PerL: As a side note...Interesting to see that despite over seven years of development the latest most high tech APS-C sensor still can't match the high ISO/low-light sports shooting capability of a FF Nikon D3, introduced in August 2007. (DxO ISO 2303 vs 1363 on the Samsung).
(No text. I changed my mind)
A few thoughts on battery life and action/sports shooting. Battery life rated 500 images - that is 33 seconds of shooting bursts at 15 fps. How does the battery cope with 90 minutes EVF-on? (The length of a 2x45 min soccer game). How is it affected by cold temperatures?
PenPen: I have a question for camera experts like you. I currently have an old Canon 550D since a few years and want to buy a new camera, a bit more pro. I was expecting a lot from 7d Mark II but was disapointed, as it's not a camera for me. I'm more interested in landscapes and street photography than wildlife or sport. And I'm not interested in video or be able to shoot 15 images per second.And so now I'm thinking of leaving Canon and I'm hesitating between Samsung NX1 and Nikon D750. The NX1 seems more interesting in terms of modern features, but in terms of image quality, is it equivalent to D750? Can a very good APS-C mirrorless camera compete with a full frame camera in terms of image quality?Thanks
No, the FF look is real, just as the MF look is real and m43 looks different than 1". Or do you think they all look exactly the same?
So I looked around and read some other tests, mainly regarding the action shooting and sports capabilities. I suggest reading Shooters Report Part I on Imaging Resources Samsung NX1 Review for an understanding why DSLRs with OVFs and traditional PDAF still is the best choice in this area, despite this very good effort from Samsung.
As for the innovative Samsung BSI sensor (83 at DxOMark) - DxOMark just published the numbers for Nikon D7200 - a new class leader in APS-C (87)
vermaden: DSLRs are like Hard Disks now, technology innovation is saturated, not much more can be done to make them better.
... on the other hand Mirrorless cameras are like Solid State Drives (SSD), there is a lot more to achieve ... in software ... in firmware ... in hardware ... everywhere.
Do they (mirrorless) take better photos?
Besides the support organization a "pro" camera is one that can take photos for publications in the widest range of conditions with no excuses, at least it must be able to shoot what the competition can shoot. That is why a camera that can't shot low light as well is a non-starter.Is the pro cameras insignificant in economic terms? They might be because the whole profession is going under. But now they are important - it is easy to see when you look at the resources Nikon and Canon invests in this segment. As a percentage of cameras sold they may be small, but the prices are much higher and the buyers invest much more in lenses.
@tedolf. Absolutly. this is probably a very good camera for amateurs and maybe some professionals that has an interest in hybrid/video shooting.
Yes, Randy. But still a seven year old FF pro DSLR is a better tool for the professional sports/press photographer.
As a side note...Interesting to see that despite over seven years of development the latest most high tech APS-C sensor still can't match the high ISO/low-light sports shooting capability of a FF Nikon D3, introduced in August 2007. (DxO ISO 2303 vs 1363 on the Samsung).
PerL: Weight 586 g = combined with a m43 Olympus OM-D E-M1, 497g = 1.080 g
And as comparison:
Nikon 20 1,8G, 357g, combined with a FF Nikon D750, 750g = 1.107 g
@Alexis, the 85 2.0 MF metall Nikkor AIS is 310g, 64x65 mm. Look at the 50 mm eqv lenses. The plastic Panasonic 25 1.4 (2.8 eqv) is 200g while the plastic Nikon 50 1.8G is 185g.
@AlexisHI agree with most of your points, but I think the "normal" range (say 20-85) of fast primes (especially 1.8-2.0) is the sweetspot of FF, where it is easy make good and compact designs. Comparing build quality, the all metal MF Nikkor AIS lenses are extremely well made, yet a 35 2.0 and 85 2.0 are 283g resp 310g.In some other focal lengths the advantage may be with m43. For instance it seems hard to make compact WA zooms with FF.
@Alexis and nawknaiI made the weight comparison for those that think low weight is a factor for choosing a small sensor system. If you dont think so, this discussion is not aimed at you.
@tkblscFor FF the Nikon kit is very realistic and modestly priced as well. If you want that kind of eqv lens speed and DOF control you have to pay dearly for it, both in size, weight, cost with a smaller sensor system, and I am questioning the sense of it. (Not questioning the m43 system, but these kind of lenses which obviously are outside m43:s sweet spot.)
@Vlad - With these heavy lenses I think you would want a good grip.@tkbslcOK - a kit of with fast 20, 35 and 85 eqv primes.EM-1 + plus voigtlanders 10, 17, 42 F 0.95 lenses = 1.080 + 540 + 571g = 2.191 gNikon D750 + 20, 35, 85 F 1.8 lenses = 1.107 + 305 + 350 = 1.762 g@Alexis - Sure, but lightness is supposed to be the main advantage of a smaller sensor system, right? One could also add AF and price in the pro/cons.
Weight 586 g = combined with a m43 Olympus OM-D E-M1, 497g = 1.080 g
Rooru S: Here here DPReview Team. Arrange a test where there is some sort of vehicle moving towards the photographer at a constant speed.
Have the ILCA-77M2 with the SAL70200G or SAL70200G2 set at F4 and the ILCE-6000 with the SEL70200G set wide open at F4 (or both at F5.6).
Take a series of photos, two passes of the vehicle on each direction per camera to have an average and see which one performs better with a combination of Z-axis and X-axis tracking. There you have a joint A77M2 and A6000 AF review and you can finish your A77M2 review that has been long overdue (quite surprised there ir a review for the 7Dmk.2 but none for the A77Mk.2)
If you're not going to do it...maybe the TCS TV can do it for us...
Rooru S,IMO the by far best tests are real life scenarios. The best I ever read was those of sports photographer Rob Galbraith which actually made Canon fly over experts and later rebuild the AF of the 1D3. The site isn't active anymore, but there is material left. http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pagec015.html?cid=7-8740-9068-9357When I worked with a sports/action photo magazine and we tested the AF of the kings of prosumer action/sports cameras at the time - the Canon 7D and the Nikon D300 - we used appropriate lenses - 70-200 2.8 at at 2.8-4, same settings on the AF (complicated stuff with the high end level AF-systems), going for shallow DOF and the most trying conditions, shooting three different scenarios, real competitions in motocross bikes, greyhound racing and indoor sports (handball), thousands of images which we then analyzed. Hard work but gave a realistic result of what to expect.
Its not a particularly good test for unpredictable movement like in most action sports.
Its needs a viewfinder. A 600 mm eqv lens without a viewfinder is almost useless. And with a external EVF it will probably get very expensive. Otherwise, if all pieces are in place, like reasonably fast AF, not to big size, a good EVF, a 1" with a 24-600 eqv is a nice compromise, especially with a manual zoom - electronic zoom is a pain in this large range.
rockjano: Can it handle CMYK??? or just RGB...
Yes, CMYK as well according to the video. I guess that means it will be able to read ICC-profiles. That is very good news. And I see they are also developing a layout software. Looks like they are taking advantage of the discontent Adobe created with the subscription model, and tries to make a breech in their monopoly.
Yes, that is the thing that defines a pro photo editor. I hope so since Adobe and its subscription model needs competition.