Samsung NX10

Meh

So close, Samsung. The body is quite nice, and the price great- nothing that better firmware (the focus zoom issue etc) couldn't fix. However, why didn't they get someone decent to make the lenses? The ones currently available are horrible- as bad as, if not worse than low-end Canon kit lenses (i.e. unusuable). The pancake is pretty decent, and makes it a good aps-c street shooter for a lot less than a Leica X1, I suppose, but that's where it ends.

Right now, if you want something of this ilk, the GF1 with Oly lenses seems like it's in a different league for quality, albeit slightly more pricey. Handles better, too.

If decent lenses can be made to meter and autofocus well on this body with an adaptor, it might be interesting, but right now, silly Samsung are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Re: very tempted... above

I'm with Mr Harvey and the other AC on this.

This design could do for Samsung what the original OM1 did for Olympus in the 1970's. Hugely successful and excellent design and innovation let down a bit by the early lenses. Lots of people bought an OM1 and stuck a Vivitar Series One on the front. Maybe we should look forward to their "OM2 moment", which will be the version that does 1080p video and uses external mics.

They must have thought about the risks of a different lens mount - but Vivitar and Tamron dealt with proprietary lock-in decades ago - and I reckon Samsung must have had a sensible chat with their favourite indie lensmakers before they got too far on with this.

It's a very good thing they still believe in eye-level viewfinders.

No way

There's already a ton of proprietary mounts; Samsung expects someone to invest in theirs? You don't buy a camera body, you buy a system - Samsung doesn't HAVE a system.

Regarding the "superior" APS-C sensor - tons of working pros and serious amateurs make great images with the 4/3 sensors. Perhaps if you really needed high-ISO performance (such as a sports professional) you might need a larger sensor but then again you wouldn't be buying a Samsung + kit lens, would you?

The beauty of the Micro 4/3 system is that it is easy to use well-established lens systems (4/3 mount) with full AF/AE control (via adapter) and hundreds of other lenses in MF mode, all made by camera companies with decades of experience. Perhaps if Samsung had hitched its wagon to an established mount it would have a chance but with a proprietary mount? No way.

Hybrid SLR

To be a little pedantic here, surely it either is or isn't an SLR, and if it doesn't have a reflex mirror then it isn't an SLR! It's kind of in the name!

So called Photographers...

"Although this new Samsung is capable of handling massive RAW files (25MB) I could not test the quality of these as the NX10’s RAW files are not yet compatible with Photoshop and Lightroom and shamefully Samsung’s own RAW workflow software is only compatible with Windows and I, like millions of others photographers, use a Mac. Iridient Digital's RAW Developer does allow Mac users access to NX10 RAW files but at a cost of £89" 89 quid is not a lot to pay. I take it your copy of photoshop is pirate then ?. Millions of mac owning photographers ? Not here m8. And lastly pixel density was never the root cause of noise, why do so many twats think it is ?? Thats why small sensor cameras like the finepix F30 leave this for dead at 800 ISO.