samsung NX10 thread - what happened?

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, okay. Things did get pretty nasty when he suggested that people shouldn't have more than two children over the weekend.

Personally, I find the NX10 interesting, but not as interesting as the Ricoh GXR! The GXR opens up a lot of possibilities, it will be interesting to see what Ricoh does with it.

Kind of hard to argue. Many people regard three or more children over one lifetime as a bit demanding. Three or more over one weekend...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I agree about deleting threads. I'm with Kent: just fade away.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.

 

[nikku]

Kind of hard to argue. Many people regard three or more children over one lifetime as a bit demanding. Three or more over one weekend...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I agree about deleting threads. I'm with Kent: just fade away.

Cheers,

R.

D'OH! So much for that English degree!

 

[charjohncarter]

THis was an interesting thread, some shallow people complaining the camera was ugly (me), others commenting on whether it was compatible with M mount lenses, and various other discussions.

Now it seems to have vanished; can't even find trace of it on Google Advanced search.

Did someone nuke it? If so, why? Or did I just imagine that this camera exists?

Ugly or not, it is an innovative camera (EVF, no shutter, no pentaprism, no mirror, and in their configuration no AF motor), even if I have zero use for one. Can you image if some company comes out (which they will) with a FF small camera that will use M mount and key adapters into SLR lenses in the auto mode?

 

[charjohncarter]

The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.

I agree, if you used a Canon MK III or IV or whatever it is, the size would matter. And if you could slap your monster Canon Zooms on it (which I think you can), I'm sure you would think it small.

 

[apconan]

why did bill leave?

 

[NickTrop]

The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.

Yeah - it's definitely a subjective, "YMMV" kinda thing along the philosophical lines of how many grains of rice makes a "pile" of rice. To me, the Oly in particular, makes too many concessions to keep the camera small. I'm okay with using the LCD at arm's length to frame on a point-n-shoot but not for a more serious camera. Others may not have a problem with it but it's a deal breaker to me. I also view the 4/3's format as a concession on sensor size that you're already making a concession on with DSLRs over a "full frame" film camera. Another feature I like, frankly, is its pricing to be honest. $699 at B&H with kit lens. To me, even the Oly DSLRs are small enough to be in compliance with the Barnack philosophy that drew me to RFs in the 1st place but this camera is more in line with a RF style of shooting - fast fixed descreet prime. DSLRs, apart from the mirror, seem to be more designed around zooms. The Yashica CC I just sold was considered a small camera - great for street shooting, and it is/was. However, the Konica Auto S3 I'm going to put up here for sale soon is considerable smaller next to the CC. Both were great for street shooting, both fall into the "compact rangefinders" category. The smaller size of the Auto S3 wasn't advantageous from a practical standpoint over the CC. It's not a "who can make the tiniest interchangeable lens digital" competition. It's who can give me the features I want, ditch the mirror, and make the digital equivalent of a "compact rangefinder". The Oly/4/3 is the Konica - smaller, a fine camera, but offering no practical advantage from a size stand point over the Samsung/Yashica CC. Both are in the category of "compact". It's just that Oly and the other 4/3's made too many concessions that are "must haves" to me to get there. This is how I view the size difference between the 4/3's and the Samsung.

 

[Al Patterson]

Yeah - it's definitely a subjective, "YMMV" kinda thing along the philosophical lines of how many grains of rice makes a "pile" of rice. To me, the Oly in particular, makes too many concessions to keep the camera small. I'm okay with using the LCD at arm's length to frame on a point-n-shoot but not for a more serious camera. Others may not have a problem with it but it's a deal breaker to me. I also view the 4/3's format as a concession on sensor size that you're already making a concession on with DSLRs over a "full frame" film camera. Another feature I like, frankly, is its pricing to be honest. $699 at B&H with kit lens. To me, even the Oly DSLRs are small enough to be in compliance with the Barnack philosophy that drew me to RFs in the 1st place but this camera is more in line with a RF style of shooting - fast fixed descreet prime. DSLRs, apart from the mirror, seem to be more designed around zooms. The Yashica CC I just sold was considered a small camera - great for street shooting, and it is/was. However, the Konica Auto S3 I'm going to put up here for sale soon is considerable smaller next to the CC. Both were great for street shooting, both fall into the "compact rangefinders" category. The smaller size of the Auto S3 wasn't advantageous from a practical standpoint over the CC. It's not a "who can make the tiniest interchangeable lens digital" competition. It's who can give me the features I want, ditch the mirror, and make the digital equivalent of a "compact rangefinder". The Oly/4/3 is the Konica - smaller, a fine camera, but offering no practical advantage from a size stand point over the Samsung/Yashica CC. Both are in the category of "compact". It's just that Oly and the other 4/3's made too many concessions that are "must haves" to me to get there. This is how I view the size difference between the 4/3's and the Samsung.

I certainly hope you acquire one before the next Philly gathering. While I do work at a well-known internet based retailer, we don't ever get to see the boxed stuff, and this is one I'd like to see. I think the EP-1/2 and GF-1 et. al. have the look I want, but your reasoning here does lead me to think Samsung has a decent thing going. besides, ugly cameras are like ugly cars. When one is using it properly, one doesn't see that it is ugly.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Samsung marketing made at least two mistakes, they should have given it image stabilisation on the sensor and an M mount. It wouldn't have compromised the size of the camera. It is still possible that a camera like that appears with another brand name but the impact on the market would have been huge if Samsung had done it right away.
They still could have sold the body with a lens. That it would create a big secondhand lens swopping market is another thing.
The sensor will be quite capable I guess if compared to the 4/3 ones. DxO has put the Samsung GX20 way above the 4/3 sensor rankings. It doesn't go as high as some Canon-Nikon APS sized ones but gets close.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html