be a no brainer for existing high-end Nikon shooters to get a M-DX as a travel system or a backup unit. Note, that market is still smaller than the consumer market upgrading from their cell phones; and, it seems that if they are going to do it right, they'd not want to come out with a dud like the Canon-M. My guess is that if they already have decent hybrid optical/live-view system and are able to pack it into an SP-like frame, we'd already see one in production. Yes the Fuji X-Pro/X-e1 shows what's possible but they are still years behind in lenses and not-quite there yet for someone who is practiced on a DSLR.
Maybe its wishful thinking on my part, but I don't look at the delay as 'standing still'--I just think they are building it stealthily by getting the various pieces working first, e.g. fast image processor and pipeline (D800), awesome video (D600/D800); PDAF (Nikon 1); small lens systems (Nikon 1), etc.
CheersFeb 4, 2013
- > Moore's law suggests that 1" sensors and m4/3 sensors are probably going to on par with mid-level DSLRs
Sorry, but no. Moore's Law has to do with reduction of transistor size (or more transistors per area). Imaging sensors don't get full benefit from process reductions driven from Moore's Law, and the larger the sensor is, the less it benefits from transistor size reduction. Short of putting a lot of computational capability at the pixel level, the gain isn't all that great for the sensor sizes we use in cameras.
Take Canon versus Nikon in full frame. Canon is still using the old large process stepper they started with. Nikon (via Sony and others) is using smaller process steppers. The benefits of Nikon's smaller process sensors are small at full frame.
Moreover, state-of-the-art sensors are remarkably efficient now, with many getting down to 2e values for read noise. There aren't a lot of places to drive more efficiency in current designs. Some engineers think we're within two stops of ultimate ability using current technologies.
That's not to say that there aren't other things that might impact light gathering. But process size reduction (Moore's Law) isn't going to drive sensor improvement by very much short of changing the way we think about pixels.Feb 4, 2013
- I was using Moore's Law to describe the exponential growth of technology and the improvements of price to performance ratios, not narrowly about quantity or size of transistors. Though, I don't quibble with your description of the state of sensor technology. Perhaps, I should have been more precise by saying that "given the aggregate improvements of technology, such as faster processing power, better sensor design, cameras using 1" sensors and m4/3 sensors are probably going to be on par with mid-level DSLRs."
My point is simply that these days a m4/3 such as a OM-D EM-5 could credibly replace a D7000; the sensor itself isn't the overriding barrier to for that displacement that is happening. And, I am sure this isn't news to Nikon.Feb 4, 2013
- btw, this whole Moore's law thing has been debated at length; e.g.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/moore-rebuttle.shtml, for those following this thread who might be curious. Thom's right in the we are probably not going to squeeze out much more from the light-capturing end of things (the sensor) but good old computing power can continue to make big impacts on image quality outside of the sensor.Feb 4, 2013
- Stunning!Oct 25, 2013
Add a comment...