I might consider the upgrade with processing speed alone but depending how much I need the speed and how immediate. if I don't need it asap, I could wait a few months for it to drop at $500. but I have budget for it.
I'm looking forward to the probably much faster AF speed, due to the new Hybrid-AF system - beside a hopefully improved dynamic range, color response and Full HD @ 60p...
Thank You,
I wish people wish stop looking at the DxO numbers as clearly it is very misleading.
www.imaging-resource.com
the idea is that people should be aware that the numbers should only be used as a reference point in coherent with actual real world results, law of physics and others. the results are influenced or tainted by specific lens used and firmware. to be honest the NX20 or NX200 can go head to head with the NEX-7 or even outperform it due to obvious reasons such as pixel pitch and the obvious drawback of using a 24MP as opposed to something less. the problem though begins after ISO 3200. for some reason, Samsung's NR was a bit too much aggressively and obliterated some of the details. as long as you don't print outside of 4x6 and don't crop the image, you'd be fine with ISO 6400.ChuckTa wrote:
I wish people wish stop looking at the DxO numbers as clearly it is very misleading.
There is IR site to compare images at various ISO and it is much better than just looking at one number, or even here at Dpreview (even if they screw up the focus for the Samsung images. )
Compare Images - Imaging Resource
This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera, and were taken under carefully-controlled conditions, to provide valid comparisons of camera capabilities in actual shooting situations. You can also download the...
In DxoMark, Nex 7 has a much better ISO number than NX20, but if u look at the IR comparison, up to ISO1600, the NX20 is as good if not better then Nex7. Even at ISO1600, Nex 7 starts losing quite a bit of details, the texture on the fabric for the NX20 is better then Nex 7. Nex just uses more agressive NR for the noise. The problem with NX is after iso3200, the jpg quality drops very quickly.
I would also like to see a NX300 with (attachable,) tiltable EVF...
...and the Samsung 12-24mm has no peers (quality wise) in the Oly or Fuji lineup:
Yes, You are correct...
I think the ISO accuracy topic is overblown. one must remember that we are no longer at the film age but rather digital age where DR matters and could make the difference between irretrievable data and retrievable data. that what matters and is a a part of ISO sensitivity. in fact it is pointless or insignificant to argue a 1/2 or 2/3 stop difference nowadays due to the influence of metering, lens, sensor and dynamic range. now if the difference were about a stop and half or 2 stops, then we can start talking about dishonest ISO tolerance.
the real advantage of half a stop would be for lowlight detail which requires Higher ISO sensitivity. they are pretty much neck and neck from ISO 400-ISO 800. I think this pretty much explained by DXOMarks with their lowlight/sports score for the NX20/200. I just hope that the NX300 would be as good in the High ISO department especially when the NEX stumbled on a dead end for now. a half stop improvement or 1 stop would definitely be great news. hope the new image processor live up to the hype.
No, I don't think so,
Well,
Usee wrote:
No, I don't think so,
because nearly all the test sites and magazines orientate their findings mainly on ISO performance,
thus making a fair competition at least "difficult" if manufacturers doesn't care about the standards.
If they would call it sensitivity 1, 2, 3, etc. there were nothing to moan, but also nothing to compare...
...and here in this very forum it is (nearly) all about comparison and who could want a unfair comparison caused on ISO cheating?
-
Olympus and Fuji did choose to call ISO 3200 from now on ISO 6400, which is one stop and can result in wrong assumtions and conclusions according to dynamic range, as one could see in the wrong findings someone made here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50433974
...and You wouldn't like to base Your buying decision on false data, would You?
Well,
how can You pay more attention to High ISO DR if the High ISO isn't that high as suspected?
-
We have standards for well known reasons...
...or would You like to compare old "tax hp" with kW when You buy a car?
-
Would You say that someone is faster if he is running at 20 ft per second,
or at 10 m per second?
...would You call the one the winner, who claims that his "feet" is the same than the other ones "meter"?
-
Sorry, but this is a strict no go (in my terms)!
-
If Samsung would call (within the NX300) "real ISO 800" from now on "ISO 3200" would they match Your expectations of improvement and would You buy one based on that cheating?
...probably not, I guess.
Ariston wrote:
Usee wrote:
No, I don't think so,
because nearly all the test sites and magazines orientate their findings mainly on ISO performance,
thus making a fair competition at least "difficult" if manufacturers doesn't care about the standards.
If they would call it sensitivity 1, 2, 3, etc. there were nothing to moan, but also nothing to compare...
...and here in this very forum it is (nearly) all about comparison and who could want a unfair comparison caused on ISO cheating?
-
Olympus and Fuji did choose to call ISO 3200 from now on ISO 6400, which is one stop and can result in wrong assumtions and conclusions according to dynamic range, as one could see in the wrong findings someone made here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50433974
...and You wouldn't like to base Your buying decision on false data, would You?
Well,
how can You pay more attention to High ISO DR if the High ISO isn't that high as suspected?
-
We have standards for well known reasons...
...or would You like to compare old "tax hp" with kW when You buy a car?
-
Would You say that someone is faster if he is running at 20 ft per second,
or at 10 m per second?
...would You call the one the winner, who claims that his "feet" is the same than the other ones "meter"?
-
Sorry, but this is a strict no go (in my terms)!
-
If Samsung would call (within the NX300) "real ISO 800" from now on "ISO 3200" would they match Your expectations of improvement and would You buy one based on that cheating?
...probably not, I guess.
