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.
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.
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
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
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 playing card is just out of focus because lens' limited DOF (deepth of field).
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...
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 !
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!
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
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?
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?
"just JPEGs" - where did I say so?
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.
Great sensor what you can see in RAW mode. TERRIBLE processing in JPEG mode (look higher ISOs at coins or cotton balls...)
kwojdyna: I cannot believe that!
They were on a trail to improve a great camera as NX100 really is. Probably better sensor, ergonomic body shape with nice feel of materials used and what most important - compact, camera-powered flash unit instead of the total flap what NEF15 really was.
I bought NX100 as it had the best colours on the market besides Nikon D90, D700 and D3... Other than colours, JPG processing of NEX or PEN was slightly better, but overall - images from NX100 were best choice. And you could still use RAW's to avoid it's image processing weaknesses, though in most almost all situations they did not show up at all.
So I got excited when saw NX200 announcement and... disappointed a lot.
WHERE A HELL IS A DIRECT WHITE BALANCE BUTTON FROM NX100???
WHERE IS THE AUTO EXPOSURE LOCK FROM IT?
Can't they understand that ISO, WB, EXP. are the most important and most used functions? It is THEM what made NX100 a camera with such big percentage of good shots more than anything else. Even my mom did not afraid to use them whilst she did not have to bother with menus, setups etc.
They also moved locations of Disp. and AF buttons - what for - to make NX100 users make mistakes all the time?
Why would I buy it now?
I cannot believe that!