Show me a smartphone with a 24mm equiv lens or an 1" sensor. Or, with similarly good low-light performance.

FYI: not even the Nokia 808 delivers so good quality. (Apart from the total absence corner softness and higher detail all around, of course - in those, the 808 is clearly better.)

" For smartphone, "...the HTC One is the Low light king with a 4MP sensor, oversized pixels, an f/2.0 aperture, and 2-axis image stabilization...""

The (2013, not the new one - the 2014 one doesn't even have OIS) HTC One surely can't beat 1" sensors like this one (or that of the RX10/RX100) in low light.

viking:

I got a hold of raws shot with the NX-Mini (9mm lens), they look good thru ISO 3200--using ACR 8 to extract.

" The 9mm appears to be a good Samsung lens, but not a great Samsung lens like say the 30mm f/2.0 for the NXapsc system."

Yup, it certainly has corner softness & CA. Not a Pana 12-32 or an Oly 12/2 at the same FoV. It's pretty much like the optical quality of the Nikon P330 P&S also at 24mm.

My point is 20 MP is a lot for such a small sensor. Maybe resample to 10 MP or 16 MP and make comparisons.

My complaint is why isn't the 9mm prime larger aperture? I see very little reason to get it over the zoom.

The NX line is not even mature yet and Samsung pulls a Sony and gets distracted with yet another mount to support half way..

There are adapters to fit lenses from most manufacturers on mirrorless cameras. That's irrelevant.

To take full advantage of the NX Mini, Samsung has to create a new series of lenses and success in large part hinges on continued support of that sort.

NX mini is mostly for small size. Using bigger lenses designed for a bigger sensor defeats that purpose. It's still usable, but at best a stopgap solution. To use an adapter on top of that doubles down on that flaw.

If Samsung's big plan is this trial balloon designed around a few kit lenses while they expect people to be satisfied with cumbersome APSC lenses then the NX mini is already dead. If Samsung plans on supporting both mounts then the NX mini has a chance, but both mounts will be limping around with Samsung's already notoriously anemic commitment to the mirrorless market.

More mounts is a larger endeavor no doubt, but it also shows an increased commitment to the market in general and it's no different than half the other manufacturers... Sony is up to three mounts I think and four or five sensor formats? CaNikon both "support" three sensor formats and several mounts...

The only ones sorta committed to a single consumer level mount are Fuji, Oly, and Panasonic no? They also have the broadest lens range so I guess you can make the argument either way, but I don't think Samsung would hold back Mini cause of NX or vice versa (unlike other manufacturers). Besides, if the goal is a truly tiny system how many lenses do you need to put out to make it attractive...

Long teles ands fast zooms might be interesting to some but probably best left to NX, that cuts a lot of it down right there... If they release a few key primes, and an UWA or macro, they can easily test the waters without a major commitment. If there's one thing Samsung is decent at it's throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, doesn't have to be great out of the gate.

M4/3 user here btw, largely cause of the lens selection.

HowaboutRAW

Actually, E mount (Sony) is ahead but a distant second in the sheer number of lenses for a mirrorless system (m43 is first). Samsung is in the same ballpark as Fuji in terms of lens numbers. I can count 14 on Wikipedia. 17 on Samsung's homepage (18 if you include unreleased lenses). Since Sony is focused on FE lenses now, Samsung has a chance to "catch up" though who knows how much of a drag NX mini lens development will be for Samsung.

As for quality, it's more debatable. I'd argue Sony is more inconsistent depending on the lens and tend to charge an arm and a leg.

Yet their camera division is like their red-haired b*st*rd child. They're no where near pulling their weight around like their smartphone or tv divisions are.

Zeiss is just like Leica for Panasonic lenses. They're really Sony lenses with the stamp of approval from a prestigious German lens maker (and an excuse to jack up the price). It's a red herring.

Furthermore, one other critical area where Samsung falls behind in the number game is with the lack of third party support. It all adds up to make a mount more appealing than others. I bought a Nikon D610 because I thought Sigma provided a cheaper better, fast 35mm lens than the Nikon lens alternative. Choices are great and it helps any mount in this respect.

blue:

That's a way over simplification of SonyZeiss lenses and really ignorant of the optical quality of PanaLeica lenses, which are optically extraordinary--even if made by Panasonic.

Then there are actual Zeiss lenses (e.g. the Touits) which one can use.

There are Samyang lenses for the NX system.

yes... if you look at all samsung cameras the jpg engine is a bit fail, but the raws are just as good as others...

But, that is a problem if you shoot jpg, and in this camera size/price a lot of users expect to shoot jpg only.

Nope, they just released a high end 16-50mm f/2 to f/2.8 lens and a 58 GN flash (i.e. suitable for some light pro work or advanced amateurs).

Samsung's files are typically quite neutral, good for post-processing. And I also imagine good for the many people who will transfer jpegs from the NX Mini to their smartphone for editing.

monkey:

No, Samsung doesn't have a great reputation for jpegs, this may have improved a bit. But look at Samsung raws before saying the jpegs are good.

And smartphones need to star doing serious raw extraction if you expect people to use them for editing.

HowaboutRAW, I didn't say the Samsung jpegs are good (although I have no particular problem with them, but always shoot RAW myself), I stated that they are neutral, i.e. a good base for editing compared to competitors' jpegs that are super punchy. Editing on phones, I was talking about Instagram and it's ilk, which fits the target demographic of this camera.

Also, twice you say the Samsung 'reputation' for jpegs is bad: frankly I couldn't care less about their reputation, I make my own judgements (if I had gone on Samsung's reputation as a camera maker, for example, I wouldn't have bought their cameras).

As usual a specific camera discussion thread is hijacked by the usual pre-release Sony RX100 sales pitches. What a fixed lens compact has to do with this camera I do not know.

Great. But how do you use a wide angle zoom or telephoto zoom on a Sony RX100m3?

"As usual a specific camera discussion thread is hijacked by the usual pre-release Sony RX100 sales pitches. What a fixed lens compact has to do with this camera I do not know."

Totally agree. Why does every single thread have to be spammed by these shills no matter what camera is being written about? Personally, I won't go anywhere near a Sony product because of this. If a product is so good, why does it have to be pitched from every rooftop? Completely obnoxious. It's like being at a party and trying to have a conversation with someone and no matter what you try to chat about, they constantly changed the subject to their own agenda. In the real world, you back away and go talk to someone else.

Just got an EM-10 last week and the guy at camera shop also asked if I want to check out the GX7 and A6000 - I looked at GX7 (very nice camera by the way, it was a close decision) but I refused to even lay an eye on the Sony. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Well, the RX100 series is the benchmark for premium, compact cameras; regardless if it is interchangeable or not. So, the comparisons are natural because the obvious question is always "how does this make sense" when there is this other product on the market.. that uses the same size sensor, is smaller, and has better optics.

Jogger:

"benchmark"? Really who says? And about that slow zoom on the RX100.

It's a nice camera, but in some ways the much cheaper Olympus XZ10 is better for still photos. It has a much faster lens, can be used to nearly the same ISO as the much more expensive Sony, and the lens on the cheap Olympus is optically better through the entire zoom range than the SonyZeiss.

@ Howaboutraw - and this Samsung has a faster lens does it? Their prime lens is two stops slower than the Sony with no IS... and a slow kit zoom. Fast 50mm is coming, but if rumours are true the Sony will be just as fast @ 50mm equiv.

And the XZ-2 / MX-1 is considerably bigger than the RX100...

I did prefer the feel of my MX-1 over the RX100 though.

I bet if this was a Sony brand interchangeable camera, it would make sense.

abortabor:

There's a 17mm f/1.8 lens for this NX-Mini system. So check again.

Also reread what I wrote, it's mostly about the Olympus XZ10.

The Sony RX100ii's lens is slow, very, when zoomed, and optically not up to the faster zoom on that cheap Olympus.

KonstantinosK:

And suffer the Nex 3n's menus and Sony's not great native Nex lenses.

Whereas Samsung does excellent menus and has shipped many optically excellent lenses for the APSC NX system, portending well for this Mini.

Just how much better can the Samsung 9-27 be than the Sony 16-50? It's got to be seen.
The NEX menu is something someone can get used to and anyway I feel it's not that important at this segment, where it's most likely for the camera to stay in Auto.

You could get a Samsung NX1000 or NX2000 instead as well.

But you gain a faster and better ranging lens. Not 'everything' is about sensor. It seems to be out of favour to mention the RX100, but if you have a similar sensor bit get a much faster lens in a smaller package it's a bit hard to justify.

I have had a play with the NX mini with the 9mm prime... It's ok, but the screen isn't great, the controls are less than stellar and for a lens that is bigger than the built in lens on the compact (when retracted) it is awfully slow (aperture), in fact a full 2 stops slower than the RX100 AND has no IS.

On the plus side the 30mm f2 will make a decent little portrait lens and the 50mm equiv will round the set fairly well.

But the lack of viewfinder and fiddly controls mean a no for me. Could be interesting with the 55-200mm though which is quite inexpensive.

I do not judge RAWs, but JPEGs I see are no wonder. And given that 99% of target customers of this camera will only shoot JPEG, I don´t really care if RAWs allow some improvement (and knowing Samsung RAWs they will be so huge noone will be willing to deal with them).

iudex:

Then you're only judging jpeg engine quality. Not image quality.

You are acting like there would be dramatic differences between RAW and JPEG. When ISO 3200 is totally washed out it means the RAW must be full of noise, so in every case it is not usable. Anyhow, as I said this camera is clearly aimed at amateurs who never shoot enything else but JPEG.

I see all these old stereotypes about Samsung cameras in here. They do not have abnormally large RAW files anymore, that was a long time ago. Get with the program. I think the images look pretty good for the sensor size.

viking: Samsung RAWs still ARE huge: I just downloaded RAW from NX mini and it has 26 MB (in comparison RAWs from my 16 MPx camera have 12-16 MB). And I still have some RAWs from NX20 that have 36 MB.

howaboutRAW: so I don´t know what I am writing? Get back to NX mini announcement and you will see Samsung alone aims this camera at amateurs who prefer selfies and JPEG to serious work with RAWs. ;-)

Every producer aims its product at specific customers, which, in connection with the camera specs, is the most relevant fact. Of course you can find people who use 1/1,7" compacts for serious work and vice versa, D800 users who shoot only JPEG, but generally NX mini is such a kind of camera noone expects to be used for serious work. Different appealing colours, no mode dial, no front/rear dials, no grip, 180° screen for selfies etc., all this makes this camera a simple camera used by people who want just press the button and get good picture straightahead, without spending hours in Lightroom.
As regards the use of "alone": it´s probably my bad English, I wanted to say that Samsung itself claimed that.

@ Menneisyys - Shows the advantage of the NX Mini in that you are not stuck with a particular lens configuration. That is the whole idea of these cameras.

Greynerd, the question is, what special lenses does the system have so it would be worth it to consider over 1'' compact? So far there's one fairly fast prime, the other two are in the usual kit range.

@Mike FL: it is quite certain the RX100 Mk. III will be introduced within couple of weeks with following specs: 24-70mm eq., f1,8-2,8 and (most importantly) an EVF.

Mike FL:

It doesn't read like you've used the Nikon 1 system, that's an excellent sensor, all variations, which easily competes with the sensor in the Sony RXii.

LF1 ring any bells.

yes it does ring, but does the LF1 feature any tiltable Screen ?

well, that is what you call trade off ... wanna have both, get a bigger camera as the mechanics for the screen hinge will not allow you to get compact

Samsung thinks that evf is only for bigger dslr alike cameras. Lol, this says it all about their understanding of the market.