Reading mode: Light Dark

Very first NX200 beta image samples (ISO 100, 3200)

Go to last post
Another image. Didn't see any EXIF data but probably ISO 100

 
Maybe I am naive or don't understand what I am talking about

I admit I am no pro

But I believe an APS-C sensor can handle 20 MP (I know 16MP on 1/2.3 is cracy and I have seen no current 16MP 1/2.3 better than older 10-12MP )

If so it certainly seem much more desirable than 16MP (NEX) or 12 MP (PEN)

I am torn between Nex and NX but will most likely choose NX at this point not just because of MP but also pancake lens quality

I believe NX 20 mm is superior to Nex 16mm
 
ISO 3200: depends on the amount of light, need to see a shot with shadows etc to give a good indication of noise etc.

Having said that at first glance there seems little to fault the Samsung. I hope you will not be dissapointed and if it is indeed as good as it seems with 20 Mpixel I'd say cheers to Samsung!
 
Jefftan said:
But I believe an APS-C sensor can handle 20 MP (I know 16MP on 1/2.3 is cracy and I have seen no current 16MP 1/2.3 better than older 10-12MP )

If so it certainly seem much more desirable than 16MP (NEX) or 12 MP (PEN)

I am torn between Nex and NX but will most likely choose NX at this point not just because of MP but also pancake lens quality

I believe NX 20 mm is superior to Nex 16mm
Click to expand...
I think if you want more responses you'd better start a new thread...

We don't know yet what the quality of the new Samsung sensor will be. If it turns out to be as good as the latest 16MP Sony sensors the the difference won't be in the sensors (unless you know for certain you'll need 20MP). I'd look at other factors as well: body specs, usability / controls, operational speed, lens availibillity. Don't just compare the body's but try to figure out what system best fits your needs.
 
Well, first of all let's not make any conclusions based on Beta samples.

That said, some people seem unaware you can download the full-size ISO3200 sample:

http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles.naver.net%2F20110830_71%2Fptamasi_1314636003838U8NqB_JPEG%2F3200-01L.jpg

The resolution is 5472 pixels wide. I downloaded it and compared it to some ISO3200 Nikon D7000 samples from here: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=none&camera=1496&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=3200&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=1&p=2

The way I compared is: I opened both images side by side, then scaled the 16MP Nikon image to be 5472 wide, keeping the same aspect ratio. And I set my zoom to 100%.

It's not a night and day difference, but at equal magnification, the NX200 image clearly shows more noise and more noise reduction artifacts.

Keeping in mind, though, that I don't know everything about the Nikon samples. They could be RAW, converted using Adobe and judiciously cleaned up with Noiseware, which would easily account for the difference.

Anyway, my conclusion is there is nothing to get excited about or despondent about based on these samples. Couldn't help being curious, though :)
 
Michael Barkowski said:
Well, first of all let's not make any conclusions based on Beta samples.

That said, some people seem unaware you can download the full-size ISO3200 sample:

http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles.naver.net%2F20110830_71%2Fptamasi_1314636003838U8NqB_JPEG%2F3200-01L.jpg

The resolution is 5472 pixels wide. I downloaded it and compared it to some ISO3200 Nikon D7000 samples from here: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=none&camera=1496&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=3200&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=1&p=2

The way I compared is: I opened both images side by side, then scaled the 16MP Nikon image to be 5472 wide, keeping the same aspect ratio. And I set my zoom to 100%.

It's not a night and day difference, but at equal magnification, the NX200 image clearly shows more noise and more noise reduction artifacts.

Keeping in mind, though, that I don't know everything about the Nikon samples. They could be RAW, converted using Adobe and judiciously cleaned up with Noiseware, which would easily account for the difference.

Anyway, my conclusion is there is nothing to get excited about or despondent about based on these samples. Couldn't help being curious, though :)
Click to expand...
The D7000 samples have no chroma noise, but the samples i see from your link all have a lot of destructive NR done to it; theres no fine detail.

Nikon's JPEG engine processes out the chroma noise, quite aggressively. Canon and samsung meanwhile don't bother with it. I'm willing to bet that consequently Nikon's noise performance is sligthly synthetic; if everyone shot ACR there would be no disrepancy... and RAW files from D7000 suggest that.

To be fair, it seems very close between the two, but nothing near the realm of full frame cameras yet unfortunately.
 
 
You should take a look at the sample photos over on Imaging Resource. Go to NEX-5N review, Sample Photos, and you'll get the lab tests pics.

I compared the 3200's and it seems Sony's NR methods are much more aggressive and cleaner maybe at the expense of detail. Didn't spot much if any chroma noise at all on them.
 
Eh...this thread, as they say, is useless without RAWs. All I see in the full-size 3200 sample is that Samsung's terrible JPEG NR has only very slightly improved. With the NX100, I've found that at 3200, shot RAW and processed through ACR, there's obviously more noise than many competitors...but it's actually kind of pleasing noise. The same shots in JPEG are just mind-blowingly bad...weird streaking, smearing, and little attempt to deal with chroma noise. As a nothing-but-RAW shooter, I'm not going to be making any comparisons between the NX200/NEX-whatever/E-P3/etc until I see RAWs from all of 'em.
 
Comparing with shots I've taken I think the new ISO 3200 = somewhere in between old ISO 400 to 800.
 
nekramp said:
Comparing with shots I've taken I think the new ISO 3200 = somewhere in between old ISO 400 to 800.
Click to expand...
as long as the DR is very good at that sensitivity, that would be great. 2 1/2 ISO improvement is good although I would have preferred to have atleast have a 1/2 or 1 full stop more to be really awesome. but if ISO 6400 is good and useable at certain crop level, I wouldn't complain. I'm already contented by then.
 
Ariston said:
as long as the DR is very good at that sensitivity, that would be great. 2 1/2 ISO improvement is good although I would have preferred to have atleast have a 1/2 or 1 full stop more to be really awesome. but if ISO 6400 is good and useable at certain crop level, I wouldn't complain. I'm already contented by then.
Click to expand...
Agreed, if it was 3 stops or more improved I'd be pretty content. But who knows, that may be the case with RAW. The JPEG still exhibits those weird patterns in it... still, at least it looks fixable with small tweaking in Lightroom or equivalent. Really though, I want to be able to shoot JPEG from time to time and knowing I don't have to tweak anything.
 
nekramp said:
Comparing with shots I've taken I think the new ISO 3200 = somewhere in between old ISO 400 to 800.
Click to expand...
I dunno...looking at the full-size 3200 sample, it really doesn't look much better than 3200 in JPEG mode on my NX100. I think the JPEG engine is just awful in general...hence the need for RAW samples.
 
cptrios said:
I dunno...looking at the full-size 3200 sample, it really doesn't look much better than 3200 in JPEG mode on my NX100. I think the JPEG engine is just awful in general...hence the need for RAW samples.
Click to expand...
The 3200 JPEG on NX100 is absolute vomit quality. DR takes a massive dump.. there's no shadow detail anymore - they become gray and speckled with low res noise patterns. And then the NR smears badly making it like cheap CCTV quality. The colors also get all out of wack sometimes with a blue or yellow push. In this new pic you can see the detail still remains and it's not smeared and the DR is much better also. It's just the chroma noise that's kind of bothersome.

I tried applying a small amount of luminance and color NR to the sample and it looks great at 100%. I couldn't do the same with my NX100 3200 pics that's for sure.
 
if the ISO performance is good, i hope 3200 isn't the cap anymore. at the very least, 6400, but hopefully beyond
 
Eh... all JPEGs are vomit quality in my book! But yes, you're right. I mean, large low-detail areas (i.e. night sky) in 3200 JPEG on the NX100 actually do like a bit like vomit, now that I look again.
nekramp said:
cptrios said:
I dunno...looking at the full-size 3200 sample, it really doesn't look much better than 3200 in JPEG mode on my NX100. I think the JPEG engine is just awful in general...hence the need for RAW samples.
Click to expand...
The 3200 JPEG on NX100 is absolute vomit quality. DR takes a massive dump.. there's no shadow detail anymore - they become gray and speckled with low res noise patterns. And then the NR smears badly making it like cheap CCTV quality. The colors also get all out of wack sometimes with a blue or yellow push. In this new pic you can see the detail still remains and it's not smeared and the DR is much better also. It's just the chroma noise that's kind of bothersome.

I tried applying a small amount of luminance and color NR to the sample and it looks great at 100%. I couldn't do the same with my NX100 3200 pics that's for sure.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top