Samsung officially announces the Galaxy NX DSLR camera, coming in October with a hefty price tag
4. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
ummmmm you commented just to say that....
29. akki20892 (Posts: 3652; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)
No thankx..........Nikon and Canon is better and great.......!!!
2. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
As long as it takes better photos than the galaxy camera then you cant go wrong!! It makes more sense to put android on a dslr and at least this could give the Lumia 1020 a run for its money!!!!
6. _Bone_ (Posts: 2139; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
Oh but it pulls great shots, which is why I'm puzzled if Sammy can do a great full frame sensor, why can't they do a small one.
14. Commentator (Posts: 2494; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
Uh, I would HOPE it gives the Lumia 1020 a run for its money, given that it costs a full $1000 more.
At any rate, why would it matter? The Lumia is a phone, this thing isn't.
42. Commentator (Posts: 2494; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
To unite all people within our nation!
47. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3024; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
By removing every political boxing glove.
48. Commentator (Posts: 2494; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
To extend our reach to the stars above!
58. laheelahee (Posts: 213; Member since: 09 Apr 2012)
Team Rocket, blast off at the speed of light!
54. voxmarc (Posts: 319; Member since: 22 Aug 2012)
to have sex with anyone interested,including animals...wtf.
3. _Bone_ (Posts: 2139; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
The NX 300 which is the Galaxy NX is based on is a damn fine device with superb picture quality. My concern with an Android-based camera is the snappiness of the snapshots. You can do almost instantaneous shots from Off with a regular DSLR, will this one from sleep mode take a shot within a second? If so, it can be a winner.
5. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6729; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Beautiful camera. It's good that Samsung gives consumers options. What's bad is the price tag.
7. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
Other camera manufacturers need to take notice, if they don't want to fall behind. It happened to Sony in TV, and Nokia in smartphone. Are Canon and Nixon next?
9. yudi.nemesis (Posts: 1127; Member since: 14 Mar 2013)
The latest info about Sony Ultra HD TV market share
10. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
Good for Sony. However, owning majority share of "fledging Ultra HD TV market" is like owning majority share of window os(Nokia loses money). "Meanwhile, Sony's total LCD TV shipments are likely to reach 14 million units in 2013, compared to its revised target of 15 million units..."
18. yudi.nemesis (Posts: 1127; Member since: 14 Mar 2013)
19. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
So? Samsung is #1 in TV. I don't know what you're trying to prove or say??
21. yudi.nemesis (Posts: 1127; Member since: 14 Mar 2013)
So did Sony TV business loses money or they are getting better??
From the info that i gave shows that Sony TV business are going to rise instead of fall.
22. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
"Long-Struggling TV Ops Help Electronics Maker(Sony) Swing Back Into Black Ink." Yes, Sony TV business made money for a change, after struggling in TV business for a long time. After a long slump, one quarter of profit doesn't really mean anything.
And, Samsung surpassed Sony long time ago, which was my original point. I don't know what Sony's profit has to do with Samsung's status.
12. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
Unlikely, when you get into the DSLR market, its usually pros and enthusiasts.
No respectable pro will ditch companies with 75+ years experience, reputation and quality in the imaging/ optical business to go with Samsung. Not to mention that they aren't likely to scrap tens of thousands of dollars in good lenses to switch bodies. Plus, Samsung isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability.
On the enthusiasts' side, Samsung has to compete with Canon and Nikon's extensive selection of bodies and lenses, their brand reputation, customer service, and value. Its a tough market and Samsung may not have the edge to grab the attention of perspective customers. Not to mention that Samsung's customer service in America is absolutely terrifying.
16. Commentator (Posts: 2494; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
On the bright side though, at least you can let your kid play Angry Birds on your $1600 camera!
28. Sauce (unregistered)
You couldn't have said this any better. While not a full time photographer anymore, I agree with you 110%.
30. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
"Samsung isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability," it's not 1980's anymore. Samsung has focused on quality and reliability, which is the reason why they're #1 in TV, memory, phones. "Samsung's customer service in America is absolutely terrifying," Samsung's service is no more "terrifying" than others.
"..scrap tens of thousands of dollars in good lenses to switch bodies," this has kept Canon and Nikon dual domination going. But as Kodak's film business failure has shown, nothing can withstand changing times, if companies don't embrace change. And, this change maybe Android.
31. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
I've had plenty of Samsung products break down on me, proportionally more than any other brand and its usually around 10-16 months post purchase, Samsung is not the pinnacle of reliability and I stand by my statement. As for being #1 in sales is mostly likely due to the marketing and the gimmicky features. Also, planned obsolescence drives sales, and Samsung is one of the best in this game.
Also, remember the capacitor plague? Samsung never admitted it and when it totaled my TV, SOL buy a new one was their answer. Customer service right?
As for Nikon and Canon domination, it was always about reputation. The DSLR community is a relatively small one, where reputation is critical. Enthusiasts tend to ask other enthusiasts about quality, reliability and selection, Nikon and Canon are among the top, although they tend to lack some consumer oriented features. Pros on the other hand tend to go with the equipment that they learned on, which in most cases is also Nikon or Canon.
34. PapaSmurf (Posts: 8922; Member since: 14 May 2012)
My 42" Samsung HDTV still performs as new since 2005 along side of the 500W surround sound that's still sounds incredible since 2002 so they get my stamp of approval for reliability. If you take care of your electronics, especially if they cost a lot of money, you wouldn't have a problem.
37. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
I completely agree with that, that's why all of my electronics are used with OEM accessories and are all plugged into UPSs. That being said, electronics still break down on a component level depending on the choices made by the manufacturers. That's why there is so much variation between brands and even within brands. Which is also why your 05 Samsung still works and my 07 doesn't.
Incidentally, when my wife (electrical engineer) opened up the TV to repair it herself, she was appalled at the component selection. According to her, Samsung probably knew how and when this TV was going to fail.
56. willard12 (Posts: 883; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Considering many OEMs, including Apple, are using Samsung parts, nothing should last according to your logic.
36. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
As you stated, if Samsung does indeed have "terrifying" reliability, customer service, and only gimmicky features, why are consumers coming back for more?(do people like keep buying terrible devices??) When there are many other alternatives available. Why are You keep buying Samsung? Your profile has your current phone as Samsung. I guess Samsung ads and gimmicky features force you to buy Samsung products, even though there are better alternatives. Is this your reason for buying samsung?
Nokia and Sony's reputation weren't able to keep them at their top place. And, they all had quality and reliability.
38. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
In this day and age, its all down to the product life cycle. When we bought goods back in the 70s and 80s, we expect it to last a good 20 years. Today, its buy a new one every year and throw out the old one, different mindset. By the time it breaks down roughly a year later, its time to get a new one. People keep on buying these things because of excellent marketing and the fact the product was great when it worked.
Personally, I haven't bought a Samsung in ages, and nobody can force me to buy anything I don't want to. But marketing on young people is exceptionally effective, when your children bring you high end goods, you thank them for their lovely gesture and you use the products. But yeah, I haven't updated my profile in a while, and incidentally my Galaxy Nexus broke, at roughly 13 months in.
Nokia and Sony are different stories. Nokia fell behind software and feature wise, but their build quality was impressive. Sony suffered partly from the increased Yen which made their exports increasingly difficult. Plus high production costs of "Made in japan" killed them revenue wise.
Since I firmly believe that everyone should learn something new every day, here's one for the youngsters. Quality and reliability kills future business. You simply can't compete using high quality parts, skilled labor and product longevity. This is a major reason why the tech giants of Japan are falling one by one.
39. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
Correct me if i'm wrong, according to you, "marketing and the gimmicky features" are the most important thing for making sales and staying #1 in electronics. Nobody(meaning buying public) cares whether your devices have terrifying service and reliability. Right? Because, believe it or not, this is what you're saying.
40. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
Japan's decline had many causes. One of the main causes was their unwillingness to change and adopt new ideas.
41. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
You're missing many points from my statements, I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
As for Japan's decline, their unwillingness to change was certainly a driving factor. But breaking a tradition of quality and craftsmanship was something the Japanese weren't willing to do, and they ultimately suffered for it.
43. tmcr7 (Posts: 162; Member since: 02 Nov 2011)
Sony smartphones declined in sales because they used to sell flagship phones with midrange specs. But today it's different.
44. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
Well, I'm using your words to show you how your points do not make sense. Anyways, lets agree to disagree.
45. jdoee100 (Posts: 313; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
You seem to have this romantic idea of Japan. Well, while Japan held on to their "traditions." Samsung provided quality components at lower prices by adopting to changing conditions. You can call them whatever you like, but nothing is going to change Samsung's accomplishments. Their accomplishments speak for themselves.
8. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5952; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Now that Sammy is wanting to play in the dedicated DSLR game, the answer to the question of whether it is worth the price is... it depends. As in it depends on how the camera compares to other dedicated DSLR offerings. Personally, I would wait until I saw a review posted on dpreview.com For $1,600 (body only), there are some mighty capable DSLRs available from other competitors.
24. McLTE (Posts: 714; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I cannot imagine ANY scenario where I'd willingly choose this camera over my Sony Alpha 77. I don't need to access games and apps on my camera, nor upload instantly to the internet.
What I need are the weather proofing my A77 has, the 12fps shooting, ability to calibrate individual lenses to the camera body.
for that price I could have got a kit that included a SUPERB 17/55 F2.8 lens also.
i don't see this winning over too many photographers at the level to shell out $1600 for a camera.
Now had Samsung started out in the sub 1000 range, they may have a winner.
Btw PA, Pro and Semi-PRO cameras are NOT in the sub $1000 range. Most prosumer bodies will start at around the $1300-$1500 mark.
11. jacko1977 (Posts: 400; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
for $1600 should have 64gb + 1080p screen
15. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
Huge internal storage for a DSLR is unnecessary, its actually much faster to pull the card and then plug it into a computer than it is to transfer all the images to the computer from the camera (doubt this thing has USB 3.0)
Also, the screen is not the main point of a DSLR, its meant to be an image capture device, not an image display device. 1080p just add unnecessary costs to the camera.
17. _Bone_ (Posts: 2139; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
You can upload on the fly on LTE, no cable or card reader is necessary.
25. McLTE (Posts: 714; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Aparantly you've never done studio or macro photography.
Having a big 1080P display on the camera would be a BOON for photographers who often want to zoom into images to asses focus sharpness.
Also, when DSLRs start recording video as well as 20MP images, one cannot have too much storage. You can always dump it early, but it really sucks to run out!
The other advantage of internal storage is that it can be faster than any SD card, which is great for high speed photography and video.
For my Sony A77, I had to purchase the fastest cards available to take advantage of it's 12fps capability and not fill the buffer in a couple seconds.
35. Kan_wha (Posts: 88; Member since: 25 Jun 2012)
Actually, when I learned photography in college, it was just SLR. Never had a habit of using the screen to check my shots immediately on the new DSLRs, but I can see how its useful among the youngsters.
I agree that you can never have too much storage, however, I like many others prefer external storage where I can just pop out the card and plug it in. But realistically, if you're going to buy a $1600 camera, you are not going to stick a class 2 card into the camera. For example, I've never used anything other than Extreme Pros for my new D800, speed has never been an issue.
In any case, I'd rather buy premium cards that I can take from camera to camera than have them put additional internal storage and charge me a premium for it.
Also... Kudos to the civilized conversations so far, nice to see an intelligent discussion on here once in a while.
23. tango_charlie (Posts: 92; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
Can you make phone calls with that camera too? s/
26. gigaraga (Posts: 1381; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)
I love this camera! I would get it instantly if not for the relatively high price tag. Great product..good job Samsung!!
27. Sauce (unregistered)
49. SonyPS4 (Posts: 261; Member since: 21 May 2013)
Thats is quite cheap high end dslr comapred to Canon eos 6d and nikon d600 which didnt have androidand quad core proceseesor
53. cam-whore (Posts: 164; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
probably because canon and nikon don't need android and quad core. But you are right in saying this is quite cheap, actually looks very cheap...
50. spiderpig2894 (Posts: 444; Member since: 10 Jan 2012)
Please don't make DSLRs with phone specs. You really are now making ginmicks, Samsung. Leave the DSLRs as DSLRs.