@rtsan:

I don’t think I’ve ever posted on any of DPReview’s forums–perhaps once.

Also since you seem confused about this subject, these Samsung NX cameras, G’NX included, use an APSC sensor. That sensor is bigger than a so called 4/3s sensor.

For your edification here’s a list of some other manufactures that use APSC sensors in mirrorless, P&S, and DSLR bodies: Canon, Sigma, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Epson, etc. Now I’m quite sure that I’ve commented on DPReview posted announcements/reviews by/of some of these manufacturers.

I didn’t know there is a general APSC forum at DPReview. Check and post the link, please.

(Here you see I don’t need to go to the 4/3 forum to see raws shot with the Olympus EM1, I shot my own raws with that body weeks ago+PhotographyBlog had raws for download a month ago. Also shot my own raws with the Pana GX7 (using a PanaLeica lens) a month ago–and no none of them equal the high ISO IQ of good APSC raws, including raws from the G’NX/NX300.)

Boer:

You’ll note here that I’ve defended the raw image quality of this body, the single raw shooting speed of this G’NX body, the EVF, and the optical quality of some Samsung NX lenses. Yet I’ve been clear on the lack of appeal of this body for a number reasons.

Besides the Android induced problems with this G'NX body plus the lack of buttons and wheels, the buffer on the NX300 is too slow.

So news to me that I always defend Samsung.

PhotographyBlog.com has raws from the G'NX, and I believe the NX300. And a few raws from the Olympus.

I've also shot high ISO lowlight raws with the NX300. And the EM1 too.

I don't spend a lot of time reading charts or scores.

The sample studio images here on dpr are very bad. Dunno why. Look dxo mark for nx300. It's 1/3 to 1/2 stops ahead of em1 in high iso. Perhaps nx300 is slightly better than gnx?

mmmm fuji XE1 and XE2 are top notch cameras. I do not think any APC-C camera comes close to the performance of these cameras for signal to noise.

But if you want fast accurate Autofocus and tracking, the Olympus EM1 does do a fine job

bigley:

Any source for downloading Fuji XE2 raws? The S/N ratio is all well and good, but there's the processor+the lens. (In the USA, the XE2 isn't in stores yet.)

I don't see much difference between G'NX ISO 6400 raws and ISO 6400 raws from the Fuji XE2; with the application of NR both are useable, as are ISO 6400 raws from the Leica X Vario.

not sure about the RAW, but the JPG output from Fuji is impressive, especially at high ISO

bigley Ling:

Right those Fuji X APSC bodies have a reputation for excellent jpegs.

This has the image quality of some APSC sensored DSLRs, after all it does use an APSC sensor and there are excellent to extraordinary native lenses for this system.

@Akpinxit:

Raw and an APSC sensor, no camera phone has the latter and only 2 have the former. Samsung NX bodies do excellent image quality. Why would the user interface have anything to do with the IQ?

If you cared to read the link, they talk about buffer depth. 5 raw, exactly like nx300. Please read.

And about evf: what can be a little dufference for you, can be big for others. I tried the nx20, and the evf gave me headache, for the continuous rainbow effect, that is NOT present in omd or sonys.

technoworld:

Never saw rainbows on the EVF in the NX20 that I owned. Never noted them in other NX20 bodies either. I see no especial difference between the NX20's EVF and the good Sony EVFs.

Why would I read the link? I've shot raws with both the NX300 and the G'NX, the G'NX has a much faster/bigger buffer.

I'm not a big fan of even the improved buffer on either the NX20 or the somewhat better buffer on the NX300.

So I looked at the link, and in my experience with the G'NX body I got at least 20 raws in about 12 seconds, and the only reason I stopped was boredom. I'd guess that they were doing something odd, or the camera was set to continuous shooting, that's not how I ran my test, and that's rarely how I shoot. When I see a G'NX body again, I'll try continuous and then stop and see how long the buffer takes to write. But in any case, shooting single raws in quick succession the buffer on the G'NX is much better than the buffer on/in the NX300.

I don't know which camera you tested, but the one I tested in a shop stopped after 5 raw shots. Perhaps the one you tested was set on jpg only? All the reviews on the net quote the 5 raw files limit for gnx, and so did the only galaxy nx user that posted on the samsung forum.

Check also the table in this review:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samsung-galaxy-nx-mirrorless-camera-review-22995

So yes, I'm more than sure that the limit for galaxy nx is still 5 raw files in a row, in continuous mode.

No, I tested the Galaxy NX.

The Galaxy NX doesn’t really look like any other NX camera, not even the NX20.

It was set to shoot raw. I’m sure of this point. But of course would check again if I had any interest in buying this G’NX body. The reason I’m sure is that I reviewed the some of the shots and “raw” was indicated upon the files I’d just shot. Perhaps there was a firmware update that fixed the buffer. (There was something of a buffering fix for the NX20 body.)

In the USA the G’NX body isn’t on display in stores yet, unless that’s changed in the last 2 days. I was in B+H at the Samsung kiosk on Monday Nov. 11, and no G’NX.

The Samsung rep to whom I was speaking also agreed that the G’NX had a much faster buffer than the NX300, while the NX300's buffer wasn’t too much faster than that on the NX20.

Again: I did not try continuous. I'll try that when I see a body on display.

tecnoworld:

That Ephotozine photo link refers to the FPS spec for continuous shooting. That’s specifically not what I was referring to, and I made that point clear. It also looks like EphotoZine didn’t test the FPS rate--shooting continuous or singly. This is why I don't read a lot of specs that haven't been tested.

When I tested the G'NX it easily shot 20 raws in about 12 seconds. Didn't try any more.

Oh, ok, we were referring to different things, then. I was referring to continuous shooting, where the buffer really counts. And there, the gnx can do only 5 frames and after that it stops for several seconds, which is a shame compared to all the other cameras in that price range and even lower price.

If you don't shoot continuous, then ok, you can take about 1 shot every 1 to 2 seconds, also with nx300.

techworld:

I was clear I wasn't referring to continuous shooting.

For not continuous shooting the buffer in the G'NX is much much faster than that in the NX300--which bogs down after about 5 or 6 raws shot in quick succession. The NX20 would stop shooting after about 3 single raws within a second or two.

The buffer is hugely important for shooting quick single raws. And it is much better on the G'NX than on the NX300.

I did not try the continuous mode on the G'NX--it's really not that important to me. When I see a body again, I'll try it for fast raw continuous shooting, but I've no real interest in owning the body so it's not pressing.

In nx300 the speed of raw taking in single shooting mode is very dependent on the sd card used. With a good class10 card, benchmarking at about 25mb/sec on my pc, I have no trouble at all taking at least 10 to 15 shots in rapid succession (one each 1-2 seconds) w/o slowing down. Right few hours ago I took 9 pictures of my daughter in about 15 seconds, one behind the other. So I don't feel this as a limit in nx300.

What is really sub par is continuous shooting, which for me is very useful and important. All the other cameras (omd, gx7, nex, fuji) do much better than nx300 and gnx.

tecnoworld:

When I tested the NX300 I was using a U1 card with a write speed of 90MB per sec--that is the fastest SD card one can purchase in 2013. The NX300 did 4-6 raws in a say 5 seconds then slowed, after one or two more it locked up to process.

I am pretty sure buffering 5 RAW files before running out of buffer is quite satisfactory for this type of camera.

I am pretty sure my Nex 5n can only buffer than much before it slows down to the write speed of the memory card, which is about 1 RAW shot every 2 seconds approx

bigley:

No, 5 raws in a second, while in continuous, and then 20 seconds of writing time is not acceptable. Look I think the buffer on the Nikon D7100 is also too slow.

My problem with both the NX20 and the NX300 was the limited number of single raws one could shoot in quick succession; yes the NX300 was an improvement over the NX20, but neither was good. The G'NX is plenty good for single quick raws.

@dccdp: Roland is correct. Do try and keep up.

@Roland & DaveE1, well Android phone should be consider as an Android gadget too. I'm wrong about it too?

I meet & know of many iPhone and iPad hard core users, including programmers. But now all of them are Android "gadgets" super fans.

I agree 100%. Only thing that would further sweeten the pot would be a "cap lens" to enable carrying it in my pocket. My NEX C3 fits in my pocked without a lens easily.

"3) Cellular data and cellular communication aren't the same thing."

Okaay... Mind explaining?

By all means, if you know more than Wiki, could you update this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_data_communication_protocol ??

If you mean, you want to make phone calls, just say it. You can with the SAMSUNG S4Zoom.

Please stop spreading misinformation bigley. Plain as day in the list above it says:-

* 4G LTE/3G HSPA+42Mbps cellular data

alachin:

I guess I can see it that way, but NFC and wifi from a phone can also be used to connect the phone to laptops or a network router, so that's why I read it the other. But you're right it works both ways.

bigley Ling:

And I very carefully noted "name more than 2", you've not named more than 2 cellphones that shoot raw.

If the OP was claiming that cellphones will do this all in a few years, then my statement makes sense, if the OP on the other and was saying cameras will simply send all data to cell phones soon, then my statement doesn't make sense. However the OP's statement is ambiguous. This ambiguity has already been brought up.

@wansai

I understand your point, except $1600 is the price point of an enthusiast camera. Can you name one pro DSLR that's $1600? It's the enthusiasts who need something new to explore, something hasn't been done before to expand creativity. Pros don't care. They just want to do what they're paid to do in the most efficient manner.

The target audience for this camera is for those who have been using iPhone photography apps for a while and want better image quality. They value connectivity, social, and effects over egornomics and manual controls.

Developers aren't Santa's helpers or the tooth fairy... They won't hack and improve every device that comes to market just because (specially not a $1600 specialty device), and even IF Samsung had released the source code or opened up an API (HUGE if) there's still a lot of downsides compared to a more traditional mirrorless camera.

I'm a huge Android fanboy, there's an Android logo decal on my car's rear window. I don't see Android making much inroads on camera bodiestho, there's a lot of potential but it'd take a lot of work AND vision to realize it (not Samsung's model, just look at the decidedly uninspired Gear; better ad campaign than product).

In the meantime, the more practical things I could get done with my photos on Android while on the go can all be accomplished easier and more comfortably by just hooking up the camera to my phone/tablet over Wifi or even over USB OTG if I wanna work with RAW or sync quicker.

i got your point .. but what's the point of making another OMD when excellent OMD already exist!

Samsung is experimenting .. let them play! I would rather see different ideas .. interesting concepts ..

having said that, this camera is deffinately NOT for me!

@JWest ,Even Korean's know that a Samsung camera suck, that is why they stand in line at the Sony store to buy Sony cameras, ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLaTEyuG414&feature=share

@Gesture is correct. Kirk Tuck, for example, has shot extensively with the camera and lenses and was quite enamored with both. The IQ is outstanding and the lenses are gems, The focal lengths make sense, they offer a great selection, and the prices are extremely low for the quality. What's not to like?

shademaster:

In case you don't know: the buffer speed/capacity on this G'NX is excellent--and that's shooting raw. My guess would be real RAM chips allow for that buffer speed.

I don't like the G'NX's interface for obvious reasons, but I sure liked the buffer speed.

I heard a rumor about more good NX lenses, but who knows.

@ET2 - please do your research before making unsubstantiated statements. Both Samyang and Rokinon have released several lenses for the NX mount.

JWest:

Remember Samyang and Rokinon are one and the same.

Howaboutraw: as I shew you some posts above, the buffer in gnx is NOT good at all. It has the same performance of nx300. I don't know where you found the incorrect info, please report the source. Gnx can do JUST 5 raw in a row, which is ridicolous for a camera priced this high (is ridicolous even for nx300, priced at one third...).

tecnoworld:

And remember here I'm not making claims about the buffer speed when shooting raw in continuous. As you've acknowledged elsewhere, I only commented on the speed of single raws in quick succession. And here the G'NX vastly exceeds the capacity of the NX300.

I understand your point, but when it comes to marketing a product, popularity almost necessarily means good. They're in it to make money, not to please the critics.

This is about 1600$ price range and not low cost.

@ Joe, Sure, like a consumer is going to be cross shopping a D4 and an A3000. I always tell people that the difference in image quality between the best and worst cameras is not very significant, the main difference is features. Your example of A3000 is sort of out of place here, Samsung usually runs a lot better deals than Sony on cameras.

Dennis: ''''It's one thing to have some number of lenses. Another to have lenses that anyone actually wants. '''''
And to see them in shops.

The Jacal:

Samsung has made a real effort to get gear for display into B+H in New York over the last 10 months.

I'm very happy with raw from nx300. I'm saying that the galaxy nx samples seem noiser than those I get from nx300.

I use Lr, btw.

tecnoworld:

Okay, that wasn't clear that you have a NX300.

I downloaded some Galaxy NX raw samples from DPReview and I think I see the problem you're referring to. I'd forgotten that ACR had been updated to extract these raws.

There are also Galaxy NX raw samples for download at PhotographyBlog; those don't seem to have the high ISO chroma problem--but they're just a picture of books in a book case.

Exactly. I think the sample used at dpr had some sensor problem, since I can see my files from nx300 are clearly better since iso800 and up...

Or perhaps the galaxy nx uses a slightly different sensor, who know. One notable difference is that gnx can't do 1080p at 60fps, while nx300 can.

tecnoworld:

Look at the raws from www.Photographblog.com. The ISO 3200 and 6400 raws there look fine to me.

Here's the link, the raws are at the bottom of the page in a separate section: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_galaxy_nx_review/sample_images/