possible 1.04 firmware bug on the NX200?

[Ariston]

I have to thank sensibill for mentioning this, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed.

this is regarding the weird circles that appear when an underexposed image focused near or on a light source is pushed. having tested my NX200 recently with the 1.04 firmware, it really surprised me considering I haven't seen this issue before with NX200 that had the earlier/previous versions of the firmware. for no apparent reason, this bug seems to affect NX lenses, but not 3rd party lenses. I'm not sure what Samsung engineers did here but it needs to be resolved immediately. I suggest NX200 owners to file a report or complaint so that something could be done asap. and hope they would release a new firmware fix with no bugs added to it. make the version 1.05 bug-free.

to those who just got their NX200 or ordered one, I suggest you not to update your firmware. not until you are certain that updating it would cause such glitch.

 

[tolleknolle]

Could you post a sample, pls? It's hard to visualise what precisely you are referring to.

 

[Ariston]

fllow the discussion here , http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1001&thread=41584410

there are some images here.

 

[tolleknolle]

Yep, just seen it. Thanks for the tip - wouldn't update now.

 

[Ariston]

Yep, just seen it. Thanks for the tip - wouldn't update now.

if it's not much to ask, can I ask you to do a similar underexposed shot with the same setup and post it here? do some exposure adjustments and see if it displays the same kind of effect? if you can't, I'll be willing to do the exposure adjustments myself to verify this. also, may I ask what firmware your copy has right now?

 

[wictred]

tested it a bit yesterday and could also reproduce this e.g. in a dark room shot agains a window. if the window takes half of the frame then you can see the effect already on the other side (dark area), even on the camera itself and without pushing exposure.

when taking 2-3 shots in a row however the effect doesn't seem to be exactly the same every time, maybe that's caused by small differences in light metering etc

i should have a couple images shot with fw 1.03 at home, there are a couple that had similar conditions (e.g. city at night, shot against llight sources), I'll check those images again and see if something similar can be observed - but I haben't noticed something like that in the first place.

 

[wictred]

just found a photo from februar where the effect can also be made visible.

edit: got also one on may 3rd, there it's really visible (iso 800 though):

original and +5 in pp

so it has always been there

 

[billzilla2000]

The odd thing is, you can take five or six exposures, all exactly the same, and get the effect in maybe one or two of those, nothing else different (at least not that I can tell)...

Honestly, it's not good of course, but with my use increasingly MF, it doesn't impact me much. I only use the kit lens in daylight outdoor shots, anyway.

 

[mhike]

Well, that makes me believe even more that this issue has to do with coatings and hitting light just right so it diffuses across irregularly.

The odd thing is, you can take five or six exposures, all exactly the same, and get the effect in maybe one or two of those, nothing else different (at least not that I can tell)...

Honestly, it's not good of course, but with my use increasingly MF, it doesn't impact me much. I only use the kit lens in daylight outdoor shots, anyway.

 

[wictred]

The odd thing is, you can take five or six exposures, all exactly the same, and get the effect in maybe one or two of those, nothing else different (at least not that I can tell)...

Honestly, it's not good of course, but with my use increasingly MF, it doesn't impact me much. I only use the kit lens in daylight outdoor shots, anyway.

it's also visible on the 30mm pancake (see previous post, i've added an example there)

 

[wictred]

just playing around with old images.

this time without a light source in the frame. same effect can also be made visible (the resulting image doesn't make sense of course, but it's the same kind of banding)

 

[Billx08]

The odd thing is, you can take five or six exposures, all exactly the same, and get the effect in maybe one or two of those, nothing else different (at least not that I can tell)...

Honestly, it's not good of course, but with my use increasingly MF, it doesn't impact me much. I only use the kit lens in daylight outdoor shots, anyway.

As I've written before, it seems to be flare, and slight changes in where the lens is aimed as well as whether the lens is zoomed in or out can affect whether you get flare or not. Still, it's not the kind of thing that should be worth so much concern, except for anyone routinely shooting with lots of underexposure or anyone that happens to be a troll_b that feeds on these kinds of threads.

 

[billzilla2000]

So you think it's flare playing off the elements? It does have a kind of layered or segmented look. I don't have a hood for my kit lens, otherwise I'd test that, but I suspect that won't eradicate the effect completely.

 

[billzilla2000]

Yeah, I can see it there. This would be nice to be addressed, since although not noticeable without boosting exposure well beyond normal levels, it's still affecting the tone and tint of the areas in question, if subtly.

 

[wictred]

So you think it's flare playing off the elements? It does have a kind of layered or segmented look. I don't have a hood for my kit lens, otherwise I'd test that, but I suspect that won't eradicate the effect completely.

it's also there on the 18-55 with hood and on the 50-200 with hood

for me it's just another reason not to buy any more nx stuff at the moment.

I only noticed it in 1-2 images in the first place (after roughly 3000 shutter releases) and if I search for that effect then I find a couple dozen more now, but it's not a real issue.

However it limit's the NX possibilities at the moment in some very rare cases (that could be important for some).

For taking photos at concerts this can really be a problem in my opinion - e.g. if you don't have much light but you need the shutter speed (1/100 or 1/150 at least) and increasing ISO further is not an option (dark concert hall with a few bright lights on the stage)

 

[mhike]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, or possibly a non-uniformity to the coatings.

The thing is, I don't think this is such a big deal because you're cranking the exposure up unnaturally to make it more apparent, when, under normal conditions, there isn't really a problem.

So you think it's flare playing off the elements? It does have a kind of layered or segmented look. I don't have a hood for my kit lens, otherwise I'd test that, but I suspect that won't eradicate the effect completely.

 

[billzilla2000]

It's going to be amusing to see you get banned again. How many aliases will you need to fall back on to satisfy your need to garner attention via trolling? I suppose we'll find out.

The thing is, I don't think this is such a big deal because you're cranking the exposure up unnaturally to make it more apparent, when, under normal conditions, there isn't really a problem.

So you think it's flare playing off the elements? It does have a kind of layered or segmented look. I don't have a hood for my kit lens, otherwise I'd test that, but I suspect that won't eradicate the effect completely.

--
Now THIS is a signature.

 

[wictred]

tried again ... left the cover on the 30mm lens and there it is

you can see it only slightly if you add +5 stops, buf after also pushing black/white/shadow/lights in lr4 by +100 it's now also visible:

 

[billzilla2000]

That really does look like some kind of awry vignette correction, or some kind of special lens correction, but is it the same for all NX lenses, that particular pattern?

It looks like the rings and pattern is a little different than some of mine... I wonder if it changes depending on zoom (for zoom lenses)?

 

[wictred]

I just tried with the 18-55 ... nothing

now again with the 30 .... nothing

so either the lens cover was not sitting properly and a tiny bit of light got in before (i wonder how that could happen with the small front lens, but who knows) or it's completely random.~

forget that ... the camera was set to jpeg now ... with RAW it's there of course