PhotoRotterdam: Thanks for these real life shooting galleries, those are the most worthwhile when looking at new cameras.
This camera has a very nervous out of focus rendition on the pictures, at least, to my eyes or taste. The high ISO pictures are very noisy, but it is not a very unpleasant noise. Rather photographic kind of noise, which makes it palatable.
where are you getting raws?
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.
The Fuji is an APSC sensor, the Nikon Df is a full framed sensor, entirely different.
The Nikon can easily be used at ISO 25600. (ISO "3500" isn't really a setting, 3200 is close, and the Samsung NX1 is easy to use there, and now with ACR 9 can be used at ISO 12800.)
I agree that Samsung should go for higher ISOs than already possible with the NX1.
The NX1 is a better high ISO camera than the Fuji by a good bit. Then the Nikon is much better than the Samsung--for obvious reasons.
You are very very confused on this subject.
Yes, Fuji makes good lenses, the best Samsungs are better. I am NOT basing this claim on something I read online.
Fuji lenses don't really rival Leica and Zeiss, I am NOT basing this on online reading.
The absolutely best Olympus lenses are also better than Fuji. SigmaArt and Fuji, at the best are approximately equal.
I'm sorry to belabor this: You made a huge error bringing up the Nikon Df and the fact that it has the same pixel count as the XT1.
Davidgilmour: Samsung jpeg. Hahaha. Fuji FTW!
Yes, Fuji has better jpegs than Samsung.
But Fuji also has better out of camera jpegs than all but the best Nikons and Canons.
Samsung video is a good bit better. Samsung lenses are often just as optically good and sometimes better.
The NX1 is a better high ISO camera (in raw) than the XT1.
But right, for a stills camera the Fuji XT1 is an excellent choice particularly if you only ever shoot jpegs.
Neither Panasonic nor Sony have especially good out of camera jpegs.
Zoron: Release the kraken A9 mirrorless.
With an adapter yes.
You can use a lot of lenses on mirrorless bodies, with adapters.
The Samsung NX1 has less noise than the Fuji XT1/XPro1/XE2. Those Fujis simply use a noiser sensor. No one has made the claim you've just posted. I've shot test raws in difficult lighting with all.
The NX1 is amongst the best APSC sensors for high ISOs and noise. (Now at about ISO 800, it's noiser than say the Nikon D5500, but that's a single bump, and then further up the Nikon and Samsung stay even.) Therefore this NX1 is not simply a better choice for high pixel count.
The Nikon D7200 is the only APSC body that seriously betters the NX for high ISOs--possibly the 7DII too, but that Canon blurs high ISOs more.
You skipped the 30mm and 45mm Samsung lenses, both are optically excellent, like the best Fujis.
So you are broadly wrong.
mediasorcerer: So the a6000 is 1 mark less than the nx1 @ dxo, 82 v 83.And its 1/3 the price. And smaller and lighter.a7r blows the samsung away [95v83] and its 2- 300$ more, hmmm.Too overpriced for nx1- no wonder its not selling very well.The lenses for nx-1 are Huge too.for the same price as nx1 and lens, you can have sony ff a7/r and lens.Or body only either one give or take 100 odd dollars.hmmmm.If you own an a6000 you got value for money, not so much with nx1 though.Highly overpriced.
Got no problem saying I'd buy a D750 tomorrow if I had the dollars for that and the lens I'd want.
I already know what 3/4s of the buttons do. And Leicas have plenty of those. I'd buy an ME too. And an LX100. Then there's plenty to recommend the EM1 or EM5II.
What does that have to do with these A lenses?
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.
HowaboutRAW: Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
Which raws are you looking at?
(Yes at ISO 800 the NX1 has a bit more noise in raw than say a Nikon D5500, but from there up stays even with that Nikon. And at very look ISOs the NX1 matches the Nikon.)
Instead of the lens "road map", I'd suggest looking at already existing Samsung NX lenses.
Samsung has fast sharp lenses of fixed focal lengths, they've been out for years. And the 85mm f/1.4 rivals good Leica and Zeiss lenses. While the 45mm and 30mm are just very very good.
A 300 f/2.8 telephoto exists, but has not released yet.
Data Xchanged for Operation.
Numbers gear heads can quote, in place of using the gear.
The problem is Nikon also has better colour--that's using say Zeiss on both.
Every ISO 200 jpeg from the A900 that I've downloaded looks excellent for color--even if jpeg artifacts are obvious. And that's a Sony body without compressed raws.
Iuri Cezar: I would like to see another approaching ... like a LX200, a GH5 or a FZ2000 making/receiving calls !
Bet the Samsung Galaxy NX can work as a phone over a VoIP service.
The GH5 would need a much bigger screen than the current GH4. And you can't slip the GH4 (or the Samsung) into a pocket.
G1Houston: With the current cell phone policy that we can only have one device activated at a time, the vast majority of the people will shop for a good all around PHONE first. So this CAMERA/phone has to compete with topof the line iPhone or Android phones that have a reasonably goo camera. How well does it make calls?
Exactly zero iPhones shoot raw, and big sensors have mostly been a Windows phone thing. Raw is just starting to come to Android phones.
The iPhone was bad as a phone for years, that's for several model iterations, and in the USA the fault was not simply with the weak AT+T network, the carrier used exclusively in the US by the iPhone for years, it was the phone hardware.
iPhones also don't have mSD card slots.
When you look at the NX1, think about how it compares to the Sony A77II.
Two weaknesses in the A7R in comparison to the NX1 (though one doesn't usually compare full framed and APSC bodies): The A7R has slow AF, and the A7R has a very loud mechanical shutter.
Then further: The weather sealing on the NX1 is much better than that on the A7R.
If you want a camera that easily competes with the A6000 for image quality, albeit without the fast frame rate of the A6000, but with a better EVF and it takes good Samsung lenses, buy the cheaper NX30.
In other words, you totally ignored the direct Samsung competition for the A6000, and instead compared a top of the line Samsung to a midrange Sony.
Last the A6000 doesn't shoot 4K video.
The point is that if Sony were to return to full 14 bit raws, so like the A900, Sony would likely improve the image quality capacity of current models.
Or Sony started doing something else besides compression of the raws in the last few years and that has hobbled image quality.
No one is saying the Sony cameras are bad and to be avoided, but they have a weakness and it shows and given the same lens, subject, lighting, exposure, and sensor, Nikon handles colour better.
Petrogel: Those were really great high iso photos, for a smartphone.
most good pocket cameras don't have 1" sensors, though some have lower pixel densities.
Serious Sam: For that kind of money, a QX100 plus an iphone 6 is much better option.
Except the QX100 doesn't shoot raw.
And it's big and clunky, which allows for the optical zoom.
At least in the US, the QX100 has been discontinued.
FiveForm: Hmmmm....Let's see. Fifteen Hundred for an NX1 body and I paid four-fifty for my new a6000 from Adorama this past holiday season. So, this body is worth more than three times an a6000? It is that good? I'm really not seeing where in this review that would be substantiated....One reason for not changing brands is familiarity and lenses. I feel that all cameras are now at the point where you can buy one and settle on it for a bit, even with the sirens calling from the shores of other brands and models...
The A6000 is a nice enough camera, but it doesn't have a strong EVF or strong native Sony APSC lenses, or good weather sealing.
And DXO sensor scores are a joke.