Samsung NX1000 20.3 MP Camera w/ 20-50mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens & 50-200mm f/4.5-5.6 ED OIS II Tele Zoom Lens - $400 w/ FS @ Adorama (Temporarily OOS - Will ship when in stock)

Nice, only problem is the "normal" lens has no image stabilization. BUT the 50-200 can be Ebayed for $150-200, making this an excellent deal, or you could even sell both lenses and get the 18-55 IS lens which is bundled with the higher-end models.

If this actually ships, it is a great deal. Costco sell this combo for $600 claiming it was originally $900. It's a very small camera with lots of features, but seems to lag NEX cameras in reviews.

Quote from izx : Nice, only problem is the "normal" lens has no image stabilization.

Who needs image stabilization in a midrange lens? Look at all of the professional lenses, and next to none of them have image stabilization in that range. Don't fall for the marketing, it's useful, but isn't some kind of end-all magic technology. Read this, it is based on Nikon's VR system, but is true for all image stabilization technologies on the market.
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

Quote from shnitz : Who needs image stabilization in a midrange lens? Look at all of the professional lenses, and next to none of them have image stabilization in that range.

IS/VR is invaluable for casual indoor/evening shots, even at the 30-100mm equiv. of this lens. Yes, it won't help you stop action in low light -- THAT'S what pro f/2.8 zooms are for, and that's why the lack of VR isn't a big deal on them. Comparing a dinky f/3.5-5.6 kit lens to pro f/2.8 glass makes no sense - they are radically different in their primary purpose(s) and at opposite ends of the price+weight scale.

As a counterpoint, all the consumer/prosumer Nikon zoom lenses do have VR - 18-55, 16-85, 24-85, etc. With VR, you can even get decent non-deer-in-the-headlights people pics in low-light at, say, 1/8-1/15s with rear-curtain flash sync.

If you're a daylight-only shooter, or carry strobes everywhere, or always use a tripod, then yes, VR won't matter. Samsung DOES sell an 18-55 for the NX with stabilization - why not do the decent thing and make that the kit lens?

Quote from izx : If you're a daylight-only shooter, or carry strobes everywhere, or always use a tripod, then yes, VR won't matter. Samsung DOES sell an 18-55 for the NX with stabilization - why not do the decent thing and make that the kit lens?

Because they are a for-profit organization and they want to sell you more lenses?

The funny thing is that many say that the 20-50 is the sharper lens over the 18-55 even though it does not have IS.

Quote from BigCTM : The funny thing is that many say that the 20-50 is the sharper lens over the 18-55 even though it does not have IS.

That could certainly be true. Sharpness and IS usually have nothing to do with each other until you start using shutter speeds slower than 1/30-1/60s on a lens in this range.

Quote from MadPup : Because they are a for-profit organization and they want to sell you more lenses?

Haha, that was supposed to be a rhetorical question along the lines of "Samsung does feel IS can be useful in such midrange lenses"

Quote from izx : IS/VR is invaluable for casual indoor/evening shots, even at the 30-100mm equiv. of this lens. Yes, it won't help you stop action in low light -- THAT'S what pro f/2.8 zooms are for, and that's why the lack of VR isn't a big deal on them. Comparing a dinky f/3.5-5.6 kit lens to pro f/2.8 glass makes no sense - they are radically different in their primary purpose(s) and at opposite ends of the price+weight scale. As a counterpoint, all the consumer/prosumer Nikon zoom lenses do have VR - 18-55, 16-85, 24-85, etc. With VR, you can even get decent non-deer-in-the-headlights people pics in low-light at, say, 1/8-1/15s with rear-curtain flash sync. If you're a daylight-only shooter, or carry strobes everywhere, or always use a tripod, then yes, VR won't matter. Samsung DOES sell an 18-55 for the NX with stabilization - why not do the decent thing and make that the kit lens?

Yes, all the consumer/prosumer Nikon lenses have VR, because VR sells lenses. As mentioned in the above article, image stabilization is only useful when you are shooting at slower than normal handheld speeds, AND your subjects are completely still. From all of the up-in-arms posts on the internet, you'd think that this was how 95% of people's photos are being taken. My point with the f/2.8 lenses is that professional photographers aren't bellyaching about it, so it must not be the end-all that it's made out to be. Perhaps they realize that, as you mention, there are options if you're in the market of needing to shoot 1/2 to 1/8 second exposures handheld. Turn up the ISO, hit the light switch, and if you are shooting 95% of your photos in dark light without flash, then GET A TRIPOD. For less than the price of most lenses, you can easily solve a sharpness issue. Even the make-shift monopod made out of a string and washer provides superior results to even the most sophisticated image stabilization today.


And this lens isn't a 30-100mm equivalent lens. It's a 30-75mm equivalent. The reason that it doesn't have image stabilization is because adding technology to a lens makes it more complicated in terms of parts, and makes it larger. The whole point of this lens was to make it compact, so they made a tactical decision and left out image stabilization. I see this no different as a higher-end sports car leaving out cupholders. Yes, you're likely to use them once in a while, but there are so many more important features of the product, that you're focusing on the wrong details.

Quote from BigCTM : The funny thing is that many say that the 20-50 is the sharper lens over the 18-55 even though it does not have IS.

That's because IS robs sharpness. To have image stabilization, you have to have an internal lens element that physically moves compared to the rest. Why people are so adamant for a once-in-a-while technology solution that is tantamount to a drop in manufacturing tolerances?

Look at the mirrorless competition, such as the Panasonic 14-42mm X, and the Sony NEX 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 that tried to cram image stabilization into their compact cameras, and all of the quality control issues, the comparisons showing noticeably worse performance compared to the normal versions of the lens, etc. Then, get on your knees and thank whichever god you wish that Samsung made the smart decision and left off IS. Both of those lenses are not very well-regarded among the enthusiast crowd of each group.
Example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/P...6.asp#lens
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/.../index.htm
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co...r-nex.html

So, if I have to choose between not having image stabilization, and having those things said about a lens, I'll choose not having image stabilization 99 times out of 100. Unfortunately, if you are reducing the size of a lens, unless you put some very precise engineering into it, you're going to be making compromises. It's those pesky laws of physics getting in the way of our fun.

White:

http://www.adorama.com/ISGNX1000WKA.html

Pink:

http://www.adorama.com/ISGNX1000PNA.html

Extra Lens costs 280 by itself on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-50-...+Zoom+Lens

Quote from MadPup : If this actually ships, it is a great deal. Costco sell this combo for $600 claiming it was originally $900. It's a very small camera with lots of features, but seems to lag NEX cameras in reviews.

For what it's worth I've had a couple items I bought from Adorama say the same thing:
"Although this item is temporarily out of stock, you can order it now and it will ship as soon as it arrives."

Both of the items ended up shipping within a couple of weeks. One was a printer and the other an SD card. Obviously YMMV, but that was my experience.

You can add the 16mm f/2.4 for $150.

$550 for the camera and 3 lenses is amazing.

That's exactly what I ordered. The 2 extra lenses (50-200 and 16mm) sell for 628.00 on amazon right now. Awesome deal!

Quote from wendal : You can add the 16mm f/2.4 for $150. $550 for the camera and 3 lenses is amazing.

Where is the link for the 16mm f/2.4 ???