Samsung's 10 megapixel NV10 reviewed

About three months ago we were graced with a wonderful preview of the new Samsung NV10, and today we came across a review of the digicam that we thought would be a $400 bundle of 10 megapixel joy. However, while we were initially blinded by the slick black aluminum design, the word from PhotographyBlog is that this camera is significantly more form than function. The cam gets knocked for having a pretty slow continuous mode -- clocking in at only three frames per second -- and for just three frames, to boot. It slows even further if you're using a flash: you have to wait a full four seconds until you can take another picture, so forget about taking rapid shots at the local dive bar. What about the image quality? Well, the NV10 didn't do so well in that department either. It "suffered quite badly from chromatic aberration" during test shots, and showed various instances of purple fringing, even in low-contrast situations, which was surprising. Furthermore, there were high levels of noise at ISO 200 and higher, which obviously is, um, not good. Basically, PhotographyBlog liked using the camera, it just didn't like the images that the NV10 took. Ouch.

[botrash @ Oct 6th 2006 4:55PM]

oh sweet that sucks since i just bought this camera assuming it was uber-sweet

[DavidD @ Oct 6th 2006 5:21PM]

Canon is always going to win out over samsung in cameras.

[lejupp @ Oct 6th 2006 6:31PM]

>> It "suffered quite badly from chromatic aberration" during
>> test shots, and showed various instances of purple fringing

I am wondering if it also shows purple outlines around bright objects on a dark background.

[Brandon @ Oct 6th 2006 6:35PM]

For around $100 more dollars you could buy the Panasonic Lumix LX-2 which is also 10mp and has a lot more features, as well as very good image quality (not so good at higher iso settings however).

I think it looks a lot better as well. More like a Leica rangfinder.

[Stephen @ Oct 6th 2006 9:13PM]

I've got a NV10, it's not bad for what it is- it is significantly smaller than the LX-2, and $100 cheaper. The DCRP review of the LX-2 noted: "Without a doubt, the LX2's weak point is its photo quality. While the camera took well exposed photos with accurate colors and minimal purple fringing, details are often quite "fuzzy" and "smudged"." The NV has some fringing on the edges, about what you'd expect for a small sensor 10mp camera. I've made detailed 12x18 prints with minimal artifacts. Its virtues are its size, ease of use and price. You can get better cameras for more, but not smaller ones. The image quality is what it is, quite detailed, but not as smooth as some- you can take the noise out later with Noise Ninja or other software.

[Sean @ Oct 6th 2006 7:26PM]

I will never buy another samsung camera I bought the i6 which suffered from the same issues, but also some strange vertical gradient would appear in all of my photos, EVEN OUTSIDE IN PERFECT LIGHTING. I went back to my old old old nikon coolpix 2200 :P megapixels seem to mean nothing to me now, I'm convinced its the quality of the CCD and lenses.

[George @ Oct 6th 2006 8:04PM]

I dont understand how almost every review I saw online for this camera where good or great. So i bought it and I am happy with it. Now this one site gives it a bad review? Honeslty if anyone is interested in getting this camera look at more than 1 review, because all the ones i saw are giving it an 8 out of 10 most of the time and I am personally happy with it.

[Rajkumar @ Oct 7th 2006 12:06AM]

obviously one source of information is decidedly not the way to go!!!

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 7th 2006 9:40AM]

There's a video review here you guys:http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stuffmag.co.uk/NonProducts/1886655537big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stuffmag.co.uk/hotstuffarticle.asp%3Fde_id%3D2233&h=236&w=356&sz=33&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=PL2AOM4tk1jg4M:&tbnh=77&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSamsung%2BNV10%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D I'm going to watch it now. Since my Pentax got stolen in Edinburgh, I've very interested in buying one of these.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 7th 2006 9:46AM]

I'm reporting back from my last comment. Right I just watched the stuff video review of the NV10. Even though the quality of the video is not good, you get the picture. Quote from the video: "It's the cleverest user interface I've ever seen on a camera." And yes it looks positively yiny for its specs. I'm leaning towards buying this baby. Well at least IU'm really really interested.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 7th 2006 10:25AM]

Does anyone know what's the main difference between "Compact Flash & SD memory cards"??
And does this camera except "Compact Flash"?
If yes what type?

[Walter Crespo @ Oct 7th 2006 10:44AM]

That's a pretty sweet looking camera, I luv the all black look.

[J1000 @ Oct 7th 2006 11:03AM]

"The cam gets knocked for having a pretty slow continuous mode -- clocking in at only three frames per second -- and for just three frames, to boot."

Three frames per second is actually really good. But three total frames is not.

[poiboi @ Oct 9th 2006 8:53AM]

Password check. One, two. One, two.