Toshiba expands its Exceria Pro SD card line to include 64GB and 128GB models

I agree. An SD card comparison test would be very welcome (hint hint).

Relevance? Did you price out the equivalent Sandisk card? You know, it's exactly THE SAME THING, without the Toshiba branding.

No, I didn't really. I also wasn't criticising the pricing per se, we're talking diminishing marginal returns here, and in the end anyone can charge whatever they want to charge. It was just my first thought when I saw the price - you could buy the actual camera (Nikon D5500 for example) for that money. It just left me impressed ;)

Fantastic,

It's about 4K video and cameras like the Canon 5DS R and the Pentax 645X and the Leica S2 and the Nikon D810.

That 1GB CF card sold for about 700usd in 2002.

@FantasticMrFox

Sorry, I wasn't replying to you, but to the guy who claims he's tested every camera in the world (and yet never posts a shred of evidence to back his wild claims.) This is the guy who says DPR is always wrong when you reference this publication to disprove him. What he says is always pure, unadulterated and unsupported BS. But somehow you have to take him on blind faith...

Papi61,

I've tried, not tested thoroughly, many recent 2012-2015 cameras, but not every, so don't make up claims for me. There be a term for that.

What's "this publication"? And I don't say that DPR is oft wrong. I can think of one or two larger examples.

You can find the 2002 price for a 1GB CF card in an old copy of a print magazine.

I know that Sandisk and Toshiba share the same plant in Japan for these high end cards, therefore it is likely the same card as the Sandisk of the same spec.

You keep not being real informed. Or following up on things like the Toshiba/Sandisk partnership.

"I don't say that DPR is oft wrong."

Yep, that's what you said. Because the test shots on DPR (i.e. this publication) proved you wrong.

"You keep not being real informed."

You have absolutely no ground to make such a ridiculous charge.

"Or following up on things like the Toshiba/Sandisk partnership."

LOL, I said that this product and the equivalent Sandisk are virtually identical. Once again, you make wild accusations that are easily disproved.

Papi61,

What are you talking about? You'll need to quote me exactly with a link to what I posted.

That I don't think DPR studio samples are the everything, yes, but they're helpful.

Yes I do have grounds for my claims, and you keep giving up ground, example, the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership, which others refer to below. (Ain't a "wild accusation", it's just not a fact you're familiar with.)

You keep undermining yourself with by not checking.

LOL, now you're pretending to forget how you claimed that the DPR test shots that proved you WRONG were unreliable. Because, as you said, "DPR is often wrong."

"Yes I do have grounds for my claims"

Only in your mind.

"example, the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership"

LOL, you just proved my point. I said that the Sandisk and the Toshiba cards are virtually the same. Ergo I'm well aware of the partnership. Only someone with your level of intellectual dishonesty can say that it proves I'm uninformed.

Papi61,

I'm not pretending to have never thought the DPR test shots wrong.

You can provide a link to the shots I think wrong, and link to what I said, and I'll check my own raws. Or you can drop your vague claims--they're not strengthening your point.

No, you pretended the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership was a "wild accusation"--that's the only thing that term can refer to. Now if "wild accusations" hadn't shared the same paragraph you could have a point, sort of.

"virtually the same" can simply mean having the same performance.

"you pretended the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership was a "wild accusation""

Never said anything like that. Your English comprehension is clearly sub-par.

"You can provide a link to the shots I think wrong"

I already did that before. You simply claimed that DPR were wrong, because they disproved your silly claims.

"I'll check my own raws."

Yeah, in your imagination... You can't just make a claim, then say it's backed up by your raws and then refuse to show them. That's why you gained the reputation as DPR's village idiot.

Papi,

Yes you did make the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership into a "wild accusation", you can find the paragraph, yours, above.

I accept that indeed you understand they are partners.

You've NOT provided a link in these comments, that's a link to my comment saying DPR is often wrong.

Now, I remember you're the one who insisted that the D5300 and D5500 have to have exactly the same higher ISO performance since they have the same sensor. Could be true. But I don't have very many D5300 raws to look at, and none that I've shot.

"Yes you did make the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership into a "wild accusation""

Once again, your English comprehension is pathetic. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

"You've NOT provided a link in these comments, that's a link to my comment saying DPR is often wrong."

So, what's my reward for wasting time trying to find it in another thread? You're just a liar and you know perfectly well that you claimed DPR was wrong because they disproved you.

"Now, I remember you're the one who insisted that the D5300 and D5500 have to have exactly the same higher ISO performance since they have the same sensor."

Not only the same sensor, the same internals. You said that it wasn't true that the ISO performance was nearly identical, I posted links to DPR's review of the D5500, which had comparison shots with the D5300 and they were virtually identical. Then you started claiming that DPR was wrong. Just because you aren't man enough to admit YOU were wrong.

P:

Yeah, you did make the Sandisk-Toshiba partnership into a "wild accusation" above. That you don't see that problem in your phrasing tells me that you're not real clear on language.

Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples.

Indeed, later I downloaded those raws and they are very close. Though the D5500 is still a somewhat better high ISO camera than the NX1 in my experience, and I can't really comment on the D5300, since I've not tried it myself.

"Yeah, you did make the Sandisk-Toshiba partnership into a "wild accusation" above."

Quote the exact sentence. Let anyone here who calls you DRP's village idiot laugh about you again. It's a title well-earned.

"Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples."

You already acknowledged that, village idiot.

The D5500 is a D5300 with a touch screen. It's basically the same camera, as evidenced by what DPR said. And the D5500 is NOT a better camera than the NX1 at high ISO. I know because I have both NX1 and D5300. You clearly don't own any of these cameras. Most likely you don't own any camera at all. You're a clown.

P:

"LOL, I said that this product and the equivalent Sandisk are virtually identical. Once again, you make wild accusations that are easily disproved."

This statement you made was clearly in response to something I'd just posted regarding the partnership.

That makes the partnership a "wild accusation" in your terms. Perhaps if you'd done more explaining of your understanding, the "wild accusation" thing wouldn't have the link to the Toshiba/Sandisk partnership; you skipped something above.

Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples. I may have said DPR could be wrong, but that is a very different.

You need to stop making D5500 assertions based on the D5300.

No, I don't own any of these cameras, but I sure have tried two of them.

And here I remind you that you've not used the D5500 and I have. So you shouldn't toss around accusations about who hasn't used what camera.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really are stupid...

"I said that this product and the equivalent Sandisk are virtually identical. Once again, you make wild accusations that are easily disproved."

Let me write it in a simpler language that a village idiot like you can understand:

I said that this product and the equivalent Sandisk are virtually identical. **ERGO** your wild accusation of me not being informed about Toshiba-Sandisk partnership is RIDICULOUS.

Thank you for making anyone laugh at you once again.

"Again you're going to need to provide the link to where I said that DPR was wrong in its D5500 and D5300 samples. I may have said DPR could be wrong, but that is a very different. "

You acknowledged accusing DPR of being wrong because those test shots disproved you. End of story.

"And here I remind you that you've not used the D5500 and I have."

Again, village idiot, as DPR ALSO SAID, the D5500 is a D5300 with a touch screen. That's why I know that your claim is complete BS. And DPR backs me.

"And here I remind you that you've not used the D5500 and I have."

I have a D5300, which is a D5500 without the touchscreen. The photos it takes are identical. You don't have either a D5500 or an NX1. You're just DPR's village idiot who makes wild claims and when people call on those you say that we should take your word for it, because you have ZERO EVIDENCE for what you claim.

CLOWN

Papi61:

The problem remains what you are responding to, and the inclusion of "wild accusation" in the same paragraph.

You: What he says is always pure, unadulterated and unsupported BS.

You need to provide a link, and there's a big difference between me saying DPR could be wrong and DPR is.

I don't go with the DPR says the D5500 is and what DPR says the D5300 is, so I take the DPR comment a possible yes, but assured no.

I have now found my D5300 raws, and at ISO 10,000, I'd still pick the D5500 (and now 5300 too) over the NX1, since the Nikons are a little less noisy in deep shadows--but it is close between the NX1 and D5500/5300. And I'm going to stand by that conclusion since it's what my raws say.

As to any difference between the D5500 and 5300, I'll agree there's very little.

Remember, except for pointing to DPR's comments and samples, you've provided no evidence of your assertions. And as far as I know you may have just learnt that Sandisk and Toshiba are partners.

"The problem remains what you are responding to, and the inclusion of "wild accusation" in the same paragraph."

No, the problem is that you can't understand English. I already explained in simpler words, but if you still can't understand, it means you're just stupid.

"I have now found my D5300 raws, and at ISO 10,000, I'd still pick the D5500 (and now 5300 too) over the NX1"

OK, now you're starting to admit that D5300 and D5500 are basically the same camera. Remember how you accused me of being uninformed for saying that? Well, now we know who's really uninformed.

Anyhow, it's progress that you're starting to admit you were WRONG when you claimed that D5300 and D5500 are two entirely different cameras. And of course I don't believe you have tested any of those cameras.

"Remember, except for pointing to DPR's comments and samples, you've provided no evidence of your assertions."

I don't need to. The test samples on DPR proved you WRONG. And all you had to say in response to that is that DPR is probably wrong. Also remember that you didn't provide ANY evidence to your claim. Because you don't have any.

CLOWN

Papi61,

I accept that you meant to separate "wild accusation" from the Sandisk-Toshiba link, but that you didn't make that separation--not my problem.

I said you couldn't be sure that the D5500 and D5300 have exactly the same high ISO performance sans a lot testing.

I never said that they are two "entirely" different cameras, don't lie about what I said.

DPR has been known to post faulty test samples in the past, that you don't know this means you're not real familiar with this website.

I don't have to provide my raws, and I stand by the claim that the D5500 is a somewhat better high ISO camera than the NX1.

The NX1 remains one of the best APSC bodies for high ISOs in 2015, but it is not the best.

"I accept that you meant to separate "wild accusation" from the Sandisk-Toshiba link, but that you didn't make that separation--not my problem."

Anyone who can comprehend basic English understood what I meant. So, totally your problem.

"I said you couldn't be sure that the D5500 and D5300 have exactly the same high ISO performance sans a lot testing."

I showed you the DPR test shots that prove my case. Not only that, I also showed you a quote from DPR that says the two cameras are virtually identical, as far as IQ goes. You're just too arrogant to admit you were wrong.

"DPR has been known to post faulty test samples in the past"

Like I said, instead of just admitting you were wrong, you'd rather accuse DPR. You're a clown.

"I don't have to provide my raws"

Of course you do. Your word is worthless.

P,

No, you made the link, and now you've fixed your meaning. And I accept the different meaning as the original intent.

As I have repeatedly said, DPR is sometimes wrong, so don't go entirely with DPR results, what part of this do you not understand? The language is very clear.

A quotation from DPR also proves nothing, they have not paid to take the camera body apart--and slight hardware changes can indeed change high ISO noise control.

I'm stating a fact about DPR having posted faulty raws, not that DPR necessarily posted faulty D5500/5300 raws.
How is that difference so hard for you to understand?

I don't have to provide my raws. I'm standing by my conclusion about the D5500 v the NX1.

"No, you made the link, and now you've fixed your meaning."

I didn't need to fix anything. You're stupid and your English comprehension is low.

"As I have repeatedly said, DPR is sometimes wrong"

Sure, they're always wrong when they disprove you. Clown.

"A quotation from DPR also proves nothing"

DPR is far more credible than an anonymous clown who makes claims but refuses to back them up with evidence.

"I don't have to provide my raws."

You actually do, if you care about credibility. Or else it's easily explained why people here call you DPR's village idiot.

P:

I can't help what name you may have invented for me.

I never said "DPR is always wrong", try not to lie so easily.

DPR may be more credible than me, but that "proves" nothing. And the "proves" claim is the problem.

You made the link between "wild accusation" and ToSanisk. Glad you've unmade it.

My raws will not get seen by the likes of you.

"DPR may be more credible than me, but that "proves" nothing."

Not to you. But then again, you think that your imaginary raws that you never share with anyone constitute proof of your wild claims. That's hysterical.

"You made the link between "wild accusation" and ToSanisk. "

Just because they were in the same sentence? So, if I say that the sun is yellow and the snow is white it means I said the sun is white?

LOL, your lack of comprehension made you draw such silly conclusions. And then, of course, your complete intellectual dishonesty prevented you from admitting it.

Pap:

Does it make you feel more comfortable to use terms like "imaginary raws"? My test raws sure occupy several GBs of hard drive space.

Paragraph not sentence.

You have some basic misunderstanding of language if you think ToSand and "wild accusation" weren't linked.

"My test raws sure occupy several GBs of hard drive space."

More likely they occupy several GB's of your imagination. What's the point of testing something and then refusing to publish those tests?
Come on, you're just a weirdo.

"You have some basic misunderstanding of language if you think ToSand and "wild accusation" weren't linked."

Stop projecting. You're the one incapable of basic English comprehension.

This is the first time I mentioned the two companies:

"Did you price out the equivalent Sandisk card? You know, it's exactly THE SAME THING, without the Toshiba branding."

I know you're stupid, but anyone with any degree of intelligence understood that I was perfectly aware of the two companies' deal. You're just too arrogant to admit you misunderstood.

P:

I'm not refusing to comment on my raws, I just won't share them, see the difference?

"Did you price out the equivalent Sandisk card? You know, it's exactly THE SAME THING, without the Toshiba branding."

I see that comment now, but had assumed you addressed the OP, so had skipped your comment, since you'd not addressed it well.

I don't read all of your comments--that's when not directed at me. The fact remains that later when clearly addressing me you linked "wild accusations" and the partnership.

"I'm not refusing to comment on my raws, I just won't share them, see the difference?"

If someone claims he's seen a spaceship hovering above his house but refuses to provide any evidence, what would you think? Be honest for once in your life.

"I see that comment now"

So, BE A MAN and APOLOGIZE for your wild accusation. But I'm perfectly aware you're incapable of that.

I see you two are having a great time.

P:

So now my raws have the power of antigravity. Glad I have these magic raws.

I've not made any "wild accusations", don't imply that I have. It doesn't help your position. All I say, is that the D5500 is bit better at higher ISOs than the NX1.

It's not a wild accusation to point out that in one comment, the one to which I was directly responding, you most certainly linked "wild accusation" and the idea that Sandisk and Toshiba have a flash memory partnership.

In fact it is you who have made wild accusations, claiming that I say DPR is "always" wrong, claiming "proves".

So no, I'm not going to apologize for your failures.

"So now my raws have the power of antigravity."

LOL, you see that it's YOU who comes to ridiculous and irrelevant conclusions?

"I've not made any "wild accusations""

Of course you did. You accused me of being uninformed based on your poor comprehension skills.

"So no, I'm not going to apologize"

Of course not. Like I said, you're not man enough to do such thing.

Papi,

Hey, you said "hovering" and craft.

"uninformed"? No, not really, I did say that you shouldn't go on about the D5500 if you only have access to a D5300--and I basically stand by this point.

I did point out that you'd linked "wild accusation" to the Sandisk-Toshiba point, and I quoted you in this.

(Earlier in something I'd not read, you did apprehend the link, but I'm not going to seek out every one of your comments.)

I'm not going to apologize since I've done nothing wrong except state that from my raws I think the NX1 a weaker high ISO body than the D5500. (I'm certainly not going to apologize for not reading every single one of your comments--the ones not so clearly directed at me.)

You're free to disagree with me on the D5500 v NX1 point, but the other crap is really stuff you should calm down about and apologize about. Again and again you've said I don't have the raws, but you have no evidence for your claim.

"Hey, you said "hovering" and craft."

So, you conclude that I was talking about antigravity in your fantasy RAW's. And you don't even think it's weird?

"I did say that you shouldn't go on about the D5500 if you only have access to a D5300--and I basically stand by this point."

Nope, you accused me of being incompetent because you said having the same sensor doesn't equal the same IQ. Except that D5300 and D5500 share virtually everything except a touch screen and the GPS. Ironically, you proved to be incompetent because you didn't know that D5300 and D5500 are the same camera, as far as IQ goes. That's what DPR said, and you commented that they're known for being wrong (!!)

"I'm not going to apologize"

Of course not, you're way too arrogant to do that.

"state that from my raws I think the NX1 a weaker high ISO body than the D5500."

You mean your non-existent RAW's that you refuse to show to anyone who asks proofs of your wacky claims...

"Again and again you've said I don't have the raws, but you have no evidence for your claim."

LOL, you can't prove a negative. You should provide proof that they exist, or else you shouldn't be surprised if people call you DPR's village idiot.

So, if I say that I'm Superman, I really am him because you can't prove I'm not? Ridiculous.

P:

I didn't say you were "incompetent", I said I'd not jump to a conclusion.

I only just re-examined my D5300 files, forgot I had them. That's not incompetence.

I suggest you need to share your raws from the NX1 and D5300, then perhaps I'll believe you have those cameras.

What is this obsession with saying my raws from the NX1 and D5550 are "non-existent"? Does that make you feel better? I've used the D5500 and you haven't, why is this such a point of soreness for you.

As best as I can tell that term "village idiot" is yours.

I don't have to provide my raws, and wouldn't to you anyhow. My NX1 raws, that I shot, will stay on my various hard drives.

"I didn't say you were "incompetent""

You called me "uninformed" because I said that the IQ of D5300 and D5500 are virtually identical. And when I proved my case by providing a direct quote from DPR stating the same, you said that DPR are known to be wrong. Pathetic.

"What is this obsession with saying my raws from the NX1 and D5550 are "non-existent"? "

I don't like phonies and frauds. You make a claim, you prove it. Or else it means nothing. And since I know for sure that NX1 has better ISO performance than the D5300 (because, unlike you, I have both), I know you were lying.

"As best as I can tell that term "village idiot" is yours. "

You wish! I received three emails detailing your mental status. And guess what, they all predicted what you were going to say.

"I don't have to provide my raws"

Let me guess, you have manufacturers sending you review samples but they don't actually expect you to publish any of that. Just to keep it and then post unsubstantiated conclusions. Right, it makes total sense. In your mind...

Papi,

You need to drop use of the word "proved", instead you quoted. (And I accept that the two Nikons have significant overlap.)

If you don't like phonies and frauds, I suggest you don't spend much time in the mirror. Since by your logic, you are a fraud, never having provided any evidence that you've used either a D5300 or NX1.

The fact remains that I have ALL of the raws I claim. I got some more of my own D5300 raws, new, that's today, and in the same very difficult lighting as the NX1 shots, they are better at high ISO noise control.

Given your point about the big overlap of the D5500 and 5300, I'll have to say that both are better high ISO cameras for noise control than the NX1.

Your're free to forward the claims about my metal "status", though I'd avoid just tossing around insults and speculation--but you're already there.

As best as I can tell "village idiot" is your fabrication.

I don't have to provide my raws, you haven't. And don't think that you doing so will get me to change my mind.

No, camera manufactures have no particular relationship to me. I have an NX1 pin from a trade show. Just like many people. But I can try many cameras, if I choose to. Including but not limited to the 7DII, D7200, D7100, D5300, D5500, NX30, NX3000, NX1, K3, XT1, XE2, A6000, A77II, KS2, and those are just the APSC bodies that I can think of off the top of my head.

(Oh yes, can't try, but have shot, outdoors and in, a Leica T body with the 23mm lens.)

"And I accept that the two Nikons have significant overlap."

Not what you said before. I'm glad you're now recognizing that you were WRONG. And since you clearly weren't aware of how similar the two cameras are, you obviously are the uninformed person.

"Since by your logic, you are a fraud, never having provided any evidence that you've used either a D5300 or NX1."

There's a difference here, sparky. I don't make wild claims like you. You made the claim (the D5500 is better than the NX1 on ISO), the burden of proof is ON YOU. I just called BS because I know better. See the difference? (Obviously you don't...)

"The fact remains that I have ALL of the raws I claim."

The fact remains that you're still making claims no one can verify. And you still haven't explained why manufacturers would lend you cameras without expecting anything in return.

"Given your point about the big overlap of the D5500 and 5300, I'll have to say that both are better high ISO cameras for noise control than NX1."

Yeah, a claim that you cannot backup with any shred of evidence.

"As best as I can tell "village idiot" is your fabrication."

Yeah, believe that... It's not like you have any idea how obnoxious you are and how many people you've pi**ed off here.

Papi61,

Now that I've looked at extensive raws from both the D5500 and 5300 I accept that they over lap. I never ruled out the possibility previously.

I just wasn't going to go with your assertion and quotation..

Manufactures aren't providing me with cameras, never claimed they did.

If someone else's authoritarian traits are challenged by my points, the way you are, I can't help what you or s/he, or they, invent.

You're free to say you don't believe I have the raws I claim, but your belief doesn't make it so, that type of totalitarian "thinking" has lead to a lot of trouble in this world.

If I've annoyed others like you, good.

I stand entirely by my claim, the NX1 is a weaker high ISO camera than the D5500 and D5300, you'd have to provide hundreds of raws to convince me otherwise, that's if you have them--which I'm starting to doubt.

Remember: You can find NX1 raws online to check against the D5500--look into the shadows at higher ISOs to test.

"Now that I've looked at extensive raws from both the D5500 and 5300 I accept that they over lap. I never ruled out the possibility previously."

LOL, you accused me of being "uninformed" for saying that D5500 and D5300 are the same camera, IQ wise. And when I showed you the RAW's the prove it here on DPR, you replied that DPR is known to be wrong.

But I'm glad that you finally concede that you were WRONG, even if of course you're not man enough to fully admit it.

"I stand entirely by my claim, the NX1 is a weaker high ISO camera than the D5500 and D5300"

And as long as you cannot prove that ludicrous claim with actual shots, it's just like saying that you're not really from Planet Earth. Which, incidentally, is more likely than anything you've said thus far.

"You can find NX1 raws online to check against the D5500--look into the shadows at higher ISOs to test."

LOL, and, of course, providing a link is against your religion, right?

PRICELESS

P:

It's very unlikely I used the adjective "uninformed" and if I did, it would have been more like "it's uninformed to jump to conclusions about the D5500 and D5300 sans extensive testing."

You "showed" me a few DPR raws. And in fact DPR has been known to screw up.

I can prove my claim well enough to myself, and stand by it, but NO raws for you.

PhotographyBlog will have the raws you want--from the Nikons and the NX1, so too Imaging-Resource. Slow connection here, I'm sure you can find them.

Verbatim quote:

"You keep not being real informed."

And that's because you alleged I wasn't aware of the Toshiba-Sandisk partnership. This after I wrote this two posts above:

"You know, it's exactly THE SAME THING, without the Toshiba branding."

"PhotographyBlog will have the raws you want--from the Nikons and the NX1, so too Imaging-Resource. Slow connection here, I'm sure you can find them."

This is what every person without a case says: "google it!" If you have the proof, you have the links.

And again, I just posted a quote from DPR stating that NX1 pulls ahead of D7200 at ISO 3200. Please, go ahead and once again accuse them of being wrong. Your evidence? As usual, "because I said so!"

Spectacular arrogance.

P:

Still not seeing "unformed" and you've edited out the rest of what I said.

You wrote as if you weren't informed about the Toshiba-Sandisk linkage--right earlier you'd made that clear in a comment not necessarily directed at me. But you linked "wild accusation" and TS link.

PhotographyBlog dot com is a website, if you can't find it and the raws from all three cameras sans Google, you don't have any business using the internet.

I don't think the NX1 is a stronger high ISO body than the D7200, but I've done less testing of the D7200 than the D5500. Also you didn't post a quotation from DPR on the D7200.

(I checked my ISO 12800 D7200 raws and the lighting isn't close enough to the NX1 sample to reach a firm conclusion. I found another example from the D7200 shot with a Sigma 50mm Art and at ISO 10,000 I'd pick the Nikon over the Samsung for lower noise.)

"Still not seeing "unformed""

LOL, you're pathetic as usual. "You keep not being real informed" is the same thing. But you're just too much of liar and I busted you.

"I don't think the NX1 is a stronger high ISO body than the D7200"

So, you're saying DPR are wrong once again, right? And, of course, no raws and no links to prove otherwise.

"I checked my ISO 12800 D7200 raws and the lighting isn't close enough to the NX1 sample to reach a firm conclusion. "

So NX1 is better than D7200 or close enough not to reach conclusions at high ISO, but it's not as good as D5500. Ergo D5500 is better at high ISO than D7200.

It gets better and better...

"if you can't find it and the raws from all three cameras sans Google, you don't have any business using the internet. "

If it's so easy, why don't YOU find it? What are you afraid of? Having to say once again that someone is WRONG because he disproves you?

Papi61:

Still not seeing "uninformed", see "not informed".

I got more D7200 raws, they're better at high ISOs than the NX1--it's a toss up between the D5500 and D7200.

You seem confused about the D7200 raws I originally referred to. Those's weren't the best examples, for high ISO testing--and I made this point clearly, this has been rectified.

I'm not having any trouble finding raws from the NX1 on the interwebs, sans the use of Google.

"Still not seeing "uninformed", see "not informed".

Hmm, let's see what the dictionary says:

uninformed
[ahn-in-fawrmd]

adjective

1. Not informed

And you wonder why people here call you DPR's village idiot?

"I'm not having any trouble finding raws from the NX1 on the interwebs, sans the use of Google."

Well, you seem to have an awful lot of trouble posting the links. Maybe it's because you haven't mastered copy&paste yet? That's what losers do... They claim something and then they don't even post a link to back it up.

Papi61:

Still not seeing the word "uninformed". How hard is that distinction to apprehend?

You need to learn how to type "photographyblog.com" into a web browser's address bar.

The less you look, the clearer it is that you're not interested in the NX1 raws.

LOL village idiot, now even the dictionary is wrong.

PRICELESS

The less you refuse to post evidence and links, the more it's pretty obvious that you can't back your silly claims with anything but your word.

I knew you were hiding something, village idiot. There are NO DIRECT COMPARISON SHOTS on the website you quoted. As usual, you're a liar and a fraud.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx1_review/

Papi61:

There are basically the same shots taken of the books in the shelves.

So that's a direct comparison.

But no the test scene is not as rigorous as DPR's.

So you're wrong, or don't know how to navigate over to the D5500 section of PhotographyBlog.

So no, I didn't lie, nor am I a fraud. You just don't want to look.

You also simply linked the PhotographyBlog NX1 review, but not the page with the sample raws from the NX1.

Just so you're clear, you do actually have to download the samples shot with both the D5500 and the NX1 (or any other camera) from the PhotographyBlog.com website to do the comparing.

I'm not sure that you've bothered to look given the link you posted.

Well, apparently I'm not the only one who's telling you that you're wrong. Heck, even DPR has showed you several times that you were completely wrong. Your answer? THEY are wrong.

Case closed. You bored me out of my mind.

Papi,

DPR has told me I'm wrong about the NX1 v the D5500? No.

(Not regarding the NX: There was a time that a DPR employee insisted I was wrong, but in fact the DPR examples backed my point up entirely, as did my raws, and raws from other sources like Imaging-Resource.)

Clearly you're not bored. You just don't like to have your "authority" challenged with examples that contradict your view point.

I stand by my point, and I stand by my raws from the D5500/5300 and NX1--also now the D7200.

The NX1 is not a camera I would use above ISO 6400 because of too much noise, whereas I'd push all of the others past ISO 6400 with some degree of comfort.

LOL, the VIC-20, with it's superwide 22 characters per line display.

128GB isn't a lot of 4K video.

About one hour on my NX1 (40 mb/s H.265) or 30 minutes on my FZ1000 (80 mb/s H.264.)

I'm surprised you don't know, as you claim to have tested every camera that ever existed...

Papi61:

I wasn't going to guess, and I've only shot a few minutes of 4K video with the NX1--used a fast 8GB SDHC card, but couldn't remember the exact number of minutes the 8GB card would hold.

Lots of current cameras I've not tried, example the Canon 70D. But I have tried the NX1, and I get that 128GB of storage isn't a great deal of 4K H265 video. I guess even less with the LX100 and H264.

"couldn't remember the exact number of minutes the 8GB card would hold"

Of course. And if someone asks you to see that footage, you will definitely refuse to provide a link...

"I have tried the NX1"

No, you haven't, and I can tell with absolute certainty for the incredibly stupid things you wrote about it. Remember that you had to accuse DPR of getting everything wrong in order for you to be right. I'm still laughing about that.

You just claim you tested it in order to trash it. Sorry, but no one is buying your crap.

Papi61,

My test footage will not be posted online, no.

Yes, I have tried more than a couple copies of the NX1.

I don't remember accusing DPR of getting everything wrong about the NX1, perhaps I said DPR got something wrong, and perhaps I was wrong.

But the fact remains that more than a few times I've shot test videos and stills with the NX1. I don't understand why this fact makes you feel so uncomfortable.

Also I absolutely NEVER trashed the NX1, so I have to think you've confused me with some other party. (This accusation is preposterous.) True, I don't think the NX1 the strongest APSC body for higher ISOs.

Enjoy your NX1.

"My test footage will not be posted online, no."

How could you? It doesn't exist.

"Yes, I have tried more than a couple copies of the NX1."

Sorry, but it just isn't true. And you never backed your wild claims with anything but your word.

"Also I absolutely NEVER trashed the NX1"

Riiiiiiiight, so who said that the D5500 has "substantially better performance at high ISO"? That is such a load of BS, and I proved to you by referencing test shots here on DPR. And you replied with "DPR is often wrong."

People who read that are still laughing.

Papi,

Why do you assume my NX1 test footage doesn't exist? Does that make you feel more secure and comfortable with your NX1.

My word will have to do since I'm not sharing my NX1 files. But it's not a "wild claim" to say I've tried the NX1 more than once.

Okay, now I remember the D5500 point, and I stand by it. I've looked into it further too. I don't think I've said that DPR is often wrong, I've said that DPR is sometimes wrong.

(Unless you can provide link, I'll just have to assume you've inserted "often" to make your case sort of stronger.)

"Why do you assume my NX1 test footage doesn't exist?"

LOL, just keep reading what you posted:

"My word will have to do since I'm not sharing my NX1 files."

Sorry, your word is WORTHLESS. I know you're arrogant and presumptuous, but you have to realize that you are NOTHING, especially when you're here anonymously. I don't make claims I can't backup.

"I don't think I've said that DPR is often wrong, I've said that DPR is sometimes wrong."

LOL, like it changes anything. You said they were wrong because they disproved you. And, of course, you never posted anything to back your claims.

There is definitely a reason why some people here call you DPR's village idiot.

Papi,

You've claimed to own a D5300 and NX1, I see no evidence that you do. So those are unsupported claims by you.

You assume that I don't have raws from the NX1, D5500 and many other bodies, very likely because that conforms to a preconception you have. Don't make your presumptions, inaccurate ones to boot, my problem.

You're welcome to disagree about the NX1 and the D5500, but that's it. The rest is you inflating your knowledge and expertness.

Again: "always", the term you used is very different than "sometimes"--I don't know why this confuses you. Though I do know why you want this change in meaning to be in your favor.

Perhaps I'm not being smart to challenge your arrogance, but you keep making accusations that you just can't support--instead inventing the idea that I can't possibly have the raws that I have.

"You've claimed to own a D5300 and NX1, I see no evidence that you do. So those are unsupported claims by you."

LOL, you made the claim that D5500 is better than NX1. The burden of proof is on YOU. I know for sure that what you said is BS, that's why I challenged you. And, as I expected, you refused to provide any evidence of what you claimed.

"Perhaps I'm not being smart to challenge your arrogance, but you keep making accusations that you just can't support"

Wow, the projection here is spectacular.

P:

All the high ISO, that's above 6400, raws I've shot with the D5500 and D5300 have less noise than the raws shot with NX1 in the same light--deep shadows.

Bet the NX30 would do better than the NX1 too.

Given how many hundreds of raws back me up, I'm starting to doubt your ownership claims about the NX1 and the D5300.

Perhaps I'm not being smart to challenge your arrogance, but you keep making accusations that you just can't support.

"Given how many hundreds of raws back me up"

Yeah, the hundreds that you will never ever post...

"you keep making accusations that you just can't support"

You gotta love the projection. You're the guy who makes a claim and then says "it's true because I say so, and I will never give you any evidence!"

"At ISO 800 the advantages of this new sensor over the Canon 7D Mark II and Sony a6000 start to become apparent. It's difficult to see normalized, but the Samsung might even be pulling ahead of the Nikon D7200. The differences become pronounced at ISO 3200. This is a massive feat, especially considering the lower light capture from the masked pixels the NX1 sensor uses for on-sensor phase detection AF."

Let me guess, DPR are "wrong" again, right? (D7200 is actually BETTER than D5500 at high ISO.)

Papi, just stop. He lives for this.

P:

As I have said, I don't share raws.

I note again that you haven't shared raws.

You've confused "projection" with a statement of the obvious--that you've also failed to support your camera ownership claims with raws.

"normalized", really? That's a dubious word.

At ISO 800, specifically and oddly, the NX1 has significant noise. (Though, I don't have a lot of say ISO 400-800 raws from the D5500 or D7200. The NX1 has a spike in noise at 400/800, but then stabilizes at ISO 1600/3200.)

"might even be pulling ahead" doesn't mean what you think it means. And reads as highly speculative.

As I have written quite clearly already, given the raws I have, I'd pick the D7200 as a somewhat better high ISO camera than the NX1. Insisting that I've commented on the D5500 versus the D7200 undermines your position.

"I note again that you haven't shared raws."

I'm not a measurebator, I have better things to do with my life than taking test shots.

"Insisting that I've commented on the D5500 versus the D7200 undermines your position."

Liar. Again, your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty shine. I've never said anything like that. I showed you how DPR claimed the NX1 is slightly better than D7200 @3200 ISO. And since the D7200 is better than D5500 at high ISO, basically what you implied is that D5500 is better than D7200.

P:

I'm not sure that the D7200 is better at higher ISOs than the D5500. Given the raws I have from both.

NB: Don't confuse the D7100 with the D7200.

What DPR said included the word "normalized". DPR has suggested, but far from proven.

LOL, so DPR is "wrong" again, because your imaginary raws tell a different story.

Got it.

P:

I really don't know what DPR has to say about the D7200, I could read it, I guess. But that whole "normalized" thing is a problem.

Or I can look at my raws, and if I want I can get more raws from the D7200--my estimation is that the D7200, D7100, D5500, and D5300 are all somewhat better at higher ISO noise control than the NX1--with the D7100 being the best.

But hey the NX30 is also better than then NX1.

The NX1 is plenty good for high ISO noise control, it's just not the best from APSC.

Here's some NX1 raws from a different source:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx1_review/sample_images/

And from there you can find D5500 raws.

Yes, and aliens walk among us. I have proof in my raws, but I'm not going to share any of that with anyone. You'd just have to take my word for it. Or try to prove that what I said isn't true. Because you know, unless you can prove a negative, you're not the official holder of the truth.

Now I'm pretty sure you will lie once again and claim that what I just said is proof that I'm a UFO conspiracy nut.

Papi61:

What makes you think I try to photograph aliens? And in most cases I've been trying these cameras indoors.

(Yeah, I'm aware of the orbs claims.)

Do only aliens have antigravity? Just wondering?

I'm not the official "holder of the truth", but I sure am the holder of my raws.

"What makes you think I try to photograph aliens?"

Point proven, again.

P:

I'm not sure what that proves? You brought up possible aliens on my raws.

And since my raws exist, I guess I could be trying such a thing. But haven't.

"You brought up possible aliens on my raws."

Again, that's what YOU believe I said. Point being your mental ability is that of a 3-year-old. That more than proves it.

P:

An exact quotation:

"Yes, and aliens walk among us. I have proof in my raws,"

Oh, I get it you were being sarcastic about both the existence of proof of aliens and my raws--too bad for your "logic" the raws exist, though not sure about aliens.

You entirely missed the fact that I understood what you posted and chose to take you seriously, since my raws very much exist on my hard drives.

"You entirely missed the fact that I understood what you posted and chose to take you seriously"

Yep, you took my sarcastic post seriously. And that's your problem. Smart people can detect sarcasm. Not only you thought I was serious (inferior mental ability), but you also thought I was talking about you (narcissism.)

So yeah, you definitely need to consult a shrink.

P:

The point is my raws exist, so linking them to something that may not exist (aliens) weakened your "humor". (You should probably examine your need to belittle others--it's not a sign of stability.)

If you keep posting in this thread on this subject of my conclusions about the D5500 versus the NX1, you're talking about me, and to me.

You chose to post, you didn't have to. And you choose to continue to post, after I've made it clear I am not sharing my raws and I stand by my conclusions about the Nikons versus the Samsung NX1.

"The point is my raws exist"

You say they exist. Just like some nutcase says he's seen an alien. In both cases, no evidence is provided.

"I stand by my conclusions about the Nikons versus the Samsung NX1."

And I'll keep pointing out that whatever you say is completely worthless if not backed up by evidence. I know you're a narcissist, but really no one gives a crap about you. Live with it.

P:

Perhaps aliens exist, and perhaps they've been seen by someone, I really don't know, but I don't dismiss everyone who claims to have seen them as a nutcase.

As for my raws, they exist, that you feel the need to invent the idea that I have to be lying about the existence of my raws says more about you than me, or aliens.

You're free to find NX1 raws from places like Photographyblog and compare those to D5500/5300 and D7200 raws.

I will not be sharing my raws.

"Perhaps aliens exist, and perhaps they've been seen by someone, I really don't know, but I don't dismiss everyone who claims to have seen them as a nutcase."

I dismiss anyone who makes wild claims and refuses to back them up with evidence.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

-- Carl Sagan

P:

Carl Sagan, really? By the end of his life Sagan was coming round to the idea of artificial structures on Mars, and much earlier in his career he and a Soviet scientist had together had certainly entertained the idea that the moons of Mars are artificial. And they did so publically.

The existence of my raws is not an extraordinary fact. The fact that I claim the D5500 is a better high ISO camera than the NX1 is not on the level of anything extraordinary. It's more like saying my Honda is more efficient than the equivalent Toyota.

LOL, now you think you can even pontificate in astrophysics. Let me guess, you have a Ph.D. in astrophysics in the same place where your RAW's are, right?

Papi61:

No I don't have a PhD in astrophysics, I was just pointing out that your choice of Sagan came with some odd associations. I happen to have read the book he worked on in partnership with a Soviet astrophysicist where they made those extraordinary speculations about the moons of Mars.

That's not really astrophysics either. But close enough.

You don't need a PhD in whatever subject to say there is something wrong in whatever field. You'd need to have read up on the solidly sourced contradictions--yes, I've read some, not all, of Halton Arp.

Back to the NX1 noise problem, the PhotographyBlog NX1 raws from the NX1 are also more noisy at ISO 6400 and above than the D5500 raws from PhotographyBlog. So these raws match my experience when shooting with both cameras.

That's an independent source of confirmation for my basic point that the Samsung NX1 is a bit more noisy at higher ISOs than the Nikon D5500.

And you can download + look at those raws.

Post the link or STFU.

Nah, once you look at it equally in the DPR Studio Comparison tool, the 5500 is behind the NX1 by a noticeable amount. RAW, ISO6400.

Papi61,

As I already said, if you can't find the NX1 raws at Photographblog.com you have no business using the world wide web. (Or you have no interest in the question and just want to spout your claims.)

My raws are very similar to the results for the NX1 and D5500 posted at PhotograhyBlog.

meanwhile,

And the PhotographyBlog raws contradict that--especially above ISO 6400. This agrees with what I see in my raws.

Generally the DPR studio scene isn't great for making solid guesses about higher ISO performance, and that's because there's little in the way of deep shadows.

That's what I've been trying to tell DPR's village idiot. And actually I don't even need DPR to tell me, because I have D5300 and NX1. BTW, this clown has been insisting until now that D5300 and D5500 are substantially different cameras (yeah, right...) and therefore my findings are invalid (!!) Heck, even when I posted a DPR quote that says D5300 and D5500 are virtually identical he had the gall to answer with "DPR is known to be wrong." Priceless.

But he insists that he has RAW's that proves he's always right and DPR is always wrong. And, of course, if you ask him to post evidence, he will just balk...

Hey, if you want to take over and have fun with him, be my guest. I'm bored with him.

@meanhile

"Generally the DPR studio scene isn't great for making solid guesses about higher ISO performance"

LOL, here you go, like I told you, anytime DPR proves what he says is BS, he always infers that DPR is wrong.

"As I already said, if you can't find the NX1 raws at Photographblog.com you have no business using the world wide web."

Yeah, this is what all the losers on the internet who can't prove a point say. You're not even original.

P:

I'm not saying that DPR is proven wrong, try not putting words into my statement. The DPR studio scene is weak for this kind of thing, I've said it before about other cameras.

It's not news.

If you can't find Photographyblog.com you shouldn't be on the web. (Note, I didn't say "just Google it", I gave you a website name--akin to dpreview.com".)

The less you look, the more you make my case for me.

"Hey, if you want to take over and have fun with him, be my guest. I'm bored with him"

There's nothing more to say.

meanwhile,

Right, highlights and midtones aren't the place look, but the DPR studio scene doesn't have much in the way of deep shadows, which really push any digital camera at higher ISOs.

That's why I shoot my tests, for this kind of thing, into deep shadows, and also why I suggest other websites' samples like Photographyblog.com--or for that matter Imaging-Resource.

Photographyblog ISO6400 shows noise a tie, with color fidelity and detail going easily to the NX1. Shadows recover as well in both. Not sure what you are seeing.

meanwhile.

To my eye above at ISO 6400 and above the D5500 has less noise, and the Photographyblog samples show it. This means I have to use the luminance slider in ACR 9 less with the Nikon than with the Samsung. (No, there's no huge advantage to the Nikon here, but a bit.)

Not sure what "colour fidelity" means. True the Samsung kit lens is probably better optically than the Nikon kit lens.

meanwh:

But most of those things can be added or changed during extraction--especially: "Colour accuracy, vibrance, saturation".

So that's meaningless.

"wrong size" viewing, no.

What "reduces" about the lens as the ISO increases? The optical quality doesn't really change. The Samsung is better at colour subtly and may help the Samsung NX1 a bit at higher ISOs than the kit zoom on the Nikon. But in this case, it's kind of a toss up since the kit Samsung is only optically good not amazing.

"What "reduces" about the lens as the ISO increases? The optical quality doesn't really change"

Why are you repeating what I said?

"But most of those things can be added or changed during extraction--especially: "Colour accuracy, vibrance, saturation"."

Ha. There we go then. You must be magic.

Bye.

meanwhile:

Because what "reduces" is a mystery. How is that not clearly a question?

Indeed yes: Colour accuracy, vibrance, saturation can all be added/changed, that you'd imply that's not the case suggests you're not familiar with raw work.

There's no magic button to get back the 6Ev of dynamic range you lost by going to ISO6400.

What reduces is the image quality - nothing to do with the lens.

You are right though, I don't even know what a RAW is. Never seen one, never adjusted one. Could you send me one of yours so I can learn about them?

m:

Okay, thet's different than what you wrote.

Right, DR drops with an increase in ISO--but for both cameras.

I stand by the point about changing: Color, vibrance, and saturation during extraction.

@meanwhile

This guys just told me that he never accused me of being "uninformed." But he acknowledged accusing me of being "not informed."

PRICELESS

(Yeah, he's THAT stupid... No wonder they call him DPR's village idiot.)