NX300 early impressions

tecnoworld wrote:

Where are fuji x-a1 (and brothers) and the older nex7? I don't consider fixed lens cameras to be competitors to nx.

I don't see why not. Just because they have a fixed lens doesn't mean they aren't comparable, or similar in performance and application. I didn't include X-A1 because IR doesn't have buffer figures for that. I did include the X-Pro1, a higher end model.

For me everything below 8-9 frames in raw is very poor. For you it may be different and I don't want to change your mind.

I think if an 8 or lower frame buffer is very poor to you, you're going to be unhappy with any but a very select few models, most of which cost far more than the NX300.

And, given the sales, if samsung does not get the best in everything (and by a large margin) they won't ever sell decently.

Not sure what this means...

A very informative and enjoyable read, hope you continue to love the camera!

Fixed lens cameras and ilc are directed towards different kind of consumers or they are 'complementary' sometimes, but I don't see them as alternatives. This is proven by the fact that a lot of dslr users also own a flc, while they don't have a mirrorless ilc. Besides many users will feel that having just one fl is very different than having many.

I don't see x-pro1 in your list. Anyway x-a1 can do, if I remember well, 10 raw+jpg.

tjobbe wrote:

arbuz wrote:

pixelpushing wrote:

CONS: I'm starting to think the NX300 gives up a smidge of sharpness to the previous gen model(s).

I like your review. Regarding above - I must say I have sometimes similar impression. I shot both NX30 and NX300 and occasionally I think low ISO is better on NX20. I have never done any test though so I cannot confirm. certainly noise reduction on high ISO has different patter on these both cameras.

the measurements of the NX200 indicates that they oversharpend the JPEG way more than in the NX20 and NX300 hence he impression is backed up by facts.

Nevertheless oversharpening is artificial and if you really liked the look of the NX200 you need to shoot raw and push the slider in LR

I personally develop my RAW's in LR as well with some oversharping but mainly for edges only

I also believe that the NX300 default noise reduction is set too high in JPEG (even though the camera says it is the "Normal" setting). I couldn't believe that my 20 megapixel OOC JPGS's were softer than ones from my 16 megaixel Pentax, so when I checked the noise reduction I set it to Off. they are better now, but Raw still gives me the sharpest image.

Hi, I have the NX300 for about 6 months. I was able to get a deal with the camera plus two zooms (18-55 and 50-200), after that I bought the 16, the 30 and recently the 60.

I have used the zooms in many occasions, and usually, kit zooms are known for not being a good lens, but I can assure that these two are very good. Before buying the nx300 I had the Sony Nex 5R, with the same zooms range (sony's 55-210), for what my eyes can see, the samsung's lens are much better. The 30 is famous for being a good lens, but noisy, the 60 is a macro lens, that I use for macro shots and portrait (the 45 is known to be very good). As for the 16 (as the 30) is quite small, many complain about is quality, I like it, of course there is a good amount of distortion.

So,  I am rather happy with the nx300, many complain about the lack of evf, I prefer to use the lcd, the most annoying thing is the lack of a flash in the body, you have to attach it, but I find it not pratical. The image quality is good, jpegs are good, but you can get a better result with RAW (huge files). In low light situations, the results are not so great, Fuji cameras seem to have a edge in this case. But for the price I have paid, I have just great things to say about.

Lack of flash bothers me too, but I only want a pop up flash if they allow it to tilt... like that seen on the Fuji X-a1.