[Pentaxor]

what is also really interesting is that Samsung has a 135/F2 on their plan. now that really is something that people would get their attention.

aside from that, the other notables are:

1.> 20/2.8 pancake - this looks fine I guess for compact NX cameras. (FA*20 successor?)

2.> 24/2 - what Pentax users are wanting to have as a fast walk-around lens. (FA*24 successor?)

3.> 35/1.4 - a normal wide for portraits. not that the 30/2 is not great, but this 35 might push the limit even further in terms of shallow DOF/OOF quality. even better if this was priced at $600-$700). (better version of the FA31 LTD?)

4.> 16/2.8 - fast compact UW (DA15 LTD successor)

now for the zooms

5.> 12-24 - hope that this is an improved version of the Pentax counterpart.

6.> 16-50 - DA* zoom counterpart? I hope they improved the optics as well. no SDM worries

7> 50-135 - same as above.


for what it's worth, I think Samsung pretty much covered everything here.

[truonganh]

i like their glasses line-up.
camera technology is a whole other matter. FWIW, my samsung NX100 critical focus is no-where-near the accuracy of the K20D. I don't know why, perhaps because of phase detection advantage of the K20D.
i like them both, but the NX series with contrast focus have a way to go still. they could have the best lens line up in the world, but wouldn't do much good if their 85mm 1.4 just cannot be focus accurately at 1.4 due to contrast detection problem in critical situation: low light, extremely shallow DOF. in such a case, my experience is that phase detection is superior here.

...i guess i just have to wait and see if the technology will continue to improve. Or maybe the NX100 i got just isn't quite up to snuff.

[Winder]

i like their glasses line-up.
camera technology is a whole other matter. FWIW, my samsung NX100 critical focus is no-where-near the accuracy of the K20D. I don't know why, perhaps because of phase detection advantage of the K20D.
i like them both, but the NX series with contrast focus have a way to go still. they could have the best lens line up in the world, but wouldn't do much good if their 85mm 1.4 just cannot be focus accurately at 1.4 due to contrast detection problem in critical situation: low light, extremely shallow DOF. in such a case, my experience is that phase detection is superior here.

...i guess i just have to wait and see if the technology will continue to improve. Or maybe the NX100 i got just isn't quite up to snuff.

I'm sure Samsung is working to improve on their 1st generation of NX cameras.

I personally think lens road maps are important. It give people an idea of where they system is headed and who the manufacturer is targeting as a customer. Fast primes are expensive and not big sellers, but if well done the designs will be in production for many years. The pay off on them is in the long term and commitment to that type of glass means a long term commitment to the system. I started selling my Olympus gear when it became obvious that Olympus had no fast primes in development. It was obvious that 4/3 was dead at that point.

If the company wont give you a lens road map it is because they don't want their user base to know where they are going. Olympus did not want us to know that 4/3 was dead, and if they produced a "road map" it would have been obvious. I understand the need for corporate secrecy, but if Pentax is working of a DA* 85mm f/1.2 does anyone other than Pentax users really care? Canon/Nikon/Sony are not going to make any changes to what they have in R&D, and if they do make changes it will be after the lens is on the market and they have a chance to gauge sales.

The reason we don't see more road maps is because there are a lot of different things under development at any given time, and the is a lot of disagreement between engineers/marketing/management over what the next step needs to be ans what it needs to look like. The lack of a road map could mean that there is no a unifying vision in the company.

[Pentaxor]

I'm sure Samsung is working to improve on their 1st generation of NX cameras.

I personally think lens road maps are important. It give people an idea of where they system is headed and who the manufacturer is targeting as a customer. Fast primes are expensive and not big sellers, but if well done the designs will be in production for many years. The pay off on them is in the long term and commitment to that type of glass means a long term commitment to the system. I started selling my Olympus gear when it became obvious that Olympus had no fast primes in development. It was obvious that 4/3 was dead at that point.

If the company wont give you a lens road map it is because they don't want their user base to know where they are going. Olympus did not want us to know that 4/3 was dead, and if they produced a "road map" it would have been obvious. I understand the need for corporate secrecy, but if Pentax is working of a DA* 85mm f/1.2 does anyone other than Pentax users really care? Canon/Nikon/Sony are not going to make any changes to what they have in R&D, and if they do make changes it will be after the lens is on the market and they have a chance to gauge sales.

The reason we don't see more road maps is because there are a lot of different things under development at any given time, and the is a lot of disagreement between engineers/marketing/management over what the next step needs to be ans what it needs to look like. The lack of a road map could mean that there is no a unifying vision in the company.

that could very well be the scenario. like remember the time when Pentax publicly mentioned about the 645D 5-6 years ago, they did came up with it. and the lack of response or rumor regarding a FF Pentax for about a decade, somehow hold true that Pentax really doesn't have a plan along the line.

what I'm hoping for is that Samsung is really indeed going to use a different kind of sensor with their NX10/11 successor as was mentioned.

personally I would say that the current Samsung APS-C NX MILC for their size and build are great enthusiast/semi-pro cameras, most especially with a new updated sensor. honestly, that would be enough for me I guess due to size and portability concerns. but I could only imagine the rumored high-end Samsung (3rd of the supposed 3 cameras that Samsung would announce this year) would be like as well. if we would based the highend Samsung to some of their lens roadmap in 3 years, this could very well be a FF that would fit the fast 24,35,50,60,85,135,200 and 300mm primes. they could also make the fast aperture zooms FF compatible. having said that, the camera might be bigger than their MILC counterparts and might contain a hybrid VF which is not necessarily what the NX cameras are using right now. but in any case, an upgraded EVF of the NX system will do as long as it's really great. personally, I would prefer the highend to be as compact as possible and an MILC type. an improvement on the AF accuracy and function would also help to a great degree, especially if one wants to shoot action photography.

[Winder]

that could very well be the scenario. like remember the time when Pentax publicly mentioned about the 645D 5-6 years ago, they did came up with it. and the lack of response or rumor regarding a FF Pentax for about a decade, somehow hold true that Pentax really doesn't have a plan along the line.

what I'm hoping for is that Samsung is really indeed going to use a different kind of sensor with their NX10/11 successor as was mentioned.

personally I would say that the current Samsung APS-C NX MILC for their size and build are great enthusiast/semi-pro cameras, most especially with a new updated sensor. honestly, that would be enough for me I guess due to size and portability concerns. but I could only imagine the rumored high-end Samsung (3rd of the supposed 3 cameras that Samsung would announce this year) would be like as well. if we would based the highend Samsung to some of their lens roadmap in 3 years, this could very well be a FF that would fit the fast 24,35,50,60,85,135,200 and 300mm primes. they could also make the fast aperture zooms FF compatible. having said that, the camera might be bigger than their MILC counterparts and might contain a hybrid VF which is not necessarily what the NX cameras are using right now. but in any case, an upgraded EVF of the NX system will do as long as it's really great. personally, I would prefer the highend to be as compact as possible and an MILC type. an improvement on the AF accuracy and function would also help to a great degree, especially if one wants to shoot action photography.

I don't see a FF in Samsung's future. When we see reviews of the 85mm and see if it actually projects an image circle large enough for a FF then we will have an idea what Samsung is thinking. I read that the new 85mm is smaller than others on the market which may indicate it is optimized for APS-C.

The 18MP APS-C sensors (that is rumored) should answer any concerns. The K20 had a very good sensor in it for the time it was released. Samsung knows how to make sensors. It is the image processing engine and noise reduction that are far behind the competition. I am hoping that a version of this sensor finds its way over to Olympus.

The big question I have is "will the 36x36mm MF sensor see the light of day"? A MF version of the NX10 would be pretty tempting, and for what I use MF for I don't need high speed AF.

[Pentaxor]

The big question I have is "will the 36x36mm MF sensor see the light of day"? A MF version of the NX10 would be pretty tempting, and for what I use MF for I don't need high speed AF.

oh no. but again, not bad as long as it kills off the MF competition by pricing it aggressively like a common electronic device. having said that, with today's advancement in electronics and since cameras are mostly electronics nowadays, I don't see any reason for MF digital cameras should still be expensive. it is highly arguable that the costs for such camera would still be that tremendously and ridiculously high. if Samsung indeed has this on their business plan which I'm still skeptic due to their real target market or unless they decide to compete at a professional level, pricing such camera at $3000 or less ($2,000 minimum) would catapult them immediately up to the top. the price might sound unrealistic, but it's not. they already sold their NX cameras and their lenses at general consumer based price, so it's highly unlikely they would price it at such if they want to get the upper end market's attention. the only reason they would price it as high as other MF lenses is if they got too cocky and greedy on their product's potential. but with today's massively competitive and increasing camera market nowadays, I think it is the one who offers more bang for the buck. e.g. the Leica X100 and Fuji X100 comparison. honestly, the more expensive X1 is practically forgotten and abandoned even by RF and Leica owners, whom now prefers the X100. that tells alot that it's not all about the name, but one who could offer and give one's needs.

[Winder]

The main reason I don't think we will see a FF from Samsung is that the lens road maps show 16-50 f/2.8 and a 50-135 f/2.8. If they had a FF planed we would see the 24-70 and the 70-200.

I think Samsung is better served by developing their APS-C line and then bringing in a MF that is priced to compete with FF cameras at $2,000.

Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2 that are optimized for APS-C should perform very well against the rest in this class that were designed with FF in mind.

[Pentaxor]

The main reason I don't think we will see a FF from Samsung is that the lens road maps show 16-50 f/2.8 and a 50-135 f/2.8. If they had a FF planed we would see the 24-70 and the 70-200.

I think Samsung is better served by developing their APS-C line and then bringing in a MF that is priced to compete with FF cameras at $2,000.

Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2 that are optimized for APS-C should perform very well against the rest in this class that were designed with FF in mind.

I don't want to sound optimistic and take this with hesitation, but I dunno if the 18-55 Samsung is really FF-compatible or just a typo?

I don't think that a lens is restricted as an APS-C lens just because it's something or wide like the 16-50 Pentax. fwiw, Sigma does have a 12-24 FF lens. I somehow agree to an extent that optimizing the lens for APS-C use would be great for Samsung, although the idea of offering something more is nothing to complain about. be it FF or MF.

[Winder]

I don't want to sound optimistic and take this with hesitation, but I dunno if the 18-55 Samsung is really FF-compatible or just a typo?

I don't think that a lens is restricted as an APS-C lens just because it's something or wide like the 16-50 Pentax. fwiw, Sigma does have a 12-24 FF lens. I somehow agree to an extent that optimizing the lens for APS-C use would be great for Samsung, although the idea of offering something more is nothing to complain about. be it FF or MF.

When I mean optimized for APS-C I mean that the lens peaks in sharpness and a wider aperture like F/4 and is very usable at f/1.4. APS-C needs glass that is sharper at wider apertures since that is how most people will use it. As sensors increase in pixel density diffraction will be come more of an issue. APS-C needs glass that sharper at wider apertures than FF in order to match image quality.

Some of the new FF lenses like the Sigma 50mm and 85mm do very well at wide apertures and perform great on APS-C bodies.

[Pentaxor]

When I mean optimized for APS-C I mean that the lens peaks in sharpness and a wider aperture like F/4 and is very usable at f/1.4. APS-C needs glass that is sharper at wider apertures since that is how most people will use it. As sensors increase in pixel density diffraction will be come more of an issue. APS-C needs glass that sharper at wider apertures than FF in order to match image quality.

Some of the new FF lenses like the Sigma 50mm and 85mm do very well at wide apertures and perform great on APS-C bodies.

oh ok. thanks for the clarification.

[RonHendriks1966]

oh no. but again, not bad as long as it kills off the MF competition by pricing it aggressively like a common electronic device. having said that, with today's advancement in electronics and since cameras are mostly electronics nowadays, I don't see any reason for MF digital cameras should still be expensive. it is highly arguable that the costs for such camera would still be that tremendously and ridiculously high. if Samsung indeed has this on their business plan which I'm still skeptic due to their real target market or unless they decide to compete at a professional level, pricing such camera at $3000 or less ($2,000 minimum) would catapult them immediately up to the top. the price might sound unrealistic, but it's not.

Well a little wow would be in its place if this would be true. Samsung is producing everything within their own production facilitie's so they have total control on the costs. I think this is a little optimistic, but when 645D sells in Japan for less then 7000 euro, then there is a lot of room for getting the price down when production volume is high enough.

[ghelary]

A medium format is a piece of mechanical precision and actually going digital demands tighter controls, especially of parallelism of the mount and the sensor plane.

For that reason alone, MF will never be cheap.

Now if you add development costs for low series (compared to APSC DSLRs) and you understand why they are going to be still expensive.

As much as a true 6x6 camera can be attractive to serious amateurs, this is still for a small potential market (regardless of the price)

[Pentaxor]

Well a little wow would be in its place if this would be true. Samsung is producing everything within their own production facilitie's so they have total control on the costs. I think this is a little optimistic, but when 645D sells in Japan for less then 7000 euro, then there is a lot of room for getting the price down when production volume is high enough.

True. that is also my understanding with regards to supply and demand. and Samsung's capacity of producing and designing their own products thru their own resources expense, gives them some leverage with the costs rather than hire a separate independent R&D team or company or by buying another company's sensor; which I believe are more costly. the SD1 now for example has now an MSRP value at around $6,500 from an insane price short of 10k. although I would think something like that has a real value of $2,000 or less, which is 3x less. I dunno what happened with Sigma, if they are trying to cover some loses on the development of the Foveon or owe some financial debt from the Yakuza. even if the sensor is that good, they practically overestimated their product and the purchasing power of the consumers, not to mention the highly competitive market nowadays, monopoly doesn't work that well anymore.

[Pentaxor]

A medium format is a piece of mechanical precision and actually going digital demands tighter controls, especially of parallelism of the mount and the sensor plane.

For that reason alone, MF will never be cheap.

Now if you add development costs for low series (compared to APSC DSLRs) and you understand why they are going to be still expensive.

As much as a true 6x6 camera can be attractive to serious amateurs, this is still for a small potential market (regardless of the price)

if the rangefinder niche market starts to follow the same pricing route and product development as of the other cameras in other markets, I think it's not highly unlikely with MF as well. being a pioneer in development is always costly, but once you get over it, it is pretty much smooth sailing. it is now up to the manufacturer to dictate the price whether to set it at a premium (milk more) or base (standard). but really, how many competitors are there in the MF digital category? all it needs are competitors that will shake the market.

[thibs]

Pentax already has shaken MF market, thé Pentax way. Which is nice.
Pentax wouldn't lose much financially if they were to lose MF market but I don't see them losing it.
They'd certainly have more trouble to compete though.

In the end we still come to the conclusion that Pentax needs a partner in electronics.
Geez Fuji, move your bottom, will you.?