Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

review of samsung nx10
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4/3) Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:47 pm    Post subject: review of samsung nx10 Reply with quote
dp review has an in depth review of the new samsung mirrorless offering:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnx10/

of note to me was the conclusion that, because it doesnt have a magnification option, manually focusing with non nx lenses is very difficult; the evf is none too great; and that while the sensor is 50% bigger than its micro 4/3 rivals, it is termed one of the noisiest available.

on the other hand it does say the image quality overall is pretty good. we shall see how it does in the real world...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: review of samsung nx10 Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
dp review has an in depth review of the new samsung mirrorless offering:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnx10/

of note to me was the conclusion that, because it doesnt have a magnification option, manually focusing with non nx lenses is very difficult; the evf is none too great; and that while the sensor is 50% bigger than its micro 4/3 rivals, it is termed one of the noisiest available.

on the other hand it does say the image quality overall is pretty good. we shall see how it does in the real world...


One should not put too much weight on the dpreview-reviews - they are actually rather clueless to testing some aspects of the cameras, like image quality (noise and DR especially). I do often browse through some of the pages, but nowdays mostly the images that show what the camera looks like, you know, the buttons and levers and stuff. Browsing through their test-shots and the conclusions they draw from them just makes me want to laugh... or cry... well, a bit of both Smile

(I must clarify a bit - a typical jpeg-kitlens-shooter will probably find that site and it's reviews a rather decent source of information, good enough for the purpouses of such a person.)


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
may be true--or not, dont know. but the absence of image magnification seems certain to make manual focusing quite difficult--not something 'a jpeg kind of person' would be concerned with, but an interesting review note. also, my understanding from other sources confirmed dp review that the samsung sensor is a close cousin of the pentax k-7 which has been known to have high iso/noise issues. and you can either see well through the evf or not. dont think any of these are very controversial.

i dont put loads of stock in reviews generally, but nonetheless even a 'RAW' kind of person may find certain tidbits of use.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The raw high iso page does reveal NX10's weakness, not much advantage over m4/3 either despite the larger sensor size.

Hope that they can fix most fixable problem via firmware update. I still hope to use it with MF lens (before Sony's come out).


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yeah, but alex, the most critical problem for your intended use is the lack of image magnification--i think that almost discounts it for manual focusing, no?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hope that the image magnification is fixable in firmware update too Very Happy Add to it the auto iso problem as well.

I think for the moment, the only advantage of NX10 over m4/3 is the different crop size, which allows ultra wide MF to be used as a more normal wide than on m4/3.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
The raw high iso page does reveal NX10's weakness, not much advantage over m4/3 either despite the larger sensor size.


I guess we look at different images Smile

Looking at the raw-crops (which are not normalized regarding pixel count like they should be) it is clear (ok, I just check the ISO 1600 and 3200), that ACR applies by far the least noise reduction on the NX10 raw files at the settings they use (DPR doesn't emphasize enough that the very same ACR settings can vary wildly between different cameras). Just look at the blurring in the crops - that is not how photon shot noise looks like unless rather strong noise reduction is use. The Nikon gets especially heavy handed NR from ACR. Honestly, this kind of "review" details are a joke.

Even with it's occasional mistakes, for the raw-capability of a camera, one should rather use the dxomark-site. It shows for example the rather clear difference between 4/3-sensor cameras and K7, K20D etc.

There are flaws in the K7 and K20-sensors (and likely on the NX10-sensor as well), like rather high read noise, very bad programmable-gain amplifier performance from ISO 100 to ISO 200, banding noise etc. It does however have very good light gathering ability (though NX10 sits closer to the lens, so I don't know how well it handles angled light) even for an APS-C-sensor and the color-separation is very strong.

Anyhow, there are some reasons, besides being broke, why I won't be buying this camera: the viewfinder is too small, the camera a bit too big and lastly, the in-body image stabilization. And I guess no environmentall protection (though I may be wrong on that). I mean I could live without the LCD or AMOLED in the back of the camera if I were given a large and solid EVF instead.

The Olympus m4/3 is interesting to me, but unfortunately it has the big problem of small sensor which is pretty much a show stopper for me - I don't want my wide angle lenses to turn into short tele's and so on.

Maybe someday someone will produce a Leica M9-close with an EVF and image stabilizer, but I am not holding my breath.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
Maybe someday someone will produce a Leica M9-close with an EVF and image stabilizer, but I am not holding my breath.

I am waiting for this too - price will probably be expensive though.

I have not much hope in dpreview reviews - lately to me they become little more senseless.

Noise level seems unusually high, I had better hopes for APS-C size sensor than this, Samsung is disappointing.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bummer, doesn't look as good as I was hoping. And without a mirror, won't the sensor get covered in dust pretty quickly? I guess that's a concern for all M4/3rds cameras though...


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
at least w olympus, there is a 'dust removal system' whenever you turn on the camera it causes some kind of internal vibration which is supposed to shake the dust off the sensor. i have to say it seems to work pretty well, and has uniformly received good marks from the reviewers we seem to loath... Laughing

and yes, the samsung has always, from its first announcement, been a disappointment. with no legacy to maintain samsung shouldve done a much better job here. to me they missed the boat on pretty much every single level except for the theory (not their implementation) of sticking a full sized sensor in a mirrorless camera. that will be taken up by other manufacturers hopefully to better result.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aside from the mechanical adapters for legacy lenses, have any other manufacturers bought in to the "NX" mount?

One thing that m4/3 has is momentum... and support from multiple manufacturers is definitely a key factor there.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:

and yes, the samsung has always, from its first announcement, been a disappointment. with no legacy to maintain samsung shouldve done a much better job here.


+1


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:
Aside from the mechanical adapters for legacy lenses, have any other manufacturers bought in to the "NX" mount?

One thing that m4/3 has is momentum... and support from multiple manufacturers is definitely a key factor there.


Not that I am aware of. And instead of using the K mount, which has a truck load of excellent prime, they decided to go with a new proprietary mount. With a limited lens selection, no third party lens, poor MF implementation, average camera body, I wonder how they are going to "own" the mirrorless market...

(disclosure: I am a bit irritated by their marketing and claims)


PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
like many other actors in our individually-reality-created society, they will 'own' that market only in their own minds. Laughing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4/3) Cameras
Page 1 of 1