In the specs you say it's not weather sealed at all. Is that true?!
Why then is the new 16-50 f2-2.8 lens listed as splash and dust proof if the camera is not as well? Very odd.
If the NX30 had weather sealing, Samsung would have mentioned it in the press release. You don't forget to mention such an important feature. And neither DPR nor Imaging Resource mention anything about the body being sealed in their previews.Just like Olympus hinted about the first OM-D by announcing a weather sealed lens before they announced the camera, it seems like Samsung is giving us a hint about a forthcoming high-end camera.
Lee Jay: I don't consider the RX100 to be compact enough to be a compact. It's too thick and the lens sticks out too much. I consider it in the same category as the Canon G-series - too big to be a true compact. A Canon S-series is the upper end of the size I'd consider to be "compact".
If it were 8mm thinner and started at 24mm instead of 28mm, then it might be interesting.
Compact camera is just a marketing term for cameras with non-interchangeable lenses. I guess that is what DPR means by the term, anyway.
techmine: I can't get over the fact that Sony rx100 II is without a viewfinder. It is an enthusiast camera and enthusiasts (like me) have always been critical of absence of viewfinders in their cameras. Picture quality trumps this stark absence? Hard to digest. On top of it, Sony hasn't released an external evf, yet. Numero uno is all right but I can't imagine myself buying it. Nikon not making into any of these categories is a shame.
Sony have released an EVF for the RX1. I believe it works with RX100 II too.
Michael Ma: I hope Canon and Nikon have been humbled by what happened in 2013. While they were busy purposely building inferior models to their high priced flagships, the competitors finally caught up to them and left them in the dust.
They need to fight back and fight back hard.
With that said, I felt the results were a little strange for some categories.
Are you implying that Sony didn't build the A3000 on purpose? ;-)
photogeek: Ever since Samsung ripped off the iPhone, I can't view their products as anything other than a cheap rip-off.
Declaring a lens to be a top offering before it's released makes you a fanboy, but declaring it to be the opposite (and declaring a camera to be a POS, also before release) makes you... what exactly?
tecnoworld: Same hw as the 1 year old nx300, so I guess the tiny buffer issue is still there.
My guess and my hope is that there will soon be a higher end nx model with newer sensor and better hw.
The sensor is the same one that made its debut in the NX300, I think. Both cameras have on-sensor PDAF.
igorek7: I guess, the success of the Panasonic GX7 has encouraged Samsung to make the NX30's EVF tiltable ;-)
I don't think the GX7 has been on the market long enough to be declared a success just yet, or to have had any influence on the design of the NX30.
DVT80111: When can they advance the sensor technology?
What kind of photos do you take, that require a constant improvement of sensor tech? NEX-6 had excellent IQ in 2012, and it still has. Most system cameras today are capable of excellent IQ, so if you find your images lacking, you probably have more to gain by using better lenses (faster, sharper or whatever you need) and/or improving your technique. Comparing cameras with the same sensor sizes, I just don't see any great differences between current cameras in real-world use. I see larger differences between lenses and between photographers.
I guess a weather-sealed body is forthcoming then, to go with the new lens, or is the NX30 sealed?
camerosity: I'll take the 50mm. It had sharper results in this test. I think dpreview got it wrong...
In portrait photography, I'd argue that bad bokeh is more distracting than a little compromised sharpness, so the bokeh improvement is not "neutralized" IMHO.
beholder3: I'll memorize this trick: Bad lenses are now called "specialty lenses".*Any* lens is good for some specialty. Lomography is specialty.
This one has the specialty of being an *underperformer* and it's good for handing over to your kids when they start shooting DSLR and you don't want to give them your good lenses, because they might damage it.Also a good specialty lens for testing how much rain it can take before water ingress happens.
The price issue is really only secondary. It would still be a poor lens even if it sold for $300. Who wants to spend $300 on a soft lens with autofocus issues which you need to stop down 2-3 stops to get decent results?
Your argument would be valid if this was a general purpose lens, that failed at being just that. But it isn't a general purpose lens, and it is only an underperformer if you use it for other purposes than it's meant for. I agree that AF should work properly, but regarding the optical qualities, I think your argument misses the mark.
waxwaine: I can't(well, yes I can) believe DPR show up the review of this failed lens, instead of the longtimeago launched Pentax K-3.
What makes you think they chose to review this lens instead of the K-3? I'm pretty sure they're working on that review too, and it will be published when it's ready.
beholder3: So you get "silver" awards and 84% for:- unreliable autofocus (" no way of persuading the lens to focus accurately at all")- poor sharpness at the aperture it is mainly selling for("anything but sharp wide open, giving rather soft, low-contrast images")- overpriced / poor value for the money ("Very expensive")?
The three key factors suck. Not even mediocre.
Makes me think the "silver" is the silver dollars offered by Nikon / the Amazon gear shop to smoothen these review results for allowing good sales figures.
It's an excellent focal length for full body portraits, and you can go even wider for situational portraits. Restricting portrait photography to just two focal lengths is rather unimaginative, imho.
Biological_Viewfinder: Well, this is a great reason to be selling my gear.There's absolutely no reason to be spending that kind of money on a piece of glass. ABSURD!!
I mean, that thing better make me breakfast when I wake up for that kind of money! Plus, primes just mean more lens swapping over your dusty sensor; and really more weight. And yeah, that's a lot of fun; walking around with a backpack on because technology is so bad that we still need 20 pounds of gear to have the best quality. PATHETIC!
A lens is not just a piece of glass, but of course you know that. Optical engineering and manufacture are very complex and costly.And you don't put on a prime lens, if you expect to be shooting at a variety of focal lengths. And in a studio, you might not need more than one focal length, depending on what you shoot.
There's always manual focus, and ultimate sharpness is arguably not a key factor for portraits, one of the main use cases for this lens. Colour and bokeh are more important to many portrait photographers. And since this is not a consumer lens, price is not a key factor. If you want the special qualities this lens offers, then you probably can live with the price.
RichRMA: Pentax kit lenses;Just to be clear, the two worst kit lenses of all time were Canon's original 18-55mm and Sony's 17-80mm. Nothing was that bad. Olympus's recent 12-50mm is pretty poor when used as a normal lens but for ultra-close-ups, it's amazing.
DPR always use the default ACR settings, so unless noise reduction is turned off by default, the studio scene is shot with NR.
Richard Murdey: K-50 output here does not compare favorably with the recently posted D5300 samples. At these kinds of megapixel counts the difference in lens sharpness is really noticeable, especially the corners.
It's not the camera, it's the lens. Which kind of makes a mockery of the whole "lets compare cameras by going out and shooting with the kit lens" thing.
Given that worldwide DSLR shipments are still larger than mirrorless ILC shipments at a ratio of about 4:1 (16.2 million DSLRs shipped worldwide in 2012, compared to slightly less than 4.0 million MILCs, according to CIPA statistics), and given that the bulk of DSLR sales consist of Canon Rebels and Nikon D3xxx/D5xxx models, then I think we can safely assume that the entry-level users haven't yet migrated en masse towards mirrorless. It's still widely believed that DSLRs take better pictures, just because they're DSLRs.It's only in Japan and some other Asian countries, where MILCs have begun to rival DSLRs in sales volume.
It might be that a larger share of Pentax DSLRs are sold to enthusiasts, than is the case with Canon/Nikon/Sony, because Pentax includes many enthusiast-friendly features even in their low-end models (pentaprism, weather sealing, dual control wheels).
I guess the idea is to show what the average buyer of a camera kit can expect "out of the box". And let's face it, these entry-level DSLRs are mostly bought by people who stick with the kit zoom lens, and maybe buy a tele zoom to complement it. Many of them never stray outside of the "full auto, JPEG only" comfort zone. Of course, enthusiasts buy these bodies too, but they hardly make up the core user base at this price point.
HowaboutRAW: new boyz:
Ah yes, and Canikon should be deeply concerned about the optical quality of lenses from various Korean manufacturers.
The example you chose begins to prove my point, and for the Samsung NX system, the optically good lenses are already better to extraordinarily better than what Canikon can do.
Good Fuji level optical performance would be a big improvement for Canikon lenses; Canikon doesn’t need to aim a lot higher. They can leave that to Leica, Olympus, Zeiss and Samsung.
It's pretty clear (ha) that the better lens makers have a different understanding of light and its interaction with basic optics than Nikon or Canon.
You can make objective statements regarding the sharpness, optical aberrations and build quality of a lens, but how well a lens "renders" the image, and the quality of its colours, those are really subjective things that cannot be stated in absolute terms. It's more a matter of taste than a matter of fact.
NiklaiN: I really don't understand why don't you convert RAW files with Nikon software?
Because their policy is to use the same software for all cameras. Using different software for different cameras would introduce yet another variable when comparing the output from them. The downside of this is that not every camera may be shown at its very best.