Which one shoots raw? Oh, wait...
At least there's hope with Android 4.4 and Nokia/MS.
Bugs Bunny: XP is gone, Long live the Mac OS Microsoft had that os for more than 10 yearsA lot of people do not trust Microsoft OS.Apple is years ahead.
Which Mac OS are you referring to? The old one 9 and before? Or the newer X (and its variations) which is just a GUI on top of Unix? 9 is dead, has been for a while. I guess Unix is old though.
Don't delude yourself Mac has had stability and compatibility problems--the new Mavericks liked to crash the whole system for several weeks after release. (Albeit Apple fixed that mess quietly.)
Macs didn't open AVCHD/MTS files natively for years, and still may not--I've not checked Mavericks.
And I say all these things having lived through the horror that was Windows ME.
AbrasiveReducer: I thought this was a group photo of all the people who never had problems with Windows.
If Bill Gates had to pay out a nickle for every crash of Windows ME, he'd be much less monied--likely in debt.
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
Imaging-Resource has raws from the Sony A6000.
Spectro: I was driving on that freeway between LA and SF and thought this area looked like the window desktop, ha I guess it is. The valley rolling hills were cool looking and thought about that commercial, happy cows come from California. this is cattle grazing area.
Napa is north of SF, not saying there's nothing similar to the south of SF, but it can't be the same hill which you saw.
mscheuren: Here is a short review of mine, not about image quality.Ahead: Sorry for my none native english:
I have had serveral cams, Nikon (D80/D90), Canon Analog, Sony A7.Tested D5200, GH3, NEX-7, DX10I sold my Sony due to I was very sad about the noisy shutter, no lenses, long time to wait for the FW update, bad Sony service and WEB (no response)....
I saw the NX30 and bought it several weeks later, and I am positive surprised what Samsung in this marketshare.
Pro’sLightweight, due to only plastic, thats’s what I have looking for trekking... ok, so the build is not so strongDepth preview button, it feels like in analog times....Very good handgrip, Have more features than in the tech specs (HDR, Intervall)Very good manualSamsung released already a FW update, so they are working on this...Very good and sensitve AMOLED DisplayNice quite shutterGood video quality, also 60p in PALFast Power On timeTilt EVF, I don’t want to miss it anymore.Samsungs service is very responsive
There are significantly better lenses. Few bodies come with a second battery.
In the USA, retailers list a wall charger, so that would be external.
Right the D5300 likely uses an excellent Toshiba sensor, but it's a bit of a mystery.
"auto" rarely allows the use of raw, that's what P is for.
And get raws from elsewhere, that's not a good scene for any camera. Try PhotographyBlog or shoot your own raws, I did, with all of those cameras above ISO 3200 too. And the one with the Toshiba sensor is the only serious competition for the Samsung NX30. (And I like the K3 well enough, but yet again like with the D7100 you've added another camera to your list that wasn't there to begin with.)
Quoting from the DXOMark website:
"All sensor scores reflect only the RAW sensor performance of a camera body. All measurements are performed on the RAW image file BEFORE demosaicing or other processing prior to final image delivery. DxOMark does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics quality, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera."
This suggests some part of in camera computing is skipped in determining DXOMark scores. If you know otherwise please provide a clear link.
Now I realize there's some ambiguity in the above quotation but it needs to be clarified, because indeed there is processing done to all raw files by the camera before the raw is written to storage.
ipecaca: Why would one be interested in samsung cameras, what's the catch? Truly interested, can owners tell me?
I suggest you get raws from the NX30 or NX300, more raws than here, shot with better lenses, then extract with ACR 8.4 and you will see the Samsung doing better high ISO performance than all sorts of cameras that used APSC Sony sensors, including the good 16MP Sony sensor. (This means downloading raws, PhotographyBlog has them.)
Please pay attention to this as a general rule, when making image quality claims about raw capable cameras, DO NOT cite jpegs, as you did above.
Then it's well known that Samsungs don't have a great jpeg engine, so if you only shoot jpeg use a Fuji X APSC body.
One APSC camera that does outperform the Samsung NX30 for image quality, particularly at high ISOs: The Nikon D7100. However even good lenses from Nikon can't match the optical quality of good Samsung lenses. So to get the most out of the D7100, you'll need Zeiss lenses. (And the D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor, not a Sony sensor.)
I had thought DXO started with output data from the sensor, not the raw files.
I don't think that the 85mm Samsung matches the performance of the best Leica lenses, but yes very good Leicas.
Fuji makes excellent lenses, probably more than Samsung(Optron), but the best Samsung are better.
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.