Just Posted: Samsung NX200 Studio Comparison for JPEG

As I see there are a lot of issues and mistakes with NX200 test. We don't know if they were intentional or accidental though.
It's a shame and ridiculous that, considered as a serious digital camera review, Dpreview produces such a mistakes (only!) with Samsung cameras (NX10 and NX200).
Dpreview must make a new and fair test with NX200, and delete erroneous one, and make an official statement about that mistake.

Nov 5, 2011permalink

Jon Rty

Could you be a bit more specific?

Nov 6, 2011permalink

This isn't a test, it's a posting of jpg comparisons.

Also you need to point out specific mistakes, I see one you skipped the NX100, which was reviewed here.

Nov 6, 2011permalink

"Also you need to point out specific mistakes, I see one you skipped the NX100, which was reviewed here."

Kuturgan only seems to have posted pro-Samsung opinions here and doesn't seem to have considered the fact that even the Oly m43 cams with their three-year-old sensor produce way better images between 400 and 1600... That is, I wouldn't expect any answer to your question :)

Nov 7, 2011permalink

ihkim

@Jon, Please go to DPR Samsung forum, you will see bunch of specific issues about the test.

Most significant mistake is NX200 samples have focused significantly at front.

Nov 7, 2011permalink

ihkim:

This in NOT really a test, all sorts of things are missing that would be in a full review. RAWs to start with. General comments on noise reduction for example.

Nov 7, 2011permalink

ihkim

@HowaboutRAW

DPR mentioned they are studio samples and titled "Comparison". What should be based for this kind of comparison? Basic rule for any comparison is put the comparison in same conditions. How can this be titled comparison with unfocused shots with different kind of lenses? All u4/3 uses Olympus 50mm Macro, Pentax K-5 uses Pentax 50mm Macro. Even NX10 and NX100 used Pentax 50mm Macro with NX-K adapter. But, NX200 uses non-macro Pentax lens. Is this comparison for camera or lens, or what?

DPR mentioned they will retest and post samples again. We will see.

Nov 8, 2011*permalink

ihkim:

So why are you just now commenting on DPReview's habit of simply posting whatever examples? This is not really new.

Anyhow: These are jpegs and no one should take them seriously, so if you can't take the whole picture seriously why care about the lens or some focus problem? And that focus problem you posit could most certainly be an artifact of the jpeg recording process.

Nov 8, 2011permalink

RLPhotoAndImaging

This is a new camera? Horrible!

Nov 4, 2011permalink

It can be explained by the test mistake.
I'm sure Dpreview will make a new fair test asap.

Nov 5, 2011permalink

I'm sure that Dpreview did some mistake when shot with NX200. On the other forums NX200 looks really better (actually more than one stop for ISO) and sharper than NX100. At low ISO (till 1600) NX200 looks even sharper than NEX-5n (based on raw files).
I hope Dpreview will make over NX200 test and will as well show images from RAW files.
For me RAW image is the best indicator of camera performance, cause I almost always shoot RAW.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

These appear to be straight jpgs not from RAW, do you have a RAW converter for NX200 RAW?

Nov 6, 2011*permalink

migus

As shipped, my NX100 OOC jpg was quite bad. But it improved considerably in the 100-1600 after i disabled all the NR, tweaked the WB (default is biased for the asian perception, colder) and a few others settings - sharpness, contrast, saturation. Now i'm getting decent results, more than honorable in the APS class. True that i still like the 5D, but it's too heavy for my needs.

One shouldn't read anything about a sensor from some unspecified JPGs, since too many parms influence the JPEG engine.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Zdman

So is this is in-camers JPG vs Adobe Raw JPG's (The Dpreview writer says that ACR doesn't support the samsung raw files yet). That is clearly not a fair test but I suppose this article is bait for lots of comments from Nex/Nx/m43 fans.

In reply to others comments on the sensor even if the competing brands are also using in camera JPG this tellls us more about the cameras JPG's (ie that the NX200 is really bad at JPG's) than anything intereting about the sensor. Camera manufactures use wildly different settings for each camera and in this case the NX200 has over agressive luminance reduction. The NX100 uses very little luminance reduction so it actually looks better.If you're going to compare sensor performance wait until you can compare raws converted with adobe.

Nov 3, 2011*permalink

Right, getting tired of these comments on jpgs and DPReview needs to be really clear about how they processed the images and what file type those images started out as.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Jon Rty

No, it's straigt out of the camera JPGs taken with the default settings vs SOOC default JPGs. Just like it has always been. Completely fair. Only if you switch the other cameras to RAW do you see the JPGs as processed from RAWs by ACR.

And of course it just tells you about the JPGs. That's the whole point of the JPG comparison, to show you what the default JPGs look like. DPReview also does a RAW comparison, which is what you should use to compare sensor performance. But you'll have to wait for ACR to support the NX200 before they can publish it.

Nov 6, 2011*permalink

Jon Rty:

You get of course that jpgs can start out as RAW files too?

Nov 6, 2011permalink

Wow.. even the smaller-CCD (m4/3) E-PL3 is better between ISO400 and 3200 (at and above 3200, the NX200 is somewhat better). The 5N is better at every ISO, particularly over 400. There's simply no comparison - the only camera the NX200 seems to be better is the NX100...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Eugenio Guarente

Put the viewer over the little blue earth at the top of the photo, over the Indian Ocean letters.. Select ISO 400, 800, 1600. And compare with the Sony NEX-5N. The Sony wins on every aspect. IQ, Sharpness, Color.. Etc.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Look at the purple thread in the black box at ISO 800, then notice how the Sony handles the edge of the box. Also look at the brush on the left at ISO 800; there the Sony Nex 5n and ironically the Samsung NX100 really shine.

Anyhow, you really have to wait for RAWs that you can process with ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to tiff before making any serious conclusions. What you're seeing, and don't like about the Samsung NX200, simply may not be there in tiff files.

Though Samsung would probably have been better off sticking with a 16MP sensor like the Sony Nex 5n and unlike the Sony Nex 7. Then there's the whole Sony Nex series lens problem, a deficiency which the Samsung NX series doesn't have.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Daniel1977

Some of my photographs, various lenses. Macro with reverse-mounted 20mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didmyself/sets/72157627822053437/
Pictures in this folder are exported from SRW to JPG with Samsung RAW Converter, processed at Lightroom as JPG and exported with 80% quality.
Currently, Lightroom does not support RAW files directly from the camera.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Is Samsung still using a variation of Silkypix as the RAW converter? That's the RAW converter which comes with the NX100. Silkypix is truly awful, that's why I ask. (I've also used Silkypix with another camera, so I'm sure.)

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Also why only 80% quality for the Flikr jpegs? Any chance you can post the Tiffs on Flickr?

Nov 3, 2011permalink

sony1799

Why wasn't the kit lens used on nx lens?
Waiting to see raw samples.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

wetsleet

Interesting how much disagreement there is about the IQ of this camera. One poster even comments that it would be better if DPR could "bring back the simply noise comparison with the head/grey/black 100% crops.. that was the easiest to compare by far!" Which made me wonder - easier than what? Easier than discerning a difference in IQ in real images?

If there is little agreement about whether or not this camera has good IQ, and if it is just so difficult to actually notice IQ differences in actual pictures that some kind of artifice is required to make the difference noticeable, are we not all barking up the wrong tree?

DPR has a long and honourable history of quantification of IQ metrics, but maybe IQ is now generally of such a high standard that it little differentiates one camera from another. Maybe the time has come to focus far more on usability, reactivity, convenience, flexibility, adaptability, durability etc. Certainly the majority of my 'failures' have little to do with IQ.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

aeolos

my thought was just that this test now is three dimensional..
and all cameras seem to have slighty different focus point so some people choose one part of the image and claim that the camera A looks great but in another part of the image camera B looks better.. you know?

Nov 2, 2011permalink

aeolos

low iso looks great..
high iso jpeg looks not so nice.. but that is the case with most jpegs and improves a lot with raw

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Here, however, the effects of high NR are already visible at ISO400... even the smaller-sensor E-PL3 is better at ISO400/800/1600 than this one, let alone the 5N... it's either the really bad JPEG engine of the camera - or the sensor...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Camp Freddy

The base ISO, people seem to ignore, there seems to be a lack of sharpness and maybe this is micro cotnrast. Also colours seem relatively muted.

These are both perhaps addressed with settings as by far the majority of users will no doubt never go near raw.

ISO 1600 in the dark and shadows looke better than the other latest out-the-bag , the V1/ j1.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

agilestyle

Better than NX100, but JPEG at higher ISO are very worse than Nex 5N or even G3: the noise control is strongly visible even at ISO400.
I suspect RAW files are much better.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

aeolos

I wish dpreview would bring back the simply noise comparison with the head/grey/black 100% crops.. that was the easiest to compare by far!

Nov 2, 2011permalink

wetsleet

if the differences are too difficult to see, are they worth worrying about?

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Simon Joinson

we still do it in reviews - this isn't a review

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Juraj Lacko

Quite impressive high ISO performance compared to canon 5d2

Nov 2, 2011permalink

grafli

I hope you're joking...
not even the NEX 5n comes close to the EOS 5D MKII

Nov 2, 2011permalink

ashwins

Actually NEX 5n comes pretty close...

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Juraj Lacko

jpeg is soft and raw will be noisier of course too. What i ment was how technology improved in last few years and even ff has not too much on top. With good Raw processing its possible to get near to that FF performance. I ve only compared it to 5d2 cos its similar in Mpx size. More adequate would be to compare it to new sony nex7 as they have same size sensors

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I find the iq until iso 32 worse than the E-pl3. Checked iq with the E-p1, E-p1 has more noise on high iso, but also more detail (on less megapixel!) -look at picture of woman left to playcard.

Off course you also see bad lens performance (at least) in corners (Pentax seams to use 50mm 1.4 with k-adapter. Wonder why they that lens instead of the 50mm 2.8 macro they used for the nx100 test. Details in corners with Nx100 at iso 100 looks a bit better -look at Kodak logo in right top corner.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

MaikeruN

ISO200 was enough to make me vomit. Period.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

wetsleet

... out of envy, or disgust?
The ISO performance looked very good to me.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

"The ISO performance looked very good to me."

Of which camera? That of the NX200 it's dreadful. Even the E-PL3 is much better between 400 and 1600...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

I found NX200's ISO performance is almost better than EP-3 and NEX-5n till ISO1600.
It is more than enough for me because I rarely use even ISO1600.
For me NX200 outperforms other sony and M4/3 EVIL cameras.
I'm totally satisfied with what I see.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

agilestyle

R u joking or what?
Noise control is very intrusive and visible even at ISO 400 (see the banknotes on the widget). Comparing the NX200 with the Panny G3 (that has a smaller sensor) is clear how the former suffers in the IQ factor.
I suspect Samsung needs some more experience in the camera area.
Best regards

Nov 2, 2011permalink

ashwins

Very aggressive noise reduction—not very pleasing IQ at ISO1600

Nov 2, 2011permalink

"Noise control is very intrusive and visible even at ISO 400 (see the banknotes on the widget). "

Agreed... the lack of horizontal lines on the banknote even at as low as ISO400 (!) tell us all...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Plasmoic

at iso1600 not much different than P&Ss like LX5 or S95

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Gee, I own an LX5 and it's just barely usable, with firmware updated, at 1600 ASA.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

jj74e

Definintely not as good as Sony 5N, but also better than M4/3 and NX100. If you compare the NX200 and NX100, I would say that the NX200 definitely needs more sharpening as well as better processing- at ISO 800, even the NX100 shows more detail just in nature of how the photo is processed.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I don't know why dpreview selected the Olympus E-PL3 for comparison - it still uses the same 4-years old 12MP sensor. Compare NX200 to the Panasonic G3 and you wil be amazed at how much worse Samsung is.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

It's comparison tool, you can test every camera against every camera in the selection list.

If I test the G3 against the E-pl3, iq of the E-pl3 is better at least till iso 1600. In RAW the G3 is better.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

datiswous:

There are examples of NX200 RAWs, where? That's what you implied by saying: "In RAW the G3 is better". Also you can open NX200 RAWs? How?

Nov 2, 2011permalink

HowaboutRAW:

I was talking about the Pana and Olymp.

I was saying this becouse strata83 was giving the impression the iq of the G3 is better then the E-pl3. I think it's the opposite.

But I shouldn't have said so since this tread is about the NX200. Sorry!

Nov 2, 2011permalink

"I don't know why dpreview selected the Olympus E-PL3 for comparison - it still uses the same 4-years old 12MP sensor. Compare NX200 to the Panasonic G3 and you wil be amazed at how much worse Samsung is."

Well, even the E_PL3 is better between 400 and 1600 - check out e.g. the horizontal lines on the banknote...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

Jarda_Houdek

Looking at ISO 1600 the NX200 produces dull images with too much detail loss and ugly color blotches. On the other hand NEX-5N is overcooked and oversharpened with some detail loss in shadows.
When I added DSLRs to the mix, they still win by some margin, EOS 7D and Nikon D7000 are very good and K-5 has the best jpg of them all.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Vlad S

I really want Samsung to succeed, especially appreciating how they try to create lenses driven by enthusiasts needs, but their sensors really seem to be a step behind even the smaller micro 4/3.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Michael_13

Samsung should cut down the megapixels. What's the point of 20 MP?
Most buyers would prefer 12-14MP with less noise.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

PinkertOn

At the moment I am looking at studio shot comparison comparing NX200, NEX-5N, E-PL3 and GF1 (which I own) and I must say that quality of all pictures is really great. Especially considering that prices of these cameras are acceptable. Today's digital cameras amaze me...

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Neoasphalt

I was considering NX200, but now I am in big doubt. As I understood NX200 menu system is also not improved much - 8 clicks (plus adjustment with wheel) to compensate flash level on NX100 is a nightmare.
Dumb megapixel race degraded potentially nice camera - if Samsung would stick with 14-16 MP much less noise reduction would be necessary.
Only hope that they will release more models and some of them will be with much less megapixels and extremely low noise, as they stated that "Samsung is “determined” to be #1 in the mirrorless camera market by 2012 and be “the best selling camera brand” by 2015". If even Olympus has three sister PEN models, then Samsung have to have at least five parallel NX models to achieve their aimed heights.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

random78

Thanks for posting these! But definitely looking forward to the RAW files as well. NX200 clearly has less noise than NX100 in these JPEGS samples but at the same time it has the softest outputs of all the 4 cameras. It is hard to say whether the softness is due to lack of sharpening or due to aggressive noise reduction or both. Either way we are likely to see more noise with the sharpened images. Keeping the fingers crossed on the RAW quality. Not expecting it to match the latest 16MP sony but a clear improvement over NX100 and matching the last-gen Sony/Canon sensors would be good :)

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Jarda_Houdek

I don't think low sharpening is to be blamed, it is probably the case of bad noise reduction. Some improvement over NX100 is obvious but still can't help being disapointed.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I think the soft image of NX200 can be explained by not the best lens 18-55mm which was used during the test. Samsung's 20-50mm and 30mm pancake outperforms competitors by sharpness. So I suggest to Dpreview to use in their test 20-50mm or 30mm lenses. They are really cool and come with the camera kit.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Kuturgan: the K-mount 50mm 1.4 was used not the kitzoom.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

"think the soft image of NX200 can be explained by not the best lens 18-55mm which was used during the test."

Disagreed. At ISO100, the results aren't worse than those of the 5N - that is, the lens are sharp enough. It's the NR that kicks in very heavily at 400 and above, removing almost every detail.

Nov 3, 2011permalink

KingDon

Samsung is getting "better" at "high ISO" by mislabeling ISOs!!!!

Model: NX200
Exposure Time: 1/200
ISO Speed Ratings: 1600
(According to DPR,, set at F8 -- Pentax lens with an adapter).

Model: NEX-5N
Exposure Time: 1/400
F Number: 8
ISO Speed Ratings: 1600

Despite getting twice more light, NX200 doesn't even look anywhere close to the Sony's 16 MP sensor.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

If it's an electronic working adapter and lens (which I think is), I think this can't be tricked. I would work the same as the 50mm f2 macro Olympus camera's use in the test.

Btw. the Nex 5N also uses a 50mm 1.8 sam lens via adapter.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

tkbslc

This seems like typical Samsung JPEG. I will wait for the RAW before passing judgement. Samsung cameras have always had a JPEG engine that does not do well at pixel level detail.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

PaulRivers

You know what's really weird?

*Try comparing vs the Nikon d7000*. At base iso the d7000, despite being a well respected dslr, is always as bad or worse than the nx200. At high iso the d7000 is occasionally better but it's usually close.

The Nikon d7000 is a well respected camera...I just wonder what is going on with the shots and comparisons when the d7000 appears to often do worse...do sometimes the shot with the camera gets the picture in focus better than others?

Nov 2, 2011permalink

magnumgf

Well respected does not necessarily equal good. Nikon IS a well respected brand. Perhaps that means they can get away with things that other less respected manufacturers can't.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Nikon D7000 is a great DSLR - at base ISO the NX200 has the goods.

Try checking the samples at ISO 800 however and make sure you are sitting down...

Nov 2, 2011permalink

NorthwestF

Please DPR post Nex-7 images, so we can compare the 24 MP (without the SLT mirror) to the 20 MP sensor.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

magnumgf

Interesting. People are saying this is bad/terrible. What do those same people think of the Nikon V1 then? The Samsung stands head and shoulders above that thing...

Nov 2, 2011permalink

IcyVeins

And the V1 is an even bigger ripoff for $900, when you could get M4/3 or NEX for less money and better lens selection and better IQ.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

harrisoncac

Indeed. Anyone that wants a camera will first check the price, even those Nikon fanboys. Or Nikon just wants to use and rip off their fanboys.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

tankahn

When the overall response is negative probably the best defense is to throw muck at other brands.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

That would be a beta version of Adobe Camera RAW that DPReview be using? Right?

How about instead of jpgs, some tiffs? And tell us all the specific ACR luminance settings.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

Uri Ben

The 200 is really bad ( !!!) on high ISO ( even at not so high - 800 ) while the NEX 5n is no less then excellent all over the scale !!! - I was waiting a long time for the 200, Not any more ... I ll buy the 5n or will wait for the NEX 7.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

Go ahead sony fanboy.
NX200 is better than NEX-5n till ISO1600. I never use ISO more than 1600 so for Samsung did a great job! If we consider as well a high MP (20vs16) NX200 is just fantastic!!!

Nov 2, 2011permalink

"NX200 is better than NEX-5n till ISO1600. I never use ISO more than 1600 so for Samsung did a great job! If we consider as well a high MP (20vs16) NX200 is just fantastic!!!"

Are you joking?! Even the E-PL3 (with its vastly outdated, crappy sensor) is better between 400 and 1600, let alone the 5n...

Nov 3, 2011permalink

jymmeh88

Certain parts of the image seem more in focus than others. I do not mean that the sensor just plain sucks, I just think it was pre-focused then stopped down to take the picture. It is possible that the lens focused more in the front than towards the back of the image?

Nov 2, 2011permalink

danaceb

Wow, this is terrible. Looks like Samsung just had their 14mp sensor stretch to 20mp. When it comes to TVs, phones and well everything else, Samsung shames Sony with its superiority. However even with a strong start into EVIL with the NX10, this NX200 is a complete and utter joke in comparison to the NX5N. They didnt even bother to give it an EVF option, fricken OLED king samsung.

Oh and people from the wait'n'see tribe, sorry but the proof is right here before you this camera is a flop. Those JPEG results are sooo soo bad that there is no way RAW could be much of an improvement. I own an NX10, the jpeg engine is bad, but not this horrendous. Also I'm not seeing the low ISO detail others are.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

Spoken like a typical Sony NEX fanboy. How's that native glass working for you on the NEX, fanboy?

JPEG may be important to someone who doesn't really use their camera (like many of the NEX troll-types), but the fact remains that it's not representative of what the sensor is really capable of.

PS: Yes, the JPEG engine in the existing NX line is roughly the same, maybe a bit less smoothing in mid ISO but no better at higher.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I see you're pretty quick at calling others 'fanboys' for stating the obvious. Open your eyes, those JPEG samples are horrid. Even NX100 is better at ISO 400 and ISO 800.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

NorthwestF

Everyone who says mentions Nex is a Nex fanboy according to senseless, even if they don't own the camera.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

(unknown member)

@NorthwestF
I think 'mentions' Nex is an understatement. You and others are endlessly posting Nex details on the one Samsung forum trying to slag off NX. In fact if anyone wants any details on the Sony Nex system the Samsung forum is most probably the best place to go. No other camera makes/types are mentioned any way as near as much as Nex on the Samsung forum and you are a prime culprit.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

ISO 100 and 200 look very good. ISO 400 and higher are MUCH worse than just about everything else. Samsung needs to fire their JPEG engine engineers and hire somebody from Olympus to do the job.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Samsung does need work on their higher ISO JPEG NR engine, definitely - but to say it's 'MUCH worse than just about anything else' at ISO 400 is heavy exaggeration. At 3200, it's certainly no worse than an E-P3, but it can't compete with the likes of the NEX-5N.

RAW will no doubt be the camera's strong suit, as it has been with the earlier NX models.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I'm not interested in the E-P3 and its 4 years old sensor. At ISO 400 and higher, the NX200 seems to be noticeably worse than the Panasonic GH2 and the Panasonic G3. They both are older and have smaller sensors.

I also suspect Samsung is using that much noise reduction because their sensor is very noisy at higher ISOs. I will try to find a RAW converter that supports both the GH2 and the NX200 and compare them.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I would suggest 4 stops is a pretty big gap - NEX5N at 6400 looks the same as NX200 at ISO 800 plus there is a full stop of exposure discrepancy throughout the aperture range further in favor of the NX200.

True, RAW will be closer - time will tell.

Nov 2, 2011*permalink

"Samsung does need work on their higher ISO JPEG NR engine, definitely - but to say it's 'MUCH worse than just about anything else' at ISO 400 is heavy exaggeration. At 3200, it's certainly no worse than an E-P3, but it can't compete with the likes of the NEX-5N."

You seem to have paid attention NOT to mention the E-PL3 is MUCH better between 400 and 1600... it's only at 3200 that the IQ of the Oly starts to quickly degrade.....

Nov 3, 2011permalink

tkpenalty

That noise pattern is very different to the some of the samples that we've seen on the forums. this looks like it was shot with a preproduction firmware? RAWs please :)

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Kelcey Smith

These were shot using firmware version 1.01.

We'll be able publish the Raw images as soon as we get ACR support for the NX200.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Actually, when taking into account the exposure differences and downsizing the NX200 images to 16mp, they are only 4 stops worse than the 5N. Pretty trivial.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Interesting, can't seem to read the EXIF info on the NX200 files - no lens information or aperture information.

What is interesting in the whole exposure series, the NX200 exposures are consistently twice as long as the 5N:

ISO 100 1/25 vs 1/13
ISO 800 1/200 vs 1/100
ISO 3200 1/800 vs 1/400)

So assuming they were both shot at F8 (and I doubt the Samsung was shot at F11), the Samsung is overstating its ISO by a full stop.

Ouch.

Nov 1, 2011permalink

Kelcey Smith

You are correct about the aperture being set at F8. Unfortunately the camera does not record lens data while using the K-Mount adapter.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

I really wish you guys would just use kit lenses and not muck around with adapted stuff and variable exposures. The kit is more representative of what most people will be getting and the correction is all dialed in with no need for adapters. The focus might be more accurate, too.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Thanks Kelcey, so it looks like the NX200 is a stop less sensitive than the 5N at all ISOs.

E.g. An ISO 800 shot with the 5N will yield the same exposure as the NX200 at ISO 1600.

Interesting approach by Samsung.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

According to DxOMark, NEX-5N's sensitivity is already overrated. Its ISO 800 is more like ISO 530. Does it mean that Samsung NX200 at ISO 800 is like ISO 265? Weird.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

(unknown member)

High ISO seems to be bad, but colors are very nice.

Nov 1, 2011permalink

IcyVeins

The high ISO are even worse than m4/3. However ISO 100-200 actually looks even slightly better than NEX 5N. Hopefully it's just a really crappy JPEG processor

Nov 1, 2011*permalink

ThePhilips

> The high ISO are even worse than m4/3.

Depends on what you look at in the high ISO shots.

There are two things I generally look at: the details retention and the color fidelity.

My personal (aka biased) observations from the ISO 3200 - by comparing the ISO 3200 shots to ISO 100/200 ones.

NX200 has good color fidelity and poor detail retention. (NR is waay too strong.)

G3 has mediocre color fidelity and good detail retention.

E-P3 has poor color fidelity and mediocre detail retention.

NEX-5N - both are good.

Details retention is better in m43 - color fidelity is better in NX200.

And, yes, I too hope it is just the crappy JPEG engine. Or too much of NR is applied by default.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

Yeah - that's some pretty impressive stuff at low ISO...

High ISO....eeek.

Nov 1, 2011permalink

sadwitch

That;s what i thought too. But low iso looks really detailed.

That said, the NEX-5N looks really good especially in hi-iso area.

Nov 1, 2011*permalink

CriticalI

Ouch - lots of high ISO smoothing even at 800!

Nov 1, 2011permalink

Simon Joinson

yes, we're hoping to have raw files for you to see next week - should tell us a lot more.

Nov 1, 2011permalink

Frankly speaking, even at ISO 400 there is no image quality to speak of.

Nov 2, 2011permalink

What does 'no image quality to speak of' mean? Fanboyspeak? It looks a little heavily smoothed at 400, but otherwise in line with the other cameras in that class. It's JPEG - what do you want?

We don't know what the in camera settings were, either. With JPEG, that can mean the difference between really good, or really bad, depending on the camera.

Nov 2, 2011permalink