tugela

What is the problem with the editing function on this board? It keeps on inserting spurious elements from other posts in my replies. If that were true than lens manufacturers would include those elements in the lens column to improve IQ, and they don't. Which implies that things like speedboosters degrade IQ, not improve it. To suggest otherwise means that you believe in magic. While it may well improve apparent IQ if you are using a lens designed for a different, larger, sensor size on a smaller one with a higher pixel density, it will never match a native lens designed specifically for that sensor.

More resolution if you were comparing it to the FF lens without a speedbooster, but not more resolution than a native lens. Your FF lens cannot compete with a native lens no matter what hacks you play with the optical path. Every time you insert a glass element into the optical path that was not designed into the lens you will have degradation of the image.

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics. A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

Yes, but remember that at the end of September the also denied the rumours that they were leaving the camera market, then a few weeks later started shutting down their European distribution. Companies will always deny things until they happen (it isn't the job of CS to prematurely make announcements the CEO would normally make, so they will say the status quo even that is about to change), so this denial might not mean much in light of what they said in September. There is also the exchange that Oliver Daniel reported on the other thread here: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9451-is-samsung-shutting-down-their-camera-business/?page=13 That would suggest that something is up, and if they suddenly cease distribution of everything at the same time it is a bit weird and inexplicable.

Whoever wrote that has some misconceptions about cameras and business. A modern camera consists of two parts, traditional hardware (the body, lens, etc) and a computer (the sensor, processor and associated logic). Nikon has extensive expertise in the former and not so much the latter. It is not their thing. Samsung on the other hand is a leader in the silicon part of the camera, so they have a lot to offer Nikon. It is not just the sensor, it is also the processor (Samsung has what is probably the most advanced camera processor around) as well as all the other bits. Without the lens a camera is just a box that encloses the electronics, and electronics is Samsung's strength, not Nikon's. A collaboration between the two companies would see Nikon focusing on the hardware and Samsung on the computer - the two companies would complement each others weaknesses and produce a product much stronger than either individually could make. This is what synergy is all about. The direction of development of modern cameras is all about electronics, and that is the strength of companies like Sony and Samsung. It is the reason why Nikon and Canon are falling behind, they simply do not have the expertise and experience to compete effectively in that particular field relative to the others. On the business side, Nikon would not acquire the division itself, instead they would acquire rights to the assets of the division. Since Samsung would no longer have any assets in the division, they would not have anything to sell and that is why they pulled out of the markets in question. Far from being surprising, it is exactly what you would expect them to do. It would not be a situation where you changed the name on the building and just carried on as usual. Nikon and Samsung would not be integrating anything. They would be collaborating, Nikon would be designing the body and Samsung would be designing the electronics. Samsung does this all the time with foreign companies, including Japanese ones - there would be no problem now because there hasn't been one in the past. A press release won't happen until the companies are ready to announce products. Leaks will still happen, publically traded or not. It is not supposed to, but it happens. The Samsung user base may be small relative to other manufacturers but it is still a big number that represents a sizeable chunk of cash and has value. I would think that it is in neither companies interests to alienate that base for no reason, so there will probably be some sort of transition mechanism put in place. Lastly, if this collaboration is indeed true, it is highly unlikely that it just started now. In all likelihood it was in place before the NX1 even hit the market, but stuff is only happening now because Nikon are about to execute on the fruits of that collaboration and are exercising their options. If so, I think you will find that Nikon has had significant input into the development of the NX1 and S lenses (but probably not the NX500).

No, what I am saying is that an APS-C sensor is best mounted with an APS-C lens. Not sure why that is hard to understand. And in any case, if you have a high pixel density sensor you want to have a lens designed specifically for that sensor size and not some other sensor size. Sticking a speed booster in the optical path degrades lens performance. If you want maximum performance from your lens you are going to use an appropriate lens, not some lens designed for something else with a gadget stuck in-between.

Unless, of course, you are using a lens designed for an APS-C sensor. Which is what the NX lenses are. The comparable situation is Canon with EF versus EF-S lenses.

You can still use adapters, a speed booster isn't critical. And with a Nikon mount a smart adapter would be much more viable. Or you could just by a lens with an actual Nikon mount already in place, there are tons of those around. This idea that a speedbooster is a make or break item for someone who makes money from their equipment seems ridiculous to me. It is more a concern for amateurs who can't afford to buy appropriate equipment for the job.

It would still be Samsung Tech. The deal most likely would be structured so that Samsung does the sensor and processor development (which they would be doing in part anyway for their cell phone and TV divisions anyway), while Nikon would integrate that technology into camera systems. So it would be a partnership rather than flat out sale of IP.

I think other manufacturers will get on board with having hardware H.265 decoders on the TV panels as well....it is the logical thing to do once 4K streaming takes off.

Since they supposedly acquired it for a professional grade mirrorless system, they likely don't give a rats ass about speed boosters. Professionals buy real lenses, not speedboosters to jerry rig the system.

Not a problem for me, since I usually want more dof, not less.

Those were the first tablets however, and probably the inspiration for the iPads and similar gear that came after them. And they were created specifically for content creation (which is more than just video FYI). Regarding tablets in general, I use mine all the time for doing quick previews of what a photograph is actually going to look like after crops and using that to decide what I need to do, so saying they are not useful is incorrect anyway. It is a tool that you can use (or not use, as you see fit). Tablets with real processors in them (such as the Surface) are capable of doing editing just as much as any laptop (and probably better than most).

Really???? Have you heard about these things? http://www.wacom.com/en-us/products/pen-displays These are the original "Tablets" btw, before there were such things as iPads and the like.

The XC10 won't take sales from the Rebel line, it is more likely to take sales from the XA line.

I think that is more or less what happened at Samsung at the end. Their engineers produced the start of something great, but the people running the company didn't have a clue and flushed it away. Basically Xerox.

The problem with Gamma C is that it tends to make shadows black.

That is because the NX1 image IS more compressed, lol. The jpeg for the NX1 is 2.2MB, while the jpeg for the a7RII is 4.2MB. For a proper comparison you would also need to use the same lens, and it isn't clear if that was done or not. And, as always, particularly with a flat image, there is always the question about whether or not both cameras were focused properly at the time. The comparison is more valid in the a7RII when looking at the two modes, since presumably all the physical aspects of the camera were kept the same when shooting those.

If their next release is the XA40/45 with a slightly improved sensor, wouldn't you?

This is basically the same as the XA20/25, but with a slightly tweaked sensor. No doubt certain people still use stuff like this, but I doubt it is a hot seller. Personally I have never seen any of the G or XA cameras physically for sale anywhere, and I'm not even sure who would sell it in my city. I have a G30, but that was ordered directly from Canon. Based on the overall specs of the new cameras the image quality and capabilities of the new cameras will be pretty much identical to the older generation. It has the same processor and seems to have the same lens. So I think really all this is is a repackaging of the XA20/25. This is pretty much par for course for Canon, they have done this all the time historically in the consumer lines of both cameras and camcorders.

Too bad its monopoly money!

Except that the people who acquired that power didn't have capital to start with. They just took it, most likely by less than conventional means. In English "mafia" is loosely used to describe organized crime, and if the rise of the wealthy in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't fit that description, then I don't know what does, lol.

Expect to receive it around 2017 then!

Its a Russian mafia boss.

You probably haven't noticed this yet, but Canon have been selling cameras for many years and those cameras are still out there taking pictures. Flickr is not representative of what is selling right now, it is representative of what has been sold over the last decade. Guess statistics isn't your thing either.