It's not a completely different sensor than the one in the A99 and A7, and both those have the washed out colour problem even with excellent SonyZeiss lenses.
I picked the A900, clearly, because it's one of the last Sonys with uncompressed raws.
The Nikon Df is a tiny bit better as a lowlight high ISO camera than the A7S. And more importantly the A7S is very very audible.
Then I never said that the NX1 has the lowlight performance of the A7S, it's tiresome to see you try--badly--to claim I did.
You seem to have confused the A7 and the A7S here, this is a big mistake on your part. Hint: A7's is NOT the same as A7S or A7s or A7Ses. Indeed the A7/A7II can be pushed to about ISO 12800, as can the NX1.
True, Zeiss and SonyZeiss make some optically very good lenses.
But so does SamsungOptron for the NX system, not too many at the Zeiss level, but a couple.
The A7II is a nice camera, but not great for lowlight and still audible. The D750 is a much better lowlight camera.
And all current Sonys have that washed out raw problem--Nikon and Samsung don't have this problem.
You don't seem real interested in camera gear, just quoting names.
abluesky: I've lost my desire for Leica, at least as far as digital ones are concerned. I still would like an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera with a full frame sensor and M-Mount, but the rest of the Leica design philosophy doesn't really appeal to me anymore. With the film cameras, there was something about the camera that seemed to represent the "sin qua non" of a camera. Now, it seems almost pointless and impractical, a nostalgic appeal to an allegedly more romantic, bygone era.
And M lenses are hard to use well on other full framed bodies.
APSC is easier, this is true.
Igor Adamovic: This is almost perfect APS-C mirrorless camera, except implementation of H.265 codec for video. I'm not against H.265 codec, that codec is the future, but heavy compression of that codec in this camera is killing video low light performance.Loose compression would probably lead to larger files, and it's against philosophy of new codec, but who cares. Perhaps this could be fixed in firmware update.
Because the guts of the LX100 and GH4 are pretty much the same.
Same sensor, same video system.
No, they don't produce different low light results. If you're seeing a difference you're likely seeing it because of the lens--optical quality affects lowlight shooting. And the LX100 has a better lens for lowlight than most, not all, of the GH4 lenses.
And anyhow, the NX1 is a significantly better high ISO video or stills camera than the LX100/GH4.
PureShot: on April 29th, 2015Samsung will implement a totally new firmware in the Samsung NX1 camera, the upcoming firmware will improve the performance of the camera at many levels, that include AF performance, better noise reduction algorithm and much more…. but unfortunately we don’t have the time frame when the firmware is expected to arrive.
Do you have a source for this?
HowaboutRAW: Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
I was thinking of how many single raws can be fired off in say 2 seconds.
If the camera were to freeze after 5 quick full 14 bit raws, shot within 2 seconds, that could be a big problem--Samsung had this with the NX20 and the Nikon D7100 had this problem too.
km25: The images to me a bit noisey. It low is performance is middle of the road. It would be nice if they offered a nice low light model. But the big thing is lens. they need a road map bad.
A lens road map with a mostly zooms is either weak and/or new. They need some sharp fast primes. But if you want a high MP APS camera, the camera is a very good choice.
I don't own a Samsung NX1. Nor did I own one.
It's simplistic to dismiss the import of equipment. Better equipment, well handled, makes for more easily achieving better results.
As for the insults you throw at my examples, that's pretty cliche there. And if the photos in my gallery aren't to your taste, say that and move on. But you've missed something and aren't real in tune with what makes for better photos. All of my examples have it. How strongly 1MB, or less, files express it is a different question.
As for your gallery:
Ultimately I'm secure in my skill and eye. That you're not in your own is not my problem and you shouldn't try to make it so.
Nick932: It seems that Leica has done pretty good job. I am going to test one next week but I doubt it that it will surpass my M7. I have so many film choices rather than being stuck to one processor. I can go from ISO 20 - 3200 and I can push it to 12800. It is only a stop less and I can start least 5 stops ahead. I rarely use film over 400 anyway; thanks to my Noctilux. The only possible gain is the Post Processing.
That's about right, set a Nikon Df at ISO 100,000 and the grain looks about like ISO 3200 B+W 35mm film.
But ISO 12,800 on the Df+ an f/2.0 lens sure makes possible shooting that 400 ISO film and a Noctilux can't achieve. And the Df is nearly noise free at ISO 12,800.
It would be a start. Perhaps Sony is trying to increase the raw frame rate in recent cameras.
Fazal Majid: Manfrotto finally sees the light and adopts Gitzo-style leg locks. Too little, too late to stem the tide of Chinese knock-offs?
Okay, a big holding company controls several brands of tripod.
No, I didn't contract myself.
One of the big reasons that film crashed so badly is that after 2003 new APSC DSLRs could easily be used above ISO 400--thereby making lowlight work much easier.
You just really don't know of what you post. Even if you do indeed have a Noctilux.
It's a myth that ISO 3200 is easy to work with, even when it's successfully used in lowlight, by those with some skill.
And "skill" doesn't turn 400 film into 3200 film.
"Skill" doesn't illuminate the scene so you can use ISO 400 film and f/1.0.
1Dx4me: all of these odd DSLRs (mirrorless, M 4/3...etc) won't go anywhere without full support of nikon/canon! as it is, these cameras have another 2 or so generations to go before they are somewhat competitive to regular DSLRs! but admittingly, this Samsung camera is enticing enough to have as 2nd camera to use while traveling, but needs more lens selection. using nikon/canon lenses with adapters won't cut it for me ;-)
There's a difference between "go anywhere in the mass market" and "go anywhere in the gearhead/enthusiast market".
Fuji+Olympus+Sony+Panasonic have already well proven you wrong in the latter example.
NaumFilm: The camera does not work without the lens (((Who connects lens adapter lenses canon?Who has experience?
The best Samsung NX lenses, of which there are about two, rival good, not best, Leica and Zeiss.
The best Canikon lenses don't rival Leica and Zeiss for optical quality.
Just good Samsung NX lenses, of which there are a few, easily rival the best from the likes of Fuji. And the best Fujis easily beat Canikon for optical quality.
When Samsung has been in the still camera business as long as Nikon you can make your point and be taken seriously.
I like the NX1 well enough, but it's not amazing. The 50-150mm f/2.8 lens on the other hand is.
dagobah: This is a nice article, thanks. We just had a discussion on this topic recently on the Pentax forum.
Sensor noise has definitely come down in the last few years -- I remember my Pentax K10D not being usable above ~ISO500. Whereas I am happy with the K-3 at ISO3200. That had to have been from the improvement of the electronic noise, no? Are there no more gains to be had on sensors of a specific size? If you're below the noise floor of shot noise, no improvement will be noticeable, and sensors wouldn't vary much in shadow noise performance.
What I've been thinking would be very useful when showing sensor performance measurements (such as DxOmark does) would be to have a curve for the sensor in question and a curve for and "ideal photon detector" of the same sensor size.
Another comment is that I am interested in ETTR -- could you maybe do a little practical guide addendum to this article at some point? Cheers.
So you didn't read my original comment about the difference between the K10D and current DSLRs:
"The K10D used a CCD sensor, not a CMOS sensor, like the K3.
Almost all current still cameras use CMOS sensors. The Leica ME is an exception.
Absolute purists prefer CCDs at low ISOs for colour."
Angrymagpie: Don't mind me, I'm just here to read the hilariously sarcastic comments.
hope you mean clueless+sarcastic.
Sezano: I'm always curious, who buys this stuff?
It's simplistic to equate buying a Leica M and lenses to purchasing a Bentley.
Leica Ms are more akin to a Ferrari F458 Sucuderia.
Bentley, a fast heavy BMW, when well executed. (Or is VW that owns Bentley and BMW that owns Rolls?)
BobYIL: Those criticizing buyers of Leicas should realize that for some people the "different" or "unique" could mean more than the "better".
It's the adjective "irrelevant" that I find inaccurate.
Lack of sharpness, yep, see the Pentax f/1.4 50mm, excellent colour but soft like crazy with fringing.
Regarding the SigmaArt 50, right it's has advantages for digital since unlike say the Zeiss f/1.4 50, the Sigma is sharp all the way across and wide open. The Zeiss still has better color and is plenty sharp in the center at f/5.6. Then there's the Zeiss 55 Otus, which has both qualities.
brdeveloper: Does it come with a built-in anti-theft, GPS app?