Small change: Samsung NX mini review

my version is 1.09 and there is a noise reduction option (none, low, normal or high)

Dec 28, 2014permalink

mrkfm01

mine has 1.09 but doesn't have noise reduction apart from high ISO. Im wondering if this is what you mean?

Jan 18, 2015permalink

try shooting on aperture, shutter priority or manual. the option may not be available in the auto modes. camera is not with me at the mo so i can't check

Jan 21, 2015permalink

i was considering the sony RX100 (1st model 28-100) but the wider lens gives me more shooting options. True, the sony lens is faster but in use this focussing way faster than the sony

Dec 28, 2014permalink

perhaps one must not miss the point here. my bulkiest camera is a Nikon D4S but during my visit to St. Petersburg which is where I am at the moment, I picked up a Samsung NX mini for the equivalent of 205 Euro. It fits in my winter jacket pocket easily and as I feel that the most significant pictures are the ones I actually take, this camera is as easy to carry around as much as a smartphone. I've taken more pictures these last couple of days with it than I usually do as I simply take it out and snap. It's not to pixel peek or shoot at high ISO. The buzz here is portability and better image quality than a compact. Having said that, there's nothing to really complain about. I love it!

Dec 28, 2014permalink

jesmin01

samsung is very popular smartphone,present time i am
personally using samsung smart phone and others product of sumsung.

Dec 11, 2014permalink

joe6pack

I think Samsung should make a smartphone out of it. Ditch the folding display and we have the world's first interchangeable lens smartphone. Galaxy NX!

Dec 9, 2014permalink

the name "Galaxy NX" is already used for a (large) NX-series camera with Android but not a phone.

Dec 21, 2014permalink

Zusu

Nice camera but at $400.00 Retail too rich for my conversion.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

Cheaper than either the RX100III or the Canon G7X and much cheaper than the Nikon 1 V3.

Two very good lenses. One not so good.

Too much forced NR in higher ISO raws.

No EVF.

Dec 5, 2014permalink

Oh..forgot to mention the "Switch over to Raw and it becomes apparent that there isn't much difference in resolution in these sensors" part.

Did they ever SAW the RAW ISO6400 comparison?
The RAW 6400 of mini looks very similar to the SONY body before(Not the new ones). They are smudged and blurry...And the details are lost..

I know that NX-mini and RX-100 has the same sensor..but the RAW comparison results are QUITE different.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

arbuz

How do you know nx mini has sony sensor? Who told you that? Samsung makes his own sensors incl APS-C BSI.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

Nobody told me. come on....These rumor everywhere said they have the same1" sensor.(Doesn't mean that I believe the rumor.)
And I think maybe the sensor of RX100 and NX-mini MIGHT be different. (There are possibilities like Samsung ordering custom sensor like Nikon doing. The base is same and add some modification.)
As we could see the RAW is quite different...May be the sensor is not the same..

Dec 5, 2014*permalink

Ashuaria Lee:

Nikon uses Aptina sensors in the 1 bodies.

Unless NR is turned up significantly NX-Mini raws aren't incredibly smudged at ISO 6400.

Now with the NX-Mini it is impossible to turn of NR completely, even in raw. And I think this is a weakness in the Samsung.

ISO 6400, raw, is pushing things for the RX100III.

Whereas the Samsung, Nikon 1 V3 and Canon G7X (with likely a Sony sensor) can be used at ISO 6400 without any real difficulty.

Dec 5, 2014*permalink

Cheng Bao

Every single spec of nx-mini sensor match sony IMX183CQJ(http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/new_pro/may_2014/imx183_e.html), exactly same physical dimension, exactly same output pixels 5472 (H) × 3648 (V), same total pixels because different round precision: 21MP vs 20.95 MP, same effective pixels because different round precision: 20.5MP vs 20.48MP.

It even has exact same resolution for 60 fps burst mode(2736 x 1824). So much similarity tell us, it is the same sensor as IMX183CQJ.

Dec 23, 2014permalink

Cheng Bao:

Could be, but ChipWorks hasn't aimed their SEM at the sensor.

So get a Samsung NX-mini and an RX100III, take apart, and find a university lab willing to let you use an SEM to read the foundry marks on the sensors.

And the fact remains that Samsung is a serious sensor maker.

Dec 23, 2014*permalink

Many parts of the Studio Scenes are impressive.
1. Wedge chart...On Low-ISO NX-mini goes until 34~35, while the others remain 30~32
2. Random dot chart...Looking on whatever ISO, mini is the clear winner.
3. Weeds,Grass...Low-ISO, mini has better details.
4. Sketch under the wedge...Looking at the ceeks and forehead, mini has more details on whatever ISO.
-> I cannot agree the phrase "In the default Jpeg mode at their respecive native ISOs, the cameras reproduce a very similar amount of detail"

Beyond the IQ the battery is almost twice longer than competatives. And with 9mm lens it grows even more. 630 shots CIPA AFAIK.

They mentioned about the poor corners(bragging nikon ;-)..thats the LENS not the camera. perhaps they should have used 9mm fix-focal lens for the test.

I AM a big fan or canon, nikon also, but I remember not being fair for sony few years ago, and I'm getting some similar feeling here again.
Am I imagining?

Dec 3, 2014permalink

I don't think the 9mm lens is as good as the 17/1.8 they used. If you want 9mm, goto the imaging-resource.com samples. Geometric distortion in corners bothers me, but otherwise it's a fine lens.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

Oh...your totaly right.
17mm F1.8 was released.
I bet 17mm F1.8 would perform better also.
Good point! Thank you!

Dec 5, 2014permalink

ProfHankD

The high-ISO raws looks really impressive. I'd guess Samsung is doing significant cooking of their raws, but it's hard to argue with the results. Samsung is doing a great job on the JPEG processing too. Not a camera that appeals to me, but it's worth noting that Samsung is doing a heck of a lot right on everything in cameras right now....

Nov 29, 2014permalink

Totally agree.
And also I'm not satisfied with the new cameras comming out from Canon and Nikon recently.

Dec 5, 2014permalink

nerd2

After trying RX 100 III, I found NX mini can be actually better than RX considering the price. NX mini body costs around $200 and 17mm prime costs $249, making a $450 system that has very useful effective focal length of 45mm with aperture 1.8.

Nov 29, 2014*permalink

Where do you see the body alone for sale?

Nov 29, 2014permalink

Dohmnuill

Another slim camera..without a viewfinder. No thanks.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

So no RX100, no RX100II, no Canon 7X.

But a Panasonic LF1 that's good.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

It seems very nice to hold at waist level with the LCD tilted up, and my thumb on the shutter.

Dec 1, 2014permalink

tecnoworld

I agree. No more evf-less cameras for me.

Dec 2, 2014permalink

Sirandar

Although I am in 100% agreement that a EVF is very important for most cameras.....

This camera isn't one of them. I shoot 90% of my shots with a EVF but if I were in the market for this type of camera I wouldn't be looking for a EVF .... size, light gathering and image quality would be paramount.

With a few firmware updates this camera will be compelling for some ....

What Samsung should do is make this device into a cellphone. Protect the lens enough and I might be willing to lug it around

Dec 3, 2014*permalink

Mike FL

Other than some rough edges comparing to LX7, Samsung EX2F is a greater P&S; metal body, fast German lens, fully articulated monitor, ND filter, decent amount of directed access, Wifi, etc.

But Samsung seems having gun-shy for developing a [1"] high-end P&S as a follow up of EX2F as seeing SONY RX100-3 is hard to beat as a benchmark of P&S.

As far as this NX mini, it is hard to sell such as that it may be ok for body has no IBIS, but do lenses have OIS?

Nov 28, 2014*permalink

schaki

From page 8. "Slow image processor and Micro-SD storage make drive mode extremely sluggish"
May I ask Dpreview staff what microSD card (not mentioned in the review as far as I can see) which has been used while using this camera for testing ?
Drive modes not only in this camera can get slow if one uses an inexpensive slow card. And while there is not as many microSDHC / SDXC high end cards as for traditional SD-cards, at least they definitely exist in limited numbers.
Just bought one myself not long ago to use with a Sony HX50V.

A samsung microSD Pro 32gb or Sandisk Extreme Pro MicroSdhc 32gb should be enough and there is SDXC 64gb available. Bought one myself and it arrived in the mail yesterday.
At least the Samsung card which I bought here in Sweden and comes with a microSD to SD adapter cost me equivalent 24 Usd including shipment.
R/W specified to 90/80 for that card and 95/90 for the Sandisk which would have more than doubled the price. Samsung-card reviewed http://is.gd/ez80Q5

Nov 27, 2014*permalink

With a fast mSD card, it's a reasonably fast and deep buffer.

It's not some sports camera, but DPR is wrong. It's not, for example, like the NX20, which locked up after 4 quick raws, in single shooting mode, no matter how fast the card. It's more like the NX30, which will start to slow down after about 10 raws in quick succession.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

sproket1

Well. Sorry guys but the RAW files are excellent for processing. I shoot photojournalism on occasion with it for major nyc weekly papers( not selfies) and no editor has ever complained. It is not FF RAW granted but the files are fine. The 17mm 1.8 is very sharp. For the intended marketed audience ( basically teens taking selfies for online posting) the camera is more than fine...a step up from a smartphone. It's unfair to say its not great for enthusiasts wanting manual control. Not the intended audience. Not by a long shot.

Nov 27, 2014*permalink

Simon Joinson

it's certainly a fair point that it isn't aimed at enthusiasts (though, importantly, this website writes for an enthusiast audience), but I think it's also pretty hard to get teenagers to buy a $450 selfie camera when they have their phones already.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

olypan

I disagree. RAW files in Lightroom look like melted candle wax has been poured over. I am hoping Irident developer will disable the baked in nr.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

olypan:

There are different settings for noise reduction in raw, even if set to off NR engages a tiny bit starting at about ISO 1600, but it is slight. And not at all pronounced until above ISO 3200.

So what was raw NR set to?

Nov 27, 2014permalink

olypan

The option for RAW noise reduction off is for 6400 and beyond. The first thing I do is turn off all noise reduction settings if possible.
The noise reduction is baked in at all levels, you can see this even in the dpr comparison.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

olypan:

Actually, no NR will show up at ISO 2000, even if NR is "off".

I hadn't noted any forced NR at say ISO 800, but I'll look again.

I looked, and:

I can't find my own ISO 400 raws, but the studio ISO 400 raw from Imaging Resource, as best as I can see, doesn't have NR added. The Imaging Resource ISO 800 sample does does have a tiny bit of NR in the shadows.

I too think the added NR a mistake, but it's not hugely noticeable until above ISO 3200.

Nov 27, 2014*permalink

Melinium

Nice camera for a girl handbag, but not really for the bag of a photographer.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Hmmm. Smart idea - 1" is the new compact and I see no more reason to make 2/3 or 1.7 sensors. As for it's performance, that's another question.

But this kind of makes one question the efforts of Fuji with their X30 series tiny sensor cameras. I think they are becoming obsolete already from a marketing standpoint. Take that excellent performance and put it into a 1" sensor compact and you've really got something Fuji...

Nov 27, 2014permalink

One good reason to make 1/1.7" sensors is the Olympus Stylus 1 camera. No hope to make such a "small" camera (although not pocketable) featuring a 28-300mm-equivalent zoom lens with constant F1:2.8 aperture and a 1" sensor...

Nov 28, 2014permalink

I don't know if that argument really holds when you look at what can be done with the 1" sensor.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

What do you mean ? Making a 1" sensor camera with a shorter zoom range to make it as small than the Stylus 1, then use "digital zoom" to get the same magnification ?

Nov 28, 2014permalink

You're already at 1" and significantly smaller components. 1.7 is going to disappear. 1" is what, 3x the size?

Nov 28, 2014*permalink

"You're already at 1" and significantly smaller components."

- Everything that helps making a 1" sensor camera smaller, helps making a 1/1.7" cameras even smaller.
- Sensor performance still improves over years for the same size, too. In other words, if you are happy with the performance of a 1" sensor today, you may be happy with a 1/1.7" sensor tomorrow... I personaly like what my XZ-2 produces most of the time, given my type of photography, although I also own m4/3 and APS-C cameras for special cases... But I prefer to use the XZ-2 for its smaller size.
- There will always be people favoring small, trully pocketable size over performance. The Panasonic DMC-LF1 is a trully pocketable 1/1.7" sensor camera, unfortunately it does not reach the IQ of the XZ-2 and Stylus 1. So I keep my XZ-2...

For the three reasons above, I think we will see 1/1.7" sensors for a while...

Nov 28, 2014permalink

Yea, but making it a 1.7 sensor actually such a step down it's not worth it. People who favor small size over performance - as you said - don't favor image quality. Why not use your smartphone? I honestly don't know if 1.7 sensors will be around much longer, but I do know that they are part of the compact market and compacts are really on the decline. 1" is as small as anyone need go anymore in an actual camera. Smartphones fill the rest of the gap.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

"Why not use your smartphone?"
Because smartphone do not have 28-300mm equivalent F2.8 zoom lenses...

Nov 29, 2014permalink

They have digital zoom. If not, you're stuck with a sensor that won't even be around much longer. I don't think enough people want them to justify their existence much longer.

Nov 29, 2014permalink

"I don't think enough people want them to justify their existence much longer."
For sure, 1/1.7" cameras with small range and slow zoom have no future. But unlike you, I think there is still a market for cameras like the DMC-LF1 or Stylus 1... I would like to buy a Stylus 1, but price is still higher than a entry level DSLR. Is it a sign that there are many people who want it ? ;-)

Nov 29, 2014permalink

I think it's a sign that it doesn't have a good future. But I'm not sure how $485 is a bad price! Get one!

Nov 29, 2014permalink

Price is $649 on Amazon US ?!
I live in France. Price here, including VAT, is 500 euros, about $620...

Nov 30, 2014*permalink

Sounds like a bargain.

Nov 30, 2014permalink

A bargain ? I bought my XZ-2, new, 250 euros. That was a bargain !

Dec 1, 2014permalink

Then you're in trouble. Buy the Panasonic GM5 instead and you can also get interchangeable lenses.

Dec 1, 2014permalink

Andrew Butterfield

As others are saying, the highly processed 'raw' files are a big disappointment. Suggests the sensor isn't up to it.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

What a mighty NR!
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=samsung_nxmini&attr13_1=sony_dscrx100m3&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr13_3=canon_g7x&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=-0.5581628183467869&y=0.30402834763148073

That raw NR can be turned down significantly, and doesn't really appear until ISO 1600 when turned down, and then isn't noticeable until ISO 4000.

So something wasn't set right in the raws you have.

(ACR 8 used for extraction.)

If you're going by the DPR raws, which I don't have, know that DPR also got horrid performance at higher ISOs out of the Nikon 1 V3, whereas if setup correctly it is likely the best 1" sensored camera for high ISOs--though now there's the Canon G7X.

(I suspect the Nikon 1 V3's "Active-D" feature was turned on, but there's also this mysterious "gain control" feature that Adobe Bridge sees in the meta data of raws from Nikon, Oly+Pana cameras. But it doesn't' appear to be related to "Active-D" being on or off. In short, don't pay a lot of attention to the raws DPR posts--or look for confirmation, or contradiction, elsewhere with other raws.)

Nov 27, 2014permalink

olypan

Purchased this a few months back. It could have been the perfect shirt pocket camera (with the 9mm) but the noise reduction pervades both raw and jpeg. I would rather have a gritty detail than blur. If samsung would only offer an off option in a firmware update they may sell more.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Free Jazz

Nov 27, 2014permalink

iAPX

Incredible to pretend to have RAW and treat it like that: maybe it's also to do lens correction on the fly.

But clearly at 1600 ISO this "RAW" could not be processed correctly as it have lost all it's informations!

EDIT: event at ISO 100 there's noise reduction at work!

Nov 27, 2014*permalink

Free Jazz

The raw file is abnormally clean and lack of detail as expected.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

arbuz

it would be great if you can support your claim by directing us to specific scene comparison with e.g. sony rx100 III. I did it and did not see Raw detail difference. Enlighten me, where should I look.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Mike FL

Just like Pana CM1, there is no lens cap for 9mm lens? iPhone has no lens cap, but it is made from highly scratch resistance crystal.

Interesting design.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Sonyshine

Samsung has not taken 1" sensor cameras forward, which is a shame.

It shows what a good job Sony did with their RX100's and Nikon did with their 1 series when they first came out.

I had high hopes for this little Samsung and now I am disappointed.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Raw is not raw on this one. Oye. A lot of NR in the raw test scene images.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

I see this camera more like a 2X teleconverter for NX lenses...
Its native lenses are anyway little too large to be truly pocketable (9-27 is about the size of Sony's APS-C 16-50 collapsible zoom)

Nov 27, 2014permalink

These lenses are about the same length, but the 9-27 about half the diameter and less than half the weight.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#545.413,535.360,ha,t

Nov 28, 2014permalink

beavertown

Dpreview is moving forward by reviewing such camera.

Good job!

Nov 27, 2014permalink

iAPX

Interesting idea. The camera as a peripheral for the smartphone.

Would like to see others proposals in this direction, as I am working on that with my pocket camera, y smartphone and my tablet , to see how to optimize the potential of them all in any situation.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Marty4650

This certainly looks like an interesting "pocket rocket."

It has a few rough edges, but the second or third generation should be pretty good.

The 1" sensor might be much more common in a few more years.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Richard Murdey

It occurs to me that the root problem here is dpreview itself can't decide what it wants these cameras to be: full dSLR control in a pocket package? Just a really good point-and-shoot? Something else entirely? and as a consequence the reviews come off as inconsistent and just, well, off somehow.

First the Nikon 1 models, now the NX... you guys just don't seem to "get" these cameras at all.

Nov 26, 2014*permalink

richsfusa

dpreview seems quite clear. perhaps it is your interpretation that is "somewhat off."

Nov 27, 2014permalink

OMG, now everyone's going to produce "selfie" cameras to support that ill idea to shoot oneselves. Human vanity must have gone a long way to reach today's levels.

Nov 26, 2014permalink

jnd

It's actually very useful for couples or travelling friends or long distance relationships or for people who are separated for another reason. In this age it's easy to stay connected through the internet so why not share the connection through some photos? Not everyone uses it to show off their face in every post on their profile.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Vlad S

Vanity has reached mythical proportions already in the antiquity: recall the original Narcissus.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

anthony mazzeri

Vladimir, I assume those liking your comment don't realise the irony you using a selfie as your own avatar.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

citrontokyo

anthony, it's only a "selfie" if you take it yourself. otherwise, it's a portrait. can you prove it's the former?

Nov 27, 2014permalink

I'd be very pleased if all girls posting selfies on the internet would use this camera instead of 1/4" camera of smartphone.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Anthony, it's not a selfie ;)

Nov 27, 2014permalink

0MitchAG

How is it vanity? I for one would be quite disappointed to go somewhere and have no photos of me actually there!

Nov 27, 2014permalink

On Facebook few people look at posts that don't have a face in them.There's nothing wrong with the selfie for this purpose.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

Well, I don't live for Facebook. :)

Nov 28, 2014permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Vladimir is correct. No one ever used a self timer to photograph them self, or even asked a stranger to take the photo until this current generation. /s

Dec 3, 2014*permalink

Actually, someone surely did. But on a special occasion or at a special place. Not 45 selfie shots per week in a bathroom.

Dec 3, 2014permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

You really should top taking so many bathroom selfies. The point is that people have always taken photos of themselves.

Dec 4, 2014permalink

0MitchAG

Was the '/s' for sarcasm?

Dec 4, 2014permalink

Darngooddesign: yeah, you got the point... [sarcasm]

Dec 4, 2014permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Those darn kids and their enjoying of photography in a way you don't approve of. They should all get haircuts and focus on approved subject matter. /s

Dec 5, 2014*permalink

Gesture

That's a Silver Award winner. But Samsung NX owners enjoy great value.

Nov 26, 2014permalink

I don't see the Silver award now. Did they remove it.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

Gesture

Sorry, meant to say I believe it should have been a Silver Award winner; emulates with a different sensor size what Panasonic is doing in making cameras good + compact.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

Thanks, I feel with faster menus and higher screen resolution it would be a sure Silver.

Nov 28, 2014permalink

bluevellet

Pretty short review. I expected a bit more info.

IQ seems pretty good, with the 17mm prime, until maybe ISO 3200

Nov 26, 2014permalink

Felix E Klee

Well, in the title it says "mini review".

Nov 26, 2014permalink

It's a nice camera, though Samsung should allow NR to be turned off fully when shooting raw. Perhaps that feature will come with new firmware.

The kitzoom and the 17mm lens are both optically very good. Not so much the 9mm lens, which comes in one kit.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

I've never had any buffering problems when shooting raws with this.

I don't like that in raw, NR gets applied at higher ISOs, starting around 1600, even if you turn off NR.

"The Samsung doesn't really have an answering marquee feature except, perhaps, its 180-degree-tilting 'selfie' LCD — useful, but hardly an equalizer. "

Except Samsung has an optically excellent f/1.8 17mm lens, nearly PanaLeica level, but unlike good PanaLeica lenses it costs $250. There is no Nikon 1 system equivalent. And the Samsung kitzoom is optically better than either the kitzoom with the Nikon 1 V3 or the Panasonic GM1, or GM5 now.

So it's the lenses, not so much the body, but at least Samsung has an idea of how to do a touch screen menu.

Nov 26, 2014permalink

ambercool

I'm curious, have you owned the Nikon 1 V3, GM1, and GM5 with kit zoom to make these comparisons? More importantly, how long have you owned these three cameras in comparison to the Samsung for real world use?

Nov 26, 2014permalink

No, but I've played with both the V3 and GM1's lens extensively, albeit indoors.

The Panasonic's lens isn't real special. That is all, it's not horrid or anything like say the kitzoom on the Sony A6000.

The V3's kitzoom has been trouble for every online user and me. Anyhow only very very expensive Nikon lenses can begin to compete with good cheap Samsung lenses.

Own? I try not to, much too expensive and a waste in the case of the Nikon's kitzoom. That 32mm 1 system lens is good, but it's nearly $1000 and I've not tried the 18.5mm--I read elsewhere it's good.

Nov 26, 2014*permalink

Richard Murdey

"Except Samsung has an optically excellent f/1.8 17mm lens, n... There is no Nikon 1 system equivalent."

Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5/1.8 @ $200

Nov 26, 2014permalink

Richard,

And note where I noted the existence of that lens further down, well before you corrected me. (But yes, I was wrong to not check.)

The fact remains that the kitzoom on the V3 is not good. While the Samsung NX Mini's is.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

arbuz

@Richard Murdey - Samsung has OIS. Definitive advantage.

Nov 27, 2014permalink

Todd3608

I doubt enthusiasts and those who want manual control are really the target for this camera.

Nov 26, 2014*permalink

True, but two of the lenses are real draws. And the camera shoots nice raws until it starts with autoNR.

Nov 26, 2014permalink

Richard Murdey

and what dpreview doesn't itself understand is that there exists enthusiasts who don't want manual controls on this class of camera, or that 95% of the "enthusiasts" who claim to need these manual controls will not, in fact, ever use them.

Nov 27, 2014*permalink

anthony mazzeri

Todd, actually they are. Search youtube reviews of the NX300 and lo and behold you'll see a teenage girl vlogger who bought the pink one listing this as one of its main features after the flip-up screen - i.e., in manual it doesn't keep refocussing as she moves while recording her vlog.

Nov 27, 2014permalink