[News] NX Future Briefing in NX11 Introduction Meeting

Gh1 and Gh2 especially show that m43 is not at the end of the line as it is better than GF1 and GF2. Despite a much higher pixelcount.

You can see this in the graphs below.

The red is the Gf2, the green the EPl2, the yellow the GH2 and the blue the Sony A55 (which is quite good for an APS C sensor). This is in RAW.

We see performance is similar for the EPL2, GH2 and A55. But from 1600 to 3200, GH2 and A55 distance themselves clearly from the EPL2 in black noise (I think this is important). And this is precisely the point where dpreview notes this in their conclusion of the EPL2

"At higher sensitivities the E-PL2 shows some low contrast detail smearing above ISO 400, and from ISO 1600 upwards there's visibly more shadow noise in the Olympus output than in some of the APS-C competition. Having said that the E-PL2's JPEG engine finds a very pleasant balance between noise reduction and detail retention and generates high ISO output that compares favorably to some of its direct competitors such as the Panasonic GF2."













m43s is not at the end and the GH2 clearly shows this.

However: if Samsung uses the best APS-c sensors currently available or make something comparable on their own, they will have better IQ (DR+noise that is in RAW) than any m43 cam. That is why I was a little dissapointed when NX10 came out.

But m43 is not about the best possible IQ. It is about the best balance between picture quality and system size. Here we see that the downside of APS-c is that the lenses especially cannot become smaller than m43 sensors using the same (best) technology available and same controls in the body.

Whether mirrorless APS-c + lenses is small enough or whether it isn't, is an individual choice.
Whether m43 IQ is good enough or not is also a personal choice.

But here, we see the current status of the NX10 and its sensor. The GF1 does better and this is in RAW. Note the remark at the bottom of the graph. I agree that noise performance in RAW does not mean better or worse IQ. Oly especially seems to show this.

Jorginho said:

I never said NX was bad. Further more: shots with the NEX will look nice all the way to ISO 3200 (noise performance especially). Pansaonic does reasonably well (but not as good as the NEX) till ISO 3200 provided it is the GH2.

With the G1, which I have, you better stay till ISO 800 which is equivalent to ISO 1250. Sad Panasoic changed its ISO rating on the GH2, which is misleading to us m43 users.

I think the NX will do slightly worse than the G1/G2, based on tests and solely looking at the noise performance. Total IQ is more than ISO just alone and to some extend personal preference of course.

I'd say the NEX is two stops better at high ISO than the NX or G1 and 1/2 a stop better than the GH2. Moreless.

If Samsung were to use the sensor now in the K5 Pentax in their next iteration of NX systems, I am 100% sure people who are now downplaying the not so good performance of the current NX, will be cheering. Will be full of excitement. I know most m43 users would nbe elated. Simply credit were credit is due: Sony does an excellent job with its APS-c sensors.

Click to expand...

Yes your points have merits, but I think the arguable issue is whether we buy cameras based on sensor alone.

I don't think that there is an argument here just issues on defining the subject, are we talking "camera experience as a whole" or is it "the sensor defines the camera"?

Does anyone know if there is any common method of defining just what ISO rating is in a camera? The original ratings seem to have been defined as a performance characteristic to ISO film ratings. Therefore film ISO 1600 was supposed to look much the same as digital ISO 1600 (ie: fast but grainy).

One might have thought that the comparison range would be fixed and (say) ISO 1600 would be a fixed standard for the look of fast grainy film.

Now we "expect" 1600 and even 3200 to be virtually noiseless. Film reference standard out of the window. So what are we going to get? Laughable noise free ISO 12800, or split the sides 25600? Noise free sensitivity speeds that film users could only dream about in their worst nightmares. How fast are we going to have to turn up our cameras so that we can get a bit of grain in our images?

Better if they were to use ISO ratings to have measured the grain introduced compared to film and just made the steps closer as the sensors and their controlling firmware advanced.

Myself I am looking forward to my first noiseless ISO 51200, that will do me fine even if I have to re-introduce some grain via post processing.

One man's noise free 1600 is another man's 800 or even 400. Was not so long ago when ISO 400 was about as far as the ISO dial went on a digital camera. Long time hence since I worked out that when colour digital noise intruded due to lack of light you switched to b&w capture and got to die for grainy images. I can hack a bit of grain, but I am not so sure about colour noise.

So I can live with the awful sensor in the NX10, nice camera, if a future model gets a sweeter sensor then that is a bonus, but don't fiddle too much with the body or design concept, they have it pretty well right. More than I can say about some others even though their sensor dials might twist further without incurring anguish.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

It isn't noticably better when we look at actually measuring ISO performance, as you can see I my previous message.

m43s not good enough? Let's see what dpreview and Michael reichmann, a very experienced photographer, says about it.

Dpreview on the E-PL2 :

"All in all the E-PL2's image quality should satisfy anyone but the most serious-pixel peepers and low-light shooters, for whom a bulky DSLR is much more likely to be the most suitable tool anyway. For everyone else the Olympus offers very decent image quality in a remarkably small package."

EPL2 compared to its mirrorless rivals

"However, if you're in the market for a mirrorless camera it's hard to go wrong with the E-PL2. It doesn't just look good when compared to its Olympus stablemates, but also cuts a fine figure next to the mirrorless competition from other manufacturers. In addition the range of accessories and Micro Four Thirds lenses is continuously growing, making Olympus PEN one of the currently largest and most flexible systems in the mirrorless camera sector."

Lets see what Michael Reichmann , hardly a labrat so to speak, says on the Gh2 after shooting more than 3000 pictures this winter in MExico:

IQ :

"But – is this difference visible? I would suggest that at normal print sizes (up to 13X19") the answer is likely no. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. Do you regularly print your work at 20X24" or larger? Great, then you should be using at least a 24MP camera and likely medium format. Smaller? Then, unless you're pixel peeping, the difference between APS-C and MFT is de minimis."

This last sentence is almost identical to dpreviews remark on the Olympus EPL2...

Sensor size and lenssize :

"The good news is that the smaller sensor size means smaller and lighter bodies, and much smaller and lighter lenses. For example, the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-f/5.6 is small enough to fit in the palm of ones hand and can be comfortably carried on a GH2 body all day. Since this lens is equivalent to a full-frame 200–600mm zoom the possibilities are amazing. Imagine going on safari with this lens as opposed to one of the behemoth 500 or 600mm lenses that one might otherwise have to schlep half-way round the world."

Conclusion

"Whether a GH2's image quality is good enough depends on one's definition of "good enough" and what one plans on doing with ones images. Because of my writing, reviewing, teaching and consulting activities I am fortunate to have access to a range of cameras, including a 60MP Phase One P65+ system, a 24MP Sony A900, and an 18MP Leica M9. Can the GH2 compare in image quality?

Well, that depends. It depends on the size of print being made, the amount of cropping, the ISO needed to be used and the intended purpose. These considerations then need to be contrasted with ones intended use for the images.

I could have brought any one of these systems with me to Mexico, but I choose the GH2 because of its suitability for the type of shooting that I intended on doing there. The Leica M9 would have been my ideal choice for street shooting, but I also wanted the use of long lenses for landscape work and video capability as well, so the Panasonic became my choice instead.

I have an Epson 3880 printer here, and have been making 13X19" prints, with a number of them now framed and hanging on my walls in San Miguel, as well as several given and sold to friends and acquaintances here. No one has yet said – Gee, I wish you'd shot these with a larger format camera.

Is the GH2's image quality good enough? Yes, it is for me, and for my purposes while I live in Mexico this winter. If I need higher resolution or better high ISO capability then I'll have other choices available down the road, but for the type of shooting that I bought it for it excels."

Note that quite some shots taken by Michael on its trip were shot at ISO 1600. SO at least until that setting, it did what it had to do for Michael. Now, when we look at ergonomics we can read how glad he is with the Gh2. He is in fact consulted by many some companies to help them design good bodies. And he raves about the Gh2.

You can read it here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_revisited.shtml

You seem to imply that m43, because of its smaller sensorsize and personal experience simply is not good enough. I take Michaels word over yours, given his experience over 30 years with all sorts of camera's.

Well, this part of the this thread started with someones wish to add the NEX sesnor in the NX cam, so we were talking about sensorsize+IQ.

Having said that, I agree with you that ergonomics are very very important. I just have quoted Michael Recihmann in a previous message, but he says this:

"Ergonomics

How a camera fits in ones hand, where the controls are found, and how they operate, is to my mind one of the most important aspects of a camera. It's right up there with image quality and reliability. If a camera gets in the way of fluid picture taking, then its a fail, even if the image quality is first rate.

I know that this isn't a universally held view, otherwise we wouldn't continue to have so many badly designed cameras. It also isn't something that a lot of newcomers to photography are all that sensitive to. I hear this all the time when I chastise certain designs, and people write that I must be biased against a particular company, because they don't see any problem.

Yes, I am biased. I'm biased toward good design and biased against poor ergonomics. And after using, testing, and writing about camera design for some 30 years I know a thing or two about it. (Some camera makers seem to agree, since they hire me from time to time as a consultant on new camera design).

So, with that off my chest, I'll say that the GH2's user interface design is among the best currently available in a digital camera. It doesn't have the elegance and stark simplicity of a Leica M9; in fact quite the opposite. But, given that it is a small form factor DSLR style camera with full features, not only for still photography but for video as well, it does a remarkable job of satisfy sometimes contradictory needs."

I have seen many people using and raving about Samsungs design on the NX10, so lets assume that what Michael writes about the Gh2 at least to the Samsung NX10 users applies for them aswell. We are in full agreement here. The NX11 has improved slightly on the grip or that is at least how Samsung feels about it. Nice to note they have a keen eye for ergonomics.

I have heard it mentioned here several times, and also on the m4/3 forum that Samsung does not have an ultra wide angle lens on their roadmap. I suppose there may be more than one roadmap floating around, but the one I have been looking at shows a 12-24 f4 lens due to be released in 2012. The 16-80 may be as wide as I will ever need, but it is nice to know there is a still wider angle lens being developed. Here is the link to the 2011-2013 Roadmap.

http://www.radiantlite.com/2010/11/samsung-nx-lens-roadmap-2011-2013-leaked.html
--
Dennis

DGB2 said:

http://www.radiantlite.com/2010/11/samsung-nx-lens-roadmap-2011-2013-leaked.html
Dennis

Click to expand...

Thanks Dennis. Long way to wait though...

--
Greetings, Aleksandar

Good to see we agree. I like the NX10 interface, I gave up on Panasonic some years ago because they kept changing their models too frequently for my taste. Good gear though, but as they have matured as a digital camera company innovation seems to be giving way to mass market bland. But that is from where I sit and I don't propose myself as an expert so I could be wrong as I have no interest in Panasonic products any more.

Samsung seem to be willing to push the envelope, if another sensor helps then bring it on.

Meanwhile I am rather fond of my NX10 whether or not the sensor could be improved.

Has very much the same endearing simple, well built feel, and ease of use that made the Ricoh GRD such a classic. Of course experts complained about it's "noisy" sensor but those who had one loved the grain in the b&w images and wistfully wish that this had not been eliminated by an improved sensor and better firmware.

So all is not lost for the NX10. Maybe by the NX15 we will have a complex, plastic fantastic, cheap as chips, camera and a huge amount of lenses to choose from? Of course the sensor will be the latest and noise free to ISO 6400.

I might guess there might then be some nostalgic rumblings for the simple, but solid and extremely well built NX10, a joy to use, and you did not have to post process in grain for interest (smile).

Get the original while you can guys they will become a classic soon enough.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

Tom Caldwell said:

Good to see we agree. I like the NX10 interface, I gave up on Panasonic some years ago because they kept changing their models too frequently for my taste. Good gear though, but as they have matured as a digital camera company innovation seems to be giving way to mass market bland.

Click to expand...

Well...it was shortlived, our agreement ;-)

I don't know what timespan you are talking about. But if we look at the
last few years, which company has been more innovative than Panasonic
and why?

The way I see it, they are the ones who started of a new system mirrorless.
Samsung and Sony followed.

Look at the EX1: it is an LX clone. NX simply follows what panasonic 9and to a lesser extent Oly)

initiated: a mirrorless cam. There is nothing innovative in Samsung. That of course does not mean

their products are therefore bad, useless, boring or whatever. They copy somehting an do it better.
But they are not innovative.

Now, apart form a whole new system, the G series incoporates a lot of that sets

it apart from DSLR and other systems, it is not only about getting rid of a mirror.

Like:
1 Exceptional EVF
2 Very good excecution of MF assist
3 Via adapter and MF assist, virtually all MF lenses are possible and they were
so right from the start. In a usefull way.
4 bestinclass video in GH1 and now GH2
5 lens line up geared to stills and another geared towards video use

6 Excellent liveview implementation, best inclass which shows shutterspeed effects (motion blur) and DOF
immediately.

Many of these implementations and the GH1/Gh2 as a cam are not geared towards massmarket.

They are too expensive for that, especially the 14-140 lens mounted on it with the GH1.

Suffice to say I disagree large. I do not mean that panny as a company is to be admired, is superior

or whatever. But I do feel that they have been the most innovative the last few years. And this,

in itself, does not mean that you therefor cannot produce cams that appeal to the massmarket.
The GF2 is a clear example of it.

Tom Caldwell said:

Samsung seem to be willing to push the envelope, if another sensor helps then bring it on.

Click to expand...

I see no sign of that actually. I like their lense line up on paper. That is for sure. Better than panasonics lineup, which is simply missing lenses from 50-120 mm

Tom Caldwell said:

Meanwhile I am rather fond of my NX10 whether or not the sensor could be improved.

Has very much the same endearing simple, well built feel, and ease of use that made the Ricoh GRD such a classic. Of course experts complained about it's "noisy" sensor but those who had one loved the grain in the b&w images and wistfully wish that this had not been eliminated by an improved sensor and better firmware.

Click to expand...

Filmgrain like is the same comment you can read about Panasonic G1/Gh1 series. Its highly personal.

Tom Caldwell said:

So all is not lost for the NX10. Maybe by the NX15 we will have a complex, plastic fantastic, cheap as chips, camera and a huge amount of lenses to choose from? Of course the sensor will be the latest and noise free to ISO 6400.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that the buit quality of the G series is mediocre? I don't agree with that. I showed that M Reichmann, who advises companies especially when it comes to camera design etc, disagrees aswell.

Tom Caldwell said:

I might guess there might then be some nostalgic rumblings for the simple, but solid and extremely well built NX10, a joy to use, and you did not have to post process in grain for interest (smile).

Get the original while you can guys they will become a classic soon enough.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

Click to expand...

There are always people longing for the past. Like LP records instead CDs (noise!) of and within ten years: OVF instead of EVFs. But this is also a matter of taste.

Here on DPR it's easy to tell how good a camera system is by noting how much effort people who have never even taken one shot with it spend trying to show how rubbish it is.

The more graphs you show Joringho the more you highlight your lack of experience, you're in a hole, you can't dig your way out of a hole. You affect your credilbility every time you post a graph. You come across as a marketing bot, to me.

Why don't ypou spend the 300 quid to buy an NX and tell us what you think? Sell it for 200 and lose 100. So what, it's only money.

These graphs are way out out, I own your camera and I own an NX10. I can say from empirical evidence that the NX10 is better, to me. The graphs are wrong. Your information is flawed. Sorry.

No need to get ad hominem.

So in short you say: "I don't believe those graphs, I believe my eyes." Fair enough.

I do. And if you want empirical evidence, you can also read what Michael Reichmann has to say about the GH2. It is clearly better than the Gh1. And I guess Reichmann is a very experienced shooter with medium format, full frame, APS-c etc cams. He is wrong too? May be he is also affiliated to Panasonic. Who knows.

Hi Jorginho,

Jorginho said:

So in short you say: "I don't believe those graphs, I believe my eyes." Fair enough.

Click to expand...

If you want to see some meaningful graphs and numbers comparing RAW output from NX-10, EPL-2 and NEX-5 sensors, go and check DXOmark site.
In short - NEX > NX > EPL, but differences are not so big as one might expect.

As both an electronic engineer and a photographer (having owned EP-1 and NX-10) I can state that those numbers looks quite right to me.

NX has poor JPG NR implementation, but it still has somewhat more information in ISO 1600 RAW data that EPL-2.

--
Greetings, Aleksandar

Jorginho said:

No need to get ad hominem.

Click to expand...

Watch out, Stelyn, the D word is on the tip of the tongue! Just joking, being in the company of educated men is so heartening...

I find this a bit difficult to compare (DxoMark). My take is that it still does not change the situation a whole lot, looking at RAW performance. Now Samsung sits between the m43 sensors when it comes to DR and High ISO performance. It is behind GH1 and GH2, but it is on par with the EPL2 and better than other m43 sensors

However: if my interpretation is correct, Sony's NEX 5 sensor is just slightly better than the GH1 in low noise performance (772 versus 796 ISO for low ISo Sports shooting??). This is in stark contrast with reality in which NEX is much better at high ISO.

Same is true for the Canon D60..Or the Canon Mark IV performs worse as a sensor than the APS-c K5 sensor? score of 82 veruss 74...ISO performance bearly better on the APS-H Canon cam...

Also: which noise are comparing here. Chroma noise, grey noise or black noise.

So how do interpretate these numbers?

A difference may be that on dpreview, images are still tested with software evn though NR is turned of and DxO mark does not.

Even so I find it hard to believe the K5 APS-c sensor being clearly better than a APS-H Mark IV sensor. And that is what DxO says.

Even so, it is stil a moot point. Of all APS-c cams the Samsung does worst of all. If we do take the K5 sensor as a real figure, it also shows how well the Samsung can perform using the best sensor on market. This would without a doubt be a big blow to m43s and if m43s has to do without a good portrait lens and Samsungs materialzes in october, I might switch to Samsung. And I would not be the only one.

Samsung needs a much better APS-c sensor, but there is no doubt about it: so does Panasonic.

Jorginho said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Good to see we agree. I like the NX10 interface, I gave up on Panasonic some years ago because they kept changing their models too frequently for my taste. Good gear though, but as they have matured as a digital camera company innovation seems to be giving way to mass market bland.

Click to expand...

Well...it was shortlived, our agreement ;-)

Click to expand...

Yes, but different points of view are always valuable if they are well considered and I can be won over by argument (grin) - I would hate to be always right as that would be so boring.

Jorginho said:

I don't know what timespan you are talking about. But if we look at the
last few years, which company has been more innovative than Panasonic
and why?

Click to expand...

Many posts ago, eons ago, someone wise noted on dpreview that the real innovation came from small companies or those not yet established as big players in the digital camera market. Their sales were small enough that they could recover from an innovative design that became a market disaster. Once firmly established with market share the companies tend to make good quality reliable cameras to keep the market share but innovation starts to take a back seat rather than frighten their loyal customers too much.

I had to hunt for the very innovative Panasonic FZ1 (remember that one?) well ahead of it's time and highly innovative but no specialist retail camera stores in Australia carried them unless you broke their door down first. I was told repeatedly that Panasonic digital cameras were "no good". I had to get one mail order sight unseen.

Will give them a credit point for the mirrorless. Canon and Nikon must also copy in due course. However they have been up to their old tricks again. Instead of giving us their very best with one model they trickle out their upgrades thereby trying to encourage repeat buying by the same customer. I had quite a few Panasonics before I suddenly said: "hey, I am sick of a new desirable feature being added every year 'making' me want the next model even though I had hardly worked out the full features of the last one." Yes I do know that other makers upgrade their cameras regularly but the NX11 is a case in point. It is panned abeing a facelift upgrade and hardly worth a NX10 user buying. "Hooray", I say, I am happy to keep my NX10 and am not jealous, let new converts to Samsung buy the NX11 and NX10 owners still feel happy with their investment. I could go on, but will not.

Jorginho said:

Look at the EX1: it is an LX clone.

Click to expand...

Ricoh people might say that the EX1 was a bog-simple version of the GX300 Ricoh never made. I had a Panasonic LX1 and was supremely happy with it until after much hand-wringing I bought a Ricoh GRD. Well the LX1 never came out of the drawer after that and it made the way into one of my sons' family who still use it lovingly to this day. But Ricoh, another company with small market penetration make better products. Panasonic has not interested me since my FZ30 and LX1 and at the time there was no other digital camera company in my horizon excepting my Canon digital EOS system, but that is another story.

Jorginho said:

Many of these implementations and the GH1/Gh2 as a cam are not geared towards massmarket.

Click to expand...

Jorginho said:

Suffice to say I disagree large. I do not mean that panny as a company is to be admired, is superior or whatever. But I do feel that they have been the most innovative the last few years.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is respected and I will admit that Panasonic are/were innovative, but it was costing me far too much money to always have their latest innovative camera in my stable. I was starting to accumulate nice Panasonic cameras of similar capability and running out of children to palm them off to. There was always eBay but I am not an eBay seller type.

I really wish dpreview's warning message would tell us exactly how many characters over the limit we are trying to post! Must give up trying to compose these things on an iPad it is simply too hard!

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

On the other hand I have Ricoh products still in use: GRD, R4, GX100, CX1, GRDIII, and GXR. Now these might seem very similar but in fact I skipped the "detail upgrades" of GRDII, R5-7, R10, GX200 and CX2-5. Each of the cameras in this series accumulated over quite a few years now has a completly different character in use and has different strengths and capabilities. The GRDIII is chalk and cheese to the original GRD and the first model is still a very good camera for what it purported to be when first made. The only Ricoh I felt I woild no longer use was the R8 which was clearly superseded by the much more clever CX1 but there has been no must-have clear distinction n the CX model range since even though it has to be a class leader no matter what popular reviews might say.

I have a very good FZ30 somewhere but it would hardly raise a ripple on eBay. Nice camera to use except that stupid bottom hinged lcd that annoyed me every time I used it. Panasonic "fixed" this on the FZ50 (no FZ40) but introduced over-processed noise smearing at the same time. Understandably they did not offer me an upgrade for their hinge-mistake and I just looked at their model history and my then new GRD and R4 and knew instantly I had been on the wrong track. I decided that I no longer wished to be a test pilot fro Panasonic and truly have not felt deprived in missing out on m4/3.

Great gear though and slowly released innovations always leave something new to talk about and another camera to upgrade. Not for me though. I expect to be enjoying my NX10 give years down the track by the time the NX15 is de jour but I will probably also jave a classic + for serious business as well.

So I am not probably coming from the same direction as many who compare just the finer points of any particular presently marketed model. I have bought not a few cameras in staying up with innovation but I cannot really say that I have really enjoyed the trip.

Tom Caldwell said:

Tom Caldwell said:

So all is not lost for the NX10. Maybe by the NX15 we will have a complex, plastic fantastic, cheap as chips, camera and a huge amount of lenses to choose from? Of course the sensor will be the latest and noise free to ISO 6400.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that the buit quality of the G series is mediocre? I don't agree with that. I showed that M Reichmann, who advises companies especially when it comes to camera design etc, disagrees aswell.

Click to expand...

No, no, no .. nor is the Canon 5* D series. They are built of high quality plastic to keep costs down. This is lighter and as rugged that will last a generation. Much longer that it's turnover time by the average first buyer. There is a place for high quality composite plastic bodied cameras and everyone should have a choice to buy one. However there is a subtle joy of holding a high quality metal-rich camera body in your hands. It feels "real camera" and no amount of superior in real life camera performance will completely replace this. My experience with the 550D says this. I knew it was a very capable entry level dslr camera, I knew that the NX10 had the limitations of an entry level dslr type, but the NX10 was "half" the size and half the price and the "plastic" 550D felt like a cheap plastic toy by comparison. Of course it was a cheap plastic toy compared to my 5D but I was lookimg for an entry level back up body for my other EOS dslr kit. I already have EOS lenses and so the purchase of the NX10 is irrational, but I have not regretted it.

So what is the difference in cost in quantity between mostly metal and composite plastic bodies? $20? But Canon could not get a premium price for their 5D and 5*D models if their 5* D models were of the same construction albeit $20 dearer.

This is the beauty of the NX1* - professional level body at an entry level price. Cannot last beyond the classic + if they want to charge a premium for the latter. That is why I think future NX1* cameras will incorporate more plastic in their body construction thereby again copying Panasonic, sorry. (smile)

Years on it is the mostly metal bodies that will still be classics and used, technical change or no technical change

Tom Caldwell said:

There are always people longing for the past. Like LP records instead CDs (noise!) of and within ten years: OVF instead of EVFs. But this is also a matter of taste.

Click to expand...

Must not forget that everytihing old was the wonder of it's day and not all old wonders were useless.

I am sick of buying new technology with relentless frequency. Most digital cameras now image well enough to satisfy their owners and although there might be something better each year for a while yet the market must be closer to being sated and now the battle is is just market share and style might become more a selling point than substance.

To paraphrase a great man (the Sicilian Briton): there are those who have the best camera, and those that have one that is lacking, and there are those that have enough cameras.
--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

Jorginho said:

I find this a bit difficult to compare (DxoMark). My take is that it still does not change the situation a whole lot, looking at RAW performance. Now Samsung sits between the m43 sensors when it comes to DR and High ISO performance. It is behind GH1 and GH2, but it is on par with the EPL2 and better than other m43 sensors

Click to expand...

The main problem with DxOMark numbers is that they are trying to squeeze a lot of complex analysis and data in a few numbers to make the comparison easier. I like their methodology of data acquisition, a bit less those final sores (but I understand the need for them). There is much more behind the final score.

The main drawback of Samsung sensors is DR, but they are quite fine on color sensitivity. I think the reason for lower DR score is a very high readout noise for today standards.

Samsung is still not on the level with major players regarding NR in JPGs and the task was made more difficult with the somewhat higher shadow noise.

Jorginho said:

However: if my interpretation is correct, Sony's NEX 5 sensor is just slightly better than the GH1 in low noise performance (772 versus 796 ISO for low ISo Sports shooting??). This is in stark contrast with reality in which NEX is much better at high ISO.

Click to expand...

NEX Sony sensor has an excellent DR due to an exceptionally low readout noise. That means that shadow noise is very low and RAW files has more latitude and manipulation ability.

The question is - what makes high ISO images "better"? To me it is the amount of information preserved - resolution, tonal range, DR, etc. If the image looks smoother (without blotchy noise patches) it does not mean it is actually better (I had Canon DSLRs for 4 years and they were the best in looking smooth, but I liked some other sensors more).

NEX sensor is undoubtedly better than NX one, but not for two stops on high ISO values as you indicated. It might end up in JPGs as 1-1.5 stops after ISO 1600, but combined with better NR.

Jorginho said:

Samsung needs a much better APS-c sensor, but there is no doubt about it: so does Panasonic.

Click to expand...

I agree completely that Samsung needs a new sensor for their new models for 2011. It is now 3 years old and others advanced. It could really sink the future NX-20.
It is still not a deal breaker for me - lens lineup is very promising.

Look it this way - if I had bought a NEX-5 i would have wanted Samsung 30/2.0 lens for it much more than I want NEX sensor for my NX-10 .

I do disagree that Panasonic needs a better sensor - it is amazing what they squeezed out from that sensor size for GH1/GH2. They simply can't do better right now and those sensors might be too expensive to put in the other models too. I think they are doing quite fine and are heading in the right direction.

--
Greetings, Aleksandar

Jorginho said:

However: if my interpretation is correct, Sony's NEX 5 sensor is just slightly better than the GH1 in low noise performance (772 versus 796 ISO for low ISo Sports shooting??). This is in stark contrast with reality in which NEX is much better at high ISO.
Same is true for the Canon D60..

Click to expand...

in reality people compare sony's/canon's ISO3200 with pana's ISO3200, while dxo basically says that pana's ISO3200 should be compared with sony's/canon's ISO6400, which "eliminates" one stop advantage. (btw GH1 sensor has the same pixel pitch as 60D, no wonder the performance is comparable)

Jorginho said:

Even so I find it hard to believe the K5 APS-c sensor being clearly better than a APS-H Mark IV sensor. And that is what DxO says.

Click to expand...

if m43 sensor can beat APS-C one, why APS-C can't be better than APS-H? (rhetorical question) as somebody in this thread said, size means nothing without appropriate technology. besides, Mark still is better in low light.

Tom,

Thanks for the post. I understand your position. You simply have a lot more experience with panasonic and other cams than I do. My experience is limited and includes one Fuji cam, one Canon DSLR, Panny FZ50 (only NR and Nperformancer a let down) and now g1. My sister and brother inlaw (not related btw) both have a Nikon D90. I know that cam also.

I feel that I still do not need to upgrade with the G1, so in contrast with you, I think panny did a terrific job with their first itteration of the mirrorless cam.

I wish you, Samsung and all the users here a lot of fun. Gear is simply a tool, we all have the same hobby: shooting pictures! So get whatever works for you.

I am not a Panasonic fanboy, even though I understand I may come across like that. As mirrorless is still young, I still could swith to another brand. What makes Samsung attractive is the lens line up. The lenses look really nice too, they breath quality just from hte look of it. And this is translated in very nice performance aswell. No AF portrait lens on m43s could be a big dealbreaker for me....That is the only thing missing and I really really have a hard time understanding Panasonic here. I have dealt with Japanese companies more than once in the past (business) and there are some things that, to my northern european or western standard, are peculiar, very bureaucratic and outright irritating. They lack flexibility every now and then...The portrait lens (lack of it) is just such a strange decision....

cucumber said:

Jorginho said:

However: if my interpretation is correct, Sony's NEX 5 sensor is just slightly better than the GH1 in low noise performance (772 versus 796 ISO for low ISo Sports shooting??). This is in stark contrast with reality in which NEX is much better at high ISO.
Same is true for the Canon D60..

Click to expand...

in reality people compare sony's/canon's ISO3200 with pana's ISO3200, while dxo basically says that pana's ISO3200 should be compared with sony's/canon's ISO6400, which "eliminates" one stop advantage. (btw GH1 sensor has the same pixel pitch as 60D, no wonder the performance is comparable)

cucumber said:

Even so I find it hard to believe the K5 APS-c sensor being clearly better than a APS-H Mark IV sensor. And that is what DxO says.

Click to expand...

if m43 sensor can beat APS-C one, why APS-C can't be better than APS-H? (rhetorical question) as somebody in this thread said, size means nothing without appropriate technology. besides, Mark still is better in low light.

Click to expand...

Because this particular APS-H sensor is not old, does not use old technology and was exceptional in februari 2010. If we look at the score of this sensor, APS-H, it has an overall score of 74. The APS_c Sony sensor in the K5 scores 82...So it is not just better, it is much much better than the MArk IV. If I look at other tests, they score the Mark IV just slightly behind the D3S. In DxOMark this one scores (if I am correct) 89.....A huge difference....

So yes: with old technology a larger sensor looses. But this is new versus new. Only DxOMark to my knowledge scores the K5 much better than the Mark IV...

Tom Caldwell said:

On the other hand I have Ricoh products still in use: GRD, R4, GX100, CX1, GRDIII, and GXR. Now these might seem very similar but in fact I skipped the "detail upgrades" of GRDII, R5-7, R10, GX200 and CX2-5. Each of the cameras in this series accumulated over quite a few years now has a completly different character in use and has different strengths and capabilities. The GRDIII is chalk and cheese to the original GRD and the first model is still a very good camera for what it purported to be when first made. The only Ricoh I felt I woild no longer use was the R8 which was clearly superseded by the much more clever CX1 but there has been no must-have clear distinction n the CX model range since even though it has to be a class leader no matter what popular reviews might say.

Click to expand...

Somehow Ricoh was never interesting for me. Now, with those switching modules my feeling is that they simply had to create a niche in such a way that the niche itself became the goal no matter what. I can't see this become a succes. New modules very slow to to emerge.

Tom Caldwell said:

I have a very good FZ30 somewhere but it would hardly raise a ripple on eBay. Nice camera to use except that stupid bottom hinged lcd that annoyed me every time I used it. Panasonic "fixed" this on the FZ50 (no FZ40) but introduced over-processed noise smearing at the same time.

Click to expand...

FZ50 is the start for me with Panasonic. The smearing etc...within 8 months I had the G1. FZ50 is veru very nice to hold. So many people were waitiing (and may be some still are) for the FZ60. But we see that FZ18, 28,38,45 etc is the way they went on with their bridge cams. Not interesting for me at all.

Tom Caldwell said:

Great gear.......So all is not lost for the NX10. Maybe by the NX15 we will have a complex, plastic fantastic, cheap as chips, camera and a huge amount of lenses to choose from? Of course the sensor will be the latest and noise free to ISO 6400.

Click to expand...

Haha...right. I wouldn't call teh NX10 the last in its series just like that. They could use it as a blueprint for a pro-series. With the best sensor for this cam, pro like shooting certainly when EVF allows us to shoot 10 frames per second without black outs. Who knows.
Simply imagine your cam with K5 IQ......it is possible.

About build quality. I am 100% with you there. I am just so fond of this sort of quality, my GF in fact says it is one of the things that is typically me. No matter what the subject if it is built to last for decades and decades, with the highest precision etc I am a big fan of it. You have those prefab buildings, made in Germany, that can be built everywhere and when placed they match within one mm accuracy. And everything,every part is well well excecuted. Superb to watch them put it together and admire it. It can be a espresso machine, a car and indeed a camera. I like it. But these things come at a price. I cannot always buy everything that it build in that way, but whenever I can and it delivers what I want I certainly will!