kwojdyna

kwojdyna

Lives in Poland Poland
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Sep 24, 2011

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

And one more thing - I am personally not a Canon lover - always had problems with frequent underexposing regardless if used film (EOS 50E, EOS 3) or digital camera (EOS 40D, EOS 5D) and that is why I switched to Pentax K-5 and to Nikon D700 later. But:

1. I could use my old analogue-era Canon flash with new digital DSLR's,
2. The same with ALL lenses
3. Now, If I'd like, I could use the same lenses with motion picture cameras,
4. Flash works with compacts and with the introduction this large sensor compact
Canon PowerShot G1X gives me bigger sensor than Panasonic/Olympus m4/3 in compact body and still can probably use my old flash!

Now look at the other systems - Nikons do not autofocus in basic bodies, do not measure lights through non-AI lenses, only new flashes work. Sony NEX3/5 do not accept Sony Alpha flash. The same with Samsung - my expensive Samsung GX flash is useless with NX. Others ?Fuji? also cannot say the have ANY system compared to Canon. This is why they are leaders.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2012 at 22:54 UTC as 96th comment | 5 replies

Dear DPReview and readers,
as I can see there's a strong accent to convince us that this camera is worth it's money because it is "cutting edge etc.". No - it is a way overpriced - as Leica, though it offers maybe something more that we do not know yet.

For that price I could get another D700, which gives so far the best results on the market (except of landscape photography). I've tried Pentax K-5, to which I switched from various EOSes I've owned. I've tried Sony's FF also - still D700 is unbeatable, (unless You take D3S). All these cameras are DSLRs with good or great functionality and so the picture quality though...

I do not doubt it maybe good - I am a Fuji lover myself. But with it's price... I bought less-than-$300 mirrorless kit Samsung NX100 for my wife and use it myself since then, it gives such great RAWs. How much better can this Fuji be to cost 8-10 times more with lens? Controls and looks is less important, I guess, than photos themselves, aren't they?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2012 at 22:40 UTC as 99th comment | 7 replies
On Fujifilm X10 Preview Samples Gallery article (113 comments in total)

Please give us more hi-ISO pictures RAW's too to let us see how much better it is compared to other compact cameras. I like FujiFilm, I know F200EXR a lot (wife has it) but... for$600 I could have another 2 (TWO!) Samsung NX100 - interchangeable lens cameras wit APS-C DSLR size - not little as here - sensor.

The design's lovely, but for $600 I am expecting a great quality too. Does this one have it?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:34 UTC as 20th comment
On NASA captures the earth at night with Nikon D3S article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stollen1234: nice) imagine if these were taken with a canon camera..the colors and the clarity would be unsurpassed.

You are kidding... aren't you?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2011 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: Great sensor what you can see in RAW mode. TERRIBLE processing in JPEG mode (look higher ISOs at coins or cotton balls...)

This great sensor had been put in a camera that is a major step back compared to NX100.

It's maybe phisically better made, but lacks "AE lock" and direct "Whie Balance" buttons present in NX100 (needless to say how USEFUL they WERE). Now we can see that also picture processing is MUCH WORSE than in it's predecessor.

NX100 was something - VERY ergonomic (except of the flash which was a bad mistake) with much better sensor than any m43, what gave great RAWs, and acceptable JPEGs.

NX200 has only some minor advantages compared to it when we talk about a chance of getting great everyday pictures (what it is designed for, I guess) -flash, 20MP RAWs and nice feel in hands - and GREAT DISADVANTAGES.

Just think - in everyday photography - you do not shot RAWs. You need good JPEGs and "WB" + "AE lock" funcs quickly accessible. This camera DOES NOT offer any of these!

It is a downgrade in all points I have mentioned.

And if some people do not shoot JPEGs at all - good for them - but id does not mean comparison of JPEGs is not important. I do not why some of you try to persuade everybody that if they shoot JPEGs, they must be not to smart in photography.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: To anybody that use this comparison tool - remember - shots taken by different cameras are taken with various lenses too. This means different DOF at each picture! So BEFORE you come to WRONG conclusion that any camera is not sharp, please look at the samples and think WHICH objects WERE IN FOCUS first. And then compare ONLY the objects that were focused by the camera.

The other important thing is when you CONCENTRATE on focused objects ONLY to wonder how image processing of a camera works (sharpening, anti-aliasing etc.) For example - JPEGs from this camera look very unnatural, just terrible. The higher ISO, the worse.

The good point is to replace small sensor Olympus in default choice with same size sensor as others Nikon D3100, which is probably a best candidate for reference APS format camera available in this comparison. I suggest to forget the lenses' DOF factor and conentrate only at focused areas. Compare colour strings, cottton balls, coins etc.at 4 cameras. Isn't it enough?

All truth!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:19 UTC
In reply to:

Chris62: Some people compare this sensor to Sony. In my opinion to make such comparison it is very important to equalize the resolution of samples to get eny conlusoion.
Sony's sensors are 16 and 24 MP and NX200 has 20 MP so....

Generally results are similar probably my NX10 will be replaced by its succesor NX20 or maybe profi version NX1 who knows but...more important will be accesories and lens offer.
I still can't buy 16 mm/2,4 in my country.....
For m4/3 system in the shops is everything - cameras, lenses, EVF, flashes adapters etc. - why not for NX? Stupid lens hood for 30 mm i had to make by yourself!

Hi Chris,
it is true that you cannot get almost anything to this camera in Poland while can do to Sony or Olympus systems. Thats a shame.

Whats more - Samsung websites in many coutries even do not show that there are so many lenses being made to this system, not mentioning other accessories. Polish site for exmple tries to convience us, that the dedicated case for EX1 will fit NX100... I'm serious! Viewfinders, some lenses, flashes you do not even know they exist fro that site.

With this way of marketing I cannot see a way for Samsug to be successful in the field of mirroless market.

I do not think, on the other hand, that we have to wonder if a sensor is 16, 20 or 24 mp because if you consider to buy a camera, you should not really wonder how many MPix it has, but how good pictures you can take with it, how easy it is to use, how expensive etc.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:16 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron MC: Wow! Much better than the NX-100. Still not as good as the NEX-5n, what with noticeably higher color noise, but still more than competitive. I'm still not terribly interested in the system, but at least I'm no longer repulsed.

We must have seen different pictures, because when I look at the details from both cameras in JPEG mode (look at the details of the coins or banknotes and cotton balls), the sharpening filter in NX200 makes it look as seen through soap on glass.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:01 UTC
In reply to:

meanwhile: The RAWs look great overall, but what the heck is going on with that playing card?

It is easy to understand if you consider that the bigger "telephoto" you use, the shallower DoF you get at the same aperture.

The other thing is when you take different lenses, they noticeably differ in DoF. For example - take 2 standard Nikkors 50mm - 1.4 and 1.8 - you will see how they differ - the brighter lens and expensive has a way shallower DoF than the darker, cheap lens.

Please note, that DPR used long tele as for APS sensor format (60 mm is like 90mm in FullFrame) and an expensive one - they are usually brighter and better made than the cheap ones, but suffer from shallow DoF

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 09:55 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: To anybody that use this comparison tool - remember - shots taken by different cameras are taken with various lenses too. This means different DOF at each picture! So BEFORE you come to WRONG conclusion that any camera is not sharp, please look at the samples and think WHICH objects WERE IN FOCUS first. And then compare ONLY the objects that were focused by the camera.

The other important thing is when you CONCENTRATE on focused objects ONLY to wonder how image processing of a camera works (sharpening, anti-aliasing etc.) For example - JPEGs from this camera look very unnatural, just terrible. The higher ISO, the worse.

The good point is to replace small sensor Olympus in default choice with same size sensor as others Nikon D3100, which is probably a best candidate for reference APS format camera available in this comparison. I suggest to forget the lenses' DOF factor and conentrate only at focused areas. Compare colour strings, cottton balls, coins etc.at 4 cameras. Isn't it enough?

Please do not feel bad because of my remark. It was directed ONLY to those who do not understand that matter :) And I think all the remarks about the playing card's problem are explainable on my post's basis.

And yes, I did not pay too much attention to ISO 400, you're right, there's something odd in

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 01:51 UTC

To anybody that use this comparison tool - remember - shots taken by different cameras are taken with various lenses too. This means different DOF at each picture! So BEFORE you come to WRONG conclusion that any camera is not sharp, please look at the samples and think WHICH objects WERE IN FOCUS first. And then compare ONLY the objects that were focused by the camera.

The other important thing is when you CONCENTRATE on focused objects ONLY to wonder how image processing of a camera works (sharpening, anti-aliasing etc.) For example - JPEGs from this camera look very unnatural, just terrible. The higher ISO, the worse.

The good point is to replace small sensor Olympus in default choice with same size sensor as others Nikon D3100, which is probably a best candidate for reference APS format camera available in this comparison. I suggest to forget the lenses' DOF factor and conentrate only at focused areas. Compare colour strings, cottton balls, coins etc.at 4 cameras. Isn't it enough?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 01:29 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

meanwhile: The RAWs look great overall, but what the heck is going on with that playing card?

The playing card is just out of focus because lens' limited DOF (deepth of field).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron MC: Wow! Much better than the NX-100. Still not as good as the NEX-5n, what with noticeably higher color noise, but still more than competitive. I'm still not terribly interested in the system, but at least I'm no longer repulsed.

I do not know which aspect you mean, but what deals with JPEG noise reduction algorithms, NX200 has the worst I have seen during last several months in large sensor cameras segment, of course. It is comparable to P&S cameras, actually I think my wife's pocket Fujifilm F200EXR can do better...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Jarda_Houdek: Great, now Samsung is up to something. Pair this with good Pentax or Nikon jpeg engine and this is THE next generation sensor for DSLRs. Who needs Sony now?

Thanks for opinion - I only saw DPR K-5 samples so far and was trully repulsed. Maybe I should have checked it somewhere else before I got rid of all my Pentax lenses... Yet - still waiting for GOOD (better than Sony's) Pentax Full Frame !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: Worse than NEX 5N and more expensive. No thanks.

I think the problem is in both lenses' DOF - some areas shot by NX200 are just not sharp - when you compare pictures taken by different lenses you have to look only at areas in focus. Some do not know that and probably this is why they come to wrong conclusions.

Of course, it applies to RAWs in this case, because JPEGs from NX200 are worst than anything I have looked in last several months. NEX-5N JPGs are not even old Nikon's D90, but still great compared to NX200. Just look on it's Noise Reduction - just awful!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2011 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron MC: Wow! Much better than the NX-100. Still not as good as the NEX-5n, what with noticeably higher color noise, but still more than competitive. I'm still not terribly interested in the system, but at least I'm no longer repulsed.

You must be meaning RAWs, because JPEGs from NX200 look obviously much worse than from NX100.

I was also repulsed by NX100 look, before I saw samples from it (just compare JPEG engine of NX100 with some expensive Sony DSLRs) and it's price lower than some toyish point'n'shoot cameras. Regards, Karol

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jarda_Houdek: Great, now Samsung is up to something. Pair this with good Pentax or Nikon jpeg engine and this is THE next generation sensor for DSLRs. Who needs Sony now?

I agree with "Nikon JPEG engine" but why Pentax? I do not know - I am a Pentax person, I had even the LX before "digital era", but decided to switch to Nikon when I saw DPReview JPEG samples of Pentax K-5 which is regarded to be a greatest digital Pentax so far. RAWs from K-5 - yes yes yes, but JPEGs? - Samsung NX100 gives much better ones, not to mention Nikon D90 or D3100 even (why D7000 is worse is another good question...). Do you know any Pentax DSLR with good JPEG engine?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: Great sensor what you can see in RAW mode. TERRIBLE processing in JPEG mode (look higher ISOs at coins or cotton balls...)

This great sensor had been put in a camera that is a major step back compared to NX100.

It's maybe phisically better made, but lacks "AE lock" and direct "Whie Balance" buttons present in NX100 (needless to say how USEFUL they WERE). Now we can see that also picture processing is MUCH WORSE than in it's predecessor.

NX100 was something - VERY ergonomic (except of the flash which was a bad mistake) with much better sensor than any m43, what gave great RAWs, and acceptable JPEGs.

NX200 has only some minor advantages compared to it when we talk about a chance of getting great everyday pictures (what it is designed for, I guess) -flash, 20MP RAWs and nice feel in hands - and GREAT DISADVANTAGES.

Just think - in everyday photography - you do not shot RAWs. You need good JPEGs and "WB" + "AE lock" funcs quickly accessible. This camera DOES NOT offer any of these!

Yes - I use my cameras not only to prove how big an artist I am, but also to shoot my kids at the playground, views from a bicycle etc. This is what JPEG mode is made for (even in Nikon D700 has it), not to mention cheap EVIL cameras. P&S offer a way worse quality in JPEG mode - why would I use it?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: Great sensor what you can see in RAW mode. TERRIBLE processing in JPEG mode (look higher ISOs at coins or cotton balls...)

This great sensor had been put in a camera that is a major step back compared to NX100.

It's maybe phisically better made, but lacks "AE lock" and direct "Whie Balance" buttons present in NX100 (needless to say how USEFUL they WERE). Now we can see that also picture processing is MUCH WORSE than in it's predecessor.

NX100 was something - VERY ergonomic (except of the flash which was a bad mistake) with much better sensor than any m43, what gave great RAWs, and acceptable JPEGs.

NX200 has only some minor advantages compared to it when we talk about a chance of getting great everyday pictures (what it is designed for, I guess) -flash, 20MP RAWs and nice feel in hands - and GREAT DISADVANTAGES.

Just think - in everyday photography - you do not shot RAWs. You need good JPEGs and "WB" + "AE lock" funcs quickly accessible. This camera DOES NOT offer any of these!

"just JPEGs" - where did I say so?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

kwojdyna: Great sensor what you can see in RAW mode. TERRIBLE processing in JPEG mode (look higher ISOs at coins or cotton balls...)

This great sensor had been put in a camera that is a major step back compared to NX100.

It's maybe phisically better made, but lacks "AE lock" and direct "Whie Balance" buttons present in NX100 (needless to say how USEFUL they WERE). Now we can see that also picture processing is MUCH WORSE than in it's predecessor.

NX100 was something - VERY ergonomic (except of the flash which was a bad mistake) with much better sensor than any m43, what gave great RAWs, and acceptable JPEGs.

NX200 has only some minor advantages compared to it when we talk about a chance of getting great everyday pictures (what it is designed for, I guess) -flash, 20MP RAWs and nice feel in hands - and GREAT DISADVANTAGES.

Just think - in everyday photography - you do not shot RAWs. You need good JPEGs and "WB" + "AE lock" funcs quickly accessible. This camera DOES NOT offer any of these!

And by the way - it is a way more expensive than NX100.

I bought NX100 as a great additional camera to my basic, unbeatable so far, Nikon D700. What I can see here now, I would never replace it with NX200.

So Samsung, better read our comments and make NX300 with this sensor, buttons from NX100 and JPEG processing as in Nikon D700 (or D90 even) as soon as possible.

Otherwise you will not succeed as you did not so far in the field of interchangeable lens cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2011 at 23:25 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »