performance...

Went to the playground yesterday with my EX2F. Realized how important low latency and overall responsiveness is.

Went to the playground today with my NX300. I complain about the buffer depth and overall responsiveness, but compared to EX2F, it's still lightning fast.

I could care less about high-ISO low-noise and high DR. All relatively recent digital imaging sensors are great. But there's nothing more frustrating than waiting for the buffer to clear to get the shot.  I don't think the NX500 would make me much happier.

Here's an OOC Jpeg from my NX300.

Just a crop. No other edits. The JPEG engine probably doesn't handle noise as gracefully as Lightroom. But for throwing something up on Facebook for family and friends, it's way more than sufficient.  Would NX500 have less noise?  Sure.  Do I care?  Not really.  I'd love for Samsung to have released a NX300 successor WITH JUST A DEEPER BUFFER AND FASTER PROCESSING ENGINE. It's disappointing that the NX500 is not reportedly more responsive.  Again: NX1 is overkill for me, but I would be really happy with a slightly snappier NX300.  Keep her at 20MP to keep the buffer depth better.  And a second dial would be nice.

So, Samsung, now that you are supposedly ceasing R&D on NX cameras...  that's what I want.

Personally, I find the NX500 to be much more responsive than the NX300 I owned previously.

Great shot, btw.

Nx500 Technology with a 20mpix bsi Sensor Will do: Faster and better! Will be a top seller!
--
http://samsungnxtips.blogspot.com

If you're shooting jpeg you could just choose a smaller size on the NX500 for better buffer depth, I'm pretty sure one of the options is around 20, no?

But nx500 is exactly what you describe: huge jpeg buffer (~40 full resolution, even more at lower selectable resolution) with shorter buffer clearing time (as it can use faster cards) and not locked with Processing on display. Even raw buffer depth is between 10 and 18 depending on the card and ISO used and clearing time is much shorter than my NX1000 (which is comparable with your camera) and not locked up. And it has second dial and better jpeg engine.

My reasons for wanting it are the same as your frustrations with nx300.

I totally agree on the shortcomings of nx300. Along with the lack of an evf, those are the reasons why I finished hating it.

The nx1 is a totally different experience, really. When I'm back using the nx300, I desire to crash it on the floor, sometimes, for it being so slow in operations.

Nx500: never tried it, but seems to be more similar to nx1 than to nx300.

tecnoworld wrote:

I totally agree on the shortcomings of nx300. Along with the lack of an evf, those are the reasons why I finished hating it.

The nx1 is a totally different experience, really. When I'm back using the nx300, I desire to crash it on the floor, sometimes, for it being so slow in operations.

Nx500: never tried it, but seems to be more similar to nx1 than to nx300.

tecno,  having been a long time reader on this forum, I know the performance boost on the NX1 is the "real thing" given how grumpy you were before and how happy you seem now.

On one hand, I feel like I should just lay out the cash and get an NX1.  On the other hand, I'd rather have the pocketability of the NX500.

I am very tempted by the LX100, since I feel like it ticks many boxes.  The only thing that really holds me back is the non-tilting display.  I'd be giving up my NX primes, but the LX100 lens would have been good enough for most of the shots I took at my kid's party (even though I love the NX 30mm).   Likely *better* at 70mm equiv since I left my NX45mm at home,  and 70mm equiv  would have required a 3/2 crop on the 30mm.

Also, when I think about NX1, I think "if it's so heavy, I might as well get the 16-50S with it".  And then I think "But then I might as well save 1000 bucks and get an A77ii with the sony 16-50".  There's a big difference between $2300 for NX1+16-50S and $1450 for A77ii+16-50.  I'm not so big into 4k video, so is NX1 so much better for me than A77ii?

Again: I feel like the LX100 would hit a sweet spot for me.

Fun fact, as LX100 does not use the whole m43 sensor (it has 12MP and ~2.2 crop), if you crop 12MP from nx500 with 30mm shot you get the ~70mm equivalent focal length but still with f/2.0.

otto k wrote:

Fun fact, as LX100 does not use the whole m43 sensor (it has 12MP and ~2.2 crop),

I know.  The crop factors are quoted using the diagonal of the sensor rectangle, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.  I tend to crop closer to 4:3 ("native-ish" for LX100)  than 3:2 (native for NX300) so there's less disadvantage for me since I'm usually cropping a lot of the sides off APS-C anyway.

if you crop 12MP from nx500 with 30mm shot you get the ~70mm equivalent focal length but still with f/2.0.

Using the diagonals (the 2.2 crop factor for LX100) to try to keep as apples-to-apples as possible, LX100 is 6.2 equivalent aperture and 12 megapixels at 70mm equiv, while NX300 with NX30mm at f/2 actual is 4.5 equivalent aperture (you crop 2:3 from FF to APS-C and another 2:3 to get out to 70mm effective) and 8.9 megapixel when cropped to 70mm equiv.  It's about 1 stop so I guess it's a big advantage for NX300...  Or you could say "it would be fairer to compare with the NX16-50 power zoom" in which case the LX100 would win in absolute terms.

At the birthday party I would have given up the aperture and gone for the zoom.  Like I said: I think LX100 is in the goldilocks zone *for me*.

Agree, if I had to pick a fixed lens camera I would probably go for LX100.

mordor_74 wrote:

Nx500 Technology with a 20mpix bsi Sensor Will do: Faster and better! Will be a top seller!
--
http://samsungnxtips.blogspot.com

Funny thing is I actually prefer the images from the NX300 sensor to the NX1 sensor. The NX1 has more DR and better ISO but the LOOK of the images just looks better with the 300. More "organic" if that even makes sense LOL. Kind of like the images from a 18mp 1dx compared to a 36mp D810. There is just something about the look that's more pleasing. How there are still a lot of people who really like the look of the 5d classic or Fuji images but don't know exactly why

I'm starting to think that it may be the way LR handles the new NX sensor images hmm...

Exactly, lr does a poor job with nx1.

I love my nx500, it's fast as far as mirror less cameras go. But even my canon sl1 (pretty much the cheapest dslr you can buy) absolutely kills it in speed (as long as your not using live view) .

The Canon can take pictures as fast as you pull the trigger and takes the picture instantly.
Every mirror less camera I've tried is slow compared to the dslr.
However, back to the question at hand, the nx500 is really quite fast, Espicially if you use a fast card.

Even though it's a bit slower the image quality and usability keeps the Canon on the shelf and the Samsung in my hands.

parakalien wrote:

I love my nx500, it's fast as far as mirror less cameras go. But even my canon sl1 (pretty much the cheapest dslr you can buy) absolutely kills it in speed (as long as your not using live view) .

The Canon can take pictures as fast as you pull the trigger and takes the picture instantly.
Every mirror less camera I've tried is slow compared to the dslr.
However, back to the question at hand, the nx500 is really quite fast, Espicially if you use a fast card.

Even though it's a bit slower the image quality and usability keeps the Canon on the shelf and the Samsung in my hands.

You're very right about the shutter. The NX1 feels like it has "shutter by wire" setup while a DSLR feels like it has a direct linkage to the shutter. It makes a difference that is noticeable, although not a deal breaker. AF is still faster on a DSLR, not to mention focus accuracy. Just things that just are what they are