Shooting with the Samsung NX30

Looking to DIRECT comparison i.e here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx30/10
we can see that competition is not better and much more expensive at this moment so I can live wit worse viewfinder but having some lens instead of.

Definitely not true. Competitors are way better in every type of light, and prices are much cheaper than the NX30. The NX30 is overpriced and has lower quality photos. They all offer a lens, not sure what you mean by that..

Did you analysed this test results? Look again to noise part.
I can see more resolution - the noice cancelling destroys resolution - change any camera to Fuji X-T1 and observe smooth no noice but also no detail.
You can change ISO jpg/raw noce reduction on/off and compare.
I do not see any competition advantage if you can see OK maybe we have different sight and monitors..
The price? I depends, I've paid below 400$ (from shop exposition but no remarks.).
Sony A6000 costs over 700$

MFT cameras are not competition for DX IMO at all.
I prefer DX lenses DOF possibilities are better in lower price.

ANd one thing more - compare the brightness of images.
Some cameras presents ISO 1600 which is similar to ISO 800 other camera - I think it is marketing trick!

I've had the Canon SL1 (Same sensor as 700D), Nikon D3300 (same sensor as D5300) (I miss my D3300 a lot), Olympus e-m10 (I liked that camera a lot), Sony a6000 (excellent low light and day light), Sony a5100 (still have it along with 55-210mm lens), and now the Panasonic GX7 (my favorite along with the D3300 for image quality). All of the cameras above have been way better than the NX30. It takes only a few shots (around 50) with proper settings in every lighting to realize if a camera is good or not. I understand what you're trying to tell me but I have real experience with those and have no need to go by theory and reviews.

By the way I am talking about JPEGs not RAW. I don't have time to process RAW.

Samsung needs to modify their noise reduction settings in every one of their devices. They're targeting teenagers with those types of settings and I see it as an insult. If they make a professional camera that is overpriced then give us professional results, not toy like results.

I understand what you mean by MFT lacking in results but I love using my Panasonic GX7 and find the image quality better than most APS-C sensors. If I were to move to APS-C again, I would choose between the Nikon D5500 and Pentax K-S2.

I think better asking those in the samsung forum because rumors have been out there for a long time about a sony a7000 release with all sorts of nice features that has yet to be realized. I don't think rumors are reliable.

Thanks. Can you help me make a decision? I'm new to DSLR cameras/miroless cameras. I'm looking for a cheap camera that gives more or less the same image quality as the Canon 5D II, for indoor/low light vídeo shooting. I'm really divided between the Samsung Nx300 and the Canon 700D/t4i. Can you help me pick one?

I'm at the point where I am about to say "fnck this sh!t" and just get the new Canon G1Xii. Something practical, compact, almost APS, with a good lens, and I don't have to worry about buffer lock ups (although it is much slower) nor worry about switching lenses.

Raw:
I really do not like to use high ISOs. I hate it in fact. I am more interested in how they would compare at between 100-800. Over that I'm just not interested.

HAR: Why would I want a RicohGR or NikonA when, for the same size and lower price there is the NX20+30mm?

The characteristics of the Canon G1Xii are simply very interesting to anyone who likes the NikonA, RicohGR, FujiX100s form factor and as a more flexible replacment to them. I think they are obsoleted by the G1Xii.

As for the RX100, I dislike the ergonomics - (or "no-styling", ie emulating the ugly vanilla Canon powershot 100).

But I think the RX100 still has it's place, and will happily coexist with the G1Xii, depending on whether you want more zoom, or a brighter lens with a bigger sensor.

It is nice to have choices.

I see a nice pair comprised of the G1X and Fuji's upcoming replacement for the X-S1 as a nice pair to own, and never fuss with changing lenses or buying extra lenses.

Timmbits:

The Ricoh GR is a bit smaller, no evf, than the NX20 with the 30mm lens.

There's also the Samsung NXmini, like the Ricoh GR no evf. The NXmini probably has a somewhat better sensor than the Sony RX100III, though I'm only looking at the high ISO capacity. The NXmini's kitzoom is good, the 9mm not so great, I've not been able to try the 17mm yet.

The Canon G1XII just doesn't have a lens that would attract me.

Fuji and Panasonic will probably both ship large sensored compacts in the fall. The raws I've seen from the Pana FZ1000 look really good.

Found a good review on the G1Xii...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-g1x-ii/canon-g1x-ii-shooters-report.htm

I think I'll shut up about it now. :-/

Timmbits:

I think it a good camera, just not great, and the lens isn't up to the best from say the mirrorless lines of Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung and Olympus, or Leica to be complete (and frankly of course the Nikon 1 system has some very good, not extraordinary, lenses).

If that rumor is true and finally samsung embraces the rangefinder form factor as the more succesful competitors have done from the beginning, finally I'll also be satisfied.

Usee:

But I didn't say anything about weight or handling. I only really commented on the failure of Android in the Galaxy NX.

I assume an NX1 body would be at least a bit bigger than the NX30's and the NX30 already makes handling bigger lenses easy enough.

Screw a small ball tripod head into the base of the NX1000, and you'll get better handling.

HaRAW:

Yes,

that is why I hinted at that point, which is crucial, if someone is thinking about FF lenses - like you did.

A sluggish software overhead (with Android or smth.) is something one should really avoid in conjunction with a (work horse) pro camera, anyway.

Good that you reminded that point!

My take is that samsung is less interesting for mirrorless adopters, for its shape (most want slimmer humpless rangefinder alike cameras) and for the lack of an outstanding featured body (as noted also in thisnreview). Nx1 can correct both flaws.

tec:

But there are many Oly and Pana mirrorless without a rangefinder-like VF at the left side of the back. There are also of course Leica and Samsung mirrorless bodies without the fake mirror box--albeit some of the Leicas use permanently mounted lenses and have the option of external EVFs and only one Samsung takes an external EVF.

The problem with the rumored full framed Samsung NX1 would be having enough good lenses. Unlike with the NX mini Samsung can't expect much attention if the NX1 launched with just one or two good lenses.

As I know you realize, rangefinders don't work well for those people who primarily use their left eye to focus and aim a camera.

It's pure speculation, but that's my guess as to why Samsung avoids rangefinder style mirrorless bodies.

Of course Samsung could release an NX400 with an external EVF, but that EVF would likely mount in the centre--like the EVF on the Leica T or NX100+a variety of Oly and Panasonic mirrorless bodies.

I read a lot of comments of even left eyed shooters that prefer rangefinder anyway. And the most successfull aps-c mirrorless cameras, for now, are fuji x and sony nex.

Samsung should at least try and release one high end rangefinder body. My take is that it would sell more than all the 'fake' dslr styled ones put together.

You are right, but that proves my theory. Those bodies, even with the problems you mentioin, sell terribly well, since they are shaped that way. Look at how bad the a3000 did on the market. That's mainly caused by the shape dslr alike and the same goes for nx30.

My idea is that market is basically divided in three. Those looking for a dslr (and those would not choose a mirrorless anyway) those looking for a mirrorless (and the reason is usually size and weight, and those would prefer a rangefinder) and those who just look for a good camera, and most of them will end with choosing a canikon.

So you have more possibilities if you sell a rangefinder alike camera.

Pana gh3 is not doing so well as, say, pana gx7, at least judging on the enthusiasm raised by the latter.

Gx7: 327 I own it
Gh3: 126 I own it

And the gx7 is much younger.

Both x-t1 and oly are a bit different story. They are, at present, the highest end you can buy in, respectively, aps-c mirrorless and m4/3. And they are quite stylish even if they have the central hump. They wouldn'd do as well if they were average performing products like nx30 is, according to dpr review.

I'm totally conviced that a rangefinder from samsunis overdue and the fact that the new nx3000 is so similar to the nx300, makes me hope that a future nx400 will finally have an embedded evf in a corner, considering that today, even premium p&s cameras feature it.

Sometimes it happened, that even before a camera was available, some on dpreview voted, that they own it, or even that they had it.

Beside, that maybe GH3 and GH4 user have better things to do (filming) than messing around on dpreview and placing a comment.

The demand for the GH4, which has the same form factor than the GH3 was underestimated by Panasonic and caused delivery problems.

If you are totally convinced about something,
there is not much to discuss - isn't it?
No room for diplomacy, for pacifism?

I also would love a pop up EVF on a compact camera.
Therefore I considered the RX100 III, however, I had the NX mini in my hands and that made me think, which one to buy,
because the NX mini is half the price - with pop up EVF, it were probably more expensive.

I doubt, that you would be satisfied, if the price is also taken into the equation in comparisons with range finder style cameras and the NX1 - even it it were a well build, nice looking, range finder style camera.

tecn:

But in some respects the NX30 out performs both the Olympus EM1 and the Fuji X-T1. The Samsung is better at higher ISOs. Has optically better lenses than the Fuji. Of course does better video than the Olympus.

For styling and weather sealing no. But the Samsung is a bit less expensive.

I know, but ppl on the market for those cameras make a lot of attention to style and look, as an added bonus to iq. And many won't buy a samsung unless it's clearly superior and has better aestethics.

A friend of mine, on the market for a smaller camera than his dslr, after seeing my nx300 and a nx30 in a shop, decided to go for the a6000, since it's as small and light as the nx300, has the evf, much faster operations and higher mp count. I tried to explain that in the long run he'll spend more for the lenses, but he, as most, gave more importance to the body.

If nx300 had been rangefinder like a6000, perhaps he'd buy it, since he wanted the evf in that kind of body.

arbuz:

The Samsung NX30 will drop in price. The NX30 has a better kit lens. And there are other Samsung lens advantages over the A6000. (Not even the 24mm SonyZeiss comes real close to the best Samsung has to offer.)

And I like the A6000 body well enough.

It's suggested retail price is €999,-. The retailers have decided on €829,- Ibood is a site with one day offers. It mainly sells over stocked en refurbished stuf (this was not refurbished).

@D1N0 - you think based on what?

D1N0:

So not a real serious source and not one that uses particularly good lenses.

Now as I said, at base ISO the Sonys' performance may improve.

But you can't really make that claim, for either the Sonys or the Samsung, without accounting for the lenses.

It's best to avoid drawing strong conclusions about image quality based on kit lens (the Samsung's is better) DPR studio samples.

The fact remains that at reasonably high ISOs, with very good lenses on both, the Samsung is better for colour, noise and sharpness. Now the SonyZeiss 24mm--perhaps that was a bad sample.

D1N0:

No, I'm basing my conclusions on having tested both the Sony A5000 and A6000 with a very good lens.

That's significantly different than what you claim.

You based your conclusions on very very limited samples, done with not great lenses--for either system, Sam or Sony.

And as I already noted: I was surprised that Sony's A cameras, with a very good lens mounted, didn't do better.

In fact if higher image quality and better high ISOs are important this point is far from a waste of time.

You read like a person who can't let go of being a fan of one particular camera maker (Sony here), it's not a position that's good to claim as your own.

And my liking of Samsung lenses and sensors, for shooting raw, is significantly different than fandom, in that I'm basing my points on having used the lenses and bodies. (And I rarely defend the buffer on Samsung NX cameras or 200mm Samsung NX zooms.)

D1N0 - A6000 is slightly better, maybe 1/3 of a stop. If you compare A6000 ISO 3200 to NX ISO 1600 you can easily say NX is better. If there is less then 1 stop difference no one should say anything about blowing out of water.

tecnoworld:

That 16-50 zoom is what I was trying on the NX30, and the Zeiss on the two Sonys just couldn't keep up with image quality or noise control.

Frankly, I was surprised.

tecn:

Yes, that lens kind of shames anything from Canon for image quality. But heavy.

Instead of a better zoom, Samsung could do a fast 135mm telephoto.

I'm realizing just now how handy is a fast high quality zoom when compared to prime leness. Till now, I always used slow or low quality zoom, hence my preference for prime lenses, but the 16-50 is such a good lens, that even the primes, as good as they are, are often left home.

My ideal setup for a travel, now, would be:
1) 10mm fisheye pancake
2) 30mm prime OR 45mm prime
3) 16-50mm S zoom
4) 50-200 zoom

that's little more than 1KG of total weight, to add to the body of NX300 (300gr). Not so bad overall. I'd be glad to exchange 50-200 with a 50-150 (or even 70-150) f2.8, at the same level of the 16-50. I know it would be heavier, but the 50-200 is not really high quality as other NX lenses.

@tecno - same with me, just with NX30 for EVF and better buffer. However I know I'd take 45 not 30mm pancake, as zoom is still bright at 30mm so not much difference to not so fast focusing 30mm pancake. I could consider it for its small size but probebly take 45mm anyway.

The nx30 has slightly better buffer capacity, but still subpar with most (eg a6000) and the same applies to evf compared to x-e2, x-t1, em1 or a7.

Plus I don't like the shape, so I'll patiently wait....I hope that samsung realizes that there is big interest for rangefinder cameras (see a6000) and for high end ones (see x-t1) and packs those concepts in nx1 as soon as possible at a reasonable price.

The a6000 is a monster when it comes to continuous af while shooting. I tested it and put my nx300 to shame even with the best performing lenses. That's up to the bodies, and samsung must work hard on this as well.

Finger crossed :)

P.s. I tend to agree about 30 vs 45. The latter doubles as a poor man's portrait lens, while the former doesn't. And I would never bring the 85mm with me, when I travel :)

tecn:

You do remember that there's no Olympus EM1 in a rangefinder style.

Just saying that I think someone at Samsung has made the conscious decision, like Olympus, to stick with the SLR shape.

Do your eyes polarize light? I ask because of the rainbows you report seeing in the NX30's EVF. I only ever see rainbows in flatscreens if I'm wearing polarized sunglasses.

Right the buffer on the NX30 is nothing special, but Samsung lenses are so much better than Nex lenses there's a real reason to go with Samsung unless you know you want to shoot sports with your APSC mirrorless.

I never thought about the polarizing issue....for sure I'm more affected by the rainbow issue than most ppl, and the same goes for low refresh rates (I remember noticing everying below 100hz-120hz in crt monitors, while ppl were usually satisfied with 50+). Perhaps my perception is just a bit more enhanced than average? Dunno...

Anyway you're right about olympus, but look at the interest raised by the a6000 and before that, by nex or fuji rangefinder cameras. I think ppl looking for a smaller than dslr camera, on average, will prefer this shape compared to mini dslr style. Samsung should at least put on the market a premium model shaped like this, to see if that's enough to enhance sales (and I guess it would).

I agree on the lenses, but sony is open to third party ones and that's a plus in the long run.

That's exactly the point that I've expressed for many months. Most users don't need/want a bulkier camera for having the evf. They (we) want a camera in a form similar to nx300 but with evf in it.

Sony showed that's possible to have this, in a small body with ultra fast af and great iq. And this camera, the a6000, has many heads turned towards it! Much more than any samsung camera ever did.

Nx needs to be appealing. Most ppl look at bodies, before looking at lenses and nx30 simply is not appealing enough.

tecnoworld:

Yes, I think if you're seeing 60hertz refreshes on CRTs, then something is enhanced about the nerves connecting your eyes to your brain.

I have nothing against Samsung or Olympus shipping a rangefinder style body, all I was saying is that that those two companies appear to have made a conscious decision to go another direction.

Fuji's X rangefinders have had some deficiencies, the XE2 with no EVF switch, the XPro1 and XE1 with bad video and bad auto focus, various X100 problems. (Of course Fuji can fix these things, and the XT1 is a good start, but not a rangefinder.)

I agree, no camera is perfect right now. A6000 is near perfect, but is missing touch screen and has average quality evf. X-e2 is good, but has low res sensor compared to most competitors. The first player with a 'great' rangefinder camera with all the features of nx300 (for touch screen and lenses) a6000 (for dr, af, speed, buffer and form factor) and x-e2 (for evf) wins big time, imo.

tecnoworld:

There is of course the Panasonic GX7.

Not as great at higher ISOs, but very good lenses and a lot of other things.

am looking at both the samples and the data charted ( RAW )

Usee:

Yes, I realize you're addressing the OP:

In fairness to Sony (and Pentax with the K3); Sony has introduced new APSC sensors. Those can be found in the A5000 and A6000.

Unfortunately for Sony most of the native lenses for that system just aren't very good.

(Yes I know there are some SonyZeiss, Zeiss and Sigma exceptions, but none of those come with a basic kit. Whereas even the not spectacular kit zoom with the NX30 is more than decent. I imagine you realize most of this. I just wanted to acknowledge Sony's new sensors.)

Yes,

I was addressing the OP and I also realized, that Sony and Canon have introduced new sensors recently...

...but they (including Pentax, Nikon, Fuji 16 MP APS and the 4/3 for Panasonic and Olympus) used the same sensors (16 MP / 18 MP) for a similar time span, than Samsung used it's 20 MP sensor...

...and Samsung made slight improvements during that time span - so, why pick Samsung out of the bunch and blaming them?

As you also hinted at:

A good sensor without a good (and affordable) lens is wasted potential and not worth the money and bigger RAW files.

-

Whatever one choses, it is good to have more than one choice!

Cgarrard: that's exactly my point, and what you say is true especially for a non recognized brand (in photography) as samsung is.

Apart for the few 'brave enough' to go with an unrecognized system, I see almost nobody wanting to try out a brand which has not a long history and whose cameras just perform as good as others (and, iq wise, almost the same since about three years).

I'm stating this since I bought my nx300 over the nx200 I already owned: samsung now needs to become #1 in sensor performance, if they want to get some attention by the masses.

This means innovative tech (ala sigma or fuji) or simply better 'old' tech, ala sony.

But they absolutely have to shine, otherwise they'll remain a niche product, as good as it can be.

tecn:

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.

Here we are again.

Let's try it this way. Many, many ppl choosing a camera of this level know about DxO mark. Samsung is behind Sony, Nikon and Pentax in DxO. Even if DxO is not the bible, why should ppl buy a camera from a non recognized brand, that's behind more recognized brands in a recognized benchmark?? That would be the same even if Samsung were on par with these. Samsung needs to outclass the others to get attention, IMO.

Besides having higher DxO rankings, Nikon, Sony and Pentax all offer 24MP, which is 20% more than Samsung (at no expense of IQ, as noted before).

If I had to start a system from the beginning, today, that would NOT be a NX. And seeing the many comments here, I see that most ppl that are not into NX think this way and, IMO, they are basically correct.

tecn:

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.

Ok, whatever. Very few ppl actually bought nx compared to those into other system. I'm sure to be right with my market analysis. It would be nice if samsung could put an outstanding camera on the market and see how it beaves.

Cgarrard: exactly. That's what I've been saying over and over for one year, and I've been fiercely attacked by fanboys claiming samsung is #1 and is outstanding.

I'd say that nx30 is a good camera, where x-t1 is excellent, a6000 and x-e2 are very good and em1 is also very good to excellent.

So samsung has a good camera competing in price witht the very good ones of others.

Samsung instead needs a camera to be considered excellent or even more, at a price competitive with the very good ones of other producers.

@Unitednations and Shamael - you need to develop a sense of humor. You seriously lack it. The comment about white racist is very racist, suggest you have issues.

Mescalamba:

While I agree with your sentiments. Both the Leica M8 and Epson RD-1 predate the NX10.

bimmerhauler:

At least you're citing examples, however in the US, I just don't hear people saying "Samsung TVs don't last," and the same is true of Sam smart phones. And there are plenty of both in use.

Also Best Buy? That's not a reliable source of information.

I think Wikipedia lists the Epson R-D1 as the first APS-C mirrorless camera.
Technically that is true, but we have to give Samsung their due.

The outfitter:

Just add AF and Samsung gets the credit, the way Sony gets the credit for the first AF mirrorless full framed body.

In hydraulis:

I don't think all the Ricoh GXR modules used APSC sensors.

Of course the Leica M mount APSC module was NOT AF.

And Wikipedia is unclear about the sensor size in in each module.

So with the 2009 announcement date you may be right, but there's some ambiguity.

In hydraulis:

Update:

Found the DPR pages for the GXR, so you are right about APSC sensors and AF. However, I'd point out that this discussion was about interchangeable lens systems, and the GXR module that takes different lenses is not in fact AF.

So yes if counting interchangeable sensors together with with lenses, but it's a somewhat different way of counting.

And using that way of counting could put other earlier big sensored mirrorless non-interchangeable lens cameras into the mix.

That's really funny considering Samsung makes parts that go into a huge number of products by other manufacturers, including Apple. Apple seems to be happy with Samsung's build quality.

@justaphotogtapher

you mean like Apple? I not know. maybe or maybe not. Samsung very much embed itself into everything. whoever is head of company is very smart. it is not only plain consumer electronics but maker and provider of electronics and semi-conductors. they have resources and investments that keep business going and can allocate anytime. whether people get fed up of Samsung, they may not be aware that product they buy have Samsung parts inside. I think this is reason why Samsung can afford to lower price easily compare to other camera manufacturer because they have resources. given idea and how much NX camera can sell in few months after will tell you how much cameras really are. if Samsung still make money selling cameras for $200-$300, can imagine others selling for similar build quality camera has for profit. XT1 may sell for $400-$500 only. but Fuji cannot afford so because it does not have every resources available to offset cost to profit.

pevee1:

What other computer chips does Sony make beyond image sensors? Your implication that I was somehow missing Sony's other products, like camera lenses, is vastly misleading.

Yes I realized later that Sony may make the BIONZ processor chips, but who really knows.

TI, FreeScale, Intel, Samsung, Qualcom, ATI, Nvidia, AMD are all known as makers of various kinds of computing processing chips. Sony is not.

Even Apple is more known as a maker (well engineer) of processing chips than Sony--that's the A7 chips in iOS devices. And yes, Apple bought the company.

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/images/rolling-shutter.jpg