Reading mode: Light Dark

Wow - NX200 is a low ISO jpeg monster

Go to last post
KingDon said:
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

In reality it's ISO 800 (for Samsung) vs ISO 1600 5N (and the rest of cameras) in these studio shots.

NX200 is getting twice more light than the rest.
Click to expand...
No, that means the NX200 is getting half as much light as the 5N. Which means it's more like ISO 3200 vs ISO 1600 5N.
 
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.

--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
 
Sosua said:
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.
Click to expand...
Does anyone really care. Your OP is just another excuse for Sony Nex users to post their interminable tedious technical lists showing how good their point and shoot cameras are. The Nex cameras have to be good on auto as it is impossible to change any parameters on these cameras when out and about. These Nex cameras are just not designed for people with any creative interest in photography.

Why we have to read so much specifically about Nex on this Samsung forum I do not know. Considering how many types and makes of cameras there are it is really bizzare.
 
starwolfy said:
My friend bought a Nikon D7000 3 weeks ago...in replacement of its D90. The D7000 is regarded to be one of the best APSC camera for high iso. He NEVER use it at more than Iso1600. Never! He says 1600 is its maximum and he uses that sensitivity only when he has no other choice and really want to get the shot despite he knows it won't be a keeper.
Click to expand...
Different people take different pictures, and have different criterions for "crappy" pictures. In a dimly lit auditorium and no flash allowed, a 135mm @f2.8 can require up to ISO3200. In that case, I'll take "crappy" pictures vs. no pictures at all.
 
Look at the Gh2 and look at ISO 6400 JPEG.....AWFULLL! Than look at RAW: it is easy to see you can make it so much better with some PP.

Same could be true for the NX200. When I look at ISO 6400 JPEG, the NX200 looks slightly better than the Gh2.

I don't understand this comparison by dpreview BTW. Okey: if you only shoot JPEG it is helpfull but it also easily can give the wrong impression about its "real" IQ. If the Gh2 is anything to go by, I think the RAW performance will be really good. Remember it is 20 MPixel, so one should downsize it to directly compair with the competition.
 
Greynerd said:
Sosua said:
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.
Click to expand...
Does anyone really care. Your OP is just another excuse for Sony Nex users to post their interminable tedious technical lists showing how good their point and shoot cameras are. The Nex cameras have to be good on auto as it is impossible to change any parameters on these cameras when out and about. These Nex cameras are just not designed for people with any creative interest in photography.

Why we have to read so much specifically about Nex on this Samsung forum I do not know. Considering how many types and makes of cameras there are it is really bizzare.
Click to expand...
Im a die hard Samsung user who cares.

I dont really care about noise levels and i love my NX100. But if it is as it appears and Sasmung have fudged the iso scale to try to fool people, then they have made a huge error in judgement.
its as bad as to change the print on the 30mm f2 lens to read 30mm f1.4 .

I need more evidence than so far. Personally i would wait before investing to see the tests at http://www.dxomark.com/index.php .

But on first glance it does seem to say that Samsung are trying to pull of a con job on the punters.
 
paulhome said:
Greynerd said:
Sosua said:
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.
Click to expand...
Does anyone really care. Your OP is just another excuse for Sony Nex users to post their interminable tedious technical lists showing how good their point and shoot cameras are. The Nex cameras have to be good on auto as it is impossible to change any parameters on these cameras when out and about. These Nex cameras are just not designed for people with any creative interest in photography.

Why we have to read so much specifically about Nex on this Samsung forum I do not know. Considering how many types and makes of cameras there are it is really bizzare.
Click to expand...
Im a die hard Samsung user who cares.

I dont really care about noise levels and i love my NX100. But if it is as it appears and Sasmung have fudged the iso scale to try to fool people, then they have made a huge error in judgement.
its as bad as to change the print on the 30mm f2 lens to read 30mm f1.4 .

I need more evidence than so far. Personally i would wait before investing to see the tests at http://www.dxomark.com/index.php .

But on first glance it does seem to say that Samsung are trying to pull of a con job on the punters.
Click to expand...
For heavens sake. The reason there are so many Nex trolls around is that they feed so well in the Samsung forum. Now you are in a funk over something you would probably not have thought about before. Ok if there is a problem it will come out but I would not waste any time on these provcative OP's and especially not from the Nex camp. ISO measures are not the same as lens aperture which can be actually measured. ISO just creates constant arguments and I expect in the old days film days film of ostensibly the same ISO from different manufactures would behave in very different ways. Fuji film and Kodak film were entirely different animals. JPEG and the processing of Raw files coming from all these cameras is so different that at these high sensitivities when the sensors are outside their real design envelope all sorts of anomolies can occur. I just cannot see how you can set a specific level of exposure in a digital image when the camera processor could just amplify the pixel and just make it brighter, more colourful, anything you want, even Raw images may not be free of tweaking. It just all seems so subjective to me.

These high ISO arguments are really measuring cameras purely on their ability in marginal situations and ignoring their merit under the normal circumstances they are primarilly designed for.
 
paulhome said:
its as bad as to change the print on the 30mm f2 lens to read 30mm f1.4 .

I need more evidence than so far. Personally i would wait before investing to see the tests at http://www.dxomark.com/index.php .

But on first glance it does seem to say that Samsung are trying to pull of a con job on the
Click to expand...
Actually, Dxomark means something entirely different by "measured" ISO, as was explained by Andy Westlake

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39702027

Dxomark isn't the right reference, the actual shutter speed at given aperture and ISO is the right reference, and as you see NX200 is getting twice more light than 5N at given aperture and ISO in DPR studio shots.

See this post by Andy Westlake

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39702027
paulhome said:
OK, this seems to be a misunderstanding of what DxOMark means by 'ISO'. The NEX-5N's offset on DxO's ISO axis compared to these cameras does not imply that it meters and exposes differently. The problem here is that the measurement DxO calls 'ISO' isn't what most photographers call ISO, or what Sony or any of the other camera manufactuers call ISO, either. It's completely non-standard, and essentially a way of normalising the raw sensor data in a very specific way for the purposes of their comparison. It therefore cannot be used to re-interpret any other tests - including ours - or to deduce how cameras meter and expose.

The problem DxOMark face is that, somewhat counter-intuitively, raw files have no inherent ISO rating of their own. ISO is defined in terms of the brightness of the visually-meaningful photographic image that's developed from the raw, and any given raw file can, entirely legitimately, be developed to wide range of different brightnesses by applying different tone curves. In fact the 'exposure' slider in every self-respecting raw converter is in effect an ISO control - it changes the image brightness for a given shutter speed and aperture. As a result of this, I'd argue that the most photographically meaningful definition of ISO for a raw file is based purely upon the photographer's exposure intent, which in turn tends to be implictly based on the camera's ISO calibration.

To deal with this, DxOMark conceptually applies a standard tone curve to all raw files to determine their ISO. The problem here is that different camera manufacturers use different tone curves by default (again, entirely legitimately), differing most notably in the highlight dynamic range they produce. This necessarily results in a discrepancy between DxOMark's 'ISO' and the camera's marked setting - the greater the highlight range, the further DxO's 'ISO' measurement will differ from the camera's.

However, because the camera's metering is tuned to give the correct results for what the manufacturer thinks is right (and not DxOMark), this in turn implies that the metering won't correlate with DxO's 'ISO' either. What this means is that in practical use you're unlikely to use your camera in a way that precisely matches DxOMark's comparison method. This doesn't invalidate their method, it just means you have to very aware of how it's constructed.
paulhome said:
DPR does not, giving an advantage to cameras that overstate their ISO.
Click to expand...
All of our testing methodology is based on normalising exposure, essentially using the 'Standard Output Sensitivity' method of the ISO 12232:2006 specification. In essence this means that we set the exposure such that specific target areas in the test scene are rendered as middle grey. On other words, images are carefully white-balanced and exposed to the same brightness.

We also provide the measured ISOs according to this method in every review. Again, they'll necessarily be different from DxO's because we're measuring something different. What we do tend to see is that our measurements match manufacturer's stated ISOs reasonably closely, because we're using the same method.

--
Andy Westlake
dpreview.com
Click to expand...
 
jj74e said:
KingDon said:
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

In reality it's ISO 800 (for Samsung) vs ISO 1600 5N (and the rest of cameras) in these studio shots.

NX200 is getting twice more light than the rest.
Click to expand...
No, that means the NX200 is getting half as much light as the 5N.
Click to expand...
Huh? What school did you go to? 1/400 is twice faster than 1/200 .. NX200 is getting 2 times more light.
 
hi sorry but some your arguments are non-sense

HIGH iso performance is not important couse you will ever use 100.000 iso (like D3s) but couse a camera who has very good iso performance at 3200 iso or 6400 or 12000 iso has a REALLY GOOD performance at 1600 or 800 iso

i.e. check D3s at 800-1600 iso.... CLEANER then my GH2 at 160 iso !!!

this is important !

so dont laugh when people say that D7000 has good 3200 performance...this could be translated: if 3200 is good this mean that 800 is is really clean...and you can print a 70x100cm photo at 800 iso...
starwolfy said:
a Leica M8 is bad after iso800 too. Does it make this camera to be a bad camera though?

Iso performance as really become the new marketing argument even before Megapixels.

My friend bought a Nikon D7000 3 weeks ago...in replacement of its D90. The D7000 is regarded to be one of the best APSC camera for high iso. He NEVER use it at more than Iso1600. Never! He says 1600 is its maximum and he uses that sensitivity only when he has no other choice and really want to get the shot despite he knows it won't be a keeper.

When he reads people saying the D7000 has clean Iso at Iso3200 and usable one at 6400 and more...he just laugh so much. To post on your blog...yeah maybe iso3200 is fine...

At my workplace we have a Nex5n. I use it daily...and Higher iso are just CRAP! Yes it is better than what any sensor could produce just few months ago..that's for sure...but it still CRAP!

I even posted a 1250Iso pictures on this forum taken with the NEX5n...and it already sucks! It is so laughable to read here and there that NEx5n has at least 4 stop advantage over the NX200 lol...4 stop advantage of what? 4 stop advantage to get a less crappy but still crappy picture? Big deal!

The most important regarding quality is the base Iso from let's say Iso100 to 400. Everything higher than that just sucks currently. Iso800 is becoming more and more acceptable...but comapring with base Iso...no way!

What is interesting in the NX200 is its base Iso capacities. And this is really encouragin regarding the poor JPEG engine used here.

--
Starwolfy
------------
NX10 + legacy lenses on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51235083@N05/
Click to expand...
 
are you sure that all camera have the same amount of light?? maybe in dpreview they use LED lights or studio strobes....so they can change amount of light...or also normal variation between test shots of ambient light....

so dont be sure that the only fixed variable is the amount of light in test shots...

also in this case..i cant understand why people dont understand this...do you have never used studio strobes?????
jj74e said:
KingDon said:
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

In reality it's ISO 800 (for Samsung) vs ISO 1600 5N (and the rest of cameras) in these studio shots.

NX200 is getting twice more light than the rest.
Click to expand...
No, that means the NX200 is getting half as much light as the 5N. Which means it's more like ISO 3200 vs ISO 1600 5N.
Click to expand...
 
Greynerd said:
Member said:
Member said:
Sosua said:
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For heavens sake. The reason there are so many Nex trolls around is that they feed so well in the Samsung forum...
Click to expand...
Sure there are some that are over the top, but there is no reason to label everyone with an NEX camera or interest to be a troll here. There are many folks in the NEX camp hoping for a good camera from Samsung as an alternative, with access to some nice NX lenses. If nothing else, good competition among manufacturers is good for all users. Fair and open discussion is good, no?
 
Agree that we can't draw much of a conclusion from these JPEG tests - assume the NX200 is very heavy handed with NR based on these tests. But, if I only had JPEG output to work with on these cameras, I would take a G3 or E-P3 over the NX200, even at 3200 ISO. Crazy loss of detail with the NX200 starting even at the low ISO levels.
 
Yes, from ISO 400 onwards. It is one of those things one wonders: "waht were they thinking?". Olympys EP-3 versions have also an altered JPEG engine and not to its benefit. Oly is known for very good JPEGs, so why change it for the worse?

Okey: I see no reason to be feared of NX200 output. I believe there is also quite some difference between NX100 JPEG output (bad) and RAW (good).
 
Greynerd said:
Sosua said:
The NEX is exposing at 1400th - the NX200 at 1/200th.

1/200th of a second is twice as long as 1/400th of a second.

This indicates twice the light / twice the exposure.

And given they were shot at the same ISO and the same aperture, with the same lighting.... NX200 ISO 1600 would appear to be equivalent to the NEX ISO 800.
Click to expand...
Does anyone really care. Your OP is just another excuse for Sony Nex users to post their interminable tedious technical lists showing how good their point and shoot cameras are. The Nex cameras have to be good on auto as it is impossible to change any parameters on these cameras when out and about. These Nex cameras are just not designed for people with any creative interest in photography.

Why we have to read so much specifically about Nex on this Samsung forum I do not know. Considering how many types and makes of cameras there are it is really bizzare.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Nex cameras have many programmable buttons and the usability is great. The Nex-7 has a fantastic interface and dial setup. I think the Samsung NX line is nice, but don't post this nonsense about cameras you clearly don't know much about.
 
hah great video, maybe you should post it on sony forum, as we get all the sony fanboys here
--
Ed in Arizona

'Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.' - Albert Einstein
 
headofdestiny said:
Incorrect. The Nex cameras have many programmable buttons and the usability is great. The Nex-7 has a fantastic interface and dial setup. I think the Samsung NX line is nice, but don't post this nonsense about cameras you clearly don't know much about.
Click to expand...
The Nex 7 may have controls but the others are minimalist and programmable I note, not dedicated. Why should I have to know about Sony Nex. This is the Samsung forum and I just am so fed up with reading about Sony Nex all the time. I am really not interested in Nex. Now the I am even being admonished in the Samsung forum for not knowing about Sony Nex.

If you want to communicate with people who know about the Nex system stay in the Nex forum.
 
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