« Random Excellence: Ayrton | Main | How Sharp Is Your Printer? How Sharp Are Your Eyes? »

Tuesday, 05 January 2010

Comments

At first blush it seems this camera will play the adapter game even better than m4/3. It has only a slightly longer flange distance (hopefully not interfering with M now) but a much improved crop factor.

It always bugged me with the m4/3 adapters that would need to hunt for ultra-wide lenses just to end up with a near-normal lens.

Pair that with the inevitable stop of noise improvement...

From the point of view of an adapter user this is a superior product.

Here is another issue: for some reason, I just can't get excited about the prospect of buying a mirrorless camera that looks like an SLR. I mostly want a mirrorless camera so that I can carry it around with me all the time and so that it won't be intimidating to people (people seem to freak out if you point an SLR anywhere in their general direction, but a compact P&S is somehow completely acceptable even if you are two feet away). Having a pseudo-SLR viewfinder prism and grip, not to mention a bulky zoom lens, seems to defeat both of those aims pretty soundly. For my purposes, I would need a Panasonic GF1 or an Olympus E-P1 with a pancake prime in order to tempt me to buy into a new system and prevent me from using my existing dSLR kit.

My main camera is a Nikon D300. When I want small and light, I use a D60 with the 35mm f/1.8 lens. A camera has to be significantly smaller (i.e., pocketable) and less SLR-like for me to buy it.

I can't tell whether this supports or contradicts your point about m4/3rds lens compatability. Using legacy lenses on m4/3rds bodies via adapters may be fun, but I can't imagine doing something like that for my daily photography. And most SLR lenses are way too big to balance on a m4/3rds camera. So the two lenses that appeal to me most with the m4/3rds bodies are the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and the collapsing Olympus kit zoom. And while the m4/3rds standard would allow me to use lenses from either of these manufacturers on my m4/3rds body, I don't feel like it would be difficult for a competing mirrorless camera manufacturer to produce the two lenses I would be most interested in. Samsung already has a roughly 50mm-e pancake, even if their kit zoom does not collapse...

At any rate, I'm probably better keeping my money in my pocket these days.

Best,
Adam

Hmmmm - does anyone remember the Samsung SR-4000 ?? A high-tech manual focus SLR announced around 2002 with a proprietary Samsung lens mount and Schneider-Kreuznach lenses. That one failed for sure...

Soeren

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SR-4000-camera-black/dp/B001PE44UW

There are trade-offs with the Samsung with regards to adapted lenses. Yes, the crop factor is less. However, since the sensor is larger, cine lenses are pretty much out. Many cine lenses will not cover the 4/3 sensor and certainly won't cover an APS-C. With regards to rangefinder lenses (Leica M) most of the wide angles exhibit corner smearing on micro 4/3; it will only be worse on the larger APS-C sensor.

Hi Mike.
I don´t think that, overall, the adapter stuff will be a show stopper. Those cameras play on a different role than the usual suspects, which by the way never had played the universal mount story all that well [else, the 4/3 standard will have beaten the rest of the avaliable mounts].

This camera will play the role of price and size/price/performance ratio. Tha main success of this big sensor P&S or digital rangefinders [which is what they are, ultimately].

And, most importantly, as a "good quality-looks like a pro camera but easier to use".

It is extremely important to understand that, even if on shape factor cameras are not that different, their usage is. A hint: How many of the "regular lads" have taken a dslr and started to look at the screen to take a shot?

Price, price, and shelve space will be key for this camera.

To give another airing to the hoary old cliché... there are two types of photographer. One with a substantial investment in one or more legacy systems of glassware which they are fond of and reluctant to part with and (secondly) those who are starting afresh. They may not be looking to own a 300mm f2.8 titan, lets face it most people who own entry level DSLRs have just a standard kit lens and maybe the 'long' kit lens. Samsung will satisfy them, and it looks like a few others to boot with a useful 'pancake' already. And if you are prepared to use a micro4thirds body with an adapter for your legacy glassware, then why not an NX mount body?

I wish Canon would come out with this kind of camera that would use their EFS and EF lenses (auto everything) along with maybe a few smaller and prime lenses and also adapters for other cameras.

Also, I like the movie mode on my 7d but would love to be able to use an EVF with Canon fully functioning EF(S) lenses plus adapters for other manufacturers lenses.

I wish. It never ends.

Many many moons ago, when the Pentax screw thread was top of the heap I lusted after an S1a instead of the Canon I had because of the enormous number of lenses available with the Pentax screw thread. But one day the penny dropped, there was a finite number of lenses I would ever want so really the choice of a body because of its lens mount was not that sensible.

Getting back to the Samsung. A lot of people might be happy to go with the Samsung lenses because of other perceived advantages in the camera. Body size etc. And lets face it, since the advent of the computer in the design of lenses there are very few really bad lenses out there now, no?
This is all assuming it was to be used as a second camera. You could still have your 5D and your white lenses for Sundays.

Mike, they've been pairing up with Schneider-Kreuznach since 1995. Check Co-operations. Admittedly, here only compacts were visible.

OTOH, I'm not particularly well disposed towards Samsung. They have been trying to pwn the market with vapourware ever since Panasonic and Olympus came out with their announcement. Now they've finally come with something concrete. About a year after they initially said they would. And they obviously didn't get the support of Pentax/Hoya.

Olivier, I wouldn't hold my breath about M lenses. Flange back distance of MFT is a hair below 20mm. DPReview says NX10 has about 5mm more, and the flange back distance of Leica M is 27.8mm. The adapters I have and have seen for the regular 4/3 are all about 5-6mm, IIRC. Is a 2-3mm adapter really feasible?

I think the NX has a flange distance of 25+mm. Could well be too close to the Leica M's 27.95mm to make an adapter.

Yes, because in many ways the NX mount is better for adaptation than m43, mostly due to the lower crop factor. While you will be giving up the ability to mount C mount lenses, you'll also be giving up the need to do so and lenses like the CV 12 and 15 ultra-wides remain extremely wide (18 and 22mm-e on the NX) instead of just somewhat wide.

The only disappointment I see is that the viewfinder in the NX is small, being about the same size as a Rebel T1i or D5000 rather than the G1/GH1's 5D-sized finder.

Personally, I'll be keeping my G1. But I've already got a significant investment in the system given my large collection of adapters as well as m43 and 4/3rds lenses.

already, I can put my favorite Panasonic lens on an Olympus body

1) But you aren't, unless you borrow something from someone.
2) You wouldn't have been able to a year ago -- that's how fast the market is moving.

And I can get just short of a zillion different kinds of adapters, allowing me to use anything from an old M-Rokkor to a Canon FD lens

Nothing's stopping this from happening with Samsung either. They're currently planning to offer a Pentax adapter at the outset, with more to follow, and 3rd-party opportunities exist just as in the m4/3 world.

Interestingly, dpreview says the NX10's autofocus is about as good as the GF1 even with prerelease firmware, which is a hopeful sign that when Olympus comes out with its own G1/GH1/NX10-style camera (with in-body IS one hopes) later this year (I'm assuming it will be a m4/3 version of the E-620) they'll have gotten their own m4/3 AF up to par.

They stupidly didn't put image stabilization in the body. That eliminates it for me - I'd love to have a small body to stick my Pentax K mount lenses on, but I'd be unlikely to buy this as a second body if I have to invest in an IS lens.

I had hopes...

" slightly-larger-than-4/3 sensor." Larger in area by 64 percent which should lead to an advantage in IQ.

While I agree that standards should be nice, I think only two companies are active in µ4/3 (are more companies in 4/3?). And the lack of standardization on stabilization is negative (pun not intended). I like most of the features of the G1, but if I want image stabilization I have to buy Panasonic lenses.

If µ4/3 is about compactness, a zillion adaptors and old lenses aren't going to bring buyers on board.

As you suggest, µ4/3 is more of a promise than a reality. Maybe the consortium should have got more companies on board before proceeding.

I like the idea of µ4/3, but time will tell if it succeeds. In fact I would have bought a G1 if it had in body stabilization.

"1) But you aren't, unless you borrow something from someone."

Elliot,
I am, actually, because I still have the E-P1 belonging to Olympus. I really need to get it back to them, however.

Mike

"Does anybody really want to give that up and be completely dependent on a proprietary lensmount for this kind of camera—especially from a company that has no history as a lensmaker? Especially an electronics company, most of which treat lenses as afterthoughts?"

Exactly what I was thinking. I dont trust Samsung. They´re in the market as long as there is easy money. They might as well sell toasters, mobile phones or blue ray players...

"Does anybody really want to give that up and be completely dependent on a proprietary lensmount for this kind of camera—especially from a company that has no history as a lensmaker? Especially an electronics company, most of which treat lenses as afterthoughts?"

When chickens grow lips.

This looks like a well designed camera, however, I have two problems with this system that I can't get past: 1) As is, I just don't think it's SMALL enough to compete and find a market niche. The size advantage of this camera vs one of the more compact DSLRs just isn't that great, and the Panasonic GH1 has it beat for video capability. 2) I don't understand the logic of releasing a new camera system without IS in the body. Sure, lens based stabilization works just fine, but I want stabilized primes and pancake lenses! I'm surprised Samsung would go this route given their previous partnerships with Pentax. I just don't get it.

I agree that success will have a lot to do with lenses. Do we know how proprietary the mount is or will be? Yes, it snubs m4/3. I don't know how necessary that was, design wise, but on the other hand it's not like there's a galaxy of m4/3 lenses out there, or even 4/3 lenses.

Plus, I think much interest in m4/3 is from adapter users. NX's 25.5mm registration is shallower than pretty much anything except m4/3, so it should be as adaptable. Just shallower enough than the M mount, I believe, to make it interesting, especially if those lenses perform better than they do on m4/3.

Assuming the body is competent, a few good lenses and good adaptability might make NX instantly competitive. They say competition is good for us.

I just don't get it. Another proprietary lens mount, incompatible with anything else on the market? A mount that needs an adapter ("to be announced") to be compatible even with partner Pentax's lenses for APS-C sized sensors?

I don't see the 'hook' here. The camera seems nice enough, but it lacks the great retro design of the Olympus EP-1/2, the tiny size of the Lumix GF1, an image stabilized sensor, the standardized universal mount promised by micro 4/3rds...

As an off-brand with no real track record, Samsung will need a better hook to snag customers beyond casual impulse buyers.

It is not the mount or the lenses the success story of the Panasonic and the Olympus [a success to see, to be honest. It is too early to say].

Else, that very success should have been out there with the Panasonic and Olympus dSLR´s. And there wasn´t.

So they've dropped their DSLR business for this? If the price is attractive they could shift some boxes but otherwise it's a sideshow.

I'm surprised Samsung would go this route given their previous partnerships with Pentax.

Olympus came up with a new miniaturised stabilisation system for MFT. With the partership between Samsung and Pentax apparently dissolved, Samsung would need to develop an in-body stabilisation of their own. They have in-lens stabilisation in their compacts.

I have been thinking lately, and the thing that I would love to have is an interchangable lens camera with a sensor even smaller than regular micro4/3.
A cropfactor of 4 would be about ideal.

If this would give me a camera wich supports all those Cine lenses that would be extremely nice.
My main concern is size.
I would like something the size of my old Minox 35GT. I would be willing to give up quite a bit of image quality to get there.

Also with a 4* cropfactor I don't see the problem in making for instance a 9mm F.7 or an 9mm F1 lense.

The last thing we need is another proprietary lens mount, along with another EVIL.

That's like another mobile telephone - so what?

@ Wil Macaulay: "I'd love to have a small body to stick my Pentax K mount lenses on" Me too, though I mean the lenses for my Pentax DSLR. I presume that's what you meant.

It would be especially fine if the camera was much smaller than the Pentax but the controls followed a similar layout. I could use either or both at the same time. The smaller camera would of course live in my pocket. This scheme would be just as applicable with Canon, Nikon, etc.

the smaller camera would only need a small range of lenses available. For extreme wideness take the big camera, for extreme teleness the biggest lenses on the smallest camera.

The above is all a bit theoretical at the moment, but does it even apply to the NX10? Just because it's a mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses doesn't mean that it is a direct competitor to, say, the Pen.

Erlik and YS, it isn't just the flange to sensor/film that is the issue, it depends on the diameter of the lens mounts too. For example, the Pentax K bayonet flange distance is only 1 mm less than the 42mm screw, but it is of larger diameter and so allows infinity focussing with screw thread lenses and a bayonet adaptor.

This camera is big news BECAUSE there is an eye-level viewfinder and it does it without the really old and expensive technology - the reflex mirror.

You will see ALL camera manufactures using this new technology including the 4/3 manufactures in the very near future.

As for the camera I like the fact that it isn't a 4/3 camera. I much prefer the 3/2 format and its size sensor.

But again the big news is the eye-level viewfinder and no reflex mirror!

Read the dpreview article VERY carefully.

the Pentax K bayonet flange distance is only 1 mm less than the 42mm screw, but it is of larger diameter and so allows infinity focussing with screw thread lenses and a bayonet adaptor.

Are you certain? AFAIK, Pentax K and M42 have the same flange-back distance, 45.5mm. Of course, the bayonet being wider, you just need to insert a screw adapter into it.

But, also AFAIK, focusing to infinity has nothing to do with the diameter but just with the distance of the glass from the sensor/film. Move it too far away and you cannot achieve the infinity focus. Move it too close and you focus beyond infinity. There were just such problems with some cheap adapters for 4/3.

I don't see this working very well. The body is more or less the same size as the G1 or the GH1, but the lenses are bigger -- not much, but some, and across three or four lenses, it adds up. The whole point of the m4/3 system is small size -- Panasonic and Olympus knowingly gave up some potential ultimate image quality to get the small size. Also, it's a *system.* So I have a GH1 with a GF1 as a backup, and that's quite a bit more compact than two Samsungs with their larger lenses. A GF1 with a 20 can actually be stuck in a jacket pocket; I don't think the Samsung will be at all pocketable. Taking into account the necessary lenses, the Samsung won't be any functionally smaller than a D300 (though the D300 will be heavier.)

Off topic a bit, when I bought my GH1, I was forced to buy it as a kit - there were no single bodies available at all. I was in Samy's camera in Pasadena recently and they still don't have any individual bodies. I really don't understand that -- I wonder if Panasonic has yet grasped the fact that some people who are buying this camera are fairly serious photographers, and want a backup, but really don't want to pay extra to get duplicate mediocre kit lenses.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. Pentax should take a K-x, remove the prism and mirror, jazz up the LV AF, and release that. It wouldn't be much larger (in fact, dimensionally, the biggest penalty would be body depth) and loads more useful.

I too had hopes for the NX, but they've made choice after choice that demonstrates utter cluelessness.

As I buy MFT lenses, it is comforting to know that Panasonic and Olympus will be competing to produce the next camera for them to mount. Conversely, when I buy a camera hoping that the right lens will be made, it's nice to know that there are a few companies which could step up and produce it.

It's this flexibility of MFT which inspired me to launch a site for MFT users. It's a system with which I think I can be comfortable for a long time!

To me, the problem with Micro 4/3 and the NX10 is that they ARE system cameras. If that's what you want, buy a more capable and less compromised DSLR. For a handy camera with OK output quality I'd prefer a well chosen single fixed lens with matching built-in optical finder. Less buttons too. And priced accordingly.

It seems to me that perhaps the biggest single frustration I've had in the whole digital era is the headache of finding the lenses I want for the cameras I want.

Pardon my obvious question, but did you not have trouble in the film era finding the lenses you wanted for the cameras you wanted?

Yes, I would love to be able to use my great Canon L lenses on, say, the Sony A850 with the in-body stabilisation.
Proprietary lens systems are dumb. I doubt it's even good business sense in most cases.

@ Erlik: "Are you certain? AFAIK, Pentax K and M42 have the same flange-back distance, 45.5mm. Of course, the bayonet being wider, you just need to insert a screw adapter into it."

You are quite right about the flange to back distances. After I read your comment I dug out my old Pentax K2 manual, and it shows how the adaptor fits flush. It was a long time ago when I had this camera and a 'Mount Adaptor K', and my memory let me down.

As you said, the bayonet is wider than the screw thread. The screw fits into the bayonet adaptor, it is held at the right distance and you can focus at infinity.

Another mount with the same flange-back distance but which was larger than the Pentax K bayonet would not fit inside. The lens would have to be mounted further away and it wouldn't be possible to focus at infinity. This is what I meant by the mount diameter being an issue.

"Pardon my obvious question, but did you not have trouble in the film era finding the lenses you wanted for the cameras you wanted?"

Charles,
Not really. I've recounted this so many times that longtime readers are probably sick of hearing it, but here goes again. All I need is a fast-ish, medium- to small-sized normal in the 35-40mm range, and a fast-ish, medium- to small-sized short tele in the 85 to 90mm range. In "the era of the prime lens" these were common and even if the makers shied away from introducing many new ones, you could always get older ones. The switch to APS-C and zooms has made it very difficult to replicate this set in the digital era. Short teles aren't much of a problem if you can deal with them a little shorter than I like, because you can use fast 50s. But generally there have been almost no 35-40mm-equivalent f/2-or-faster primes for digital cameras. You have to use wider lenses designed for 35mm, which are larger, heavier, slower, and more expensive than the lens I want, or you have to use a zoom, or you have to settle for the wrong focal-length equivalent. Olympus has not provided more than a few primes for its E cameras. Even Pentax with all its excellent primes has no 35mm f/2 equivalent prime.

Full-frame cameras have alleviated the situation somewhat, but even there you often are forced to used legacy lenses which were not coated for digital and aren't at their best on digital cameras. And in some cases it's still problematic. Sony has not reissued the Minolta 35/2 for its full-frame cameras, for instance, and as a result the price of scarce Minolta versions on the used market has skyrocketed. On the flip side, in the old days you could always get a Leica of some sort and use small primes with it. Now you can finally get a full-frame Leica in digital, but I'm never going to carry a $7k camera.

It's not a dealbreaker--I can use whatever I have to, and I have--but it's a headache anyway. It's been a real pleasure to own the new Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, which hits my sweet spot. Makes me realize how much I've missed my preferred type of lenses.

Mike

Pentax should take a K-x, remove the prism and mirror, jazz up the LV AF, and release that.

Ray, just as an information, Pentax did say they thought m4/3 was a good idea. And they apparently didn't reject m4/3 format out of hand either. :)

Sony is also working on something similar, but they don't want m4/3 format. Hm. Funny. Two companies who rejected m4/3 format are also big competitors to Panasonic in the electronics market. Could that be related? ;)

Thing is, whoever comes with a micro-format camera, they have to do a system. With lenses.

That might be a reason why Leica created a fixed-lens camera -- this way they can drop in a lens or two into Panasonic's offerings and not be obliged to do a whole lineup. What with M and S lenses, they've got enough to do.

That also might be a reason why Nikon and Canon are keeping quiet. With relying on their legacy lenses, I don't think they need another line. We'll see.

Pentax, as a not-big manufacturer, could benefit from the existing m4/3 lenses, at least in the beginning.

Pentax should take a K-x, remove the prism and mirror, jazz up the LV AF, and release that.
Exactly. A thinner body, no prism and an electronically coupled adapter in the front to match flange-back distance for any legacy lenses and any of the guys with an existing "system" (Canon, Nikon and to a lesser extent former Minolta users under the Sony umbrella) can do this in a heartbeat. Makes you wonder why they don't.

And in some cases it's still problematic. Sony has not reissued the Minolta 35/2 for its full-frame cameras, for instance, and as a result the price of scarce Minolta versions on the used market has skyrocketed.

Likewise for the highly regarded Minolta 28/2 on APS. Even with all it's faults, you can't have mine :-)

Just a couple of considerations out of my real world photography experience.
Legacy lenses have an undeniable fetish value: when they were young, in the film era, some were brilliant performers, and the feel of a well machined all-metal engraved-graphics d.o.f.-scaled lens barrel is really luscious. But let's face it. Only digital-era designed lenses can squeeze the best out of digital sensors. Moreover, this mating pleasure does not come for free. Well built adapters are expensive, whereas the cheaper ones are totally unreliable in terms of mechanics and tolerances.
Thus, when it comes to a new EVIL system, IMHO legacy lens compatibility is not a decisive issue.
What really strikes me instead is Nikon and Canon immobility in this segment, which is likely to be the next technological and commercial battlefield for all manufacturers (old and new). The goal here is to make profits giving people lighter, simpler and cheaper quality cameras. Exactly as it happened in the Sixties, when SLRs became popular thanks to manufacturer's creativity.

Leica M bayonet depth is 27.95mm and the Leica screw mount 28.8mm , less than a mm , and the m mount was designed for the screw mount adapter.

Rolleiflex SL35 has a depth of 44.6mm, only .6mm more than Canon EOS's 44mm and there are very fine adapters for that.

I recently bought a Canon 5Dmk2 primarily because I could mount a lot of interesting lenses on it and because of the live view which makes using non canon lenses very satisfactory. I would have gladly paid the same for the sensor and live view without the reflex mirror, prism, and canon's crummy autofocus (although the live view autofocus works quite well if slowly) in a compact package with a positionable screen.

According to Wikipedia Samsung is the world's largest conglomerate by revenue with an annual revenue of US$173.4 billion in 2008 and would rank 34th in GDP if it were a country. They already have almost half of Canon's market share in photography and if they want to dominate photography they way they have electronics, shipbuilding and construction (worlds tallest building) it is a matter of will not resources. They even own their own university.

Oh and for what it's worth AMOLED displays are amazing. My daughter has a phone with one and it is the best display I have ever seen.

So much negativity here.

A more positive spin from dpreview:
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html
- who apparently share Mike's prime lens desires (along with mine, FWIW).

I've recounted this so many times that longtime readers are probably sick of hearing it, but here goes again.

As a short-time reader, thanks! :)

I see what you mean. I used the 31mm and 77mm FA Limiteds for my B&W film class last year. Fantastic (though expensive) combo.

I'm still hoping to find a 24-28mm equivalent that's f/2-or-faster for my Pentax digital system.

@Roger Bradbury: yes, of course, DSLR lenses, though my favourite lens is the FA43 LTD.

I'm going out to the pub tonight, and I'll be carrying my K20D in my coat pocket with the FA43 (screw-on lens hood removed and replaced with a generic 49mm lenscap). Not tiny, but not nearly as intimidating as a fast zoom. I'd be willing to live with a small body that gives me the electronics hookups (with or without an adapter) so that focal length and aperture gets recorded in EXIF, even if no mechanical AF were possible. Surely SDM lenses are supportable through the appropriate adaptor.

I really like the idea of the mirrorless K-X... No, I REALLY like the idea of a mirrorless K-X.


"Pardon my obvious question, but did you not have trouble in the film era finding the lenses you wanted for the cameras you wanted?"

In the film era you could chose a lens, then get a cheap camera to go with it, since the camera didn't really have that much impact on image quality assuming it wasn't actually broken.

The choice of film and lens was important, the camera was just what you stuck between them.

Konicas and Alpas were neat since you could stick just about any 35 lens on them.

Of course if image quality was a big deal, a $40 speed graphic or calumet was the ticket.

Personally, I am not holding this announcement it too high an esteem. If, say, in next half a year Samsung would announce a self-made adapter for Pentax or Canon or Nikon or Sony/Minolta mount with reasonable degree of integration (matrix metering and motor-in-lens AF at the very least) - it would be interesting. If, alternatively, they announce 3 more lenses and 1 more flash, it would be interesting. As such, right now, it holds no interest to me.

I am however tempted by Panasonic and its 20/1.7 lens as I also like to shoot at this range.

Nonetheless, if this camera sells and other (bigger) players notice it and start working, for us the customers it totally fulfilled its purpose.

Mike, I hear you wanting to have 35/2 equivalent lens. If you manage to hunt down Sigma AF 24/2.8 Super Wide Macro (or whatever is the exact name), you might be pleasantly surprised. I know I was. It is as sharp as Pentax K 24/2.8, slightly more flare prone, as small (52 mm filter thread) and very light. Not ideal, I know, but very good nonetheless.

Meanwhile, I will go on shooting and enjoying my Pentax K-7 and SMCP A 50/1.2.

why adopting some 12mm oder 15mm ultrawide angle lenses made for 35mm film if you could use a quite small Panasonic mFT 7-14 or an Olympus FT 9-18 + adaptor lens with good image quality, autofocus and "real" ultra wide angle?
Other wide options in mFT would soon be a very small Olympus mFT 9-18 lens and the Panasonic 14/2,8 pancake lens?
(an Olympus 12/? is expected for 2011)
For maximum image quality you could use the Olympus FT 7-14 + adaptor.

I can't see any Samsung NX advantage in the ultra wide sector, because some 12mm lens made for film behaves as a 18mm lens, IF(!) an adaptor will be available somteimes (which I doubt for Leica M mount, btw...)

I saw the NX-10 at CES on the weekend. The most impressive aspect of it was the OLED that they use instead of an LCD. Very bright. The EVF was also quite good. I agree that the SLR styling made it bigger than the GF-1. the 30mm pancake was about the same thickness as the Panasonic 20mm lens.
The Panasonic rep said the most asked question was when they were going to release more primes for the GF-1. Hopefully, they are listening to the customer.
I asked one Canon rep about whether they were planning to release a non-reflex APS-C camera. He initially started debating with me why would anyone want this - I said high quality imaging in a small form factor, and told him I had friends that had replaced their Canon's with the GF-1. That got his attention.

The Samsung NX-10 will not be able to adapt Leica M lenses because of the part of the lens bayonet that sticks into the camera. This part is 6.7 mm long and has a diameter of 43.5 mm. With m4/3 this part fits inside the adapter (just) because the adapter is 8.6 mm long. But the adapter for the NX is too short and the throat diameter on the camera is too small. It would have to be around 44.5 mm for this to work. That's as wide as standard Fourthirds. And even if it was that wide, the lens would probably foul the electrical contacts in the body.

The comments to this entry are closed.