Reading mode: Light Dark

NX3000, better processing or lack of AA filter?

Go to last post
J

jennyrae

Senior Member
Messages
2,690
Reaction score
886
I was browsing on imaging resource yesterday when I noticed IR have some new pictures taken with NX3000. when I looked at NX3000 pictures, I was surprised with jumped in picture quality between it and previous versions. pictures appear sharper and more detailed and also cleaner. leaf details on reds is now more pronounced on raw files. maybe due to better editor support or firmware update or new hardware or hardware management. but I am happy with such improvements.

noticeables are less artifacts, much deeper detail consistency, cleaner and smoother. High ISO looks better by some degree. maybe due to NR + sharpening? but lower ISOs tell lack of NR. so can be of both. also possible influence is editor used but so far, no pictures yet of optimal processing of NX3000 pictures. but show potential of camera if processed better.

here is comparison of both NX3000 and NX30. what do you think?

NX30

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

NX3000

 
1. Amazing how good digital has become.

2.The NX XXXX series is a great value. This one is really tempting with OIS lens that starts at 16mm, flash and Lightroom 5.
 
I doubt that the anti-aliasing filter has been excluded from NX3000 or it would have been advertised as a feature somehow--it's the latest trend in sensors.

I'd be more curious about which lenses were used. NX3000 comes with the latest power zoom kit lens, which I've read is sharper than 18-55mm OIS, for example. They are also doing different tests, it seems, between the two cameras.
 
lens used is the same as NX30 and with NX3000. both with 60mm macro.

interesting note is that red raw details look somewhere along Fuji and a bit of Sigma. also, reds appear better than any of red raws I've seen on APS-C except for Fuji and Sigma. did not see a processed or optimized picture yet for NX3000 on how much can be salvaged or pulled on the picture if it is better than the optimized picture from the NX30. but possible it could be if raw output holds true. we will see. but so far, optimistic.
 
Hrm that is interesting! Indeed, different sensor. All they mention in the review is the lack of phase detection points. I wish there were a more definitive review. I just got an open box NX300--perhaps I should exchange it for an NX3000 with a better new kit zoom lens (but I was looking forward to the touch screen functionality).

P.S.: It's frustrating how there are so few profesional reviews and investigations into Samsung's offerings. If this were Canon, there would already be a dozen places discussing minute sensor differences. The latest NX cameras are clearly really good and need more attention. And lenses are very reasonably priced versus competition.
 
Last edited:
I always said that the NX sensor is there among the best APS-C sensor in the market. the color tonality,accuracy and consistency made it unique enough to separate it from the Canon and Fuji Bayer sensors. with regards to optimal results, the NX is really up there and I have no complaints about it. however, this does not mean that Samsung should stop here. they also need to work on certain areas like improving it's continuous AF and shot for shot performance. the other concern is the NR applied on High ISO raws from 3200 ISO upwards but possibly due to default NR setting applied by supported editors like the Lightroom bundle. I would have preferred it by havng raw untouched rather than have to adjust it or use a different editor to eliminate the noise reduction.

I see the NX3000 really better than something from certain other current APS-C sensors like Sony, Pentax, Nikon and Canon as long as optimal output is concerned. the only minor hiccup I see is the output from ISO 6400 onwards although I don't really expect people to print or even view or blow up pictures at 100% at those sensitivities from any cameras. anything from ISO 6400 with any of the APS-C cameras so far are mainly restricted to web size viewing due to suboptimal picture quality. the NX appear slightly inferior due to NR and processing but no matter. the Fuji though could salvage atleast a stop and a third more which is awesome and possible to make decent size and good quality crops and prints.

if the rumored NX1 at 30MP has that same level of optimal quality as that of the NX3000 sensor, then that would be remarkable. if Samsung pushed it 1 notch more than the NX3000, then I would be in NIRVANA.

as far as attention to Samsung is concerned, I agree it is highly unappreciated by most despite it's amazing picture quality. not really concerned about it since it's their loss, not mine.

besides, it would add more satisfaction seeing my NX pictures being chosen over pictures taken with well-known brands. just imagine the surprise from people knowing that your amazing picture was taken with a Samsung, not a brand of camera that they know of. that would be funny.
 
jennyrae said:
as far as attention to Samsung is concerned, I agree it is highly unappreciated by most despite it's amazing picture quality. not really concerned about it since it's their loss, not mine.
Click to expand...
I agree. I meant in the sense that there's somewhat of a dearth of information about these cameras from a serious/professional point of view. Like this discussion has me interested in the differences between NX3000 and NX300 sensors and whether that difference or else noise reduction mechanisms are the causes of the difference in image quality. Is NX3000 really that much cleaner, or was there something special about Imaging Resource's samples/testing procedure? Looking on google brings up no results when I tried searching for various keywords to get to a discussion on this matter. Both cameras have been out long enough for someone to have picked up on the differences--it would certainly have been picked up on long ago if it were a Nikon or a Canon camera series. That's what I meant. In that sense, lack of attention can be frustrating when trying to do research.
 
Last edited:
Looking at EXIF information for Imaging Resources' samples for NX30, NX300, and NX3000, it looks like they used identical settings for all 3 cameras EXCEPT resolution. NX300 and NX30 use 350 pixels per inch and NX3000's images are at 72 pixels per inch. I don't know if there's some downsampling happening, making the resulting image sharper.

NX30: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx30/FULLRES/NX30hSLI00100NR0.HTM#

NX300: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx300/FULLRES/NX300hSLI00100NR2D.HTM#

NX3000: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx3000/FULLRES/NX3000hSLI00100NR0.HTM#
 
Hmmm... you are not suggesting pixel binning are you? Although in some way it can be possibility. There might be a slight loss of information In some way and some gained data in other way. Nx3000 look just a bit subtler with colors and less messy reducing unwanted artifacts. On the otherhand, it seems to gain more detail and defined sharpness as apparent on the napkins especially the leaf patterns on the red. I not know if it is IR procedure but the result does look from previous NX cameras eversince.
 
I don't know, just looking at the differences :( All the NX300/NX30 images I've looked at have 350 pixels / inch resolution, and NX3000 have 72 pixels per inch. So looks like out of camera JPEGs of different resolution/quality. I don't know what the difference between these is also:

"ExifByteOrder: Big-endian (Motorola, MM)" (for NX300)

and

"ExifByteOrder: Little-endian (Intel, II)" (for NX3000)

But yeah, all of those images from NX3000 look significantly better in terms of resolution. Perhaps the JPEG engine is just better with less aggressive noise reduction. I wish they'd posted RAW versions instead.
 
they are raw files. just click on the srw files. but they are pretty much the same with the jpeg. possibly just basic conversion of raw and no further processing done to enhance picture. meaning, the picture is raw "AS IS". you can compare both srw files from NX30 and NX3000 with the NR0 (no Noise reduction) file sets.

what caught my attention is the NR0 SRW file at ISO3200 of the NX3000. just look at the colored yarns at the right side of the picture and compare it with the NX30 NR0 SRW file at ISO3200. what do you notice?
 
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
I don't know, just looking at the differences :( All the NX300/NX30 images I've looked at have 350 pixels / inch resolution, and NX3000 have 72 pixels per inch. So looks like out of camera JPEGs of different resolution/quality.
Click to expand...
Pixel count is the same, thus it might be a minor ommission when writing EXIF.
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
I don't know what the difference between these is also:

"ExifByteOrder: Big-endian (Motorola, MM)" (for NX300)

and

"ExifByteOrder: Little-endian (Intel, II)" (for NX3000)
Click to expand...
It is a change in ordering of bytes - Tizen on ARM is little-endian natively, so perhaps it was changed to facilitate in-camera processing (guessing). This may also be a sign of a different image-processing chip being used (guessing again). It may cause incompatibility when trying to read raw files given that byte-order has been changed globally.
 
I was visiting NYC this weekend and got to visit B&H (huge!) and Adorama (surprisingly small), and at neither place did they have people who knew much about Samsung cameras. At B&H at the Samsung booth, the Guy admitted he did not really know the cameras. How frustrating! I was trying to get some information on NX3000, but there weren't even display models (just 300, 300M, and 2000--I found NX2000 better to grip). Hoping some reviewer catches and discusses this difference. Maybe we should contact Imaging Resource for a follow up comparison.

P.S.: I'm curious how the NX300M stacks up--whether anything has changed there in terms of processing from NX300, since it's newer.

Also, new NX3000 review up on Amateur Photographer site--not as favorable as their NX300 and NX30 reviews.

And on these reviews, NX3000 jpegs also look cleaner than NX300's:

Loading…

www.ephotozine.com

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samsung-nx3000-review-25764 (photos below)
 
Last edited:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
Looking at EXIF information for Imaging Resources' samples for NX30, NX300, and NX3000, it looks like they used identical settings for all 3 cameras EXCEPT resolution. NX300 and NX30 use 350 pixels per inch and NX3000's images are at 72 pixels per inch. I don't know if there's some downsampling happening, making the resulting image sharper.
Click to expand...
I'd like to join your discussion here.

Like others, I thought that Samsung was only good for toasters, but clearly I was wrong. I became interested in Samsung cameras because Imaging Resource measured the color accuracy of the NX1000 as being excellent, and I need a camera with accurate colors. The NX1000 and NX1100 cameras are selling out quickly at the few places that have them. I want to grab one, but I have concerns about reliability. The NX2000 is out of the question because it has a touch-screen interface, which I don't want.

But the NX3000 looks like a perfect camera for me. I am hoping that the color accuracy of this model is at least as good as the NX1000. Only Imaging Resource measures color accuracy with every camera. Even DPR doesn't.

Regarding pixels per inch (350 vs. 72), I am pretty sure that that spec refers to pixels per inch when the image is printed. It doesn't apply to the image when displayed on a screen, so it doesn't matter what the spec is as far as looking at images on screen are concerned.

Color Accuracy of the NX3000

Now, the two of you were talking about the Imaging Resource sample shots. I agree that the sample shot for the NX3000 looks much more crisp than the other NX cameras. However, there is one thing that concerns me: If you look at the Fiddler's Elbow bottle, the red background on that label is much lighter and brighter than it is supposed to be. (From looking at these IR pictures for years and years, I know that the red is supposed to be darker.) This concerns me because it will affect the pictures of my products. I sell beads for a living; and if I photograph a dark-red bead, I don't want it to come out fire-engine red.

What do you guys think? If my reds come out too bright, can't I darken them in my photo-editing program by decreasing the color saturation? Or perhaps I just need to turn down the exposure compensation. How would I darken the red in such a case?

I'm so pleased that I've found Samsung cameras. They are affordable, and I like their appearance and character (not to mention the image quality).
 
Last edited:
You can usually selectively darken reds in Photoshop (various products)--I frequently tweak individual tones selectively as my old Panasonic camera had serious problems with teals looking blue and some other colors not being represented properly. I've read that many cameras have issues with red color, including Nikons. Regarding color on a photo, I think you'd have to test that yourself. Who knows if the lighting affected the appearance of that particular label/bottle.

I believe it's important to tweak colors in post-processing for product shots and have your monitor properly calibrated. That goes for any camera. Although that's a whole separate discussion. About how to properly save and post your photographs on line, as some browsers don't use the color profiles from your saved images and some do (internet explorer makes my photographs look garish on flickr, while firefox and chrome have them look the same as on my computer, for example). And then everyone's monitors are calibrated slightly differently, and many commercially sold cheaper monitors are calibrated more toward blue--so you should read about that too. There are lots of things that go into representing accurate colors on-line, and it's not an easy task.
 
Last edited:
should I be returning my unopened NX300 for an NX3000? lol

I'm not sure what to make of this result really
 
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
You can usually selectively darken reds in Photoshop (various products)--I frequently tweak individual tones selectively as my old Panasonic camera had serious problems with teals looking blue and some other colors not being represented properly. I've read that many cameras have issues with red color, including Nikons. Regarding color on a photo, I think you'd have to test that yourself. Who knows if the lighting affected the appearance of that particular label/bottle.

I believe it's important to tweak colors in post-processing for product shots and have your monitor properly calibrated. That goes for any camera. Although that's a whole separate discussion. About how to properly save and post your photographs on line, as some browsers don't use the color profiles from your saved images and some do (internet explorer makes my photographs look garish on flickr, while firefox and chrome have them look the same as on my computer, for example). And then everyone's monitors are calibrated slightly differently, and many commercially sold cheaper monitors are calibrated more toward blue--so you should read about that too. There are lots of things that go into representing accurate colors on-line, and it's not an easy task.
Click to expand...
Actually, I suspect that that sample picture on Imaging Resource was slightly over-exposed. Turning down the exposure compensation may be all I need to do.

I haven't gone to the amount of trouble that you have to get colors right. But I do want a camera with accurate colors because I see no need to START the whole process with bad colors.

Imaging Resource believes that JPG colors are inaccurate on purpose, that the engineers which calibrate such things are trying to make images look more appealing (skies in particular).
 
CMurdock said:
nster said:
should I be returning my unopened NX300 for an NX3000? lol

I'm not sure what to make of this result really
Click to expand...
Perhaps its the new 16-50mm power zoom lens that has made that picture so sharp.
Click to expand...
No, they used the 60mm prime for their comparison photos, you can see it in the EXIF. So same lens across all test samples on NX30, NX300, and NX3000 at imaging resource.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top