The Northrups review the NX30

dennis tennis wrote:

ttbek wrote:

dennis tennis wrote:

ttbek wrote:

dennis tennis wrote:

Ian Leach wrote:

Your argument is fine but does miss that I put (similar price) in brackets. I probably should have also put (similar lens). The NX 20-50mm kit is is better at the edges than the Nex 16-50mm kit. The NX 16, 20 and 30 all have the edge over the Nex versions in the samples I have studied. You may be able to buy a ZEISS TOUIT 32MM F/1.8 for E-MOUNT but it costs £600.

One of the key points is that cameras should not be reviewed without the eco system, you can't use a camera without a lens, it is meaningless.

Lastly there is the problem of scale. What I think is a big difference may be inconsequential to another. This is actually behind many of the disagreements which occur in forums.

Look at the sample Sony 24-70 f4 pictures I posted. If you listen to DXO, DPR, YuoTube reviews you would think that the Sony A7 and lens is fantastic. But imagine spending £2000+ on gear only for someone to come along with a £250 NX and take a clearer photo. Yes, it has to be a specific type of shot but it does show that you need to be careful of what the reviewers are saying. They tend to over play some areas and completely ignore others. As I said it is because they are all portrait photographers and don't think much about the edges.

Well, Sony kit lens suck. Every can make kit lens well these days except Sony. But the you can't limit sony eco system to just their kit lens. You need to account for the other lens that are offered on that system. I three Sigma lenses I listed and own, are amazing and cheap. I can only say that the 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 G FE (full frame) are great and the Zeiss lenses are excellent (I have both Tuoit lenses :). So, Sony system has the edge in that you can have great third party lenses.

Samsung is by itself for now and they have great lenses, but limited. For now, I think of Samsung as the mirrorless vesion of Pentax. I love Pentax primes and to me Samsung makes cameras and lenses that I though Pentax would make if they had gone to a new mirrorless system. Samsung and Pentax were DSLR partners back in the day so maybe those Samsung folks are now leading the Samsung mirrorless department.

In contrast, I get the feeling that Sony consumer division is responsible for making those horrible kit and consumer level lenses and a different department makes the G Zeiss level lenses.

... Well Zeiss is an entirely separate company.

Yes, and you're going to judge a system based only on lens made my the manufacturer? Just because Samsung have not been able to attract thrid party, doesn't mean that you can impose this restriction on other systems. Samsung used to have Schneider but no more, so does this mean that good lens manufacterer are abandoning Samsung. If so, it is a negaive not a positive.

I imposed no such restriction, I was just clarifying because your statement wasn't very clear. I was not implying that they don't count because Sony doesn't make them. Though on that point, I thought I heard that Sony does make them, under license, with Zeiss oversight or something. I don't remember where I heard that though, so no idea if it was reliable or not.

The original criticism was about sony not have good lenses, now the restriction is increased to good lens made by Sony, next, it it will be further restricted to kit lens. We're going to judge a camera body based on the quality of the kit lens? so, that will mean that we don't even have to review camera bodies?

Nope, I made no such restriction.

DPR review should be limited to reviewing kit lenses? DPR should say, well folks, we won't be review the Canon Dx, the Nikon d750 because they haven't introduced a new kit lens yet so there's no reason to review. Once they come out with a new 18-55 kit 4.5-5.6 kit lens, we'll be sure to compare it against the Samsung kit lens.

Way to argue ad absurdum. We're all terribly impressed with your debate skills.

Also, feel free to correct this, but I've been hearing that the Zeiss lenses for Sony are not really up to par with their usual. I'm not seeing many of them tested on DXO though, so this wasn't something I could check in just a minute or two.

Every you say is correct, Zeiss is both a separte company, but their Sony Zeiss lenses, aren't reallly Zeiss,

That's debatable, I have no strong feelings on whether something is made where or not makes it in or out of the group.  I was just mentioning something I heard and was hoping you could verify the situation.  I also don't care about Leica and Portugal, whatever is going on with that.

and even a real Zeiss like the Otus is crap compared to a Sansum kit lens.

So now you just want to make things up.

I bow you your ability to look at DxoMark on your computer screen, my experience with Samung and Sony and Zeiss Sony and Zeiss MF lenses, is nothing compared to your ability to look at charts.

This part may be true, it's not like you've said anything in this thread that would suggest that you knew anything about lenses made by anyone.

I'm going to learn from you, I will choose my next wife using test chart, Dear Ms. M, your personality chart show little vignetting, chromatic aberation. I would like to mary you.

There's obviously more to things than basic metrics show.  The archetypical lens example being bokeh.  Since you seem to have trouble reading the charts, they also say the Zeiss Otus is a bajillion times sharper than the Samsung kit lens.  Good luck with that marriage though.  And really, cheer up, it's Christmas.