Samsung's APS-C 'hybrid' system to rival Micro Four Thirds
By Darren Murph 
posted September 1st 2008 8:25AM
posted September 1st 2008 8:25AM
Just weeks after Olympus and Panasonic launched the potentially revolutionary Micro Four Thirds system, in flies word that Samsung is looking to steal their thunder with a sure-to-be-incompatible alternative. Speaking at IFA in Berlin, Samsung Techwin executive vice president Byung Woo Lee confessed that the company was gearing up to introduce a new "interchangeable lens 'Hybrid' digital camera system." The first model in the still unnamed system would reportedly carry Sammy's own 14-megapixel APS-C sized CMOS sensor and a new lens mount, and while exact size specifications weren't disclosed, you can rest assured that the end product will aim to deliver DSLR-like results in a much more compact frame. As with the aforementioned Micro Four Thirds, this method will also utilize electronic viewfinders and a live rear LCD for framing, though we won't see anything on store shelves until early 2010. Talk about testing our patience.[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]
These manufacturers are crazy if they think an entirely new lens mount is going to survive, especially when paired with something as low-end as "electronic viewfinders."
This isn't aimed for the professionals, it's for the people who want compact cameras with changeable lenses.
By eliminating the mirror, less money to make the cameras...
And since those people don't often have DSLRs, they don't have optics, so they don't care about the new mount.
You can understand Pan/Oly with micro 4/3 since their 4/3 effort isn't exactly booming. They need to create a niche they can be successful in. And Samsung isn't winning the market with their "rebranded Pentax" dslrs.
I doubt that many other actors will go after this marked unless it really take a bite out of the compact or dslr marked. That it will take bites out of the advanced compact / bridge camera -marked is easy to see.
@avestar
That's exactly what 4/3 is all about, and it's not exactly a widely popular system.
The biggest problem is that these sensors aren't cheap enough or high-quality enough to justify the niche market. Cramming 14mp on an APS-C-sized sensor means nothing unless you can adequately control the resulting excessive noise, or if the sensor is cheap enough to compete with "high-end" point-and-shoot cameras. And introducing a new proprietary mount/system won't help bring prices down either, at least not in the short term.
I don't think they need to make a new lens mount for interchangeable lenses in this category. But other than that, I think this could be a great thing depending on implementation.
We all understand that you won't be able to cram all the superior attributes of a large DSLR into a compact camera. But it's a good start to just try to implement an APS-C sized sensor into a more compact camera system. For god sakes, they have to start somewhere in order to get to the future of higher quality, large sensor compact cameras. I do think it's probably a better idea at least at first to focus on a fixed lens design where they can maximize the speed and quality of the autofocus, metering, and EVF and minimize size and cost.
It would be awesome in the future to be able to have a large full-frame DSLR and a much smaller, lighter compact with a APS-C sensor.
Uh...what lenses are going to be compatible with this insane format? It's not like Samsung is known for their lenses.
I really don't understand the justification. They're taking only two of the benefits of a DSLR (interchangeable lenses and a big sensor), and killing all the rest (lightning fast AF, accurate metering, TTL viewfinder, TTL flash, superior battery life, etc), just to get a slightly cheaper camera and very slightly smaller body (it's still going to be nearer SLR size than compact size).
A low-end DSLR costs even less than a compact these days, so the cost argument is a bit questionable. Low-cost lenses? There are plenty of third party options which are cheap, but of course, often you get what you pay for. They won't be able to make good and cheap lenses, at least not any better/cheaper than what's available now.
So, what's the advantage of a compact camera that can change lenses over a DSLR? Hmm. A *bit* cheaper, maybe, a *bit* smaller, maybe. Live view? Already available on DSLRs. Movies? D90's here, and more will follow. How about the disadvantages? The list is way too long. There are many good reasons why low end DSLRs sell so well, and just the ability to change lenses isn't going to sell a product. Most people who buy these don't even buy any more lenses beyond the kit lens.
Not a very smart move, for Olympus (but they don't make many smart moves) or Samsung.
@solmar
they keep from dslr:
- big sesnor
- exchangable lenses
they add:
- reliable 100% WYSiWYG viewfinder.
the current TTL systems are not 100% WYSiWYG, beacuse: they rarely have 100% covereage AND they change dopth of field with extrabright screens, see e.g. here:
- much smaller buld ( lens can be closer to sensor, no need for retrofocus design in wide angle
- potentially quite operation ( no mirror slap)
potential propblems:
- AF implementation ( they could use reflection off the shuller for an AF system similar to dSLR
- quality of electronic viewfinder
- lag-time of electronic viewfinders
At the end you have system with similar image quality, higher mechanical reiability ( no mirror flap), simpler construction, smaller / more lightweight...
Correct, DSLRs aren't WYSIWYG. But really, try convincing *any* pro that an EVF is better. It isn't, because of a *lot* of reasons.
1. Resolution. Any kind of EVF will have lousy resolution, compared to an actual picture through the lens. This is critical for manual focusing, or determining if focus is correct (even more relevant for a system that doesn't have a dedicated autofocus sensor). Not being able to rely on your view of the scene for focus is... suicide?
2. Speed. Any EVF will have lag. It's a given. Again, a major plus of DSLRs is their responsiveness.
3. Brightness. In a poorly lit situation, the viewfinder at least gives us the real view, not an extremely laggy, pixelated, noisy representation.
The article you mention might have some truth to it, although it seems like it's only obvious with really large aperture lenses (ie 1.4) and really close subjects (macro distance). If you were going to use it in the studio and wanted extreme perfection, you'd tether it to a computer and use the computer's screen to check. For nearly all other applications, pros don't seem to care much about this phenomenon, since most of the time the viewfinder is more than accurate. If they did put a lot of stock into this, they'd all be switching to compacts with their super-accurate LCDs by now, wouldn't they? The whole concept is nice, and if it were much more mature than it is now, then people would actually trust it enough to depend on it for their livelihood. In a studio situation, photographing a static scene with a tripod is probably where it can be put to good use. But try the tons of other situations the DSLR is used for, and it performs poorly relative to the humble "oh, the mirrors! the horror!" viewfinder.
The same can be said for silent shooting. Very few occasions actually require totally silent shooting, and there are tools for achieving it with a DSLR.
As for size, a lens is a lens is a lens, and if you're aiming for quality and modularity on a decent-sized sensor, it's still going to be big, bigger than a compact, and quite close to a low-end DSLR. All in all, it spells "extreme niche product". Not to mention that you'll have quite a limited selection of lenses to use with it, so there goes the lens variety argument.
I forgot the link, on why current dSLR viewfinder are not true WYSiWYG
http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-dslr-viewfinder/
From a Samsung boardroom:
A: "Oh shit, guys! Did you see Olympus and Panasonic are going to try to eat up the high-end P&S and compact "DSLR" market in one big gulp with a new system?"
B: "But WE'RE trying to sell to that market!"
A: "Pandemonium! Nobody is going to buy our rebranded Pentax DSLRs if this takes off! Not to mention our 'luxury' P&Ss!"
B: "We have to compete with this somehow! Lets launch our mirrorless interchangeable lens camera system!"
A: "Our what? We don't have one of those...."
B: "Who cares! Announce it! Maybe a few people won't buy the Micro Four Thirds cameras until they see what we've got!"
A: "OK, but I don't think Pentax is going to make THIS body for us. And about the lenses.... we don't know how to do that, while Olympus has been doing it for decades, and already has compact lens designs for Four Thirds."
B: "Go buy a copy of Canon Lenswork, you baby. How hard can it be?"
A: "Typing up the press release now...."
We'll have to wait and see what Olympus and Panasonic put out before we can tell where they're aiming Micro Four Thirds, but it has the POTENTIAL to do two things:
1) Dominate the high-end P&S market. The Micro Four Thirds sensor is DRAMATICALLY larger than any P&S on the market (save the Sigma DP1). This means much better noise, sharpness, and dynamic range than those with tiny chips such as the Canon G9 or Nikon P6000 or Panasonic LX3. Furthermore, thanks to the very short flangeback distance lens designs can be MUCH more compact than with Four Thirds. If you've seen existing Four Thirds designs such as the E-420, you know that Four Thirds was already pretty close to a P&S in size. Micro Four Thirds could produce cameras as compact as P&S models, but with dramatically better performance.
2) Become the "travel camera" of choice for pros and serious amateurs. You might say the system isn't aimed at pros, and you'd be right in that you won't see these in portrait studios or on NFL sidelines. But there's an untapped market of professional an amateur photographers who want a responsive, compact, and very high quality camera. This market is completely unserved at the moment. The G9 and DP1 might be the closest, but neither is very good at the job. If Olympus and Panasonic offer products with SLR-like shutter lag, usable manual focus, and image quality that matches Four Thirds, they will OWN this segment. And if you doubt the size of this market, look at DSLR sales over the past few years. Every DSLR user out there is a potential customer, because almost every one of them could use a P&S camera.
It will be interesting to see where Samsung takes its system, once it actually starts designing it. From the look of this PR, they just threw out the product of a brainstorming session to make their shareholders think they weren't asleep at the wheel.
You might want to assume that your readers aren't intimately familiar with the topics you're posting about. It took me half way through the paragraph before I realized that this was about cameras. Had I been a little less curious (or not trying to avoid real work so strenuously) I might not have bothered.
One of the main promises of Micro Four Thirds is compact cameras.
With APS-C sensor size of 25.1 x 16.7 mm (versus 4:3's 18 x 13.5 mm) making a compact camera would be a some challenge.
And it's not that there is a vendor neutral lens mount standard for APS-C. Four Thirds won many - not by technical superiority - by being open and relatively vendor neutral.
P.S. And if the new mount would take couple of years to mature, than it might be already too late: new sensors constantly in development with lower noise levels. If something like that would happen withing couple of years, than any lens mount would have a problem competing with Four Thirds. I'm not a fanboi of Four Thirds, all I'm trying to say that Samsung has a long road ahead and with very high probability - road to nowhere.