[Samsungian]

These are interesting times we live in. How do you make camera owners buy another camera they do not need? Add HD & put it all in a smaller camera body. Looks like Nikon is about to launch their next HD Dslr: D300s


Nikon D300s specs | Nikon Rumors


Me, I'm not impressed with D300s leaked specs. K-7 still specs better

Small and light is always a good thing for me. I can sacrifice a small bit in terms of shallow DOF (I tried 4/3 once, and I can get enough shallow DOF using it) if it would mean an easier system to carry around on a daily basis.

What I'm not willing to give up, though, is in-body stabilization, hence my hesitation to buy into Panasonic's offerings. Should Olympus be able to squeeze in stabilization in their m4/3 offering as well as a decent EVF and offer it at a friendly price, I'm in.

The K-7 looks real good, but I can wait and see what Olympus has in store.

---

Last edited by Samsungian; 05-29-2009 at 06:20 AM.

[RMabo]

So far we know this:

When Samsung presented the NX project, there were questions asked to Pentax by several magazines - we have an interview in DC Watch impress magazine where Pentax Japan answers, and there has also been an interview with a representative from Pentax Europe/Pentax Germany.

Pentax denies any involvement in the Samsung NX project, claiming that Samsung did it on their own. Pentax says that Pentax did not even know about it until they could read it in the press.

Pentax denies any development of a mirror less camera. The reasong given is that Pentax believes in the superiocity and advantages of optical viewfinders over electronic viewfinders. Pentax says they will still offer optical viewfinders with their cameras, and optical viewfinders requires mirrors.

To be honest, I do believe Pentax here. Many Pentaxians are traditionalists, and removing optical viewfinders would be too much of a step for Pentax loyal customer base.

Having a good contrast detect autofocus system for their DSLR's does not automatically mean that there won't be optical viewfinders. I see no contradiction in having both a good contrast detect AF and a good phase detect AF.

[uccemebug]

Interesting post!

The lens will go too, eventually. Effectively, a lens is an optical computer which takes light in one configuration as input, and rearranges into a specific output (focused image on the sensor plane). Any analog computer can be simulated with a digital computer; it just takes a proper sensor to read all of the data from the input and then work on it with enough precision. This side of things isn't anywhere close, but I'll bet it happens in the next fifty years. Probably before that there will be cameras where one big lens is replaced by thousands of nanoscale lenses.

This would be akin to our current use of telescopes in different locations to get a single, higher-resolution image? (I remember the concept, not the name for the technique...)

These cameras will record everything in a stream of raw sensor data which can later be constructed computationally into a photograph (or movie). You'll choose the point of focus, depth of field, exposure time, and everything else essential after the fact.

This concept makes the current abilities of digital cameras seem like unrealized playthings wedged into the form of film cameras. I seem to recall seeing a demonstration of some software that took as inputs the focal length and aperture of the lens and the point to which you were focusing for the given photo (IIRC). The software then allowed you to recast the photo in different circumstances (e.g. different focal point). I suspect that that specific software needed to know the specifications of the lens in question, but what you're describing sounds wholly different.

Can you recommend any further reading on this?

[Art Vandelay II]

Has everyone seen Olympus's countdown to their upcoming m4/3's camera?

OLYMPUS PEN 50th Anniversary: OLYMPUS PEN EE (1961) | Olympus Imaging Asia

Olympus better not be messing with me. A digital Pen is THE camera I've always wanted. If it looks anything like one of the older Pens with a decent set of lenses available I'll pre order it the day they announce it.

I agree with most of the people in this thread that this style of camera is the future. Most people don't need anything larger than a 12mp 4/3rds sensor. A lot of people do want something better than P&S cameras, but I don't know many that actually want DSLR's. Serious amateurs and Pro's are the exception, but the bulk of people I know with Canon Rebels, Nikon D40's, Pentax K-M's, etc only have them because that was the only choice if they wanted better IQ. I would have never bought my Mother a Sony A200 in million years had the Panasonic G1 been out last year when I got her the A200.

I think serious photogs will continue using K-7's, D300's, D700's, 5D's etc, but I think the entry level SLR market (which is the overwhelming bulk of all DSLR sales) is going to be consumed by EVIL cameras.

[nosnoop]

Olympus better not be messing with me. A digital Pen is THE camera I've always wanted. If it looks anything like one of the older Pens with a decent set of lenses available I'll pre order it the day they announce it.

It is quite interesting. Just wondering how the Samsung NX with its larger sensor would compare.

[Art Vandelay II]

It is quite interesting. Just wondering how the Samsung NX with its larger sensor would compare.

To me it's kind of like the people arguing the merits of FF vs APS-C DSLR's; they're pro's and cons to each. But I think the 4/3's vs APS-C is even more of a wash, especially when you consider arguably the biggest selling point of this style of camera is small size.

IMHO this format of camera is absolutely perfect for the 4/3's sensor. The noise tests I've seen so far on the GH1 look outstanding. No, its not a D700, but it does look better than 10mp APS-C sensors looked just 2 years ago. In other words, 4/3's IQ is good enough, and it will just keep getting better.

The only area where 4/3's has an issue as far as I'm concerned is shallow depth of field. But even that can be overcome. A 43mm f/1.4 prime would make a fine portrait lens. The only focal lengths that might cause a problem are if you like shallow DOF and wide angles. I don't see how 4/3rds can match a 35mm f/2 on a full frame camera for example.

All that said, even if Samsung does make the superior sensor and camera body I'd still choose Olympus over them based on tradition and history. I have no faith in Samsung's ability to make not only high quality lenses, but also the "right" lenses. But I have no fear that Olympus will make the right system...they already did it once 50 years ago.

[nathancombs]

ok WILL not buy a camera that duse not have a mearr box, i trust my eyes not tec. live vew is some thing i WOULD NEVER use. i am NOT for vidio eather BUT the changes in photoj are going to demand it GRRRRRR. IF Pentax goes ONLY this way i will go some where else that keeps there mearr or stop up grading till the market demands that i do.

[janneman]

The advantage of an EVF is mostly put down as "what you see is what your get"
This means one has to calibrate the EVF..

besides, I am not sure that "what you see is what you get is ideal", roughly siad it is like taking pics with you classic dslr while wearing sunglasses and to find out on your computer that all looks very differently all of a sudden

[PentaxPoke]

I am not sure that "what you see is what you get is ideal", roughly siad it is like taking pics with you classic dslr while wearing sunglasses and to find out on your computer that all looks very differently all of a sudden

...so kind of like looking through the optical viewfinder and taking a picture and finding the exposure was wrong? The same challenge photographers have had since the 1820's? You may be missing the point some of us are making: A live histogram can be displayed in the EVF which is the key that changes the exposure guesswork of photography since it was invented. Heck, even if the viewfinder "calibration" is off, that live histogram will ensure that your exposure will be correct, because it is taking the measurement off of the sensor itself. Optical viewfinder matrix metering will never rival a sensor histogram unless they increase from 77-segment (on the K-7) to 14,600,000-segment. Even if that was possible (or even desireable) the optical matrix metering is still an approximation of the light that the sensor sees, and the metering needs to be calibrated as well!

There are only 3 things holding EVF back: speed, speed, speed. It will take some years to rival optical, but I have no doubt that it will someday.

[thibs]

There are only 3 things holding EVF back: speed, speed, speed. It will take some years to rival optical, but I have no doubt that it will someday.

A speedy EVF is one thing.
A speedy EVF with very good definition, and big enough might become useful.

Otherwise it is a last resort feature (which may turn out very useful punctualy).

[PentaxPoke]

A speedy EVF is one thing.
A speedy EVF with very good definition, and big enough might become useful.

No, these are the same things. That is why I said speed is the problem. You can't make a quality EVF that rivals the view through an optical, unless the speed of processing increases.

[Photomy]

The advantage of an EVF is mostly put down as "what you see is what your get"
This means one has to calibrate the EVF..

besides, I am not sure that "what you see is what you get is ideal", roughly siad it is like taking pics with you classic SLR while wearing sunglasses and to find out on your computer that all looks very differently all of a sudden

Other MAJOR advantages for many people are:

Extreme quiet with no mirror vibration or noise.

Significant weight and size gain by dropping glass prism and mirror and housing.

Improved reliability by dropping complex mechanical elements of mirror, indirect AF system, indirect exposure system, ground glass, etc.

Lower cost in the future once large scale production of quality EVF can be made by Samsung, Sony, or others.

It could be that Pentax is hesitant to go this route because Samsung will be making 80% of the important components of the camera. What do they even need Pentax for? Pentax will be reduced to an adviser and lens designer/maker. Thus is the continued trend of modern technology away from film I guess.

Of course, I still enjoy using my medium format film camera and plan on using it as long as a can to connect with the feel and look of traditional photography.

[Ratmagiclady]

Pentax seems to be smartly avoiding a model for model competition with Nikon and Canon looking more for a unique niche and looking ahead to the future (something they did not do well when digital came in). Maybe this is the influence of Hoya management.

Now we have the K7 which is similar to D300 but with enough differences to compete. I believe the K7 is more of a transition model for the future. Great camera, but maybe the last true flagship DSLR for Pentax.

I keep reading snippets of future directions about advanced contrast detect AF, redesigning lenses for this, etc.

Panasonic is already getting ready to offer this: Panasonic | Lumix DMC-GH1 Digital Camera (Black) with | DMC-GH1K

I would guess Pentax is looking to go this direction - models with no mirror and the most advanced and fastest contrast detect AF and hi rez EVF they can come up with. They will add their personality with weather sealed bodies, great line of primes, and many years of experience in making cameras and lenses. This is part of the reason they did not invest in a completely new shutter and AF system for the K7.

The future looks exciting to me.

CAN SOMEONE EDIT THE POST TITLE TO PANASONIC GH1?

I'd say, no. Panasonic's GH1 has been pretty soundly-trumped by something with a real glass prism viewfinder for a lot less money, and Samsung's got an APS-C non-SLR camera coming out under its own name, (looks like that's what they get to do under the reorganization of all this: Pentax not being a name in home video appliances, I don't see any incentive at all for them to compete on this ground when it's kind of all Olympus and Panasonic have really *got* at this point: they'd be diluting their own niche to try and fight a major video brand (and a corporate partner) on *their* terms in a sharply-limited market at least not till EVFs are ready for prime time.)

Even if EVFs do get that cool, I couldn't care less if Pentax *never* makes cameras for people who think photography is something you can do over a little TV screen. I want to *see what I'm doing, not what a computer thinks I'm doing.*

[Ratmagiclady]

Has everyone seen Olympus's countdown to their upcoming m4/3's camera?

OLYMPUS PEN 50th Anniversary: OLYMPUS PEN EE (1961) | Olympus Imaging Asia

Olympus better not be messing with me. A digital Pen is THE camera I've always wanted. If it looks anything like one of the older Pens with a decent set of lenses available I'll pre order it the day they announce it.

I think serious photogs will continue using K-7's, D300's, D700's, 5D's etc, but I think the entry level SLR market (which is the overwhelming bulk of all DSLR sales) is going to be consumed by EVIL cameras.

I think it'll be tough to sell that, since the Olympus Pens (with the smaller film size) were actually pretty hard to sell to anyone but serious photogs who had the bigger systems already and wanted something teeny-but-serious for when they knew what they didn't need.

But it's just grand someone's making them. If I were rich enough to buy a whole other system and not make it Leica/Voigtlander/Epson, (get with it, Epson,) if Olympus came along and said, "Hey, we're making a new Pen F. Interested?" I'd applaud. Heck, I'd just be glad to see it out there, but I don't see the technophiles' view of reality *really* taking over. A lot of the novelty's wearing off, and I observe that people who *care* about photography are looking to it as a way to get *away* from computers, and interact with something real. (In fact, I'd prognosticate that eventually what we'll see is digital cameras that behave *more* like film where you don't need a powerful home PC and attachments to make it look good and get the output you want.)

I think the point where cameras stop being a device to do photography and communicate with a digital world, and become a mere intrusion of the digital world into the rest of life, well, that's when they stop being 'instruments' and start becoming 'appliances.' Sure, people'll take 'getting and having' images for *granted,* but they won't be photographers.

The very *appeal* of still photography, both artistically and even sentimentally, is *not* trying to make a poorly-stage-managed TV show out of things. When people look at old photographs, whether they're of artistic or technical merit or not, it's more contemplative than that. Folks are going to need things as always, to *stir* memory, not supplant it.

'I serve an important function in this city of amnesia.'

[NaClH2O]

I think it'll be tough to sell that, since the Olympus Pens (with the smaller film size) were actually pretty hard to sell to anyone but serious photogs who had the bigger systems already and wanted something teeny-but-serious for when they knew what they didn't need.

But it's just grand someone's making them. If I were rich enough to buy a whole other system and not make it Leica/Voigtlander/Epson, (get with it, Epson,) if Olympus came along and said, "Hey, we're making a new Pen F. Interested?" I'd applaud. Heck, I'd just be glad to see it out there, but I don't see the technophiles' view of reality *really* taking over. A lot of the novelty's wearing off, and I observe that people who *care* about photography are looking to it as a way to get *away* from computers, and interact with something real. (In fact, I'd prognosticate that eventually what we'll see is digital cameras that behave *more* like film where you don't need a powerful home PC and attachments to make it look good and get the output you want.)

I think the point where cameras stop being a device to do photography and communicate with a digital world, and become a mere intrusion of the digital world into the rest of life, well, that's when they stop being 'instruments' and start becoming 'appliances.' Sure, people'll take 'getting and having' images for *granted,* but they won't be photographers.

The very *appeal* of still photography, both artistically and even sentimentally, is *not* trying to make a poorly-stage-managed TV show out of things. When people look at old photographs, whether they're of artistic or technical merit or not, it's more contemplative than that. Folks are going to need things as always, to *stir* memory, not supplant it.

'I serve an important function in this city of amnesia.'

OK I may be terribly old fashioned but what RML said above struck a powerful chord in me. I love digital because I get near instant results, a record of my settings when I pressed the shutter and finally because it is much cheaper than film. I don't like digital because being the perfectionist I am, I spend far more time post processing an image than I did taking it. I'm not one of those "All PP is bad" types, but I definitely prefer the act of shooting to the act of post processing.
A small story that RML reminded me of with her mention of the word "stir".
Considerably longer ago than I care to admit to, as a young man, I joined a Buddhist sect that focused on chanting and meditation as a pathway towards enlightenment. I understood and was content with the chanting, it was a logical extension of being a professional musician. However I had a terrible time with meditation. I just couldn't get how sitting zazen and "thinking about nothing" (as I envisioned it) could help me on my spiritual path. At a gathering one afternoon I finally got up the courage to ask the leader of the local group to explain meditation to me. The man, a wise older Japanese gentleman, told me "let's go outside". On the way out he grabbed a glass from the kitchen and filled it with water, and a chopstick. When we got outside he grabbed a handful of dirt and dropped it in the glass and stirred it with the chopstick. Naturally the water became completely opaque. "This is you in the normal universe" he said. He then took the chopstick out and allowed the dirt to settle out. The water became noticeably clearer. "This is what meditation does. Anything (and he stressed the word) that stops the stirring is meditation.
Photography is one of the ways I "stop the stirring". I'm not sure that a totally electronic appliance would help me do that.

NaCl(the images are nice but the process of capturing them is more important to me)H2O