DRNottage: The back on the stupid thing is ALL touch screen- impossible to hold. AND overpriced. They can keep it.
The right side of the NX1100 bulges to form grip. Some how I'd trust Samsung to do the menus correctly, so wait for an actual user to comment about how easy it is to handle.
joe talks photography: sweet camcorder but shows its the end of the road of m43 as far as challenging larger sensors with still image quality.
I checked an ISO 4000 XPro1 raw shot of a the same deep shadowed scene; it’s plenty sharp, the kit zoom was used for both the XE1 raw and the XPro1 raw.
So I have to guess that you’re missing a setting, or there’s something wrong with the lens on your XPro1.
I have plenty of XPro1 files to play with and yes the processor works on the data, but that's not noise reduction like what you're describing.
And my high ISO XPro1 raws most certainly don't look like the ACR luminance slider is over to 30 when I look at the RAW files in ACR.
I think that there's a setting you're missing in the X camera menu. I just looked an ISO 3200 raw from the XE1, shot into dark shadows, and details in the shadows are sharp.
The Fuji does not do noise reduction to raw files--you're referring to a jpeg problem. And the 5N is soft, well that could be a poor lens, many from Sony in that line, or of course a jpeg.
Who cares about about jpegs when commenting on the image quality of a camera that shoots raw?
I'm tired of jpegs being assumed to be the end all of what a camera can do.
And the A77 remains not very good above about ISO 3200 or less, because of the mirror.
Leandro Dumini: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 review???When Pentax K5II one is yet to come???Here we go again...
Well the K5 II doesn't have a low pass filter, so that means it's like very few cameras, only Leica Ms and Sigmas. (Sorry no not the Nikon D800E, though maybe the Nikon D7100 and also perhaps the Coolpix A really truly don't have low pass filters.)
G Sciorio: The GH3 is simply the best mirrorless camera on the market for the best system on the market - Micro 4/3.
Trolls in 3...2....1
The Fuji XE1 easily bests this Panasonic for high ISO still shooting, and the Fuji lenses make the Fuji stand out, again as a still camera. The Sony Nex 5N aint a bad body either.
Since you you neglected to limit yourself of M4/3, at low ISOs the Leica M9 is outstanding, mostly because of the lenses. Don't know if you count the Sony RX1, but that's good too. Then of course that Pentax K-01 did darn good imaging as a still camera.
Even my old Samsung NX100 can do better stills at ISO 1600 than this Panasonic--that's partly because Samsung makes some very good lenses that Panasonic can't really come close to.
Nerval: Do the GH3 and OM5 really do have a different sensor, or a different manufacturer? I cannot tell the raws from one another...Output seems nearly identical...
Nikon in no way exclusively uses Sony sensors, eg the D4 and the D7100. Then also the D3/D700 and D3s did not use a Sony sensor.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: with its size.. I might as well just buy a Nikon D5200.. :-) although it will be reversed..better still and so-so video ? ;-)
Very slow buffering on that Nikon, and not a great mirrored viewfinder, though excellent stills and high ISO with the Nikon.
Stephen Scharf: It's taken you guys >6 months to get this review done? That means we should see the Fuji X100S review around July or August.
I don't know of a single print magazine that allows downloads of sample review shots--not even full sized jpegs.
(Perhaps something has changed since I made the point to the editor of a significant US photo gear magazine that the magazines needed to provide these downloads with reviews . And years before that I made the same point to someone at the significant US photogear magazine.)
Some of the testing data in the print magazines is helpful, but why bother if I can't look at files myself?
The A77 isn't particularly good at high ISOs, the Sony Nex 5N is. The newish Nikon D7100 is pretty good too. This Panasonic doesn't come close to either.
The Fuji XE1 is a lot better than this Panasonic at high ISOs, better than the A77 too.
You picked an under performing, at high ISOs, APSC sensored camera to hold up as an example.
tkbslc: I predict it would sell better at $499 and no lightroom.
Oh, now Ebay is the same as buying from BH, Adorama, or Amazon, not. Really.
Your second point, news that the NX1100 has shipped, but anyhow my point was about the NX20 as was your reaction to my point. And the NX20 kit new is still $700 plus from a trusted source.
No, the NX20 is $749 at BH, today April 14th, 2013. (Adorama: $699.)
Also, new at BH today, the 18mm-55mm lens is $249.
Then $550 is less than the $650 of the inaccurate pricing claims you posted.
Except used, BH does not sell the NX20 body, and there is no used body for sale right now.
So try checking next time.
Reputable photo retailers are not selling a new NX20 kit for $550 or less. (There are some suppliers I’d not deal with, for an new camera, linked through Amazon.)
Except for the buffer problem, the NX20 is an excellent still camera, particularly when shooting raw and using high quality raw extraction software, like ACR 7.
By your logic one could buy a new NX20 kit for $550, and you can't.
masterofdeception: I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .126.96.36.199 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!
Fine you don't need a raw capable camera, or good raw extraction software, but that suggests to me, that you never printed from your own negatives--that's you running the enlarger or doing the film scanning.
I'd also guess you never took a negative to a store for enlargement of something you'd originally got as a 4X6 print.
None of the great photographers you cite, decided to automatically throw out three quarters of the information in the negatives that they had decided to print. (Reproduction in books is a different story.)
If those Fuji jpegs work for you, that's fine, but it's sort of like saying the 1hour place processing my negatives is as good as getting a pro lab to to the development and printing of the same shot: That's wrong.
camera221: LR and PS need to have a same version of ACR engine or else you get an error message between the two. I use the PS CS5 and the LR4.1 is the latest version I can use with it. There's no way to update PS CS5 to ACR7.4 as far as I know. I have two options: 1.) Update my PS (that is Production Premium suite) to CS6 or 2.) refrain from updating my LR any further. I choose the nro 2. Fortunately you can install different versions of LR side by side (say 4.1 and 4.4) but it does make the work a bit complicated.
That's odd, I have PhotoShop CS 6 updated to ACR 7.4 and PhotoShop Elements 9, with ACR 6.5, running on the same Windows computer. Could be that LR 4.x and PS CS5 share something via Bridge in PS CS5.
(The upgrade from PS CS5 to CS6 is about the same price a new Lightroom.)
Except the point isn’t about a bayer pattern/matrix filter, the point is the Leica M9, Sigma Foveon cameras, Pentax K5 II, Nikon D800E, and now the Nikon D7100 do away with the optical low pass filters (yes, then Nikons may have them but the effects are then countered).
You’ve confused a discussion about cameras without OLPFs with the one about the newish Fuji Xtrans filter that replaces the bayer pattern filter on the newish Fuji X cameras.
Theses are different filters, doing different things. And one does not replace the other.
I’d imagine that Sigma Foveon cameras don’t really have a bayer patterning filter either, because each sensor photo cell point can record RGB and keep the data separate for later construction into a photo file.
miles green: It's a pity the Sigma SD1 is not on the comparison tool. At base iso, it's phenomenal! Incredible clarity and no moire!
Mannypr: I know that. the main topic is the effects of no anti aliasing filter on high MP camera but what is surprising is the small amount who have commented on the rather obvious and surprising superiority of the pentax over all the others on all test modes . On the nikons I can see a difference between them but I admit they are small , even at 100%
Thank you I have my own raws from both; as I said. Now what I don't have are K5 II raws shot with a Zeiss.
But look the Pentax is a plenty good camera. Anyhow the problem with the Pentax, with Pentax lenses, is poor colour, when compared to a Zeiss lens.
This detail thing is mostly a distraction.
Timmbits: What's wrong with all the haters here? Wake up!
THIS IS AN ENTRY-LEVEL!
You don't like it, go see the NX300, NX20, or Fuji for that matter.
Stop b!tching for what is missing in a $500 package!
The EVF in the Samsung NX20 is very good, not quite Sony Nex 7 though.
The NX100 most certainly took an external EVF. Samsung NX cameras are far from crap. Though some have had serious buffer problems. The image quality of the NX100, shooting raw, is excellent thru ISO 1600. And the NX20 betters that.
Samsung NX system menus started out done correctly, Sony had to play catch up.
No, the Samsungs don't do particularly good video.
Well you can check out the Leica M9 at base ISO.