Is the Samsung NX1 competitive with the GH4?

It is good that Panasonic gets competitors. Prices goes down and maybe Panasonic engineers will get some motivation to correct GH4 and Panasonic m4/3 faulty features like incomplete exposure options and badly behaving lenses.

If Samsung makes those things better and IQ is very good I am willing to try Samsung.

My friend has cheap Samsung NX1100 (300dollars) and it makes usually better photos than my GH4.

Jorginho said:

jim stirling said:

Jorginho said:

The "but":

- Excectution is essential. How well will it be excecuted. How well do all these individual specs work out? -> await thorough testing.
- Quality Control. I have zero proof, but on the Sammy forum even the few users there have had their fair share of camfailures. What percentage? A reall issue? Worries me a bit though.

- all their very good (if not excellent) lenses, especially the very fast ones are even bigger thantheir DSLR counterparts. is that why I got a mirrorless cam? Just compare the size and weight. I think Fuji got it with going for a f2.8 to f4 kitlens. I think Samsung failed by getting into a 16-50 f2 to f2.8 lens (weighing well over double the 12-35 Panny for instance).

Click to expand...

The Samsung 16-50mm F2-2.8 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} of a FF 24-75mm F3-4.2 on a FF camera , the Panasonic 12-35 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} as a 24-70mm F5.6 FF lens on a FF camera .Assuming you want to compare apples to apples.

Click to expand...

f people here want the exact same apple, they shoud buy that. It is clear most people here on this forum want a smaller version of it. Samsung is not addressing that preference, which may be important.

Click to expand...

You were the one comparing . I simply pointed out that you were not comparing the same thing to deliver the same equivalent results as the Samsung 16-50mm f/2.2-2.8 on mFT you will need a 12-37.5mm F/1.5-2.1 lens which I imagine would be significantly larger than the 12-35mm F/2.8

Jorginho said:

Jorginho said:

As for the rest of your points I tend to agree I would much rather settle for a bit lower potential maximum image quality in exchange for a much more compact system but as ever it is swings and roundabouts. Though i would hesitate to consider "reports" on a DPreview forum as a reliable indicator of camera quality control especially one as small as the Samsung talk forum

Click to expand...

We seem to agree here.

Click to expand...

TrapperJohn said:

What I've seen of the Sammy glass indicates that it is quite good.

But...

If you're looking at a GH4 grade body, that is a fairly high end body, which means you'll be wanting fairly high end glass to get the most out of that body.

In that respect, there is no comparison. µ43 not only has far more high end glass, it is actively developing more high end glass than any mirrorless company. Even Sony can't keep up, let alone a company with a much smaller presence like Samsung.

Body specs aside, a camera is only as good as the lens mounted, and it is only as flexible as the lens line that can work on it.

Click to expand...

With their top trio of zooms 12-24 , 16-50mm F2.2/2.8, 50-150mm F2.8 , the dedicated macro 60mm, the fast portrait 85mm F1.4 , small pancake lenses , the usual selection of smaller slower kit lenses . They cover a lot of bases .

jim stirling said:

Jorginho said:

jim stirling said:

Jorginho said:

The "but":

- Excectution is essential. How well will it be excecuted. How well do all these individual specs work out? -> await thorough testing.
- Quality Control. I have zero proof, but on the Sammy forum even the few users there have had their fair share of camfailures. What percentage? A reall issue? Worries me a bit though.

- all their very good (if not excellent) lenses, especially the very fast ones are even bigger thantheir DSLR counterparts. is that why I got a mirrorless cam? Just compare the size and weight. I think Fuji got it with going for a f2.8 to f4 kitlens. I think Samsung failed by getting into a 16-50 f2 to f2.8 lens (weighing well over double the 12-35 Panny for instance).

Click to expand...

The Samsung 16-50mm F2-2.8 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} of a FF 24-75mm F3-4.2 on a FF camera , the Panasonic 12-35 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} as a 24-70mm F5.6 FF lens on a FF camera .Assuming you want to compare apples to apples.

Click to expand...

f people here want the exact same apple, they shoud buy that. It is clear most people here on this forum want a smaller version of it. Samsung is not addressing that preference, which may be important.

Click to expand...

You were the one comparing . I simply pointed out that you were not comparing the same thing to deliver the same equivalent results as the Samsung 16-50mm f/2.2-2.8 on mFT you will need a 12-37.5mm F/1.5-2.1 lens which I imagine would be significantly larger than the 12-35mm F/2.8

Click to expand...

When I compare a Samsung with a Panasonic we already know we are not comparing the same thing. SO what is your point? Mine is that this: people go for mirrorless mostly because they lose a substantial amount of weight and size. If not: why on Earth would someone have bougt a G1, EPL1, EM5 etc? These things were only better in two things: being small and may be good live view. The EVFs were poor if existent at all (EPL1). Video was not there and it is still not there on the Oly btw. For Panmny, video has become a USP.

So it is size most likely. And that is the comparison. As a system, if you want a high end cam, the NX1 is not providing singificant size reduction. While Oly and Panny are doing so and those who buy into them do know that it is not without its downsides (I hope). NX1 needs to do a lot MUHC better than a D7100 or 7200 to get Nikon and/or Canon users abandon ship. It is not going to happen I think.
And for those who wnet in it for size: they are not going to be happy with what Samsung gives them there I think.

But we'll see. I hope it is a very good cam. The lenses are really good already btw, so no reason to hesitate there I think.

Jorginho said:

jim stirling said:

Jorginho said:

jim stirling said:

Jorginho said:

The "but":

- Excectution is essential. How well will it be excecuted. How well do all these individual specs work out? -> await thorough testing.
- Quality Control. I have zero proof, but on the Sammy forum even the few users there have had their fair share of camfailures. What percentage? A reall issue? Worries me a bit though.

- all their very good (if not excellent) lenses, especially the very fast ones are even bigger thantheir DSLR counterparts. is that why I got a mirrorless cam? Just compare the size and weight. I think Fuji got it with going for a f2.8 to f4 kitlens. I think Samsung failed by getting into a 16-50 f2 to f2.8 lens (weighing well over double the 12-35 Panny for instance).

Click to expand...

The Samsung 16-50mm F2-2.8 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} of a FF 24-75mm F3-4.2 on a FF camera , the Panasonic 12-35 gives the equivalent {same AOV, same DOF, same total light gathering} as a 24-70mm F5.6 FF lens on a FF camera .Assuming you want to compare apples to apples.

Click to expand...

f people here want the exact same apple, they shoud buy that. It is clear most people here on this forum want a smaller version of it. Samsung is not addressing that preference, which may be important.

Click to expand...

You were the one comparing . I simply pointed out that you were not comparing the same thing to deliver the same equivalent results as the Samsung 16-50mm f/2.2-2.8 on mFT you will need a 12-37.5mm F/1.5-2.1 lens which I imagine would be significantly larger than the 12-35mm F/2.8

Click to expand...

When I compare a Samsung with a Panasonic we already know we are not comparing the same thing. SO what is your point? Mine is that this: people go for mirrorless mostly because they lose a substantial amount of weight and size. If not: why on Earth would someone have bougt a G1, EPL1, EM5 etc? These things were only better in two things: being small and may be good live view. The EVFs were poor if existent at all (EPL1). Video was not there and it is still not there on the Oly btw. For Panmny, video has become a USP.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with many of your points but the endless comparisons about size of lenses in other systems with larger sensors that when combined deliver different results sometimes very different results gets old. If you must insist on comparing formats it seems only logical to compare lenses that give the same results { same AOV, same DOF same total light gathered} .

When you compare like for like , say an APS body with fast standard zoom compared to an APS mirrorless body with a fast standard zoom .There are savings in both size and especially weight the NX1 + f/2.2-2.8 16-50 has a total weight of 1232g the D7100 with the 17-55mm F/2.8 has a total weight of 1520g that is a saving over 20% :





Mirrorless cameras bring other advantages over typical DSLR’s. Compared to the D7100 ,the NX1 has a reasonable list of features that the D7100 lacks . Some more useful than others, they include focus peaking, 4K video , touchscreen , tilting LCD, higher MP sensor, 15fps burst shooting and so on.

No you should not compare lenses with equivalent DOF. The first reason is there are no equivalent lenses to compare. Where is the m43. 12-35mm f/1.4 zoom ? Where is the FF 80-300mm f/8-11 zoom ? The second reason is that given same sensor technology, the end result will be the same, so what's the point ?

Taken all this into account, the smaller format system will still be smaller, because the sensor is smaller. I don't think a 90mm f/3.8 lens for FF can be as small and high quality as the 45mm f/1.8 Oly, and also at the same price. And I don't think a FF camera can me made the size of a Panasonic GM1 or Oly E-PM.

It's all about compromises, otherwise we would all buy FF cameras, v8 Ferrari's and 4k OLED 85 inch TV's.

d3xmeister said:

It's all about compromises, otherwise we would all buy FF cameras, v8 Ferrari's and 4k OLED 85 inch TV's.

Click to expand...

I can do without the Ferrari but the 85" 4k tv sounds interesting And we were comparing the NX1 APS with the equally priced GH4 { UK prices} not FF

jim stirling said:

d3xmeister said:

It's all about compromises, otherwise we would all buy FF cameras, v8 Ferrari's and 4k OLED 85 inch TV's.

Click to expand...

I can do without the Ferrari but the 85" 4k tv sounds interesting And we were comparing the NX1 APS with the equally priced GH4 { UK prices} not FF

Click to expand...

Still much bigger with lenses. And with patiente, better iq, resolution and video AF will come to m43 in next generations, I will just upgrade the camera. I don't need to have the latest and greates at the minute it comes out. If you're not invested in m43, and if the NX1 delivers the promise, and size of the system is ok with you, I agree there is no reason to get the GH4 at the same price.

d3xmeister said:

jim stirling said:

d3xmeister said:

It's all about compromises, otherwise we would all buy FF cameras, v8 Ferrari's and 4k OLED 85 inch TV's.

Click to expand...

I can do without the Ferrari but the 85" 4k tv sounds interesting And we were comparing the NX1 APS with the equally priced GH4 { UK prices} not FF

Click to expand...

Still much bigger with lenses. And with patiente, better iq, resolution and video AF will come to m43 in next generations, I will just upgrade the camera. I don't need to have the latest and greates at the minute it comes out. If you're not invested in m43, and if the NX1 delivers the promise, and size of the system is ok with you, I agree there is no reason to get the GH4 at the same price.

Click to expand...

I agree with all that but down to serious business how do I convince my wife that I "need" an 85" 4k tv , tips much appreciated I will not mention price , heck I will even compromise and settle for the small format 65" model ;-) , hey come to think of it the 65" models are not to badly priced

more depth of field isnt a bad thing and that smaller lens will remain an advantage for most casual users. fully articulating screen is still cooler i reckon.

Specs anyway....

Sure viking will give us a fair lowdown asap.

Separately, 4k is likely to need quite some 'puter power to run. Anyone thinking of NX1 or GH4 should budget for some upgrades. Put a spanner in my plans at least.

Of course if you upsize, the GH4 will look deplorable compared to really any camera with that many more megapixels, just like upsizing the NX1 to match the resolution of an A7R would likewise look pretty bad. Normally, these tests are set to normalize their sizes by scaling down the larger MP file. It should still look much better, And we all know you get more cropping leeway with 28MP, but the GH4 shouldn't look as bad as it does here (which anyone should expect by trying to double its size through interpolation).

Can't help you with that. I think 85 is way too big. I have a 55 inch 4k, and I sit at what I consider normal distance from it. The wife still think it's 1080p ), and never asked what the UHD logo on it means. And she think it looks the same as the old tv.

Bhima78 said:

Of course if you upsize, the GH4 will look deplorable compared to really any camera with that many more megapixels, just like upsizing the NX1 to match the resolution of an A7R would likewise look pretty bad. Normally, these tests are set to normalize their sizes by scaling down the larger MP file. It should still look much better, And we all know you get more cropping leeway with 28MP, but the GH4 shouldn't look as bad as it does here (which anyone should expect by trying to double its size through interpolation).

Click to expand...

Why would you possibly want to throw away resolution/detail just to make a lower MP camera look less bad ? Looking at the A7r RAW compared to the NX1 jpeg the advantge is not so clear In fact it is very hard to see

d3xmeister said:

Can't help you with that. I think 85 is way too big. I have a 55 inch 4k, and I sit at what I consider normal distance from it. The wife still think it's 1080p ), and never asked what the UHD logo on it means. And she think it looks the same as the old tv.

Click to expand...

Yes , I think if I tried to sneak an 85" TV into the house I would be in deep doodah , I have a 65" non 4K Panasonic screen I am very happy with , how good do JPEGS look when displayed on a 4k TV ?

jim stirling said:

When you compare like for like , say an APS body with fast standard zoom compared to an APS mirrorless body with a fast standard zoom .There are savings in both size and especially weight the NX1 + f/2.2-2.8 16-50 has a total weight of 1232g the D7100 with the 17-55mm F/2.8 has a total weight of 1520g that is a saving over 20% :


Mirrorless cameras bring other advantages over typical DSLR’s. Compared to the D7100 ,the NX1 has a reasonable list of features that the D7100 lacks . Some more useful than others, they include focus peaking, 4K video , touchscreen , tilting LCD, higher MP sensor, 15fps burst shooting and so on.

Click to expand...

EM1, GH4, NX1 and D7100 with their respective lenses

To put things in perspective.

The EM1 with 12-35 weighs 800 gr
GH4 with 12-35..................865 gr
NX1 with 16-50..................1232 gr.
D7100 with 17-55 Sigma......1332 gr.

See the difference. 65% between EM1 and d7100 and 7% between NX1 and D7100.

The 50-150 Samsung fares a lot better though and better than I expected when compared to the D7100 and its lens. But....

GH4 + 12-35 and 35-100 = 1235 gr.
NX1 + 16-50 and 50-150 = 610 + 622 + 915 = 2247 gr.

NX1 has an advantage here in FL too, spanning 24-225 vs 24-200 mm.

Now size of those lenses btw:
- 12-35 + 35-100 = 6262 cm3

- 16-50 + 50-150 = 1290 cm3

That is twice the size. so it is not only the weight but also the size.The bodies are far more similar btw, so it is really like most have said all the time. The difference is in the lenses. The only difference is the DOF. But that is not a one way advantage to either of both. If you want more DOF in low light, the m43 is at an advantage. If you want to single out subjects, it is the other way around. But the size and weight difference is svery significant.

When you do the same comparison between the Samsung and the D7100 and its lenses you are not coming close to such differences (of course). But the 50-150 IS significantly lighter in weight than the 50-150 f2.8 nevertheless.

I simply think that the name Samsung and a couple of nice specs, even when they do deliver in reallife, is not attractive enough currently. Not too much advantage to attract lots of Nikon/Canon/Sony users and way too heavy to atract m43 users. I think what Samsung has in mind and what will work, is the long run. Make a next gen of this cam and make it equally well etc and they start to gain traction. This is the first model to do so I think. And the main target first will be Canon then Nikon.

Yes, Samsung as a brand is very competitive, and the newest flagship NX is very promising. For me 2 features make this camera special: 28 Mpx sensor and AF assistant with zebra pattern. I want this sensor to be cut off to 43 size, and I want this AF assistant implemented on Panasonic bodies.

What the heck? Upscale a 36 Mpixel D810 to 80 MPixel and then compare to a MF Phaseone...Rubbish.

If you cut it of then you are at 17,5 MPixel. What did you gain? Also: at their size Samsung sensor perform on par with m43 sensor. If you cut them down, the performance will be below that. NX1 I don't know, but NX20 etc are like that.

Just wait and see. It is by far the best effort of Samsung and indeed if all is excecuted well it is very good from them. If it is really good for them? I think the name Samsung is what holding them the most.

Jorginho said:

Jorginho said:

When you compare like for like , say an APS body with fast standard zoom compared to an APS mirrorless body with a fast standard zoom .There are savings in both size and especially weight the NX1 + f/2.2-2.8 16-50 has a total weight of 1232g the D7100 with the 17-55mm F/2.8 has a total weight of 1520g that is a saving over 20% :



Mirrorless cameras bring other advantages over typical DSLR’s. Compared to the D7100 ,the NX1 has a reasonable list of features that the D7100 lacks . Some more useful than others, they include focus peaking, 4K video , touchscreen , tilting LCD, higher MP sensor, 15fps burst shooting and so on.

Click to expand...

EM1, GH4, NX1 and D7100 with their respective lenses

To put things in perspective.

The EM1 with 12-35 weighs 800 gr
GH4 with 12-35..................865 gr
NX1 with 16-50..................1232 gr.
D7100 with 17-55 Sigma......1332 gr.

See the difference. 65% between EM1 and d7100 and 7% between NX1 and D7100.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see you exchanged the weather sealed high build quality Nikon 17-55mm with a non-weather sealed poorer build quality Sigma the Samsung is also quicker in equivalent and absolute terms than every other lens

Jorginho said:

The 50-150 Samsung fares a lot better though and better than I expected when compared to the D7100 and its lens. But....

GH4 + 12-35 and 35-100 = 1235 gr.
NX1 + 16-50 and 50-150 = 610 + 622 + 915 = 2247 gr.

NX1 has an advantage here in FL too, spanning 24-225 vs 24-200 mm.

Click to expand...

With its huge 28mp sensor a 1.3 x crop would get you to a nearly 300mm FF equiv AOV while still having 21 mp to play with

Jorginho said:

Now size of those lenses btw:

- 12-35 + 35-100 = 6262 cm3

- 16-50 + 50-150 = 1290 cm3

Click to expand...

We are still not comparing equivelnts

Jorginho said:

That is twice the size. so it is not only the weight but also the size.The bodies are far more similar btw, so it is really like most have said all the time. The difference is in the lenses. The only difference is the DOF.

Click to expand...

No its not just the DOF its the total light gathered

Jorginho said:

When you do the same comparison between the Samsung and the D7100 and its lenses you are not coming close to such differences (of course). But the 50-150 IS significantly lighter in weight than the 50-150 f2.8 nevertheless.

I simply think that the name Samsung and a couple of nice specs, even when they do deliver in reallife, is not attractive enough currently. Not too much advantage to attract lots of Nikon/Canon/Sony users and way too heavy to atract m43 users. I think what Samsung has in mind and what will work, is the long run. Make a next gen of this cam and make it equally well etc and they start to gain traction. This is the first model to do so I think. And the main target first will be Canon then Nikon.

Click to expand...

I am not in the market for the Samsung, though looking at its low ISO results it looks like it has a lot of potential and would certainly be a landscape option.

Jorginho said:

What the heck? Upscale a 36 Mpixel D810 to 80 MPixel and then compare to a MF Phaseone...Rubbish.

Click to expand...

Why would you possibly downsize an image throwing away detail advantage for the purpose of comparing with a lower MP smaller sensor camera? If I was interested in buying a MF digital outfit that is exactly what I would do.

The advantage of higher MP sensors is their increased detail at low ISO I am hoping for a higher MP mFT sensor in the future to take advantage of the excellent lenses we have. I would only downsize if I wanted to add NR and reduce the effects of noise on a high ISO picture so with higher MP counts you get the ebst of both worlds.