cgarrard: Same tired sensor won't do it these days if the end goal is higher camera sales than in the past. It's pretty much a guaranty that IQ should be improved on new camera models these days if that is the goal. JPEG and RAW both disappoint for a camera of this price and class it competes in. Samsung make some very promising ideas happen, they just need to address each weakness one by one and get them to be strengths. Unless they are happy with mediocre camera sales of course, then they really aren't doing anything wrong here.
The sensor in the NX30 is better than the sensor in the Fuji XT1, at least from the raws I have.
I assume the sensor in the Pentax K3 is basically the same as the sensor in the Sony A6000, and above ISO 6400 neither the A6000 nor the Pentax really keep up with the NX30--it's close.
And here I'll disclose the obvious problem--it's hard to get samples shot with the Sony or the Pentax with lenses optically equal to Samsung. Not impossible but takes work.
But I'm not counting sales I'm talking about the equipment.
Do you really think that in say 1992 Sony and Panasonic executives thought: "Flat panel TVs are coming in the future, but Samsung and LG are going to completely destroy our TV business in 20 years"?
Palm, Blackberry, and Microsoft all had years to develop decent webbrowsing phones, and didn't bother. MS phones crashed all the time. Blackberry's were slow, and didn't get faster.
Back then Google and Apple had zero market share. What happened?
Pallke: This is very useful for morons that protect their costly lenses by filters and deteriorates the optical quality...
Some times, really often, those changed outcomes are improvements. Coatings (aka on-lens filters) vastly improve outcomes.
Sorry, digital processing after the fact really can't reproduce the effects of a decent UV filter.
If light were that easy to work with, then the results from Canikon lenses could easily be processed to look like photos taken with decent Leica or Zeiss lenses. Whereas it's not even possible to process a photo taken with an excellent Zeiss look like a photo taken with an excellent Leica.
Annom: A question for you all - I am going to buy a Full Frame for the first time. I was looking originally at a D800e but have now decided to skip the middle step and either get a second hand Nikon D3s or wait 18 months for a D4. I shooting a lot of sport, some weddings and landscapes.
The D4+D3s are more sports cameras than landscape cameras.
As for weddings, I guess it depends on the reproductions commonly asked for. Do the wedded ask for prints at nearly poster size? If yes, the D800/E is probably a better bet.
Both the D3s (not cheap used) and the D4 have quite audible shutters, and if the wedding, or even the reception, is indoors some may find that shutter noise irksome.
There's also the Canon 5DIII which isn't as loud as the D4/D3s.
And the Canon can do bigger prints than a D4 and is probably better at higher ISOs than the D800--neither the D800 nor 5DIII are as sharp as the D800E.
Of course you'll need Canon mount lenses if you use a 5DIII.
The Canon 6D is really quite and nearly as good at high ISOs as the Nikon D4, not the D4s, Df or D3s though. And the Canon 6D isn't for sports exactly.
Can you rent something for a try out? (Usually takes putting the replacement value on a credit card for the rental period or purchasing insurance.)
kociasek: Based on other reviews of this camera, I'd say this review is sorely lacking, omitting a number of problems, in particular there's no mention of the fact that the EVF has lousy lenses that blur corners of the image during framing, which - coupled with small magnification and streaking - makes its use distinctly unpleasant.I read so on two different camera websites (in Polish):http://fotoblogia.pl/460,samsung-nx30-testhttp://www.optyczne.pl/268.1-Test_aparatu-Samsung_NX30_Wst%C4%99p.html
In normal light, to even dim light, the LCD EVFs in the Samsung NX20/30 are excellent--with very little lag until displaying dark shadows.
I can accept that you see rainbows, few do.
Irony the low resolution EVF for the NX100 has much less lag than contemporaneous EVFs from other manufacturers.
Now in 2014: The A7's EVF doesn't lag in shadows, nor the Olympus EM1's, and as you say the Fuji XT1's.
GatanoII: No open format work-flow, your photos will die with lytro, that's the first thing you must look before investing your time and resources in such gimmick, anyway ...
As it is now, in the best case scenario (as portrayed in the above video) it's a new limited creative tool for video-graphers not for photographers, it adds very little to the ability of telling a story ... indeed in the above video to tell you the story they used real video cameras and not their "creative tool" ...
So unless you have some scientific applications where refocusing an image is important or a video camera with refocusing ability frame by frame is available (and you have limited creative ability and a lot of time to waste for post production), I see no huge market for this tools.
If such technology emerges it will be an open format where you can use any brand of cameras and the format can be played by any brand of players, still it will be less (a lot less) appealing than 3D video.
And like raw formats from various camera makers, I'm all for Lytro opening up the format, so other parties can develop software.
Maybe Lytro fears giving away the capture processing software if Lytro makes it easy for second party software to open the files.
I see you didn't bother to read what I wrote about James Clerk Maxwell. The physics "of what is" is much more complex than you think.
Indeed better filters often do improve performance--including things like clarity and sharpness. No, not in every situation.
And these kinds of improved results are pretty easy to see.
Beyond the philosophy of "what is": Leica, Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, etc all put coatings on their lenses to improve optical performance, not just ease of cleaning, and these coatings are effectively on lens filters, so you can't have it both ways. Nor is it at all likely that only lens makers know how to make the right cofilters for their own lenses.
And more zoom added to the detractions of the RX100 and RX100ii.
And I want fewer pixels and better lowlight performance, I sure hope Sony listens to the likes of me and not this silly more zoom thing. Sony used to always go for more zoom, and it got Sony ignored by people interested in seriously good cameras.
As for this particular Sony sensor, the new Nikon One v3 and the Samsung NX-mini both appear to seriously threaten this Sony's sensor.
Okay I see how you're saying both the Sony and Samsung have BSI sensors; I was wrong about that.
Right, the same per square in, so still an f/1.8 lens for light gathering. Absolutely a FF lens of 45mm will gather more light, but have to illuminate a bigger sensor, so it's wrong to say the camera/sensor combination of the FF example gathers more light--the lens doesn't work alone.
The huge problem with DXO sensor scoring is that it doesn't account for lenses. The scores may also skip the in camera processing of data before the raw is written--the phrasing on the website is ambiguous.
The thing about having my own raws and seeing the Samsung as a bit better than the Sony, as long as I'm using the optically good kit zoom, I really have and consistently. With that better zoom, the Samsung can even be pushed to ISO8000, though really only in bright light.
The thing is Sony doesn't have a great reputation for in camera computers, this may change with the RX100v3.
For light gathering on that sensor it's an f/1.8 lens.
You've confused depth of field and light gathering; they're very different. Light gathering includes the ratio of the sensor to the aperture.
Also at the FF equivalent of 45mm, the Samsung remains faster than the Sony.
The Samsung sensor is BSI, just like the Sony.
BSI (back side illumination) doesn't help as much with bigger sensors.
DXO sensor scores are nearly useless.
And I have raws from the RX100ii and the RX10, and the Samsung NXmini. With a decent lens the Samsung is a better high ISO sensor.
So completely wrong, except the DOF thing.
Let me see, clearly you didn't read, or read and didn't understand the meaning of, my last paragraph above, so I'll quote it in its entirety:
"Please don't cite DXO scores of various sensors."
That also means-- obviously--please don't bring up DXO sensor scoring in general.
I'll go further: Unlike DXO lens scoring, DXO sensor scoring is nearly useless, so it's better to skip it.
As for the implication that somehow more megapixels crammed into the same sensor size means the sensor with those extra pixels makes for better image quality:
Are you joking, or do you only shoot at base ISO?
Quite obviously, above base ISO, the Df has better IQ than the D800.
People who care about image quality shoot raw, so would look for raws from whatever brand, then those same people would seek out good lenses, so would avoid Sony, Nikon, Pentax.
Now some people who seek out high image quality have different high ISO shooting interests than others seeking high IQ, so that's a variable.
ukuleleguy: I use Leicas and I was quite excited when I saw the announcement for this camera. Yes there are a lot of cameras out there with more features and lower cost. Some of those cameras are quite nice but they are just a step away from the parts drawer. I used to use Canon film cameras and I loved them . When I switched to digital I bought a Canon and it died, SO I bought another and it too died, SO I bought another and it died. Each time the repairs exceeded the price of the latest model. After a while I decided to swicth and I bought a Leica. I have been happy ever since. If you like buying a new camera every couple of years than buying a cheaper camera will fit the bill, likewise if you do not have the $ to spend and still want decent performance. A Leica is not for everyone. BUT if you like quality, want to keep your camera for a long time, want to take a lot of photos and get amazing customer service then a Leica may be for you. Leica provides the tools I prefer. I want a T!
Other bodies may out perform this T body. Not at all clear that other lenses are better.
Perhaps you were addressing ukuleleguy.
And I've never been particularly drawn to Leica digital bodies. Though if I had the money I'd buy an M240 in second.
Black Box: We've seen ALL kinds of names for image processors. Suffox, Bionz X (Gosh! Doesn't Japanese Word warn them it's difficult to pronounce?), Expeed, DIGIC... Now "DRY ME FOUR"? For crying out loud, hire an ENGLISH SPEAKING marketing company already!
“Suffox, Bionz X”, preceding Japanese in parentheses with “difficult to pronounce” enclosed in those parentheses , followed by “Expeed, DIGIC..” Followed by complaints about Samsung’s name for their processor more than suggests that Samsung is Japanese.
I’m sure indeed you know that Samsung is Korean.
Just as I’m sure that you’ve not clearly expressed yourself at all.
Look: it’s not like I’ve never garbled the meaning of a comment here, so see what you implied and move on.
Robo2k: Those samples are extremely disappointing. Almost all of them are horribly exposed. Then again, this is my biggest complaint with DPR previews/reviews in general. How do you manage to make every camera look so damn terrible? I mean this set barerly scratches the possibilities of this camera (or any camera for that matter)!
Your reviews might be wordefully meticulous (an honest praise!) but, man, your samples galleries (and especially this one) are the worst.
I don't spend a lot of time looking at jpegs, from any source, if the camera shoots raw.
I figure it's a waste of my time, since I never shoot jpeg only with raw cameras.
It's not even a good idea to simply base judgements on the first raws one sees from whatever camera.
carizi: Good reason enough to stay away from cloud services.
However the term most certainly includes video editing--after production/shooting, so best to avoid, particularly since Premiere is part of the CC suite.
The Name is Bond: This tech needs to be on normal to wide lenses. It's practically irrelevant on long lenses.
The Name is B:
I think better UV filters can be used on wide angle lenses--and in many case even help to suppress flair. (Example UV B+W MRC Nano filters really do help in many situations.)
Samsung is Korean.
How hard is it to pronounce "drim", or if you like "dri-me"?
Those other examples are easy enough to pronounce in English.
Also: There are other markets than the English speaking world.
MajStriker: I remember when the Lytro camera was first announced there were several tech writers who mentioned that in addition to the refocusing trick, it would be capable of taking excellent photos in low light. I never quite understood exactly how that could be. Is there any truth to that? How does the Lytro camera and more specifically the array handle low light settings? (i.e. High ISO)?
Except for being able to use a fast lens in all situations it doesn't. Or didn't really with the first gen Lytro.
In the future, when the software is more able to sort noise, from data including the extra data seen by this sensor and array combination, lowlight performance may improve. Unlikely in this new model.
justin23: I think the best use for this technology is rather than for refocussing an image but to adjust your depth of field, especially when you want a narrow DOF. You can shoot using a nice aperture like f5.6-f8 then narrow the DOF to f1.4 that would be brilliant! But I'd probably want the technology licensed to actual dSLR makers with all the camera features i have now.
What you describe is possible with the Lytros.
If DSLR makers were to use this technology, there'd have to be specialized arrays of micro lenses in the sensor plane, or very specialized interchangeable lenses in place of those arrays. So with the built-in array the body would be useless as a normal DSLR--or mirrorless.
This new Lytro has plenty of manual controls like a DSLR.
To be clear: You mean since dirt/oil on long lenses doesn't show up in images the way dirt/oils on shorter lenses does, right?
But with shorter lenses there are usually front filter threads, which are unusual with big telezooms, meaning one can use a filter. So this kind of coating is more useful for long lenses, though I guess not useless for short lenses like a 35mm.
It's not the "Cloud" I object to, it's that it's the only way with PhotoShop now.
Yet again, my CAD software has been offered for rental for years now--though down in price, for purchase it's still more than PhotoShop CS6 or even the whole suite--however notice I can still buy the license instead of only renting.
So if I want to rent and learn for a couple of months beyond the 14 day trial, I can decide to do so. And then if I don't need the software I let the rental expire, however if I think I may use this a lot over say 18 months I can buy the license.
"best post production", for which field? That's a mostly a video editing term. And though I have Premiere, I don't think it has the reputation as the best postproduction software.
You've offered no evidence in failed photos that Samsung APSC sensors don't keep up with Sony APSC sensors.
So get adapters for say Nikon F mount to both Sony and Samsung and get a hold of some Zeiss lens for Nikon. With a Samsung NX body and a Sony Nex/A body shoot the same scenes at the same settings with that lens, in raw. Then share your results and ideally the raws too.
Please don't cite DXO scores of various sensors.