"In terms of resolution the NX200 is arguably the currently best performing mirrorless camera which, considering the camera's high pixel count, doesn't come as a surprise."
So, it's 20MP sensor resolves more than the 24MP NEX-7?
They must have edited the review or something. The review says, "In terms of resolution the NX200 is, apart from the Sony NEX-7, arguably the currently best performing mirrorless camera which, considering the camera's high pixel count, doesn't come as a surprise."
Either way, I think NX is a mirrorless system I'd consider if I was interested in native lenses. Stinks it can't mount most M lenses (also stinks there is no EVF option on the NX200.)
douglasf13 wrote:
They must have edited the review or something. The review says, "In terms of resolution the NX200 is, apart from the Sony NEX-7, arguably the currently best performing mirrorless camera which, considering the camera's high pixel count, doesn't come as a surprise."
Either way, I think NX is a mirrorless system I'd consider if I was interested in native lenses. Stinks it can't mount most M lenses (also stinks there is no EVF option on the NX200.)
Interesting. Yeah, I just copied and pasted so they must have edited it.
Agree, the NX system is a little strange in that it's not really a good platform for alt lenses but it does have a great native lens line.
I have the NX200, and its resolving power has amazed me. With a good sharp lens (like the Samsung 30/2 pancake) it is pixel level sharp with excellent edge accutance - like there is no AA filter. Yet, I have not been able to find moire even when I try to cause it. The AA filter must be weak, but it does its job very well.
There's a German site somewhere that measured the NX200 and NEX7 for resolution and noise. They show the NX200 has at least as much resolution up to ISO800-1600.
pdmphoto wrote:
I have the NX200, and its resolving power has amazed me. With a good sharp lens (like the Samsung 30/2 pancake) it is pixel level sharp with excellent edge accutance - like there is no AA filter. Yet, I have not been able to find moire even when I try to cause it. The AA filter must be weak, but it does its job very well.
There's a German site somewhere that measured the NX200 and NEX7 for resolution and noise. They show the NX200 has at least as much resolution up to ISO800-1600.
That's very interesting. DpReveiw does claim it has a very weak AA filter.
Just out of curiosity, have you used the Samsung 16, 20, 60 or 85mm lenses? The lenses appear to be very good. Which do you think standouts?
Samsung already has a some nice pancake lenses. The 16/2.4 and 30/2 pancakes in combination witrh the NX200 are a sweet package. I usually carry one adapter lens like a 50/1.4 or my 90/3.5 macro. samsung are expected to release thieer 50/1.8 IS soon. 16-30-50 pancakes will be even sweeter.
The 16/2.8 is also excellent but it suffers near infinity like the Zeiss 25/2. For close to mid distances it is excellent.
These lenses are just a few ounces, but the build quality is good, the prices are very resonable, and you hasve to try hard to get them to flare or ghost.
pdmphoto wrote:
I have the NX200, and its resolving power has amazed me. With a good sharp lens (like the Samsung 30/2 pancake) it is pixel level sharp with excellent edge accutance - like there is no AA filter. Yet, I have not been able to find moire even when I try to cause it. The AA filter must be weak, but it does its job very well.
There's a German site somewhere that measured the NX200 and NEX7 for resolution and noise. They show the NX200 has at least as much resolution up to ISO800-1600.
Looking at the DPreview tests, the NEX-7 seems to capture significantly more detail at all ISOs. The NX200 looks pretty close in detail to the NEX-5N. I do like the NX lens selection.
alwang wrote:
Looking at the DPreview tests, the NEX-7 seems to capture significantly more detail at all ISOs. The NX200 looks pretty close in detail to the NEX-5N. I do like the NX lens selection.
It actually depends on which part of the frame you compare. For instance, comparing the blue watch face of the NX200 to the NEX-7, the NX200 is clearly better. There are other areas like that as well if you look around the image.
Tariq: it is is puzzling to see such a difference in performance looking at different parts of the frame. Makes me wonder if the test was done with enough DoF, and if there are slight focusing differences? You can't even blame it on bad corner performance for the NEX-7, since it seems sharper than the NX in the top right corner.
pdmphoto: I agree that when comparing 100% crops at these resolutions, the lens makes a big difference.
alwang wrote:
Tariq: it is is puzzling to see such a difference in performance looking at different parts of the frame. Makes me wonder if the test was done with enough DoF, and if there are slight focusing differences? You can't even blame it on bad corner performance for the NEX-7, since it seems sharper than the NX in the top right corner.
pdmphoto: I agree that when comparing 100% crops at these resolutions, the lens makes a big difference.
That's pretty much the MO of DpReview. DOF issues, back focus - front focus, lens used...you name it. There are so many variables and their procedures seem to always be suspect. If we look at the sharpest parts of the image for each camera (which makes comparing side by side impossible in many cases such as this), that's probably the best we can do as far as getting a rough idea of the pixel level detail.
douglasf13 wrote:
They must have edited the review or something. The review says, "In terms of resolution the NX200 is, apart from the Sony NEX-7, arguably the currently best performing mirrorless camera which, considering the camera's high pixel count, doesn't come as a surprise."
Either way, I think NX is a mirrorless system I'd consider if I was interested in native lenses. Stinks it can't mount most M lenses (also stinks there is no EVF option on the NX200.)
Yeah, No EVF would totally kill it for me. Unless it had like 120mp or something crazy.
Also WTH... Samsung? Really? Sony and Panasonic I can almost understand considering as they have a fairly long history manufacturing professional broadcast quality video gear - even still I'd like to steer away. But Samsung? UG! No thanks! I've actually purchased quite a few things from Samsung... monitors, hard drives, and other stuff too. Their quality and build-politics suck nuggets IMO. I wouldn't think of buying a camera body or camera system from them. Just my 2˘
You've got quite a bit of expectation for relatively cheap, consumer cameras. Besides, every day that passes, photography more and more becomes the forte of large electronic companies. These days, I honestly wouldn't feel any different shooting a Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Samsung, etc. Besides, many of the internal parts of cameras from more traditional companies come from the likes of Sony, anyways. Especially with mirrorless cameras, mechanical traditions of older camera companies are less needed. These cameras are basically little computers, at this point.
1) no EVF
2) no focus peaking
3) small buffer + locked camera during writing to card
4) stupidly low capacity of battery (bring 2 more with you)
5) kinda big RAW files = you need 16 GB card (no problem in PC, just use DNG for example)
NX200 pros:
1) very good sensor, with very weak AA (you can see moiré, but only in RAW)
2) very decent LCD (well, Samsung making them soo..)
3) good handling, good layout
4) very decent native lens + very decent AF speed and accuracy
There are some minor problems, like weak color shifts (with wide-angle alt lens) ala NEX-7 (but not that much) and those wide-angle pancakes are not really optimized for NX200 (tho they work perfect at NX11).
Its actually pretty good and well thought system, but that missing EVF and focus peaking is really stupid. Sure native lens are more than usable, but some ppl like alt lens and focus peaking really is best solution for MF (maybe even paired with some zooming to pixel level).
Yea and its prone to overexposure and overall its not exactly "beginners friendly" camera, eg. you pay for your mistakes.
) does better than the 5N: