Ben, I don't think I responded adequately to your input here. I am very, very appreciative of your contribution.
I am, clearly, overthinking this. It's my nature.
I have yet to press the button on the EX2F. I'd like to in the next 24 hours.
May I introduce a couple of the criticisms that I can't get by at the moment? Am I making too much of them?
I estimate that these criticisms reflect about 15 percent of the available reviews on the EX2F on the web. The balance of reviews note no such fault in jpegs.
Is it possible that these shortcomings, if indeed they are valid, have been remedied by the most recent firmware updates? The last update is 13 months old now. It seems unlikely that Samsung will release further firmware updates. But I cannot find recent comment on this camera regarding firmware updates.
Anyway, here are the comments from two separate reviews on the EX2F. I would very, very, much appreciate any comment or rebuttal of these observations about the JPEG quality of the EX2F.
I have read that the most recent July 2013 firmware update corrects RAW barrel distortion that is observed in one of these reviews. But there is no mention of correcting any of the other JPEG processing problems.
Thanks for any comment on the following.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-ex2f/samsung-ex2fA.HTM
By Mike Pasini and Mike Tomkins
Posted: 03/06/2013
RAW capture is good, but... I got back to the bunker with about half an hour to post a few shots. The JPEGs weren't usable, so I processed everything in Lightroom, which applied the JPEG crops to the RAW files. I posted a short news story with a small selection of the images.
Nobody in their right mind would do event photography on a deadline with a camera whose JPEGs they can't trust. It just isn't feasible to add to the workflow. I was lucky to be able to work fast enough to get the TV on with the sound down and the Giants' broadcasters on the radio just a couple of heartbeats before the first pitch of Game One.
I also took the EX2F and an Olympus E-PL1 to the de Young Museum to shoot a selection of artwork in the Paley exhibit. The E-PL1 had no trouble with the kit lens delivering distortion-free images. Not so with the EX2F, though.
Image quality. I captured some stunning shots with the EX2F. But very early on I realized I couldn't rely on its JPEG rendering. So I almost never shot JPEG only.
This is the only camera that has ever pushed me into that corner. But it didn't take longer than the first outing up Twin Peaks under a dramatic post-storm sky. I had set the camera to RAW+JPEG, noticed happily that the delay in writing the RAW wasn't going to hamper my style (but there is a delay, so it might hamper yours), and left it that way.
Looking at my shots on the AMOLED display, I liked what I was getting. But when I returned to the bunker and brought them up on the monitor, I was a little horrified. Well, OK, maybe "surprised" is a better word. The shadows were plugged up, the highlights blown. On the JPEGs.
But the RAW images rendered very nicely in Adobe Camera Raw. It was almost as if there were two cameras in the EX2F. So if there's an image I shot for this review in the Gallery interests you, download the RAW version to see what the EX2F is really capable of. You might be shocked (not just surprised) at what YSAM_0026.SRW looks like compared to YSAM_0026.JPG.
JPEG VS. RAW
High contrast scenes saved as JPEGs in the camera weren't usable but the RAW captures had a lot of life in them. It was such a dramatic difference, we shot RAW+JPEG almost all the time.
Not all JPEGs are as bad as my first ones. Those scenes had high contrast. With more moderate contrast in the scene, the JPEG won't exhibit blown highlights and plugged up shadows. But it's too bad the EX2F doesn't include something like Canon's iContrast, Nikon's D-Lighting or even Samsung's own Smart Range found in the NX series to enhance JPEG rendering.
JPEG rendering inconsistent and disappointing
Tends to blow highlights
No ISO button
Few customization options
Limited zoom reach (80mm eq.) compared to competitors
Noise reduction interferes with details at ISO 800 and above
No control over noise reduction
Soft corners wide open
Telephoto still has soft corners stopped-down
Slightly higher than average pincushion distortion at telephoto
High chromatic aberration and barrel distortion in uncorrected RAW files
Auto and Incandescent white balance too warm indoors
Program mode offers one exposure only (no program shift)
RAW files not supported in continuous mode
Very large RAW files
WiFi capabilities a little clunky, and not fully supported on Macs
No AV cable included
Occasionally misfocuses in low light
Mediocre battery life
http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/samsung-ex2f-digital-camera-review-updated
We were put off by the overprocessed software fakery.
Overall, the Samsung EX2F's image quality falls short of the Sony RX100, despite attractive shallow depth of field effects and very impressive resolution. In part, this is because the high sharpness figures came from obvious software fakery, with the EX2F applying crazy oversharpening to its JPEGs.
In real-world testing, we preferred the aesthetic qualities of the RX100, which pairs a larger 1-inch sensor (vs. the EX2F's 1/1.7-inch sensor) with an f/1.8 lens. The RX100 has far more appealing bokeh—blurred out of focus areas—which help draw your attention to the subject. The larger sensor also offers improved high-ISO noise performance, and that contributes to its far better dynamic range numbers. You simply get far more for your money by going with the RX100.
Still, "your money" means $150 more when you pick the RX100, and we suspect many will take the savings over the better long-term value. In addition to the aforementioned (somewhat illegitimate) sharpness, the EX2F had acceptable color accuracy, a class-average 10 frames per second burst rating, and sharp HD video marred somewhat by compression artifacts. In general there's a lot to like here, though the advanced compact category has taken a quantum leap forward, so there are still better options out there.
Problems with the EX2F's images include oversharpening and a lack of dynamic range. We've never seen a camera use such aggressive sharpness enhancement. That's a shame, because images seemed sharp enough already, and the oversharpening results in side-effects like haloing. Worse is the camera's low dynamic range, a result of the sensor's inability to keep noise in check. This is a limitation we noticed right away, and it meant many of our outdoor test shots weren't all they could've been.
So as far as personal preference is concerned, I'm not concerned if this camera must remain in RAW/JPEG setting and be slightly slower in processing than the best. The RAW barrel distortion is, anecdotally, corrected by last year's firmware so that's one less, major, remedy required in photoshop.
Should I be OK with this news? Not owning the camera yet... currently the RX100 listing for nearly twice the available price of the EX2F... is it still the best value out there for me?
The EX2F is avail at aliexpress.com for 269 dollars free ship. I've been ordering from aliexpress without a significant hitch for two years now so my confidence in this particular vendor on aliexpress is pretty high. I'll take preemtive precautions in any case via VISA to be covered in case of fraud.
Thank you ANY samsung owners or interested ones for comment here.
