Fotokina 2014

[barryfitzgerald]

Somehow you made sense out of that.  I couldn't even find a grammatical sentence in it.

Samsung has become a worldwide industry leader, just as has Hyundai.  They can do anything they set their mind to at this point.

I said a few years back Samsung was "one to watch" but now I'm not so sure most of their NX range has failed to excite buyers, many models end up on the clearance shelves it doesn't look like that's going to change at least not overnight. I'm not sure they're connected enough to the industry or have the appeal for buyers in this market.

Sony's problem is one of being somewhat detached from users they're not so good at taking feedback and planning ahead, that's their downfall. They can come up with some good ideas and are capable of delivering decent optics, Sony has at least some brand pull left.
Anyone betting on Samsung for stills photography on the basis of 4k is overestimating the imact of 4k it's just not that interesting for most buyers..at least not right now. In a few years maybe, by which time 4k will probably be standard on most models be it DSLR's and other cameras.

Not to pour cold water on things but "this ain't TV's" this market is one that is very different. Canikon can be boring, but they are mostly very consistent in a way some other makers are not.

[LKaven]

I said a few years back Samsung was "one to watch" but now I'm not so sure most of their NX range has failed to excite buyers, many models end up on the clearance shelves it doesn't look like that's going to change at least not overnight. I'm not sure they're connected enough to the industry or have the appeal for buyers in this market.

I mostly agree with this, especially the last statement.  Nikon and Canon have been marketing cameras to the US for 60-70 years.  Sony was able to get into the digital camera market at its inception, with the ability to put their products big onto shelves in major electronics retailers in the mid 1990s. 

Samsung has not quite gotten their US marketing operation tuned up and marching -- not in the same way they have with flatscreen TVs, monitors, and smartphones, where their LCD technology still dominates.

But if I just made a camera like the NX1, I'd be out making a commercial in 4K like the sample video.  I'd be out there selling this as a leading camera brand.  We'll see how the sensor measures up, and whether BSI has really made a material difference in this game.

One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow.  The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling.  The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout.  This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Interesting to hear…

Best regards
Erik

I mostly agree with this, especially the last statement.  Nikon and Canon have been marketing cameras to the US for 60-70 years.  Sony was able to get into the digital camera market at its inception, with the ability to put their products big onto shelves in major electronics retailers in the mid 1990s. 

Samsung has not quite gotten their US marketing operation tuned up and marching -- not in the same way they have with flatscreen TVs, monitors, and smartphones, where their LCD technology still dominates.

But if I just made a camera like the NX1, I'd be out making a commercial in 4K like the sample video.  I'd be out there selling this as a leading camera brand.  We'll see how the sensor measures up, and whether BSI has really made a material difference in this game.

One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow.  The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling.  The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout.  This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far. 

[jjj]

One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow.  The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling.  The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout.  This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far. 

I watched in on my NEC 26" and it looked amazing. Much better than HD.

[ndevlin]

The point is not that innovation is essential or will lead to corporate success, but that it is interesting. Not something one can say of anything Canon has done since the 5DII.  Or Nikon since the D800e. 

Samsung is a company that, frankly, makes Sony look a little puny in the same way Sony makes Nikon looks small.  They have tremendous resources, and a track record of success in many related areas - read displays - a segment they own.

Perhaps the most interesting facet is the raw power of the processor on the NX1.  It's staggering. 

The big questions are AF, IQ and lens quality.  If they nailed the AF the way they say they have....wow.  FULL frame coverage and 15fps tracking? A processor that can crunch this data-volume might be able to do that.  And a company the size of Samsung might be able to assemble a team to make this happen. 

The two new lenses are also impressive on paper. Fully weather sealed - nice! The published MTFs are impressive, and the fact the 16-50 is an f2 to 2.8, and the 50-150 reaches further than traditional the 70-200 range, both tell me they had a mandate to be a little better than the status quo. The 28MPs vs 24MPs say the same thing....let's be a bit better.

Whether they achieve this, and whether is makes a shred of difference to their commercial succes, who knows.  But it's definitely interesting.

I have only been blown away by two things in the industry in the last couple of years: the performance of the 645z sensor and the 4K video off the NX1. 

While I don't personally shoot or care that much about video, no one can watch the whole 4K demo (especially the animals in the middle part) and not gasp at the beauty and technical wizardry.

If they have translated any of that mojo to the still part, I may have a new carry-around system.

- N.

[BernardLanguillier]

The big questions are AF, IQ and lens quality.  If they nailed the AF the way they say they have....wow.  FULL frame coverage and 15fps tracking? A processor that can crunch this data-volume might be able to do that.  And a company the size of Samsung might be able to assemble a team to make this happen. 

Except is not Full Frame but APS-C.

Still, an impressive camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

[LKaven]

Except is not Full Frame but APS-C.

Still, an impressive camera.

I think Nick meant that the autofocus covers the entire frame, not that it is a "full frame" camera.

[michael]

I am now back from Photokina and Germany.

Both the Fuji and the Leica interviews were truncated because out hotel allowed only 1GB of data per session and then logged off. Vimeo stupidly thought that the uploads were finished and I stupidly published them. Two wrongs make a wrong.

I will have new uploads of both of these files as soon as possible and will announce on What's New when they're up.

We also have a wrap-up video report which will be online in a day or two.

Michael

[Osprey]

Kodak and Polaroid didn't have the lock in that Canon and Nikon have with their lenses. There also doesn't appear to be any barrier to Canon or Nikon making EVF driven legacy lens cameras, should it come to that.  None of this mirrorless innovation seems to represent a big paradigm change for Canon and Nikon the way digital did for Kodak or Polaroid.

The other problem with mirrorless is that, except for some Sonys, taking out this apparently overcomplicated, expensive mirror assembly and making lenses for often smaller sensors somehow results in an INCREASE in price over the SLR manufacturers.  On a value for money basis that is probably hurting mirrorless.

[MoreOrLess]

Kodak and Polaroid didn't have the lock in that Canon and Nikon have with their lenses. There also doesn't appear to be any barrier to Canon or Nikon making EVF driven legacy lens cameras, should it come to that.  None of this mirrorless innovation seems to represent a big paradigm change for Canon and Nikon the way digital did for Kodak or Polaroid.

The shift from film to digital was a much greater shift than any transition from SLR to mirrorless maybe, Kodak weren't forced out of business by someone making a slightly different film but the entire climate of the market, there core product was pushed to the sidelines and makers of camera systems became much more powerful in the market. Fuji had the benefit of much more experience in the camera/lens market to fall back on.

The other problem with mirrorless is that, except for some Sonys, taking out this apparently overcomplicated, expensive mirror assembly and making lenses for often smaller sensors somehow results in an INCREASE in price over the SLR manufacturers.  On a value for money basis that is probably hurting mirrorless.

Even the Sony systems cheapness is IMHO something of a illusion, the reality I'd guess is that Sony have cut down profits on bodies and jacked up the prices of lenses besides deliberately crippled kit options. More evidence for me of why they have serious issues in the camera market, compared to other forms of consumer electronics I think your looking at a market were treating customers somewhat better pays in the long term.

Also of course I would argue that a lot of "cheaper" mirrorless cameras are actually not at the same level as the bodies there competing with. You compare say the Sony a7 to the Nikon D610/750 and I think the latter models represent higher end bodies, top plate LCD's, greater manual control, dual card slots, weather sealed, etc.

[peterottaway]

For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?

And just for the record I do own a reasonably comprehensive Nikon kit and even have a couple of Canon lenses with an adapter. So I am far from a hostage to  a camera mount decision made many years ago.

[Osprey]

For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?

From my experience with Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless cameras, I am going to guess that that the A7 is perfectly serviceable handling, image quality quite excellent, but doesn't handle or respond nearly as well as the Nikon.  And that's part of what you're paying for. You could also buy a D610 and not pay anymore for the Nikon than you will the Sony.

[MoreOrLess]

For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?

And just for the record I do own a reasonably comprehensive Nikon kit and even have a couple of Canon lenses with an adapter. So I am far from a hostage to  a camera mount decision made many years ago.

Looking at B&H right now the D750 is $600 more expensive than the a7. I would guess as well that the kind of person who bought the a7 over the a7r is more likely to have bought a FF system for the low light ability and DOF control rather than pure resolution, hence you would think that a fast AF system that works in low light would be important to them.

[Telecaster]

APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.

I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!

-Dave-

[laughingbear]

Hope you enjoyed your river tour Michael. Funny to think that you walked the streets where I grew up. The place from where you photographed the gargoyle was on my walk to the Musikhochschule, passing through the Trainstation.

Thanks to Kevin and yourself for the entertaining reports.

Best
Georg

[JV]

APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.

I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!

-Dave-

Zach Arias explained it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

[yaredna]

Zach Arias explained it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

Except that Zach Arias did not mention "Depth of Field" not even once... Stepping down or ofcus stacking increase depth of field. Nothing, except for Photoshop artistery, can reduce delth of field beyond the widest aperture of a lens.

[E.J. Peiker]

I really enjoyed all the videos - watched each one in its entirety   Thanks guys!!!

[LKaven]

If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame" cameras we wouldn't have the term "full frame" in our vocabulary to begin with.  These are just two different formats on 35mm film, something you needed to know if you were buying a 35mm camera.  Then someone invented APS.  APS was just a reason for people to say "who needs full frame?" 

[jjj]

APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.

I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!

If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame" cameras we wouldn't have the term "full frame" in our vocabulary to begin with.  These are just two different formats on 35mm film, something you needed to know if you were buying a 35mm camera.  Then someone invented APS.  APS was just a reason for people to say "who needs full frame?"  

FF is more a reference point for sensor size that gives you a sense of how lens focal lengths will work on a crop camera. Most lenses are designed for 35mm film/FF size and an APS-C sensor regardless of whether the lens is designed for that size sensor or not will capture a cropped image compared to using the same focal length on the standard sized FF sensor. How big the circle of light at sensor plane is not really relevant.

FF is not status symbol arrogance, some people prefer it because of the different look it gives and because all the 35mm format lenses work as expected. Others prefer APS-C for exactly the opposite reason, your long lenses are longer [due to the crop factor] which saves money and weight over using FF.
Personally speaking - I had a crop camera years back and I used it for a few months, but got a 5D as soon as it came out and never used the 20D again. Why? I simply didn't like how is cropped my wide angle lenses [which I use 90% of the time] and how it also increased depth of field. Also bigger sensor do tend to give better quality  compared to a smaller version of the same sensor, because that's just how things work.
Doesn't mean I won't use smaller sensors as I do like them for some things, but I find the APS-C a bit meh for my uses, neither fish nor fowl. I'd rather use a 4/3rds.