Nikon 1 J5 and Samsung NX500 added to studio test scene

At the moment there is not really a good reason. The 70-300mm is too expensive. If it comes down in price and Nikon makes a proper handling camera with a good limited lag EVF and this sensor.

It might be a great camera for birders that now need a heavy Dslr with a Sigma/tamron 150-600. At the moment they'd better settle for 400mm(Fz1000) or go heavy. But a V4 and a reasonable priced 70-300mm may get some appeal.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

HowaboutRAW

Mike,

If you are going to claim the GM1 is smaller, that means the GM1 needs to be smaller in every dimension.

The GM1 has a good bit wider body than the J5, though it is not as tall as the Nikon body.

Also with a kit lens, the GM1 and the J5 sell for the same price in the USA.

Feel free to question what Nikon brings to mirrorless that Panasonic doesn't (and Nikon does have strengths here), but don't make up camera body size claims.

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

0.2mm is indeed quiet a bit wider don't you agree?
http://camerasize.com/compact/#614.416,491.397,ha,t

jokes aside. Gm-1 is
0.2mm wider
5mm lower
1.1mm thinner(5.1mm including kit-lens)
and 80gr lighter(both with kit-lens excluding batteries and SD card). the latter might change considering Nikon insists on using those stupid micro SD cards.

http://j.mp/1B03Cb2

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

sunjester

Where do I buy that magical MFT lens and camera that focuses as fast and has the same FOV as the J5 and 70-300cx? And where do I find all those wonderful bird in flight shots from the gm1.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Mike FL

If an user mainly shot birds in the wild, better to get a rugged weather sealed MFT body and lenses.

There are 69 native MFT lenses in total, and 8 of them are weather sealed.

BTW, for the same price as J5 @$499, users can get a Olympus OM-D E-M5 with kit zoom plus 5-Axis IBIS and EVF included.

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

sunjester

Very interested Mike. Which one of those 69 slow focusing lenses has >800mm FOV. Where do I get that one, and how much is that.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

300mm f4 with the 1.4x teleconverter.
At your local photo specialist from olympus.

Won't focus slow as long as you have the appropiate olympus body. In this case the em-1 considering PDAF will be helpful.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Mike FL

Currently, a6000 is always on the top selling list b/c MFT MLC has disadvantage in poor light. 1" sensor MLC is noticeably worse than MFT of course.

1" sensor is not bad for P&S b/c faster zoom comparing to any Nikon 1.

Nikon even unable develops a zoom starts from a much popular 24mm. Not mention if Nikon gives user a same speed super zoom for Nikon J5 as seem from RX10 and/or FZ1000. It will weight for 2 ponds if not 5.

Jun 10, 2015*permalink

Wu Jiaqiu

lets see a picture of the Oly 300mm f4 in a shop then ;)

Jun 10, 2015permalink

OrlandoPete

The J5 has a more advanced focus system than the GM1. It has phase detection AF points, is faster to focus, and has much faster burst rate with continuous auto focus (20 fps compared to 4 fps). Also, live view stays on while shooing in continuous AF on the J5 even at the fastest setting. Can't say that for the GM1. For capturing fast-moving children or other action, it is better than the GM1.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Gazeomon

I shoot the NX 500 for 6 weeks now and the image quality is as good as my Pentax K3 (RAW). I am very happy with the little Samsung as a travel camera, especially when paired with the samsung 30mm f/2 pancake and Pentax's limited primes (converter). In different tests on different sites the NX 500 does very well on high ISO (3200) and I can only attest to that (Imaging Resource and others).

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

kewlguy

I've been using J5 for a month, the size is small but nothing small about the result! If only there were more NIkon 1 lenses...

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Yup - 11 bodies, and what - 7 lenses (not counting the AW lenses as they are the same, just with ass gasket). 1 system desperately needs a bright normal zoom. A few fast interesting tele primes would make this system more interesting as well.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

I've imported both ISO6400 NX1 & NX500 low-light RAW's to ACR9.

The NX1 RAW is around 10% brighter (on the white background of the portraits on the left, 12%; in the center area, some 4%. Both measured in the red channel.). Assuming exactly the same lighting, this may mean the NX1 is more sensitive to light. (Actually, in DPR's previous reviews, they did state the NX1 is more sensitive to light than most other cameras.)

Nevertheless, 10% difference in in-RAW brightness wouldn't result in such a huge (1EV in higher ISO) difference. There is something fundamentally wrong with the NX500 - again, it produces even noisier results than the A5100 equipped with Sony's over a year-old 24 Mpixel sensor.

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

Follow-up:

I've developed the two RAW's using exactly the same parameters:
- sharpening set to zero
- CNR set to zero (default: 25) – that is, I've applied absolutely no noise reduction. (In ACR, LNR already defaults to zero, as opposed to CNR.)

With the NX500, I've overridden ACR's +1 tint (to zero; the same as the default for the NX1). This wouldn't have changed anything WRT to noise, though.

The exported (developed) results of the NX500 are significantly noisier than those of the NX1, developed, again, in exactly the same ACR version and using exactly the same parameters. That is, it isn't the difference between ACR8.x (used by DPR to develop the NX1 RAW) and ACR9 (used by DPR to develop the NX500 RAW) that caused the vast difference in the studio comparator.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

I've continued playing with the low-light RAW's – now, with the ISO100 ones, both shot with 3 seconds and, as with the 6400 images, also showing some 10% higher NX1 brightness.

I've increased the exposure by 5EV (and completely dialed down sharpening & CNR. The tint, in this case, was the same (+1) by default so I haven't touched it.) After exporting, I've scrutinized the bottles in the bottom as they have homogenous and under-exposed areas.

The NX500 exhibits definitely more prevalent noise speckles than the NX1. There difference is noticeable. This means the NX500 has a major handicap even at base ISO compared to its big bother.

I've uploaded both the developed, full images and the bottle crops in the flickr set at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/sets/72157654268584645 . See the image names for more info on the images.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

bmwzimmer

Looks better than the Sony

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Mescalamba

Hm.. looks like heat noise (no suprise, given size of NX500). And obviously due price difference, there is something cheaper (electornics, shielding, cooling etc.).

Jun 9, 2015permalink

It is due to BSI CMOS has more advantage over lighting sensitivity. It directly hit on sensor than going through to the conventional CMOS sensor. Samsung did well with this. Disadvantage is blue colour is weaker in Samsung NX1 which is a worry. The best part is more sensitivity to lighting mean that we can have better exposure shot. NX500 image processing is the one to be culprit for not processing image properly due to more noise or either the heating issue problem in sensor cos of the body in mirrorless is smaller and cramped in either way.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

" NX500 image processing is the one to be culprit for not processing image properly due to more noise or either the heating issue problem in sensor cos of the body in mirrorless is smaller and cramped in either way."

1, there should be almost no in-camera image processing WRT RAW files.

2, camera bodies of similar size deliver sometimes significantly less noisy RAW's. Just compare the Sony A5100 RAW's (with its "old", non-BSI 24 Mpixel sensor) to those of the NX500. The A5100 is definitely cleaner (while being beaten by the NX1).

Samsung has messed up something very badly - or, it's ACR9 that produces substandard results with the NX500 RAW's, while it (still) processes NX1 RAW's just fine, as has been pointed out by me below in my direct ARC9 comparisons.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

I nearly forgot. I remember back then, some people have problem with ACR for Samsung ie detail loss. So they have had to use Samsung RAW converter and then import, more details are back. Hrm. I dunno if ACR has been fixed the problem for the Samsung camera especially new NX1.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

zirco77

There are quite a few places to look for. I did a few tests with 100 and 3200 ISO RAWs from NX1 and NX500 (the "day light scene) in ACR9.

1. Consistent lightning. Illumination is down by about 0.35EV on the NX500, but white balance is off too. But I'd assume that they use a very reliable light setup.

2. Factory sensor binning. Given its the same part number (S5KVB2) I would think Samsung doesn't bin them at that level.

3. Sensor (and any attached electronic common to both NX1 and NX500) calibration. Every such "system" surely have to go through some calibration, for QA and to get an individual profile: "black frame" noise, ISO amplification, sensor to other color-space matrix, etc. Perhaps the NX1 gets away with the best samples. That matrix is probably embedded withing SRW files, I'll try to have a look...

4. Various electro-magnetic interference. Might be higher in a smaller body. Likewise, were they using live-view or the viewfinder for the NX1 scene shots?

Jun 10, 2015*permalink

zirco77

As for 3. above, it looks like color matrices, tone curves, etc. are all the same. However, tags related to "RGGB white balance" have different values. (for the technically inclined, see tags 0xa021 to 0xa024 in http://www.exiv2.org/tags-samsung.html) I can't tell if those are from the taken image or from the sensor calibration. I've seen those values used by software to read SRW files.

Strangely enough though, all sets of 4 values have the same middle values between NX1 and NX500. That is, assuming RGGB order (like the sensor bayer pattern), green values are the same, but others (red and blue) are higher on the NX500, whatever they mean.

This is somewhat in line with what I observed in ACR9: after adjusting RAWs for white balance (average on center target and grey patches) and illumination +0,35EV for NX500), red/blue patches are more saturated on NX500 (and histogram shows wider values), and red/blue noise is more visible too.

Knowing where WB RGGB values are from could help.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Looks better than my D7200 at ISO 100. Might have to get one!

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Ok this is disappointing, the NX500 higher ISO is clearly worse than the NX1, Samsung apparently sabotaged the 500 to protect the 1. ISO 1600 looks the same, but above that the NX1 is clearly cleaner. Disappointing.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

theprehistorian

Yeah, the NX500 is noticeably noisier than the NX1 at high ISOs. It's still very good though.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

"Ok this is disappointing, the NX500 higher ISO is clearly worse than the NX1, Samsung apparently sabotaged the 500 to protect the 1. ISO 1600 looks the same, but above that the NX1 is clearly cleaner. Disappointing."

They've shot themselves in the foot. A lot of prospective customers are lost by this. If the NX500 is almost an entire EV noisier than the NX1 (and even Sony's 24 Mpixel sensor!) at and over ISO3200, it renders the NX500 pretty useless for photo enthusiasts.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

"Yeah, the NX500 is noticeably noisier than the NX1 at high ISOs. It's still very good though."

I've compared the noise to that of Sony's 24 Mpixel non-SLT cameras (the A6000 and the A5100). Poor native E-mount lens lineup aside, at and over 3200, these cameras deliver about 1EV cleaner images (in RAW) than the NX500. There is some HUGE difference in noise.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Sony mirrorless APS-C prone to be very noisy. Still lags behind others in Nikon/Canon for example.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Sony in general tends to be noisy, and I own an A77II !! They just don't use the same circuitry and non sensor hardware. For example, Samsung's 28mp sensors are supposed to use copper wiring, which helps.

I read Nikon and Pentax improve these aspects as well, which is why they have better ISO performance so often even though they use Sony sensors. But, Samsung must have purposely gimped the 500, too bad.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

theprehistorian

Not necessarily 'gimped', it's a cheaper camera and the poorer high ISO performance might be a consequence. It holds up well enough against its direct competitors.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

"Sony in general tends to be noisy, and I own an A77II !! "

There was a reason I emphasized having only compared non-SLT Sonly MILC's to the NX1/NX500. (See "I've compared the noise to that of Sony's 24 Mpixel non-SLT cameras (the A6000 and the A5100)." above.)

SLT's will always be noisier than non-SLT's. One shouldn't base his/her assessment of all products of a camera manufacturer based on the noise levels of SLT cameras.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

And it comes to cost of having copper heatsink that thing don't come cheap at all. So it will influence the price on camera as well. Computer CPU with Copper Heatsink is far more expensive than regular one. Like about $65+ for Heatsink with copper. $20 for without copper. Huge difference in price.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

"And it comes to cost of having copper heatsink that thing don't come cheap at all. So it will influence the price on camera as well. Computer CPU with Copper Heatsink is far more expensive than regular one. Like about $65+ for Heatsink with copper. $20 for without copper. Huge difference in price."

Nevertheless, the NX500's being (at low light & high ISO's, significantly) noisier than the NX1 is a major disappointment. After all, we've been told all the time they have the same sensor & imaging pipeline, which also infers the two models produce the same IQ.

Let me cite DPR themselves: : http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2617394279/samsung-nx500-shooting-experience :

"the 28MP sensor is the same, it can capture 4K video, and the still imaging pipeline is identical. "

Jun 9, 2015permalink

captura

A6000 is a bit noisy. The predecessor NEX-6 had the 16mp sensor and was less noisy.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

theprehistorian

Samsung's 28MP BSI sensor performs incredibly well doesn't it. Comparing with the D7200, I'd say the Nikon had the edge, but it's still very very good. Fuji's venerable 16MP X-Trans is showing its age now, although it's still incredibly clean at high ISO.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Randy Veeman

The J5 is very close to the A5100 at ISO1600 in the compare scene. Pretty cool.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Why are you comparing it to the A5100? That's nowhere near the market leader in apsc, and even still I don't think the Nikon is "close", it looks to be somewhere around 1.5 stops behind when you normalize the rez. It's about 2 stops behind the top apsc out there like D7100/7200 or 7DII. Exactly how we would expect with the sensor size difference.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

That is incorrect. Sony APS-C mirrorless tends to be very noisy compare to Nikon APS-C is not. A5100 is as noisy as J5. Sony mirrorless still lags behind Canon/Nikon for noise.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Im assuming you are replying to me. No, download the raw files, process them yourself in ACR/LR, at the same pixel count/magnification, the Nikon isn't even close. I mean I have criticized E mount plenty but you just can't make up for that much sensor area like it's magic.

You are completely wrong if you think the J5 is "very close" to the A5100.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Nah studio sample is more than sufficient. They already have them in raw as well to compare both normal/low light and the 8mp normalised. Sony APS-C still noisy. Sony has always struggle to stay in competition with the noise compare to APS-C in Nikon/Canon still ahead of. Thats plenty enough evidence to prove otherwise.

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

"Sony APS-C still noisy. Sony has always struggle to stay in competition with the noise compare to APS-C in Nikon/Canon still ahead of. "

What are you talking about? Take a look at the A5100 high-ISO low-light RAW's and compare them to, say, the Canon 760D results. The A5100 is somewhat cleaner than the Canon. It's only the latest-and-greatest (and quite expensive) Nikon D7200 that beats the (almost three times cheaper) Sony.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Bad news, the shadow is totally clipped in RAW from A5100. I think the guy who took that photo for studio sample had made a mistake. :\

Jun 9, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos760d&attr13_1=samsung_nx500&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.005876692350545216&y=0.3919487138458987 < A6000 exposed much more correctly so that'll do to compare. As a result A6000 has more noise than Canon 760D. Because A5100 is automatically disqualified from comparison due to shadow is clipped, so it will not be accurate to compare to others.

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

@nathntho yes I agree Sony is usually behind, even their A7 series is lagging, but they are not THAT far behind for the J5 to catch their apsc. That is just ridiculous, you are claiming that Nikon's 1" sensors surpass all MFT cameras even, which is just silly.
You may be happy that 1" cams are good enough for you but don't lie to yourself to do it.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

captura

The Sony A5100 and the A6000 should produce identical optical performance.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Macro Nutrients, Im sorry to say that I think you misunderstand my comments above before.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

If I did then my bad, disregard my post. Sometimes it can get confusing just reading text.

Jun 11, 2015permalink

Yeah thats okay all good Macro :)

Jun 11, 2015permalink

Sonyshine

Well I have put my money where my mouth is and ordered a J5 - I'm looking forward to it!

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Wu Jiaqiu

i knew you would :)

Jun 8, 2015permalink

captura

Congrats! The 4K video is rated at a paltry 15fps. Do you think they will improve that with a future firmware update?

Jun 10, 2015permalink

win39

Kind of disappointing. Look at the green foliage. The Nikon looks like green fog. Not sure what is going on there. Even at base ISO. I suspect the Sony looks superior because of higher default sharpening on the JPEG. Seem like dpreview could devise a sharpening target so that all their test cameras could be adjusted to the same actual sharpening before a comparison is made.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Samuel Spencer

The green text in the news article explains this. Using f/5.6 would have sharpened up the green foliage a bit, but also would have reduced on-center sharpness. We have only had one copy of the Nikkor 1 32 f/1.2, and it could very well be a poor copy. Due to the increased resolution of the J5, we went with the softer edges and sharper center at f/4 to compliment the new sensor.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

mosc

Seeing any diffraction in these sensor evaluation shots is really distracting. Artistically it's not a big deal but when you're pixel peeping it's hard to disassociate. I think it's an important note to avoid any diffraction even if the lens isn't superb.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Lan

Compare the same sample but in RAW; and you can see that it's definitely a JPEG sharpening/NR issue. There's just a lot more fine detail in the RAW, of course there's more noise too, but that's not as objectionable to me...

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

Simon97

Looking at the raw images, the new sensor in the J5 provides lower noise and slightly better resolution than the V3/J4. The last sensor was a disappointment. Too much base ISO grain. This sensor, while not perfect, is quite an improvement.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Nikon 1 lenses are generally no smaller than m4/3 lenses, so for ILC cameras there's not much point going smaller than the m4/3 sensor size.

Most APS-C lenses are quite a bit larger than m4/3, and FF lenses larger still. As sensors continue to improve, I think FF may be completely replaced by APS-C.

EDIT: sorry this was meant to be a reply to @D200_4me comment

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

RichRMA

As long as the current wide angle fetish continues, FF will sell. It allows modest photographers to produce dramatic-looking output (owing to the slight distortion factor wide angle confers) and with high megapixel sensors, cropping is feasible.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

brendon1000

Oh please ! People don't go about lugging around heavy gear just for fun if the tradeoff was better IQ. FF results are better period. Not by a huge amount but enough for people to justify spending their hard earned money on something that is heavier and much more expensive.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

APS-C quality should be comparable to FF quality of today in 3-or-so years.

Also, WAY more APS-C cameras are sold than FF, so that sensor size gets more R&D dollars.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Saying FF may be completely replaced by APS-C is like having said medium format may be completely replaced by FF. It may happen...but it didn't.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

@Karroly I totally agree with what you wrote.

I think FF will eventually be as unpopular as MF is today.

I think APS-C will "win" in the long term. It's winning now. Most DLSRs are APS-C and most commercial movies are shot on APS-C.

I hope that m4/3 survives (since I'm an m4/3 shooter). I love how much smaller it is than APS-C and FF.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

I think the only sensors that will survive are medium format for serious commercial work and 1". Everything in between won't make any sense to any actual people as no one will be able to tell the difference.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Now I use APS-C and smaller sensor ILCs for these three reasons : FF bodies are still expensive, big and heavy. Before digital, I have been using a low-end EOS 300V camera. I must say that if CANON was able to design a digital FF body equivalent in price, size and weight, I would have never bought a digital reflex or mirrorless APS-C ILC probably...because of the smaller DOF that FF gear can produce.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

In Nikon land - a D7100 kit and a D610 kit will set you back roughly the same amount of money, give or take.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

@ brownie314,
Unfortunately not. D7100 is not FF. And the D610 body weight is 850g versus 365g for the EOS 300V body. Plus I bought the EOS300V + 28-90mm kit new for about 280 euros...

Jun 9, 2015permalink

@Karroly - I was only addressing the expensive part. And I was only comparing an aps-c digital to a FF digital.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

@brownie314 possible that 1" could be the new entry level for fixed lens zooms, but it has zero chance in the ILC space. Not enough lenses and Nikon only cares about FF.

FF will not get cheaper.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

"FF will not get cheaper" - how long have I been hearing that. Same was said when D700 came out.
I think 1" has a good chance of replacing all aps-c. I don't think there is room in the market for both FF and aps-c. They are too close in IQ. I can see a future where there is only 1" systems and then FF. And of course FF becomes cheaper.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

RichRMA

FF sensors didn't get much cheaper, camera bodies housing them did. There is no reason they can't put out a plastic D5400 with a FF sensor for $1000.00

Jun 9, 2015permalink

@RichRMA
We are still in a phase where we can see significant performance improvement at each sensor iteration, so the price does not drop. But when the performance will reach a plateau - and this time will come sooner or later because we do not need infinite resolution, SNR and dynamic range, then the price will start to decrease, as for every electronic part.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

bluevaping

I have Nikon 1 lens and m4/3 lens. Guess what Nikon 1 lens are smaller and some with less optical compromises for the given size and cheaper. You should have a speciality use for Nikon 1 J5, or family member needing move past P&S. Like young active teen. (Great focus and tracking,easy depth of field) P&S replacement to complement your other gear, (Small camera that you could add wide zoom lens, vs other large lens to change in the field)

Jun 9, 2015permalink

brendon1000

I recently shifted from APS-C to FF. My only regret is that I didn't switch sooner. :(

If I could afford MF I would have gone for that. There is a good reason great photographers used to lug around large format cameras as they cared about IQ.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

brendon1000 - I am glad you like your new gear. But photographers tend to be the only people who care about this unreachable perfect image quality. Everyone else just wants something good enough to stick on facebook - which is a pretty low bar.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

brendon1000

^^ Yes agreed and thats why smartphones are taking over the low end camera market. Its the high end market that camera manufacturers need to concentrate on. APS-C falls in the lower end market as well.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

I think these are the forces a play...

1) image quality
2) inertia/popularity
3) lenses
4) cost
5) size/weight

MF wins on image quality, but loses on everything else.

FF wins on 1-3, but loses on cost and size/weight.

APS-C has the most inertia, is strong on 1-4, but loses on lens size/weight (expect for Ricoh GR & the like).

m4/3 is strong on all points except inertia (where it's weaker than FF and APS-C).

1" beats m4/3 on size with long zoom lenses (shorter zooms/primes are essentially same size as m4/3). 1" is very weak on lens availability, and weaker than all of the above on inertia (except MF).

1" likely has a bright future on fixed-lens zooms. I still think APS-C is best positioned to "win" in the end. Video will probably be enough for m4/3 to survive. FF and MF look vulnerable to me. Sony/Nikon/Canon are doing well with FF today, but who knows what the future holds as the APS-C sensors continue to improve and the overall camera market continues to collapse.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Setting aside guesses about the future...

I'd be very interested in a 1" sensor camera similar to the Ricoh GR with 40mm-e lens (or thereabouts) but thin like the Panasonic CM1. VERY interested.

I'd also consider buying a fixed zoom with 1" sensor -- but I'd never get an ILC with 1" if m4/3 is available.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Edgar - only problem with 1" sensored version of Ricoh GR is that you can't get the control layout of the GR - which is what makes it so popular. If you just are after pure IQ - the Nikon coolpix A is better (not that GR is bad - we are talking micro differences). But people love the GR because of the control layout. If the control layout could be kept the same, but camera made thinner - then maybe.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

@brownie314 for me, the attraction of 1" sensors is getting the camera thinner. GR or Coolpix A or LX100 controls are all good in my book.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Edgar - yes it would be nice to be able to easily slide it in a pocket. But I can't help but think making it a lot thinner would negatively effect handling. But if it could be kept the same - I definitely like the idea.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Any decent UI designer with a background in photography could ensure the handling is right. Have a look at the Leica announced today for how it's done. Just needs a grip.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

D200_4me

Honestly, the only thing these little V and J 1 series camera have against them is lesser high ISO quality and (if it matters to you), very deep depth of field. I really enjoyed the two I had, but in the end it was hard to justify keeping them due to the availability of other small cameras with much larger sensors (like the a6000). I loved the size, the lens quality, the VR of the lenses and the simple and great videos they can make.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Seems all the things you liked about the Nikon 1 camera's is done better by Panasonic with the Gm-1/5 or GF7.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

D200_4me

I have an a6000 now as my small camera, which (for my purposes) is even a step above even the Panasonic models you mentioned. I hardly ever use it, but when I do need it, I know I can have excellent image quality as well as keeping the size/weight down to even m4/3 levels (with the 16-50 kit lens)

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Well it's larger then the Nikon's and the Panasonic models i mentioned.

But it's very quick and has a viewfinder buil-in
The kit-lens negates all the quality advantages it can have unfortunately. But then it's incredible with the cheap Sigma prime lenses or the 2 Sony OSS primes.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Randy Veeman

The A6000 is comparatively a large camera as are its lenses. A GM1 with the smaller F/2.8 zooms is every bit as good as the big A6000 and its full frame sized F/4 zooms.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

"A GM1 with the smaller F/2.8 zooms is every bit as good as the big A6000 and its full frame sized F/4 zooms."

One shouldn't use E / FE zooms at all as they're all pretty bad, compared to zooms in other systems. Sonys should be used with primes.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Samsung NX500
It performs great no surprises here at all.

The Nikon J5
Well i gotta admit,
might finally take these camera's serious. It finally closed the gap with the compareable Sony sensor. It's actually so similar to the G7x that it raises my suspicions.

Now Nikon make some F2.8-4 kit-zooms to make the low-light performance and DOF compareable with it's larger sensor peers.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=samsung_nx500&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=samsung_nx2000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=25600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.7383262260127932&y=-0.5840266222961729

"It performs great no surprises here at all."

Are you absolutely sure? Compared to the NX1, in high-ISO, low light RAW, it's pretty bad:

Jun 8, 2015permalink

25600 on Apsc?!

No i didn't check that i only look at ISO's i use out there in the real world. Which is 3200-6400 at most as a last resort.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

There is difference even at ISO1600. I've shown a very high ISO comparison because the difference in shadow noise is even more pronounced there.

We're talking about the same sensor and (at least according to Samsung) the same stills imaging pipeline. Still, the difference in noise is pretty much staggering.

It's either Samsung that have dumbed down the camera, resulting in significantly worse noise performance or ACR9, used here to develop the NX500's RAW, plain messes up NX500 RAW's.

I couldn't develop the RAW's myself as C1P only reads the NX1 one, not the NX500 one.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

I used the comparison widget.
Didn't notice any difference at ISO 1600.

Maybe Samsung made the board cheaper and the cooling of the sensor worse. leading to more noise when the voltage get's increased. Just a theory. don't know whether is plausible.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

tkbslc

deleted

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=samsung_nx500&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=sony_a5100&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.817376046680404&y=-0.5760490346437337

"Didn't notice any difference at ISO 1600."

There is a visible difference in the dark areas here:

There are visibly more, particularly blue, speckles in the NX500 image. And the same spot shows even bigger differences in higher ISO's - I'd say the difference may be as big as one entire EV. There must be something badly messed up here...

Jun 8, 2015permalink

turvyT

Thanks for fixing.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

steelhead3

Is Nikon using the Sony 1" sensor now?

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Wouldn't be surprised if that is true.
Damn that is some improvement over the V3.
Can't use the N1 series as a laughing stock anymore.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

I will keep laughing until they have a bright normal zoom. Then we can talk.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Aptina sensor would be the one in the mirrorless. Unless Nikon either jumpship to Sony or Toshiba. They keep changing mind. >:(

Jun 9, 2015*permalink

Naththo

It looks bery similar to the G7x(sony) and the FZ1000(Sony)
I also found an article that stated Nikon developed the on sensor AF system. And then let a 3rd party produce the sensor.

Considering this sensor is so much better then it's predecessor i would think they jumped ship. And if so they should have done that after the 10mp sensor got all that flame.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

bluevaping

I still think this new improved Aptina sensor with Sony influence.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

I think this is a sony 1" sensor.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Yes more likely its Aptina.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

Excpet Aptina is no longer Aptina. It was purchased by On Semiconductor. And On Semiconductor doesn't seem to be interested in the consumer imaging business.

Jun 10, 2015permalink

Pandimonium

Strange, NX-500 sensor looks sharper than the nx-1, but high iso is worse.

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

"but high iso is worse."

Exactly. It seems the NX500 has been dumbed down in every respect, not only in video & buffer.

Samsung has just lost a prospective customer in me.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

nananananana

go hover over the green plants in the left bottom corner

the samsung will look sharper than the nikon

but this is only due to the Samsung JPEG engine that is slightly more aggressive in sharpening than Nikon is (turn on RAW and this difference is gone)

within the same sensor family, APS-C in this case, there is little to no difference, even between 18 and 24 MP sensor, the differences are so so marginal (yes if you check text, there is a tiny tiny difference, but you're pixel peeping at that point)

what does cause some differences is how aggressive the JPEG engine is

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

"what does cause some differences is how aggressive the JPEG engine is"

I've compared the RAW images, not the JPEG ones, between the NX1 and the NX500. The latter *is* noisier at higher ISO's.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Just compare the two crops at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=samsung_nx500&attr13_2=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_3=samsung_nx2000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=25600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.7383262260127932&y=-0.5840266222961729

Something seems to be majorly messed up with the low-light, high-ISO NX500 RAW developments - they're significantly noisier than those of the NX1.

The NX1 delivers way better results than the NX500.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=samsung_nx500&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=sony_a5100&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.1282515991471215&y=-1.028999286902781

Interestingly, the OOC JPEG mages' IQ is exactly the same, it's only the RAW's that are vastly different. The JPEG's being the same doesn't mean much, however - after all, they're NR'ed to death.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Revenant

The difference in the raw conversions likely only reflect a difference in the default settings applied by ACR.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Roses

Very interesting. I wonder what the deal is.

Also, the smaller body for Sony A5100 actually has better high ISO performance in RAW than Sony A6000.

Aren't they supposed to have the same sensors? Is this due to changes in methology between different test scene shoots, or is there something else going on?

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

"The difference in the raw conversions likely only reflect a difference in the default settings applied by ACR."

When comparing the same ACR version, you're wrong. You in no way can clean up the NX500's linked RAW image with LR with stronger NR so that it looks the same as the NX1. It's plain impossible.

(And yes, I know quite a bit about noise reduction.)

The possible two answers are:
- ACR 9 doesn't really support the NX500 and should be avoided because of the substandard results it produces OR
- the NX500 indeed is more noisy.

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

snapa

The reason the Samsung is noisier than the Nikon 1 at higher ISO levels is because they crammed 28MP on that sensor. Personally, I think 18-20MP is more than enough for APS-C with current technology. Not many people who buy into APS-C really needs more than 20MP's, IMHO. You can make pretty large prints with that ;)

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Pandimonium

I'm not talking about the Nikon 1 (Because I am a snob and anything below aps-c is beneath me). But in comparison with the NX1 which is supposed to have the exact same sensor it is much noisier.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

Yeah I am not really fan of JPG noise reduction they can be horrendous though.

Jun 9, 2015permalink

jimr

The Nikon results look great. Very sharp.

Jun 8, 2015permalink

It looks identical to the Canon G7x.

Apart from being slightly sharper due to it's no one with a right mind would never have bought 899,- portrait lens.

Nonetheless this is a serious inprovement over the last 18mp sensor. Makes one wonder whether Nikon ditched (cr)aptina. and Sony found a way to make on sensor AF work with there BSI cmos sensor. Or did (cr)aptina magicly closed the gap to Sony.

Jun 8, 2015*permalink

Revenant

If I'm not mistaken, the PDAF implementation used in previous Nikon 1 models was a Nikon patent, not an Aptina one. So even if it's a Sony sensor, the PDAF might not be exactly the same as in the sensors Sony makes for their own cameras.

Jun 8, 2015permalink