Even with your most recent samples (the two above jump out as representative), there still seems to be an issue with the real world, practical DR that is being captured and blown highlights, even after it's been harked upon. The same thing is evident in the DPreview samples (looks at the whites/ highlights in the shot of the bicyclist) and the IR sample I linked to earlier. I don't think it's you but rather the sensor.
In both of those shots it's the processing. There are no blown highlights in either shot. I liked the higher contrast feel. (I didn't really blow highlights in either shot with processing either, but there are parts that are high key.
You definitely need to watch the highlights due to where the RAW file is calibrated. My latest shots are all at high ISO, so DR is lower there of course.
Jman13 wrote:
In both of those shots it's the processing. There are no blown highlights in either shot. I liked the higher contrast feel. (I didn't really blow highlights in either shot with processing either, but there are parts that are high key.
You definitely need to watch the highlights due to where the RAW file is calibrated. My latest shots are all at high ISO, so DR is lower there of course.
Gotcha. To me, those highlights do look a bit blown showing a lack of any sense of texture but if that's just your preference, I can't argue with that. I didn't notice the higher ISO though.
Jman13 wrote:
Wow, post a comparison and the thread dies! Anyway, probably my last post of thoughts...
I've been checking in each time there's a new post. Thanks for putting this together! Based on what you've stated and the other reviews trickling out, it seems the camera mostly lives up to its spec-sheet promises. Perhaps one area where it doesn't quite, for my needs, is consistency of AF performance for sports/action. Probably more a situation where I'd have to try it myself, but at least from what the recent DPR update indicates, there is at least one aspect that would annoy me:
- the EVF slideshow stutter while shooting a high fps rate while trying to track a moving subject. Maybe doable with something that moves consistently, like a car on a road, but less so with a ball carrier weaving around a playing field. This is also something that annoyed me when I tried the Sony a77. That said, when I tried the NX1 at PPE, it didn't seem quite as distracting as I remembered with the a77. But my feeling is I'm still more comfortable with ~10fps SLR mirror blackout during exposure than stuttering EVFs.
There's also the matter of suitable lenses. There just isn't anything long enough at the moment for field sports, etc. I'm sure that will eventually change, but my guess is I'll be like you are with Fuji, where the cost of adding or fully switching over to the Samsung may not make sense compared to just updating to a newer Canon body, considering my considerable collection of their lenses... I.e. a 7DII. While the sensor may not be as nice as Samsung's, for what I'm shooting, it's probably fine. Heck, I'm getting by with 'inferior Canon sensor tech' as it is now...
This video shows a lot of action shooting scenarios with the NX1 compared to the 7d2. In almost all the shots he's using the LCD instead of the EVF when shooting bursts, not sure if that helps at all. Apologies if this has already been posted.
Jman13 wrote:
Wow, post a comparison and the thread dies! Anyway, probably my last post of thoughts...working in the full review now. Overall, I really like the Nx1. Image quality is outstanding, ergonomics and features are great, AF is the best on any mirrorless camera in good light and still decent in low light. Great feature set with some cool technologies, beautiful rear screen and EVF, touch is implemented well. On the down sides, some odd menu organization, in camera RAW conversion is full featured but has some very bizarre interface quirks, the card door is cramped, making it hard to get the card out sometimes, and some of the buttons don't work the best with gloves on (but this is an issue for a lot of cameras. ). It's really one of the best cameras on the market.
........Show more →
Jordan, Thanks for the thorough evaluation and your thoughts on this camera - as someone who has been looking to get back into the samsung system for a while, this has been very helpful to me. If NX500, or whatever it will be called, retains the sensor and AF of NX1 then I would be greatly tempted to ditch my A6000 in its favor. I have a couple more questions about the AF though. Have you tried the continuous video AF in these cameras and if yes then do have thoughts on how well it works on NX1? Before the A6000 I had the EOS-M and while I was able to live with its slow AF for stills, the continuous AF hunting in the videos became unbearable which is one of the reasons I moved to the A6000.
I really can't understand the slideshow thing in burst mode.
A computer/camera with the processing power of nx1 (quad core arm cpu) should be mkre than capable of keeping the evf alive when taking multiple pictures.
Imo this is just due to samsung's inexperience in designing an action camera.
Did you ask them? Perhaps this could be fixed in a fw update. It would be nice to be able to select among live view/slideshow in a menu, for bursts.
We're probably a couple years or so away from seeing this minimized or eliminated, but for now, for my needs, DSLR is likely the better choice.
joychris wrote:
This video shows a lot of action shooting scenarios with the NX1 compared to the 7d2. In almost all the shots he's using the LCD instead of the EVF when shooting bursts, not sure if that helps at all. Apologies if this has already been posted.
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it before. It answered a few of my sports/action related questions. He mentioned he used the LCD rather than the EVF because the EVF blacks out, which would be a huge problem for me. I'm typically shooting with a long tele lens and it's just not practical, or comfortable to shoot from the LCD. RAW buffer depth is also a major concern. It's decent but not super deep. I'd want more in the 35-40 frames range before slowdown. Interesting also that RAW files are 12 bit when shot this way vs. 14 bit for single frame advance. Reminiscent of Sony (and some past Nikons) where this also changes depending on camera setting. But, in real world use, I'm not sure the difference between 12 and 14 bits is visible.
From the video, the buffer performance doesn't seem very different between the 7D2 and NX1, which is fairly impressive and much better than say Nikon D7100. The tracking seems to work in many cases even better than the 7DII, despite higher FPS, which is a surprise. As some comments on the video say, the test would have been more meaningful if both cameras were also compared at the same 10FPS. Overall seems to be better at sports than any other mirrorless camera! Samsung seems to have put all that had got into this camera.
The big disappointment for me in the video was the AF when changing FL's on a zoom. The AF really struggles if you try to zoom while shooting.
He updated with a 10fps buffer test:
"To put this issue to bed, I have done a 10fps test, and here are the numbers, RAW+JPEG 24, Super Fine JPEG 95, Fine JPEG 202. 7Dii still wins here with JPEGs (it can do up to 1000). 7Dii's buffer performance is still better at 10 fps when it comes to JPEG only."
I would love to see some forever switchers try out the NX1. I would love to hear their experience later on when trying to sell the Samsung system to jump to the next hot new gear. From what I read, it's nearly impossible to resell Samsung gear because of limited market. There's a lot to like in this NX1, but I don't want to buy into a system I won't be able to get out of. Sooner or later, every maker catches up with the other players, even if it takes a few years. In 2-3 years, slow AF will probably be a thing of the past. In one more year, every maker will have 4k in their new cameras, and then we'll be all talking about 8K. It never stops.
Jumping from systems to systems just don't make sense unless it's for a fundamental reason that won't change. For instance, going mirrorless because DSLRs can't get smaller and lighter. If this samsung was cheap enough, I wouldn't mind trying it out as a 2nd system camera that I know I'll never be able to resell because of limited demand, but the price is currently not right.
sflxn wrote:
I would love to see some forever switchers try out the NX1. I would love to hear their experience later on when trying to sell the Samsung system to jump to the next hot new gear. From what I read, it's nearly impossible to resell Samsung gear because of limited market. There's a lot to like in this NX1, but I don't want to buy into a system I won't be able to get out of. Sooner or later, every maker catches up with the other players, even if it takes a few years. In 2-3 years, slow AF will probably be a thing of the past. In one more year, every maker will have 4k in their new cameras, and then we'll be all talking about 8K. It never stops.
Jumping from systems to systems just don't make sense unless it's for a fundamental reason that won't change. For instance, going mirrorless because DSLRs can't get smaller and lighter. If this samsung was cheap enough, I wouldn't mind trying it out as a 2nd system camera that I know I'll never be able to resell because of limited demand, but the price is currently not right....Show more →
This is a fair enough point-- but also a chicken and egg problem. Before any system has enough of a market it is a risk for resale. On the other hand... it can also mean there's less competition from the used market to keep used prices down.
Case in point: I've been eyeing that Rokinon 12mm f/2 since release. At $399 list it's still a good deal, but I figured it would be down to about $320-$350 new pretty quickly, and maybe $250 used... at which point it's very low risk to purchase on the used market just for giggles. There were so few floating around on the used market that while they sometimes went at that lower price-- I also saw them going for $350 used. As a buyer your timing had to be right.
I have no doubt that if there were more of these out there on the used market the price would gravitate towards $200 to $250.
So I bought one new because I didn't want to wait any longer.
sflxn wrote:
I would love to see some forever switchers try out the NX1. I would love to hear their experience later on when trying to sell the Samsung system to jump to the next hot new gear. From what I read, it's nearly impossible to resell Samsung gear because of limited market. There's a lot to like in this NX1, but I don't want to buy into a system I won't be able to get out of. Sooner or later, every maker catches up with the other players, even if it takes a few years. In 2-3 years, slow AF will probably be a thing of the past. In one more year, every maker will have 4k in their new cameras, and then we'll be all talking about 8K. It never stops.
Jumping from systems to systems just don't make sense unless it's for a fundamental reason that won't change. For instance, going mirrorless because DSLRs can't get smaller and lighter. If this samsung was cheap enough, I wouldn't mind trying it out as a 2nd system camera that I know I'll never be able to resell because of limited demand, but the price is currently not right....Show more →
Fujifilm gear loses significant value so I dont see how Samsung is any worse. At the used camera stores that I haunt I can pick up Fuji X cameras and lenses for a fraction of their original price. The one exception is the X100* cameras. They dont end up in the used stores as much as the X ILC's.
I've lost less money with Samsung gear in the last few years than I would have if buying Sony Nex gear instead. In the mean time I've had the pleasure of using some great Samsung lenses, and cameras with a respectable/consistent menu system and UI.
The Sony A7 is the biggest loser that comes to my mind
Ratty - I just want to point out this is why everyone thinks you hate Fuji. (You often express wonder as to why the perception exists) We're in a thread talking about Samsung, and you come in and talk about the terrible resale of Fuji X. You do this in a lot of threads. Not trying to start an argument, just pointing it out.
Resale value on almost ALL mirrorless cameras is pretty low. A year after release, the A7 sells for half its starting price on the used market. The Panasonic GX7 was available for half price NEW just a year after release. The bodies depreciate like mad because the makers are updating cameras super fast. The lenses depreciate, but not on a huge scale. The point above with the limited Samsung market is certainly a fair one, with a small buying market in which to sell your gear. I do think Samsung will gain market share with this body. It's a really good piece of kit, and the lens lineup is pretty good too as long as you don't need really long.
rattymouse wrote:
Fujifilm gear loses significant value so I dont see how Samsung is any worse. At the used camera stores that I haunt I can pick up Fuji X cameras and lenses for a fraction of their original price. The one exception is the X100* cameras. They dont end up in the used stores as much as the X ILC's.
rattymouse wrote:
Fujifilm gear loses significant value so I dont see how Samsung is any worse. At the used camera stores that I haunt I can pick up Fuji X cameras and lenses for a fraction of their original price. The one exception is the X100* cameras. They dont end up in the used stores as much as the X ILC's.
Jman13 wrote:
Ratty - I just want to point out this is why everyone thinks you hate Fuji.
Everyone does not think that I hate Fuji. Only individuals who lack a certain ability to process information can arrive at that conclusion. Someone who is rational and understands the facts, would come to a different conclusion and then enjoy the good laugh that I do upon reading such false nonsense.
Jman13 wrote:
(You often express wonder as to why the perception exists) We're in a thread talking about Samsung, and you come in and talk about the terrible resale of Fuji X. You do this in a lot of threads. Not trying to start an argument, just pointing it out.
I was out shopping last weekend. I spent about an hour in 10 used camera stores or so. I saw dozens of Fuji lenses and cameras for sale, at substantially discounted prices, even before "bargaining" begins. Fast forward to today when I read this thread. Someone noted how they lose or could lose a lot of money with Samsung gear. It is an *entirely* relevant point that I mentioned in response to that. My post was not off topic, in the slightest.
Jman13 wrote:
Resale value on almost ALL mirrorless cameras is pretty low.
I don't know that. I only follow Fuji, no one else. I don't post about cameras or brands that I don't follow. Is this understandable?
Jman13 wrote:
The point above with the limited Samsung market is certainly a fair one,.....
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Even with your most recent samples (the two above jump out as representative), there still seems to be an issue with the real world, practical DR that is being captured and blown highlights, even after it's been harked upon. The same thing is evident in the DPreview samples (looks at the whites/ highlights in the shot of the bicyclist) and the IR sample I linked to earlier. I don't think it's you but rather the sensor.
Thanks Jordan for the thoughts - camera's not on my radar (moved back to DSLR), but I want it to succeed regardless.
I don't know about that first shot, but the second isn't blown. There's a difference between blown highlights and white. If something is almost pure white, then by nature it's not going to show lots of details unless you artificially drag highlights down to -100 and the white point down also -- and then you don't have white, but light grey.
It's a fine balancing act for sure - how does one represent the detail in a white wedding dress? Back off the highlights some, yet keep the white point near the right of the histogram (but maybe not maxed).
Most of this, like Jordan said, is processing. In his building shot (2nd one), I can see the detail, however minute, in the building's white tones. I'm glad he didn't turn it grey, because marble (?) isn't supposed to be a dingy grey.
cputeq wrote:
[
I don't know about that first shot, but the second isn't blown. There's a difference between blown highlights and white. If something is almost pure white, then by natureit's not going to show lots of details unless you artificially drag highlights down to -100and the white point down also -- and then you don't have white, but light grey.
Just thought I'd argue this minor point
If you examine the second image in photoshop, you will see that there are areas of the stone used in the building that have become featureless showing no to liittle detail. These are not like this by nature as we can easily see by looking at the stone pattern in other areas. Thus they are blown. As we know, this can occur fairly quickly when shooting digital images as the histogram will often "lie" when it comes to capturing subtle detail in the highlights (such as in clouds or brightly lit stone like this). Even with a great sensor capable of terrific DR, one often has to pull back a bit to protect these kind of areas. So, what I'm pointing out are not formless, flat areas or specular highlights (where indeed you would be correct), but rather areas that do contain form, shape and texture. In any case, we are only seeing the processed file and there may have been something there in the raw (as Jordan said it was a processing choice he made). The raw file would clear this up quickly.
Underline in quote above added by me.
Btw, if something is really "blown" in the original exposure, pulling highlights down to -100 in raw conversion is not magically going to give one detail where it was not originally captured. It will just give formless tone.
).
