tecnoworld: As an owner of several nx cameras and lenses, I'd never buy this camera.
Here are my reasons:1) iq very similar (identical?) to that of my one year old nx300 (lower than fuji x and sony nex in high iso and dr)2) same for af performance, (which is for sure lower than fuji x-t1 and seemingly lower than sony a6000)3) price, too high imo4) form factor and look, I prefer rangefinder shape ala nex7/pana gx7. The nx30 is big by my standards, and, again imo, ugly.5) evf is still sequential and I see rainbow effects in it. I hate this. The one in x-t1 is so much better, bigger, with better colors
I wasn't aware of DXO taking the internal computer into account.
However, as you say, going by conversions with serious software of photos taken with lenses is a better method.
It's best not to go by DXO scoring at all, because that sensor scoring used by DXO ignores two incredibly important image quality factors: the lens, and the camera's internal processor.
Optically better lenses and better internal computing both significantly improve high ISO performance and dynamic range.
DXO scoring is next to useless, for both sensors and lenses, this is point is generally well known by those who care about image quality. (For lenses DXO can say if the lens is reasonably good, but can't distinguish good from extraordinary.)
For lenses try Lenstip for lens reviews.
For higher ISOs the Nex 7 is not considered a serious camera, this is well known.
Then Nikon D7100 does NOT use a Sony sensor, so why bring it up? It's not the same sensor as the Nex 7. The Pentax K5 ii has that good Sony sensor used by so many, but at ISO 6400 it struggles, whereas the NX30/300 has no trouble with ISO 6400. Nor can Pentax lenses keep up with the optical quality of good Samsung lenses.
I believe the Nikon D5200 uses the same Toshiba sensor from the D7100, and right that is an excellent sensor. But it's not one you brought up originally.
I've only seen Imaging-Resource raws from the A6000, so reserve judgement, the A5000 looks a bit more promising--but not up to the NX300.
A big problem, your claims about what cameras have better image quality, when shooting raw, are highly questionable, and simply not true when shooting at higher ISOs.
And I like the Fuji X T1, and think those lenses plenty good. But those Fuji lenses just aren't up to the best Samsungs for optical quality, and the Fuji struggles with higher ISOs. Same point applies to the Olympus EM1, but it has even greater high ISO problems than the Fuji.
So, you're left with the point that you don't want the EVF centered.
Milan1958: NX30 seems to be a very good camera, but for less money you get a reasonable DSLR kit. Mine Nikon D5200 is not much heavier and seeems to edge the NX30 in some things.
Boring, I never wrote that all Samsung lenses are better than all Nikon lenses.
However, yes Nikon can't keep up with the optical quality of good Samsung lenses--nor can Canon. Perhaps this will change, when Canikon realizes that Panasonic/Oly+Fuji also really challenge Canikon for optical quality.
AndreSJ: photographyblog.com Has produced some great sample images from the NX30 paired with the NX 16-50mm f2-2.8 S ED OIS
check them out here:
That above link to PhotographyBlog is more about the new fast zoom than about the NX30.
The PhotographyBlog review of the NX30 has raws for download:
Kodachrome200: Im actually surprised that its more expensive than the 35mm 1.4. Traditionally that would be a more expensive lens
The point remains that you said this lens is expensive. And now you claim that's not an important part of your point.
Until now, and I've not seen more than sample jpegs from this new Sigma 50, I've never seen a Sigma lens that has the optical performance of good Zeiss or Leica lenses. Yes, the Sigmas can be plenty good.
You seem to forget that Sigma has to pay its employees, and for the most part they're not living in Thailand or Vietnam. The yen has been up, since the earthquake and tsunami.
This lens is not simply a good version of the old Sigma 50--this lens took new tooling and developing new production techniques. All of those things add to the cost. So it's not simply that Zeiss released a $4,000 lens or that Nikon shipped a not great $1700 lens.
Don't know about the optical quality of the new APSC Sigma 18-35mm; it's reported to be good. Could be, but APSC.
Down at the bottom of this page there are raws for download, to confuse matters the are also jpeg only samples mixed in:
peevee1: Some comparison to its competitors would be interesting. Does it have any real advantages compared to Panasonic G6, GX7, Olympus E-M10, Sony a6000? What are the disadvantages?Why does it cost more, even with the old big and and boring 18-55?
Seems to be very close to G6, just bigger.http://camerasize.com/compact/#455.374,497.105,ha,t
Haven't seen video, or shot it, with the Olympus EM10; it's not really out on display yet. However the EM1's video is not good.
My judgements about still image quality, which I stand by, are based on my own raw shooting with these cameras.
Right, Samsung does not have a good reputation for out of camera jpegs, but that's not the image quality of the NX30--that's the jpeg quality.
Also right better stabilization helps with video, but no one really complains about the lens based stabilization of Samsung.
It has better image quality than the Fuji X T1.
It is also better than the Sony Nex/A+Fuji Xs at higher ISOs, this point includes the Sony Nex5+A5000 and the Fuji XT1.
I still see no rainbow in the EVF, however in shadows, the Samsung's EVF lags, while the EVFs on the Fuji XT1 and Sony A7 don't show any appreciable lag.
So: That leaves EVF rainbows, which no one else reports, and the fact that it's not a rangefinder style body as valid points.
(I really like the image quality from the Sony A5000--it's a big leap for Sony including the kit lens. I've only seen raws from the A6000 from Imaging-Resource, so reserve judgement, but high ISO does not look promising with the A6000.)
And good Samsung lenses are optically better than Nikon lenses.
What on earth are you on about?
The point is: Until this lens, Sigma wasn’t real close to the optical quality of either Leica or Zeiss. Now, maybe things have changed.
No one, who pays attention to optical quality, thinks either Canon or Nikon does serious lenses.
So, wrong I didn’t ignore some Sigma 35mm lens, I just didn’t treat it as anything more than serious competition for Canikon. Big deal, lots of lens manufactures best Canikon for optical quality, albeit for cameras with smaller sensors–Samsung, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic have all shipped optically better lenses.
Repeating myself: NO, $1,000 for an optically excellent lens is not particularly expensive–it’s no longer the year 1990. (And you’re the one who complained about the price. That was your point, not that Sigma makes good lenses.)
RichRMA: Why would you need a grip that deep, as opposed to the NX20 grip? So you can get your fingers stuck between it and the lens?
That sounds like a real improvement. I don't own the NX20 anymore so can't try out that early 2014 firmware.
The problem is that it took Samsung more than a year's time to release that firmware.
Anyhow the NX30, which I've tried, is good at fast shooting, and is better at high ISOs than the NX20.
Depends what you're trying to do on the NX20. Put an U1 SD card in, and try to shoot say 5 single raws over the space of 5 seconds--it will lock up on the third.
Yes, I've tried the newish firmware on the NX20, and it only slightly helps with buffering. So unless there's some massive new firmware upgrade from early 2014 that solves the problem, it be there.
The NX300 is good, but not real good for buffering.
And the NX30 is a bit better.
One experience I had with the Galaxy NX was excellent, the other not so much. But I'd never consider buying that camera so didn't chase down the differing results.
Better at high ISOs than the OlyPana. Also better than the Fuji XT1 at higher ISOs.
More and better native lenses than the Sony.
Much better video than Oly.
Right: The highend Pana, Oly, Fuji, all have bodies built to a higher standard.
Debankur Mukherjee: This lens seems to be better then the Nikon G type but cannot match the Zeiss Otus but the Zeiss is deadly expensive.........
That "blow out of the water" remains to be seen.
I'll bet the current Sigma 85mm is indeed optically better than Canikon, but that's not the competition here.
And until now, Sigma has not come close the the optical quality of good Leica and Zeiss lenses, even if good Sigma lenses do best Canikon for optical quality.
But now, there's real hope that this lens does indeed equal the optical performance of Leica and Zeiss at their near best.
So, simply a misdirection on your part.
This Sigma 50mm Art aint aimed a "'average photographers'" either.
AussieBarb: What is the AF like? I ditched my NX11 sick of it "hunting" and focus system poor.
What does the NX11 have to do with the original question? The NX30/300 use a significantly different type of AF, even with the same lens.
RichRMA: I don't own it, I didn't have it, I don't want it. It's a pity Samsung is such an also-ran, given it's done a better job than Canon OR Nikon in mirror-less.
For many years, even in Japan, Honda was considered an "also ran" car maker. Honda was considered a motorcycle maker.
Honda's real successes with cars came from abroad.
So careful when saying that Samsung is an "also ran" maker of digital mirrorless cameras. Sony and Apple, Motorola, HTC and Panasonic have all made the mistake of treating Samsung less than seriously--and only Apple seriously competes with Samsung where their businesses overlap. (Ironic that Google, the maker of Android, owned Motorola mobile for a while.)
The NX20 has serious raw buffering problems.
Haven't tried the 85mm on the NX30, so can't comment on how universal this stuck fingers thing is.