NX300 (first?) practical test...

[Ariston]

tecnoworld wrote:

if NX sensors can't reach at least the NEX ones in DxOmark (for high ISO), the NX system won't get any heads up by the customers. So I hope that Samsung can improve on this, along with the many incremental improvements which are promised by nx300.

And one thing more: if the IQ stays exactly the same as NX200 and NX20 (which all in all is have the exact same IQ, by looking at the samples on the web) then how many NX200/210/1000/20 owners will be willing to spend 750 euro (or even 500 euro after say 4 months) to get a bit faster focus, higher processing speed and a tilt screen? Not me...considering that I paid just 290 euro for a NX200 three months ago, which is a bargain price, but the market price for such a camera right now.

On the contrary, if NX300 also improves IQ (at least one stop for high ISO, so that ISO 3200 gets similar to ISO 1600 now, then I can consider spending, say, 500-550 euro on the upgrade, before summer.

I might consider the upgrade with processing speed alone but depending how much I need the speed and how immediate. if I don't need it asap, I could wait a few months for it to drop at $500. but I have budget for it.

if IQ is improved as well, then that's fantastic.

 

[Usee]

Ariston wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

if NX sensors can't reach at least the NEX ones in DxOmark (for high ISO), the NX system won't get any heads up by the customers. So I hope that Samsung can improve on this, along with the many incremental improvements which are promised by nx300.

And one thing more: if the IQ stays exactly the same as NX200 and NX20 (which all in all is have the exact same IQ, by looking at the samples on the web) then how many NX200/210/1000/20 owners will be willing to spend 750 euro (or even 500 euro after say 4 months) to get a bit faster focus, higher processing speed and a tilt screen? Not me...considering that I paid just 290 euro for a NX200 three months ago, which is a bargain price, but the market price for such a camera right now.

On the contrary, if NX300 also improves IQ (at least one stop for high ISO, so that ISO 3200 gets similar to ISO 1600 now, then I can consider spending, say, 500-550 euro on the upgrade, before summer.

I might consider the upgrade with processing speed alone but depending how much I need the speed and how immediate. if I don't need it asap, I could wait a few months for it to drop at $500. but I have budget for it.

if IQ is improved as well, then that's fantastic.

I'm looking forward to the probably much faster AF speed, due to the new Hybrid-AF system - beside a hopefully improved dynamic range, color response and Full HD @ 60p...

...and I like the design!

 

[Raf007]

A few pictures NX300 + 12-24mm. JPEG and quite small, cant enlarge them so its difficult to say anything about NX capabilities.

http://olpost.com/v/8452921

 

[tecnoworld]

Nice to see that some pictures are coming. Nothing that can be judged, though.

 

[Usee]

Raf007 wrote:

A few pictures NX300 + 12-24mm. JPEG and quite small, cant enlarge them so its difficult to say anything about NX capabilities.

http://olpost.com/v/8452921

Thank You,

yes, it already exists...

...and better wait a few weeks more and get a mature product than to rush in and get rubbish,

like faulty lenses...

 

[ChuckTa]

tecnoworld wrote:

if NX sensors can't reach at least the NEX ones in DxOmark (for high ISO), the NX system won't get any heads up by the customers. So I hope that Samsung can improve on this, along with the many incremental improvements which are promised by nx300.

And one thing more: if the IQ stays exactly the same as NX200 and NX20 (which all in all is have the exact same IQ, by looking at the samples on the web) then how many NX200/210/1000/20 owners will be willing to spend 750 euro (or even 500 euro after say 4 months) to get a bit faster focus, higher processing speed and a tilt screen? Not me...considering that I paid just 290 euro for a NX200 three months ago, which is a bargain price, but the market price for such a camera right now.

On the contrary, if NX300 also improves IQ (at least one stop for high ISO, so that ISO 3200 gets similar to ISO 1600 now, then I can consider spending, say, 500-550 euro on the upgrade, before summer.

I wish people wish stop looking at the DxO numbers as clearly it is very misleading.

There is IR site to compare images at various ISO and it is much better than just looking at one number, or even here at Dpreview (even if they screw up the focus for the Samsung images. )

Compare Images - Imaging Resource

This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera, and were taken under carefully-controlled conditions, to provide valid comparisons of camera capabilities in actual shooting situations. You can also download the...

www.imaging-resource.com

In DxoMark, Nex 7 has a much better ISO number than NX20, but if u look at the IR comparison, up to ISO1600, the NX20 is as good if not better then Nex7. Even at ISO1600, Nex 7 starts losing quite a bit of details, the texture on the fabric for the NX20 is better then Nex 7. Nex just uses more agressive NR for the noise. The problem with NX is after iso3200, the jpg quality drops very quickly.

 

[Ariston]

ChuckTa wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

if NX sensors can't reach at least the NEX ones in DxOmark (for high ISO), the NX system won't get any heads up by the customers. So I hope that Samsung can improve on this, along with the many incremental improvements which are promised by nx300.

And one thing more: if the IQ stays exactly the same as NX200 and NX20 (which all in all is have the exact same IQ, by looking at the samples on the web) then how many NX200/210/1000/20 owners will be willing to spend 750 euro (or even 500 euro after say 4 months) to get a bit faster focus, higher processing speed and a tilt screen? Not me...considering that I paid just 290 euro for a NX200 three months ago, which is a bargain price, but the market price for such a camera right now.

On the contrary, if NX300 also improves IQ (at least one stop for high ISO, so that ISO 3200 gets similar to ISO 1600 now, then I can consider spending, say, 500-550 euro on the upgrade, before summer.

I wish people wish stop looking at the DxO numbers as clearly it is very misleading.

There is IR site to compare images at various ISO and it is much better than just looking at one number, or even here at Dpreview (even if they screw up the focus for the Samsung images. )

Compare Images - Imaging Resource

This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera, and were taken under carefully-controlled conditions, to provide valid comparisons of camera capabilities in actual shooting situations. You can also download the...

www.imaging-resource.com

In DxoMark, Nex 7 has a much better ISO number than NX20, but if u look at the IR comparison, up to ISO1600, the NX20 is as good if not better then Nex7. Even at ISO1600, Nex 7 starts losing quite a bit of details, the texture on the fabric for the NX20 is better then Nex 7. Nex just uses more agressive NR for the noise. The problem with NX is after iso3200, the jpg quality drops very quickly.

the idea is that people should be aware that the numbers should only be used as a reference point in coherent with actual real world results, law of physics and others. the results are influenced or tainted by specific lens used and firmware. to be honest the NX20 or NX200 can go head to head with the NEX-7 or even outperform it due to obvious reasons such as pixel pitch and the obvious drawback of using a 24MP as opposed to something less. the problem though begins after ISO 3200. for some reason, Samsung's NR was a bit too much aggressively and obliterated some of the details. as long as you don't print outside of 4x6 and don't crop the image, you'd be fine with ISO 6400.

 

[eilivk]

Pleasantly surprised by NX(10) low ISO and sharpness and colours compared to G3, but not from ISO 800. Of course NX300 will be better, but even if it's a little better than NEX7, no EVF and no IBIS. And with IS problems with one lens in each system, a bit skeptic. For my use NX have to be good at IO 3200 and the LCD must work well in very strong light (which I doubt!). There are so many good alternatives today (like OM-D and Fuji).

But the 30mm is so good and would be handy with NX300. Or an older small NX. But choose NX as a system? Strong competition, which is nice.

 

[tecnoworld]

Even not looking at DxO and considering raw files (and not jpg) I can't but think that fuji mirrorless cams are 1 stop better (in some cases even more) than nx200 at ISO higher than 800. Nex 5n is probably just half a stop better than nx, which nevertheless is quite a lot in certain situations.

Of course nx has some very nice lenses and I own them, but it will be difficult for new customers to spend 700+ euro on a new system, unless they see it's on par or better than competition at high iso. This is an important selling point, by today's standars.

 

[Usee]

eilivk wrote:

Pleasantly surprised by NX(10) low ISO and sharpness and colours compared to G3, but not from ISO 800. Of course NX300 will be better, but even if it's a little better than NEX7, no EVF and no IBIS. And with IS problems with one lens in each system, a bit skeptic. For my use NX have to be good at IO 3200 and the LCD must work well in very strong light (which I doubt!). There are so many good alternatives today (like OM-D and Fuji).

I would also like to see a NX300 with (attachable,) tiltable EVF...

...anyway, the NEX7 has (in my hands) a worse ergonomics than a NX1000, if a Sony lens is attached...

...and a non tiltable EVF is useless in situations like this:





...if You don't want to lay yourself, on a thawed meadow in January for taking a snap shot.

-

However, even the screen of the NX1000 was sufficient in this situation, to compose the picture...

...in very strong sunlight, one can keep the NX1000 in the pocket...

...so I really hope (and think) that the tiltable screen of the NX300 is much better.

-

IBIS is something that only helps in some, but not all situations, because it doesn't freeze moving objects, but only moving hands - like all stabilizers...

...however, it is usefull in conjunction with every lens, which is quite convenient.

-

If You look at real ISO 3200 (ISO 6400 setting on OM-D and nearly ISO 6400 setting on Fuji X-Pro1) at the same picture size (16 MP)...

...You will find, that there is no big, if any difference between those cameras and the NX1000:




NX1000 @ ISO 3200 setting, equivalent to ISO 6400 setting of the OM-D...

Please have a look at the gallery page for more informations on this ISO 3200 shot.

But the 30mm is so good and would be handy with NX300. Or an older small NX. But choose NX as a system? Strong competition, which is nice.

...and the Samsung 12-24mm has no peers (quality wise) in the Oly or Fuji lineup:





(sharp across the whole frame)

...and for the 7-14 mm You have to pay twice the price, but get a tad wider view and problems in backlit situations.

-

Yes, competition is nice...

...especially if they use the same standards according to the ISO settings of their cameras...

...because everybody and his dog knows, that only DxOMark is uncovering the real ISO of the cameras and all other sites (I know of) rely on what the manufacturer setting of the cameras claim...

...which is obviously far off in case of the OM-D and other cameras like the Fuji X-Pro1!

--
Envy is the highest form of recognition.
Stop to run, start to think.
Think twice - that doubles the fun!
Your world is as big, as Your mind.
Avoid to have only one point of view!
Uli

 

[tecnoworld]

Where may I read evidence about the iso equivalence you have talked about? I'm really interested in that since as I said I see one stop in favour of fuji compared to nx, but if you are right, than that stop more is faked...am I correct?

 

[Usee]

tecnoworld wrote:

Where may I read evidence about the iso equivalence you have talked about? I'm really interested in that since as I said I see one stop in favour of fuji compared to nx, but if you are right, than that stop more is faked...am I correct?

Yes, You are correct...

...and You can have a look at DxO:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...d)/Olympus/(appareil2)/741|0/(brand2)/Samsung

...and especially have a look at the samples from the mentioned cameras at imaging-resource:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/EXIF/EM5hSLI06400NR0.HTM

and

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx1000/EXIF/NX1000hSLI03200XNR.HTM

...compare the aperture setting, the exposure time and develop the RAWs with a software that is able to match the colorchecker chart values for both files!

-

P.S.:

If one can't rely on the constant power of the light source imaging-resource used during their tests, one can only rely on the findings of DxO, as long as one doesn't own both cameras...

...beside that they used different lenses, with a probably different loss of light.

 

[tecnoworld]

Thanks! This is really informative and would deserve a thread by its own, imho!

 

[eilivk]

There is a lot to consider about the different systems, makes an old man's head spin, like not-so-honest ISO. Reading posts in different forums, and judging what is facts. Don't know enough about NX yet, but know that NX300 and 30mm would be a fine combination. Or if I could get a 200 or 210 cheap with the 18-55.... Look forward to tests of NX300 and NX20.

 

[Ariston]

eilivk wrote:

There is a lot to consider about the different systems, makes an old man's head spin, like not-so-honest ISO. Reading posts in different forums, and judging what is facts. Don't know enough about NX yet, but know that NX300 and 30mm would be a fine combination. Or if I could get a 200 or 210 cheap with the 18-55.... Look forward to tests of NX300 and NX20.

I think the ISO accuracy topic is overblown. one must remember that we are no longer at the film age but rather digital age where DR matters and could make the difference between irretrievable data and retrievable data. that what matters and is a a part of ISO sensitivity. in fact it is pointless or insignificant to argue a 1/2 or 2/3 stop difference nowadays due to the influence of metering, lens, sensor and dynamic range. now if the difference were about a stop and half or 2 stops, then we can start talking about dishonest ISO tolerance.




what we should be paying attention more is overall camera performance (not just IQ). in terms of IQ, I just hope that the High ISO DR in the NX300 could salvage a lot more consistently. I'd be extremely happy if we could even get an ISO800 result at ISO 3200 with the NX300. but I think Samsung might just release something just as good or slightly better than the current gen NEX cameras.

 

[Ariston]

tecnoworld wrote:

Even not looking at DxO and considering raw files (and not jpg) I can't but think that fuji mirrorless cams are 1 stop better (in some cases even more) than nx200 at ISO higher than 800. Nex 5n is probably just half a stop better than nx, which nevertheless is quite a lot in certain situations.

Of course nx has some very nice lenses and I own them, but it will be difficult for new customers to spend 700+ euro on a new system, unless they see it's on par or better than competition at high iso. This is an important selling point, by today's standars.

the real advantage of half a stop would be for lowlight detail which requires Higher ISO sensitivity. they are pretty much neck and neck from ISO 400-ISO 800. I think this pretty much explained by DXOMarks with their lowlight/sports score for the NX20/200. I just hope that the NX300 would be as good in the High ISO department especially when the NEX stumbled on a dead end for now. a half stop improvement or 1 stop would definitely be great news. hope the new image processor live up to the hype.

 

[Usee]

Ariston wrote:

eilivk wrote:

There is a lot to consider about the different systems, makes an old man's head spin, like not-so-honest ISO. Reading posts in different forums, and judging what is facts. Don't know enough about NX yet, but know that NX300 and 30mm would be a fine combination. Or if I could get a 200 or 210 cheap with the 18-55.... Look forward to tests of NX300 and NX20.

I think the ISO accuracy topic is overblown. one must remember that we are no longer at the film age but rather digital age where DR matters and could make the difference between irretrievable data and retrievable data. that what matters and is a a part of ISO sensitivity. in fact it is pointless or insignificant to argue a 1/2 or 2/3 stop difference nowadays due to the influence of metering, lens, sensor and dynamic range. now if the difference were about a stop and half or 2 stops, then we can start talking about dishonest ISO tolerance.

No, I don't think so,

because nearly all the test sites and magazines orientate their findings mainly on ISO performance,

thus making a fair competition at least "difficult" if manufacturers doesn't care about the standards.

If they would call it sensitivity 1, 2, 3, etc. there were nothing to moan, but also nothing to compare...

...and here in this very forum it is (nearly) all about comparison and who could want a unfair comparison caused on ISO cheating?

-

Olympus and Fuji did choose to call ISO 3200 from now on ISO 6400, which is one stop and can result in wrong assumtions and conclusions according to dynamic range, as one could see in the wrong findings someone made here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50433974

...and You wouldn't like to base Your buying decision on false data, would You?

what we should be paying attention more is overall camera performance (not just IQ). in terms of IQ, I just hope that the High ISO DR in the NX300 could salvage a lot more consistently. I'd be extremely happy if we could even get an ISO800 result at ISO 3200 with the NX300. but I think Samsung might just release something just as good or slightly better than the current gen NEX cameras.

Well,

how can You pay more attention to High ISO DR if the High ISO isn't that high as suspected?

-

We have standards for well known reasons...

...or would You like to compare old "tax hp" with kW when You buy a car?

-

Would You say that someone is faster if he is running at 20 ft per second,

or at 10 m per second?

...would You call the one the winner, who claims that his "feet" is the same than the other ones "meter"?

-

Sorry, but this is a strict no go (in my terms)!

-

If Samsung would call (within the NX300) "real ISO 800" from now on "ISO 3200" would they match Your expectations of improvement and would You buy one based on that cheating?

...probably not, I guess.

 

[Ariston]

Usee wrote:

Ariston wrote:

eilivk wrote:

There is a lot to consider about the different systems, makes an old man's head spin, like not-so-honest ISO. Reading posts in different forums, and judging what is facts. Don't know enough about NX yet, but know that NX300 and 30mm would be a fine combination. Or if I could get a 200 or 210 cheap with the 18-55.... Look forward to tests of NX300 and NX20.

I think the ISO accuracy topic is overblown. one must remember that we are no longer at the film age but rather digital age where DR matters and could make the difference between irretrievable data and retrievable data. that what matters and is a a part of ISO sensitivity. in fact it is pointless or insignificant to argue a 1/2 or 2/3 stop difference nowadays due to the influence of metering, lens, sensor and dynamic range. now if the difference were about a stop and half or 2 stops, then we can start talking about dishonest ISO tolerance.

No, I don't think so,

because nearly all the test sites and magazines orientate their findings mainly on ISO performance,

thus making a fair competition at least "difficult" if manufacturers doesn't care about the standards.

If they would call it sensitivity 1, 2, 3, etc. there were nothing to moan, but also nothing to compare...

...and here in this very forum it is (nearly) all about comparison and who could want a unfair comparison caused on ISO cheating?

-

Olympus and Fuji did choose to call ISO 3200 from now on ISO 6400, which is one stop and can result in wrong assumtions and conclusions according to dynamic range, as one could see in the wrong findings someone made here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50433974


...and You wouldn't like to base Your buying decision on false data, would You?

what we should be paying attention more is overall camera performance (not just IQ). in terms of IQ, I just hope that the High ISO DR in the NX300 could salvage a lot more consistently. I'd be extremely happy if we could even get an ISO800 result at ISO 3200 with the NX300. but I think Samsung might just release something just as good or slightly better than the current gen NEX cameras.

Well,

how can You pay more attention to High ISO DR if the High ISO isn't that high as suspected?

-

We have standards for well known reasons...

...or would You like to compare old "tax hp" with kW when You buy a car?

-

Would You say that someone is faster if he is running at 20 ft per second,

or at 10 m per second?

...would You call the one the winner, who claims that his "feet" is the same than the other ones "meter"?

-

Sorry, but this is a strict no go (in my terms)!

-

If Samsung would call (within the NX300) "real ISO 800" from now on "ISO 3200" would they match Your expectations of improvement and would You buy one based on that cheating?

...probably not, I guess.

 

[Usee]

Ariston wrote:

Usee wrote:

Ariston wrote:

eilivk wrote:

There is a lot to consider about the different systems, makes an old man's head spin, like not-so-honest ISO. Reading posts in different forums, and judging what is facts. Don't know enough about NX yet, but know that NX300 and 30mm would be a fine combination. Or if I could get a 200 or 210 cheap with the 18-55.... Look forward to tests of NX300 and NX20.

I think the ISO accuracy topic is overblown. one must remember that we are no longer at the film age but rather digital age where DR matters and could make the difference between irretrievable data and retrievable data. that what matters and is a a part of ISO sensitivity. in fact it is pointless or insignificant to argue a 1/2 or 2/3 stop difference nowadays due to the influence of metering, lens, sensor and dynamic range. now if the difference were about a stop and half or 2 stops, then we can start talking about dishonest ISO tolerance.

No, I don't think so,

because nearly all the test sites and magazines orientate their findings mainly on ISO performance,

thus making a fair competition at least "difficult" if manufacturers doesn't care about the standards.

If they would call it sensitivity 1, 2, 3, etc. there were nothing to moan, but also nothing to compare...

...and here in this very forum it is (nearly) all about comparison and who could want a unfair comparison caused on ISO cheating?

-

Olympus and Fuji did choose to call ISO 3200 from now on ISO 6400, which is one stop and can result in wrong assumtions and conclusions according to dynamic range, as one could see in the wrong findings someone made here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50433974

...and You wouldn't like to base Your buying decision on false data, would You?

what we should be paying attention more is overall camera performance (not just IQ). in terms of IQ, I just hope that the High ISO DR in the NX300 could salvage a lot more consistently. I'd be extremely happy if we could even get an ISO800 result at ISO 3200 with the NX300. but I think Samsung might just release something just as good or slightly better than the current gen NEX cameras.

Well,

how can You pay more attention to High ISO DR if the High ISO isn't that high as suspected?

-

We have standards for well known reasons...

...or would You like to compare old "tax hp" with kW when You buy a car?

-

Would You say that someone is faster if he is running at 20 ft per second,

or at 10 m per second?

...would You call the one the winner, who claims that his "feet" is the same than the other ones "meter"?

-

Sorry, but this is a strict no go (in my terms)!

-

If Samsung would call (within the NX300) "real ISO 800" from now on "ISO 3200" would they match Your expectations of improvement and would You buy one based on that cheating?

...probably not, I guess.

 

[Ariston]

you're still confused. and leave Eric out of the discussion because he has more substance compared to your sarcastic reply which failed to even contain something of value.