Does the world need a new camera?.

First there was film and then god created digital.

The first digital cameras were poor due to lack of pixels,but once the 10mpx was reached then most people were happy.
the we get get mirrorless aps-c and we have get great shots from a small body.

So the question is whats needed.

we get more pixels, which is nice but not really needed for most people.
but now we get a new worry!!.
Noise levels.

But is this a real issue or is it just marketing planting reasons into our heads to upgrade?.

I look at the NX100 vs the NX200 and think in real terms the NX200 offered nothing extra. I havent seem one good shot taken on a NX200 that the NX100 couldnt take just as well.

People should really more away from worrying and pixel peeking. If you have a NX100 and a half decent lens you have all the tools you need.

I would say this, if you have to crop and you see noise,then get a new lens not a new camera.Don't fall for the hype.

I won't buy the nx200, since I already own the nx100, but I understand that nx200 is better overall (building quality, IQ edge over ISO 800, faster shooting).

If they can build a good rangefinder style camera for NX system, with a very good EVF (like the one in NEX-7), then I'll go for that one.

Digital was the holy grail for manufacturers and maketing departments. It made cameras disposable, whereas in the past films never changed rapidly and neither did the camera bodies.

As for noise, I sometimes wonder what all of the peepers would have said or done about pushing emulsion ?

We pushed Tri-X a stop or two and wished there as a faster, finer-grained film.

pcheywood said:

Digital was the holy grail for manufacturers and maketing departments. It made cameras disposable, whereas in the past films never changed rapidly and neither did the camera bodies.

As for noise, I sometimes wonder what all of the peepers would have said or done about pushing emulsion ?

Click to expand...

paulhome said:

First there was film and then god created digital.

The first digital cameras were poor due to lack of pixels,but once the 10mpx was reached then most people were happy.
the we get get mirrorless aps-c and we have get great shots from a small body.

So the question is whats needed.

we get more pixels, which is nice but not really needed for most people.
but now we get a new worry!!.
Noise levels.

But is this a real issue or is it just marketing planting reasons into our heads to upgrade?.

I look at the NX100 vs the NX200 and think in real terms the NX200 offered nothing extra. I havent seem one good shot taken on a NX200 that the NX100 couldnt take just as well.

People should really more away from worrying and pixel peeking. If you have a NX100 and a half decent lens you have all the tools you need.

I would say this, if you have to crop and you see noise,then get a new lens not a new camera.Don't fall for the hype.

Click to expand...

from a general standpoint, I would agree that most people won't need an upgrade for that matter. but the thing to consider is that with regards to something like NX cameras, these doesn't target the general populace like cheaper P&S cameras do. it comes down to what is needed or useful for the target consumer in that specific camera.

personally, given the chance to choose between the NX100 and NX200, I would choose the NX200 not because of the hype but because I see and know what I'm getting from it. and what you need. regarding what people need, does that mean that people shouldn't wait nor buy the NX20 camera because the NX100 is more than enough? only the consumer themselves can answer this.

The world doesn’t, capitalism does.

Thank God for capitalism... without it I would be broke! Consumerism Rocks!!!

Which god?

Whichever you prefer, I thank all of them!

I cannot talk for the world, just for myself and I have decided that for the time being I am happy with my NX10 and NX11 and prefer to spend my money for lenses.

Sometimes however a new camera can bring advantages. I wanted a second camera and bought the NX11 because it was cheaper to buy and easier to find than the NX10. When I used it, I found that if had an advantage over the NX10 that I was not aware of when I bought it, the night frame mode. Had I known this feature earlier, I would have bought the NX11 sooner, as it really helps in studio photography.

Thomas

--
http://nxaustria.blogspot.com/

The argument that "such and such that we already have is enough" has been going on for years and predates cameras. What is "enough"?

We are a technology-making species, or at least culture, and we are always evolving.

My Panasonic G1 and my Nikon D80 take perfectly fine pictures, as does my Samsung TL500. Would I lilke better high-ISO performance from all three formats? Yes, I would! Would I like more built-in features like sweep panorama, high dynamic range, etc.? Sure!

Will I upgrade all three cameras this year? Probably not, I'll give them all another year, but once the next generation of one or the other comes out, I'll be a customer, because these new features are useful to me. Essential? No, I can still take pictures with my film cameras that are 30-50 years old, but at this point I'd rather not.

paulhome said:

First there was film and then god created digital.

Click to expand...

GOD created digital? Oooookay.

paulhome said:

The first digital cameras were poor due to lack of pixels,but once the 10mpx was reached then most people were happy.

Click to expand...

The 10MP sensors needed improvement back then. A 10MP today is quite a bit better than it was when they were new.

paulhome said:

we get more pixels, which is nice but not really needed for most people.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. I like to crop, so do most enthusiasts and professionals.

paulhome said:

but now we get a new worry!!.
Noise levels.

Click to expand...

Not really. Have you compared NX100 to NX200 high ISO pics?

paulhome said:

But is this a real issue or is it just marketing planting reasons into our heads to upgrade?.

Click to expand...

It's both. Casual users may not need more MP, but others will... And although 20MP is certainly part of the 'ad copy' for the NX200, it's more of a real performance upgrade than an Art Filter or Panorama mode.

Some sensors suffer from more MP, but APS-C sensors are much lower density and larger of pixel size, so it doesn't produce the same jump in read noise that smaller compact sensors do.

paulhome said:

I look at the NX100 vs the NX200 and think in real terms the NX200 offered nothing extra. I havent seem one good shot taken on a NX200 that the NX100 couldnt take just as well.

Click to expand...

I own an NX100 and I think you're wrong.

paulhome said:

People should really more away from worrying and pixel peeking. If you have a NX100 and a half decent lens you have all the tools you need.

Click to expand...

Why 'should' people 'move away' from pixel peeping? I like my 'presentation' pictures to look good, and when I post to Flickr or elsewhere and someone downloads the original, I want it to be as flawless as possible.

paulhome said:

I would say this, if you have to crop and you see noise,then get a new lens not a new camera.Don't fall for the hype.

Click to expand...

People are going to crop. A lot of them. They're not 'falling for hype' when they decide to upgrade to a newer camera with better noise performance and higher resolution.

I'm fine with my NX100 for now, but I certainly see why some folks want the NX200. What I don't understand is why someone would want to second guess them and tell them they're wrong.

Exactly!

sensibill said:

[snip]

I'm fine with my NX100 for now, but I certainly see why some folks want the NX200. What I don't understand is why someone would want to second guess them and tell them they're wrong.

Click to expand...

paulhome said:

First there was film and then god created digital.

The first digital cameras were poor due to lack of pixels,but once the 10mpx was reached then most people were happy.
the we get get mirrorless aps-c and we have get great shots from a small body.

So the question is whats needed.

we get more pixels, which is nice but not really needed for most people.
but now we get a new worry!!.
Noise levels.

But is this a real issue or is it just marketing planting reasons into our heads to upgrade?.

I look at the NX100 vs the NX200 and think in real terms the NX200 offered nothing extra. I havent seem one good shot taken on a NX200 that the NX100 couldnt take just as well.

People should really more away from worrying and pixel peeking. If you have a NX100 and a half decent lens you have all the tools you need.

I would say this, if you have to crop and you see noise,then get a new lens not a new camera.Don't fall for the hype.

Click to expand...

I do see your viewpoint, however its a slightly narrow view of photography in general. You do realise how poorly the NX10 handles shadow/black noise? As someone who manipulates photos the NX10 is an awful camera for such. Exarcerbated with its limited dynamic range.

With your logic, we should all buy Kodak easyshares and be happy with them.

On the topic of "oh we don't need high ISO", do you ever shoot at night? ISO1600/2500 with the NX10. is woeful at night on a LARGE scale; i'm not talking about pixel peeping here; noise is the least of my worries. The ISO3200 has awful noise banding. Colour rendition is BAD at those sensitivies and please do not bring up well lit photos or argue that my technique is wrong/etc as there is no 'wrong' with art. The NX200 grants one to shoot fairly good images in low light.

However the merits of the NX is really the ergonomics/straightforwardness of the camera. None of the other CSCs offer it to this extent. The NX10 doesn't have la sensor that lives up to the rest of the camera, whilst the NX200 does.

Of course lenses are important, but if your camera can't use the lenses well then what is the point of good lenses? Both components complement each other just as much.

paulhome said:

sensibill said:

I'm fine with my NX100 for now, but I certainly see why some folks want the NX200. What I don't understand is why someone would want to second guess them and tell them they're wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

^I agree.

I don't find base ISO shadow noise to be at all bad. There's some chroma and if you jack shadows and convert to B&W with variation between the color levels in LR you'll get some differentiation, but just a basic shadow isn't bad at all. Otherwise, DxO (which measures shadow noise for DR) would have graded the NX lower.

Higher ISO is again, chroma noisy, and that's very easy to pull out. Even 3200. I've seen banding in some shots I've taken, but it's not severe, it takes some searching for, in fact. I've only seen in in a couple of pics, actually.

Here's a RAW I took today with a somewhat flare-y (possibly some haze) vintage Kino 105mm on a pretty icky overcast day. I imported it, tweaked, exported in LR. The top is the PP output, the bottom is the original RAW cropped to 100%, zeroed out all exposure values and sharpness/NR sliders and then cranked simple exposure way up (+2.16 or so).

I just don't see a major noise shadow problem there, especially considering both luma and chroma NR was at 0. Of course, high ISO may be another thing, but chroma is always very easy to pull with minimal loss.

In my case, there's a lot more that I need to improve with my photography knowledge/skills before the camera is the major reason for issues with my images. A year ago, I was saying that about my Canon A70, purchased in 2004. Now, after 12 months of intense effort, I can still take fine images with that camera, but it genuinely limits my photography/creativity, (e.g. It won't take certain pictures that I know how to, and know that I want to, take.) and I can honestly say I've outgrown it.

Two months after purchasing the NX100, I am back to being the limiting factor again. It's a personal judgement that only I can make. Hopefully I'll continue to grow, and I reserve the right to change my mind...

Regarding pixel peeping, and all the noise about image noise: That kind of discussion is useful up to a point, but it is easy to take it too far. It reminds me of memorizing sports statistics or mechanical specs of cars; if you're in a position to do something about it (e.g. You're a coach needing to trade players or make decisions about your starting lineup, or if you're actually going to buy a car...) then it could be useful. Otherwise, it's a not-especially helpful obsession. It has little to do with the creative side of taking pictures, which is what I'm mostly concerned with at the moment.

I just inherited a Kodak Junior six-16 camera that makes exposures bigger than my hand, and old-schoole high-resolution camera. I am working on converting it to use 120 film, and look forward to creative exploration with this as well. While I shoot away with this, and the NX100, I'll rest easy, confident that the next time I want to buy a camera they will be significantly better than the last time I looked.

sensibill said:

Here's a RAW I took today with a somewhat flare-y (possibly some haze) vintage Kino 105mm on a pretty icky overcast day. I imported it, tweaked, exported in LR. The top is the PP output, the bottom is the original RAW cropped to 100%, zeroed out all exposure values and sharpness/NR sliders and then cranked simple exposure way up (+2.16 or so).

Click to expand...

billzilla2000 said:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the example/demo. I enjoy my NX10 and this shows one reason why.