http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/ Engadget Comments for Is this the Samsung NX100 interchangeable lens camera? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 4:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
... the lack of available lenses has been the primary reason I haven't bought an NX-series camera.]]>Aug 10th 2010 4:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Hm. I'd rather go for a mFT camera, since they can use C-mount lenses. f0.85 sounds tempting.]]>Aug 10th 2010 4:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 5:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 11th 2010 4:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 11th 2010 8:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 4:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 7:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 7:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 7:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
APS sensors provide much shallower depth of field for the same f number so I hope Samsung continues with the APS system and brings out some bright prime lenses. I do a considerable number of portraits so 4/3 with slow zooms won't cut it for me.]]>Aug 10th 2010 9:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/What I meant was: "they should have joined the u4/3"...

Obviously they're in too deep to change their minds now.]]>Aug 11th 2010 1:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/Aug 10th 2010 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/The sensor in Lumix gf-1 is less noisy than NX10, and is practically the same size (most people don't realize how close 4/3's sensor is to the aps-c sensors in size). So if the sensor is worse than in NX10, it makes even less sense to get a samsung over the olympus or a panny 4/3's. The difference in bokeh between a 4/3's and aps-c with an equivalent lens (@same aperture) is neglible (almost same size sensor). This samsung gets no love from me. Maybe samsung can invest enough money into this and pull off their own line of professional equipment. The only way canon and nikon can do this is through legacy support, and tons of 3rd party equipment compatibility that has developed over years. ]]>Aug 11th 2010 1:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
Different horses for different courses I guess, no one camera will work for everyone and diversity is always good.

When Samsung first debuted the sensor in the NX10 (it was in a Pentax DSLR at the time), it was arguably the best sensor in its class and very well-rounded. So I think Samsung can do it again in their next gen sensors. In theory, APS should always have better noise response than 4/3 due to the larger size. If the GF-1 was less noisy than the NX10 in raw format, then it is down to the age of Sammy sensor IMO.

4/3 sensors are 30-40% smaller than APS-C sensors (Canon has a smaller APS sensor while Sammy and Sony have bigger ones I believe). The difference is thus almost a full stop. The 20mm 1.7 is the u4/3 system's brightest lens, but it's not that bright and the focal length isn't great for portraits. There is a 45mm macro, but it is 2.8. The upcoming NX system 60mm/2.8 macro looks promising and should have more bokeh than the 4/3 equivalent, but it still isn't enough to make me switch. Despite this, for the type of photos I take, the NX system looks like the most promising mirrorless format at the moment. If Sammy can make a pro-level model with rangefinder styling, a set of bright primes, and faster capture rates, then I am sold.]]>Aug 11th 2010 3:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/1) 30% smaller is NOT close to a full stop. A full stop is DOUBLE or HALF the light. And you're comparing total area of sensors that are not congruent. The 4/3's sensor is actually a little more square, so the pixels are ACTUALLY less than 20% smaller.

2) 20mm f/1.7 is a VERY FAST LENS (in every definition of a "fast lens"). On a sensor that is every-so-slightly-smaller than an APS-C it makes very nice bokeh @ f/1.7.

I think, you're just a snob, and you've not actually used a u4/3's camera. I have a Canon DSLR and a couple of u43 cameras, and I've compared shots at fixed aperture settings, and the bokeh argument is just non-existent, the linear dimensions for a pixel are 13.5mm vs 15mm... the area decrease is LESS THAN 20% per pixel (assuming same density). The argument that 4/3's is smaller is simply a fight for meaningless numbers. Yes, it's smaller (slightly), but on a grand scale of "photography", it's irrelevant.

In the old days the noticeable was the 120mm vs 35mm, there was a difference that you can see. Even the difference between 35mm and APS-C is MUCH greater than 4/3's vs APS-C. So your hope of getting more bokeh from a oh-a-little-bit larger sensor is a delusion. There's practically no difference between the two. This becomes a theoretical comparison of irrelevant differences (and, in practicality, Olympus and Panasonic sensors are slightly less noisy than the Sammy sensors, even though, they're slightly smaller).

Of course, the problem is marketing.
As for the lenses, Sammy could have entered the scene with many lenses already available, like the awesome 20mm f/1.7 lens, and buncha zooms, instead they're reinventing the wheel with a brand name that's associated with cheap electronics, rather than professional photography equipment. Panasonic, for example, who's not associate with professional equipment, quickly joined up with Leica and Olympus. It's a win for them, and for us. Panasonic INSTANTLY became an upscale camera maker. Whereas "samsung" has a strong odor of korean manufacturing plant that makes parts for other brands, and makes cheapo products for their own brand, and from time to time tries to compete in professional equipment (like Kodak does)]]>Aug 11th 2010 6:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
Honestly, your whole rant about brand and marketing was a whole lot more snobby. The first Panny Lumix cameras just rebadged an OEM lens as a Leica. It was also used by Canon and Sony in their cameras at the time. Nothing upscale about that, except for a name. I find Sammy lenses offer a better cost/performance ratio than the high end 4/3 lenses, which is the same reason I bought Pentax instead of Canon or Nikon. And 4/3 sensors have almost always been noisier than APS sensors of the same class and of the same generation in the past, no reason to see why that would change in the future. As for the size debate, I'm talking surface area, not sure why you brought up aspect ratio. If a 4:3 aspect ratio works for you, go for it. Not my cup of tea, but don't call me a snob because of my personal needs/preferences. Take a took at this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system#Sensor_size_and_aspect_ratio

It clearly says that surface area is 30-40% smaller than APS-C, which is why I noted that the Sammy sensor was one of the larger APS sensors, so that the difference is closer to 40% = almost a stop.]]>Aug 12th 2010 12:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
Oh and 1.7 is not bad but at 40mm equivalent you are going to get some big nosed headshots.]]>Aug 12th 2010 12:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
Just compare the review of Pana 20mm f/1.7 and the Samy 30mm f/2

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/534-samsung30f2

They have very close focal length and Pana use firmware correction and any M4/3 in Photozone have rating because it.
The Samy has not firmware correction and the optical performance is better... and the price too.

What is the real advantage of M4/3??
The Sony NEXs are smaller, the APS-C sensor is bigger, the standard zoom kit for M4/3, NEX and NX are the same size and the M4/3, suppose to be better with edge image quality has firmware correction for them but the APS-C models don´t.
What is the advantage?]]>Aug 12th 2010 5:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/You guys don't seem to get the BIGGEST difference between this "big sensor" compact cameras.

4/3's has been out for 2-3 years. You can actually go and buy MANY different 4/3's cameras. They've gone through generations, and have gotten better already.

Samsung has just recently reinvented the wheel, and they barely have ANYTHING out. Viewfinder refresh rate is 100% worse than G1 (relative to G1, because we like quoting highest possible difference values), and the resolution is 60% percent of the G1 EVF (which's been on the market for close to 2 years). And it's also 40% smaller (if you like watching 12in TV from 30ft away, this is YOUR viewfinder). They have 2 lenses out, neither one is portrait (so I don't know why you keep hating the lumix f/1.7 lens, or why you try to shove it in people's faces, when it's obviously not meant for face portraits).

Sony NEX is a piece of crap in comparison to all professsional cameras (NEX system has NO LENSES either). Yes it has big sensor (they all do), but that's all it has; it doesn't function like an SLR AT ALL! I've played with it, and it's an absolute operational nightmare (and ALL reviews state the same). It has viewfinder AT ALL. It's great camera, but it's just not a "photographer's" camera (which might be a good thing, for all the soccer moms, who want to take "GREAT" pics of their kids).

And the Olympus 14-42mm lens is smaller (NOTICEABLY) than anything equivalent for ANY APS-C sensor (not my point, but since someone started that argument, here's the perfect example of smaller lenses for ya). All equiv lenses for 4/3's are slightly smaller (not much, because the sensor is NOT THAT MUCH smaller either).

The rest of your arguments are skewed points into small differences that play little-to-no-role for the final result. Yes you'll get a tiny-bit more bokeh. And yes, APS-C sensors are generally less noisy (not the samsung one though, which happens to be one of the crappier sensors around).]]>Aug 12th 2010 9:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/
Well now you've just totally changed the topic. Why are you even bringing up viewfinders again? Look mate, I am in no rush to buy a camera, because I already have one, so I am looking at which mirror-free system offers the most potential benefit for ME in the future. I want the incremental increase in bokeh that APS offers over 4/3, as well as superior noise performance and cheaper lenses. All of these benefits of APS are pure physics and I do not know why you can't seem to get it. Larger size = more bokeh, less noise for the same resolution, and cheaper lenses because the resolution per area requirement is lower.

And your comment about the inferiority of Samsung sensors is just false; when the Samsung cmos sensor first debuted, it was rated very highly. It is a very old sensor so I expect Samsung to come out with a new one soon.]]>Aug 12th 2010 11:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/is-this-the-samsung-nx100-interchangeable-lens-camera/I've already killed that subject. And I'm pointing out what OTHER camera features are much more important.

The bokeh argument is BOGUS.
4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, and the APS is 15mm high... The bokeh blur is directly proportional to the sensor size, so your bokeh will be exactly 11.1% longer. Now tell me that if you go to restaraunt and they fill your glass 90%, you're going to complain and not leave the tip. A factor of 0.9 is IRRELEVANT in size comparison. As I said, in the old days there was 120mm film, and you could see the difference between 120mm and 35mm film. Of course, it's very difficult to find an f/1 lens for 120mm film for direct comparison of max bokeh (if such even exists), but even then the difference is not NIGHT'n'DAY. Now that's a 1100% area difference, and 350% length difference, and you're telling me that 10% length (30%area difference, because you like quoting highest possible difference statistic, even if it doesn't relate) difference is going to make a significant difference.

You're delusional. And the reason I brought up all the other specs (like the viewfinder), is because that's going to make MUCH MORE difference in using the camera, and getting the desired shots, then getting 1.1 (read: INSIGNIFICANT) factor more linear bokeh (the way people actually perceive bokeh, because human eyes don't actually perceive AREA). Whereas the the sensor is SLIGHTLY bigger, the viewfinder is SIGNIFICANTLY CRAPPIER (in every single way: half-refresh, almost half resolution, and half the size.... it might as well be black and white, for comical relief)

Who cares when they made the sensor? Here it is NOW, and they put it in a camera that's coming out RIGHT NOW, and it's worse than a 1.5 year old sensor in the lumix G1... Theoretically shouldn't be, BUT IT IS; I don't know why you're still in denial. ]]>Aug 13th 2010 2:25PM