a trivial thing, but why is the nx200 the only one to not have its preview linked in its description?
I feel this article is a bit late for most people on DPR. I'm sure some new members/guests will benefit from this, but I feel like the majority of us on here- enthusiasts/professionals- already are aware of the info presented here. Well written though.
Hm, I was debating even downloading this because I wasn't sure it'd be of any use to me, being called "wildlife photography," but lots of other helpful insights outside of the conditional wildlife scene.
panacealater: Surely you're not suggesting the wealthy should not have purchasing options that reflect their status. Why should they be confined to the price constraints many of us respect?
While I do not share the attraction to their efforts to remain a viable manufacturer by supporting the needs of their traditional customer base, I see no reason to disparage them.
Now, if someone gave me one for Christmas, I wouldn't exchange it. lol
Uhhh first of all, I was just trying to make a point- that with the money you need to buy this camera, you could be buying multiple other things that give you more use for your money. Hm....a pricey point and shoot or a couple new lenses or bodies?
Second of all, it's a Christmas present, and I'm going to enjoy it. I do help the poor, but like any other person who needs to live a decent life, I SHOCKINGLY spend money on myself as well. I hate when people bring up "Oh, why didn't you buy a cheaper electronic device and give money to the poor?" Well, why did you buy new clothes instead of old ones? Why did you buy a two story house and not one? Why did you buy a new car and not a used one? Why don't you take 3 minute showers everyday instead of 15? Point being, who's to say where the line stops? If everyone gave all they had, we'd all be in poverty, and if some people can live a decent life, why not let them as long as they're doing something to help the poor?
If someone gave me one for Christmas, I'd sell it and use the money to buy some lenses or some new bodies, depending on how much this thing actually is.
Sure, the wealthy shouldn't be confined. But then again, even a lot of wealthy people can't be that dumb to just throw away money like that. Among the point and shoot crowd, the Panasonic FZ150 is already considered a pricey, top of the line camera.
What's the point of these....honestly. To me it just makes Leica seem like a lazy, unattractive brand that tries to oversell itself, but without actually having that much market presence or advertising for that matter. Their rangefinders might be revered, but for someone looking for a bridge camera, Leica is just an overpriced out of the blue Panny.
that's a lot of issues they needed to fix. some that weren't even improvements, but rather actual technical fixes.
+1 to all the posts against this challenge. What a trashy challenge.
At the end, what does it mean by microfocus adjust it? How exactly does one do that?
IcyVeins: Is there anybody who doesn't immediately jump ahead to the number at the end before reading anything else in the review? I doubt it
Obviously a few percentages would be accounted for in the reviewer's own bias (as there has to be at least a little subjective reviewing, both because it's unavoidable and because it's somewhat practical). The bigger differences in % are what matters. Obviously most people would probably find that an 80% rated camera is better than a 65% rated camera.
I don't think a blind test tool is that necessary. Obvious differences in image quality will be obvious, regardless of a reader's mental bias. Smaller differences that can be interpreted subjectively by a reader are probably too minuscule to really matter that much; you'd have to really love a camera brand to be able to see a large physical difference between two cameras to favor the worse one.
Len Schweitzer: Wish there had been a question about what I don't like about DPR. I'd have said I hated, and have from the very beginning, trying to read reams of white type on a black background. It's really offensive, hard to read and causes me to limit the time I stay on DPR. Luckily there's readability when there's a story or article I really want to read.
they did do a survey awhile back, and most users reported in the poll that they liked the current look of the site. only a few said they would want it with a black font on white background, and even fewer opted for the third option i forgot.
i rather like how it is now; i hate having a glaring white background to read black text. it's much easier on the eyes, for me.
BryceM: He kept emphasizing their "premium lenses", but as for their zooms, all I see are the same slow-ass zooms and 2.8 primes as the other guys. 2.8 is not fast for a prime.
The system is still growing- if you look at lens roadmaps, the faster zooms are coming later on. But for now, would it make sense for them to sell more general appeal, cheaper, smaller and yes, slower, zooms? Or more enthusiast, niche, large and heavy fast zooms that would inevitably be more expensive?
Moreover, they only have two prime lenses that are f2.8- the 20mm, which, I agree that IMO is a bit pointless, but plenty of people like it, and it's better to have the option than to not. And the 60mm macro, but in this case f2.8 is a great choice because larger apertures would result in a larger lens and not so useable depth of field for macro work.
Other than those two, all the other pancakes are significantly faster, such as the 16mm f2.4, 30mm f2, and 85mm f1.4. Clearly you didn't do your research first, or even watch the whole video with the part about the portrait prime and 16mm
Debankur Mukherjee: The main problem of mirrorless bodies are the size of the lenses.. the body itself is quiet small and light weight but the lenses will remain big.....No way it can be termed as pockatable or portable.....
For me personally, mirrorless was never going to be able to pocketable in every single situation. You're going to have to be stuck with a telephoto set up, a professional prime set up, a flash set up, or any other enthusiast/pro level set up that any quality and thorough system should provide.
However, unlike DSLRs, at least with mirrorless you have the /potential/ for pocketability. To me mirrorless was always about options- I could go with a small pancake and have a pocketable, powerful system, or I could utilize the more premium set ups that, of course would be a bit more comparable to DSLR sizes.
And don't forget- pocketable and portable and very different for some people. Some people couldn't care less about size per se- a lot of people have health problems and simply can't stand the weight of traditional systems, and so the fact of being lighter in most cases = portability for some people, regardless of the actual size.
photo nuts: It'll be fantastic if their lenses are as good as the NX200 sensor. We'll see. Samsung may very well be the next Sony given the production and financial problems the latter is facing.
Oh, cause Sony definitely came up with an APS-C mirrorless system before Samsung (let alone invent the mirrorless category). And they definitely invented the TV, MP3 player, and every other gadget they now sell. And Apple definitely didn't copy ideas either- it was all fresh of course because, well they're apple- why do i have to bother knowing anything before i can say that these companies are creative and original and Samsung is not?
boring interview...not particularly helpful. but thanks for posting anyway- i'm confused though; i thought samsung was not present at PPE since it wasn't covered in the written articles.
I just rememberd- does DPR know yet what the effective ISOs are for the NX200? Like for the NX10, its labeled 3200 was effectively lower, and resulted in slower shutter speeds. Is the NX200's effective ISOs also lower than the labeled?
chlamchowder: Agreed - image quality is very nice. It seems less noisy than the a77 (but the translucent mirror probably contributes to that).
Is it just me, or do the raws at really high ISOs (6400, 12800) look noise reduced?
but ultimately, the RAW files are very nice. from 6400 and below, I'd say the nx200's sensor is on par or beats the 5N's sensor! Although 6400 and up is still Sony's triumph.
noise reduced? as in samsung applied NR even on the raw file? Hm...I thought it was kind of weird how strangely the IQ shifted from 6400 to 12800. 6400 seemed fine to me, but 12800 looked like a glob of paint exploded on the sensor or something. Not really sure how to explain it, but I guess it's just the sensor's limit.
jj74e: whoo! thanks for redoing these samples and adding RAW files, even if they are beta (hopefully when the real support comes the beta ones will be replaced?)
EDITActually...on actually looking at the samples, while some problems have been resolved, new ones seem to have surfaced. The detail retention is definitely better than before, and whatever gross smearing was there is now gone. However, at iSO 400 and possibly some other ISOs, there almost seems to be motion blur, or peculiar out of focus bits. For instance, the text on the red paper between the two faces seems to be a bit blurred somehow at ISO400 and appear worse than the NX100's, despite other ISOs showing up better than the NX100 (like ISO100). And the black and white checker squares on the upper right and left are now worse than before- perhaps a trait of the 60mm lens, but it also could be from whatever was causing this weird blurring, which inevitably could also be of the lens
And again, I'm not a professional with a trained eye, and I don't know the specific jargon to describe what I'm seeing, so sorry if I'm pointing out something stupid. But yeah, that's what I see.
whoo! thanks for redoing these samples and adding RAW files, even if they are beta (hopefully when the real support comes the beta ones will be replaced?)