Where should Samsung with NX aim ?

[Matus]

Samsung NX is a rather new player on the market - far from being the only one. However in the PMA Seung Soo Par - Samsungs representative (among others) said:

"...Over 30% of customers are registering their NX10 - they really want to communicate with us. They're checking for firmware updates every day so we're learning to be more pro-active, trying to improve our service ..."

also

"... company had been ‘very surprised’ by the popularity of the 30mm f/2 pancake lens. 'For every 100 kit zooms we sell, we sell 50 pancakes, ..."

and importantly

"... enhanced communication with customers and firmware updates for its cameras based on their requests ..."

So - with all the above - what would be your wish - where should be Samsung heading to with their future developments? What features/lenses/acessories would you like to see comming for the NX?

Let's make this poll to be a message for Samsung.

I start with a few I have collected in the poll - please describe your ideas.

[NickTrop]

This camera is a big deal. It's not a "digital rangefinder", it's the first "digital era's rangefinder". Get it? It's not a hybrid like DSLRs or digital rangefinders married to legacy technology (albeit great technology...). Since I am brilliant in so many ways, cameras and stuff being one of the more trivial matters in this regard, and I'm always right...I knew this was "the" camera the nanosecond I read its specs. That's why so many - including myself when it eventually is released in the US, are going for the 30mm f2 pancake. You can keep the kit zoom. It's a 46mm focal length in 35, just like the Yashica GSN and many others from the classical RF era. Sorry, the 4/3's made too many concessions. No EVFs and - a bigger deal, sensor size. Sorry, they're glorified PnS's with interchangeable lenses. That's not the case with the Samsung. I don't care what name is on the lens or how sexay they look. No thanks, no sale. I votes more fast primes, of course... But I'd be perfectly happy with just the 30mm pancake. As for adapters, 3rd parties will fill that void soon enough. If you don't understand the importance of this offering from Samsung, you do not understand rangefinder-style photography.

[NickTrop]

By the way Wired says Samsung is releasing more interesting
lenses for the camera, including:

20mm ƒ2.8 pancake
60mm ƒ2.7 macro

Zero to Hero: Five New NX Lenses Put Samsung in the Game
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...#ixzz0gV0wnWQ8

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

I knew this was "the" camera the nanosecond I read its specs.

Ah. Do you take photos with "the specs"?

Samsung need a strong product to break into this market, and they appear to have produced on. On the specs. But ain't it worth waiting until you've actually seen how it works, and the photos it produces, before praising it to the skies?

THey've already made one mistake by failing to ensure it's compatible with M and LTM lenses, so it looks like they don't understand one crucial part of rangefinder photography, for a start. Straight away it means you have to accept most of the bulk of an SLR camera.

[xayraa33]

We will have to wait for the new sleek Samsung NX M.
The M is for the built in M mount.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by Paul T.

Ah. Do you take photos with "the specs"?

Samsung need a strong product to break into this market, and they appear to have produced on. On the specs. But ain't it worth waiting until you've actually seen how it works, and the photos it produces, before praising it to the skies?

THey've already made one mistake by failing to ensure it's compatible with M and LTM lenses, so it looks like they don't understand one crucial part of rangefinder photography, for a start. Straight away it means you have to accept most of the bulk of an SLR camera.

It's rumored to use the same APS-C sensor as the Pentax K-7 or as good as any other sensor Samsung produces for other cameras makers. Its results will be on par with mid-range DSLRs. Enough sample images have been posted about, such as here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...x10gallery.asp
It will take as competent pics as any DSLR over the last 5 years. Nothing especially better, not especially worse out of the camera. That's not what it's about. It's about a manufacturer finally taking its thumb out of its mouth and building the first "digital era's rangefinder". That is, a camera that gives me everything a rangefinder but not married to legacy technologies, and one that made a pure photographic tool instead of making "cute" cameras like the 4/3rds but with all kinds of concessions as a photographic tool for the sake of cuteness. Samsung - nor any other manufaturer, need not make the kluge adapters for the handful of Leica users who insist on slapping their lenses on whatever camera. Out of the gate, just one or two decent fast primes is all that's needed. Again, this is the first digital era rangefinder that is built as a photographic tool that lets you shoot "rangefinder style" - and to do that they needed to have the guts to produce a new lens mount... took guts. It's a digital Yashica GSN or Olympus RD, or Oly 35, that allows you to shoot as such. It's latent image capabilities will be as good as the others. Its form factor with its fast fixed lens and larger "film plane" will "free" the photographer to achieve rangefinder-style photographic results. It's not about its latent technology, no breakthroughs there.

[gavinlg]

Fast primes - don't even need to be in pancake form, but as compact as possible:

16mm f2-f2.8 (24mm equiv)

22mm f1.8-f2 (35mm equiv)

55mm f1.4-f1.8 (85mm equiv)

The first company to make that sort of lens system with EVF will get my all my money. I don't want ****ty extendable zoom lenses, I don't want ****ty f4 or f5.6 lenses, I don't want a 14-150mm piece of junk.

Fast primes are the defining point of such a camera.

[gavinlg]

Oh, and I find the body design of the nx10 really ugly. of course if they went on to release some fantastic primes that wouldn't stop me buying it, but I really wish it was prettier to look at.

[Jamie Pillers]

Novoflex has announced they are building adapters to mount Nikon F, Canon, Minolta, Leica R, OM, Pentax K, and other lenses on the NX. I'm really exited about this move by Samsung to the APS-C sensor size! Nick I agree that the micro 4/3 idea is just a 'half-step' to what I've been waiting for. The NX 'concept' IS what I've been waiting for. Now let's see what the camera can do.... can't wait for the tests/reviews to be completed! :-)

[Matus]

I just had a look at the sample shots from dpreview and must say that noise is more than should be, but it was only a beta version of the camera. I am really interested to see a review - dcresource may bring us one in a month or two.

I agree with Galvin on the lenses - I would like to see even wider ones (21 and 15 equivalent)

[pvdhaar]

Form factor.. It's unnecessarily shaped like an SLR. While it may be a tad smaller than other DSLRs available, that's not really differentiation enough to win me over. It still has that lump on top where real reflexes have their prism housing. Doesn't make sense to me..

I'd say: shave off that lump, move the finder from the middle to the very left hand side, give it 1:1 magnification allowing framing and shooting with both eyes open..

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by pvdhaar

Form factor.. It's unnecessarily shaped like an SLR. While it may be a tad smaller than other DSLRs available, that's not really differentiation enough to win me over. It still has that lump on top where real reflexes have their prism housing. Doesn't make sense to me..

I'd say: shave off that lump, move the finder from the middle to the very left hand side, give it 1:1 magnification allowing framing and shooting with both eyes open..

Absolutely.

It might have an APS-C sensor, but it's not a hell of a lot smaller than the equivalent Pentax SLR. There are sacrifices involved in moving to an electronic VF, and the trade-off should be that the camera should be more compact, which this one ain't - and nor are the lenses.

It is a very promising first step, but I think they still need to make the leap that Panasonic did, from the G1 to the GF1.

[gavinlg]

Yes.


This is what it should look like (seriously). But smaller thanks to having no mirror.


There's no reason for it to look like a mini SLR

[NickTrop]

The size of the camera to me is not objectionable. The smallest DSLR currently out there - the Olys, I've seen in camera stores. They're small cameras imo. "Small" enough. The size of the camera itself is not an issue - but when you slap a big azz zoom on it that "takes over" and you're, once again, jabbing people in the face with this giant (slow) zoom jutting out of the front of the camera. Plus, they're DSLRs married to legacy technology. The pancake prime is what makes the camera unobtrusive. It's slightly smaller than the smallest DSLR out there, it's bigger that the 4/3's. To complain about this camera's size is akin to complaining that a 4/3's camera is bigger than the point-n-shoot digitals. Of course it is! It's not a "point and shoot" and you made size concessions over point and shoots for the better photo quality of the 4/3-rd's models. My argument is the same for the Samsung. I'll make a reasonable size concession to have a full APS-C sized CMOS sensor in the camera for the better results over the 4/3rd's, which are glorified point and shoots to me. (Though they are admittedly "pretty" cameras...) My criteria for size is "is it small enough to be unobtrusive?". It is - with the pancake lens. I own film cameras that are too small to me, a minor point, but I preferred the size of the larger Yash Electro to the Konica Auto S3 as an example. Both are "compact" rangefinders. If I want to go "pocketable" I'll take a different camera with me (fuji Finepix F20, or I'll pick up that XA I've always been tempted to buy) but I'll be sacrificing capability. The NX10 a small, but not "pocketable" camera. No offense to those (above) who quibble with the size but there most definately is a reason for the camera's size - physics! I'm sure that this is the smallest camera the Samsung engineers could design that still has an EVF and built in flash (that I could have done without but is far from a deal breaker...), which an APS-C sensor (not a smaller and therefore inferior 4/3'rds sensor) that didn't make consessions as a photographic tool in order to win the "who can make the smallest interchangeable lens camera contest..." As far as high ISO noise, it won't be best of class, it won't be worst of class. My expectation is it will perform no better or worse than any other DSLR out there - which is actually pretty darned good. Noise is an overrated problem. Yes, straight out of the camera blown up 100 or more percent it's ugly and obtrusive except for a handful of full frame models that are usueall hugh and expensive cameras that I'll never own. It's really a problem for pixel peepers, mainly. However, imo, noise is far less an issue on smaller "real world" print sizes viewed from a normal viewing distance, and it becomes even less of an issue if you use good noise reduction software, esp. if you convert to black and white. I actually hope Samsung does less in-camera noise reduction and leaves that up to the user to do in post so I can control the "noise vs detail" equation and not leave that up to the firmware. As far as available lenses - as I said, I'm perfectly happy with one decent (doesn't have to be "Leica" quality... just "decent" - which I'm sure it will be...) fast lens in the normal focal length range - 45-55 in 35mm, which it has. I use this focal lenght 95% of the time. As for the "ugliness" of the camera - all I can say is that's subjective and "puleeeze". Since when did camera "cuteness" matter at the end of the day for anything?

[Paul T.]

Of course form factor matters. Just like paragraph breaks.

[mabelsound]

Nick, I agree, this looks like a perfectly good camera, but why do you have to say how much m4/3 sucks every time you post about it? It's not a war. Most of us are gonna prefer m4/3 because it's more pocketable and rangefindery (the GF1 w/20mm is almost identical in size to my Olympus 35RC) and will take more legacy lenses, but this does not make you some kind of persecuted minority.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

Nick, I agree, this looks like a perfectly good camera, but why do you have to say how much m4/3 sucks every time you post about it? It's not a war. Most of us are gonna prefer m4/3 because it's more pocketable and rangefindery (the GF1 w/20mm is almost identical in size to my Olympus 35RC) and will take more legacy lenses, but this does not make you some kind of persecuted minority.

I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.

As for "paragraph breaks" - he who points out grammar and typos on blog posts loses the race automatically. - analogous to illegally switching lanes during speed skating competitions.

[Paul T.]

Ha, sorry, but para breaks might help you make or prove your point.

WE're getting into a circular argument here, but I can't help thinking you defeat your own point by banging on about 4/3rds being glorified compacts when you haven't even used one - and when there's a far bigger difference in sensor size between compact and 4/3, than there is between 4/3 and APS-C.


You might draw an arbitrary line there, but there's no reason anyone else should.

Again, I agree the Samsung is a great addition to the market, but at the moment, without actually trying one out, it's just pie in the sky. You argue it's the best pie in the sky, because it fulfils some arbitrary size criteria for you, but reality might not live up to your fantasy.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.

Yeah, it's heaps smaller than an aps-c sensor

In all seriousness, have you ever shot with a camera with a 4/3 sensor before? They're pretty good... Not as good as a full frame nikon or canon but about equal to aps-c dslrs. I feel my e-p1 really holds its own in outright image quality.

In the same light - have you ever shot with a pentax k7? They use the same 14.6mp samsung sensor in the nx10. Now I loved the k7 body and I love pentax limited lenses, but that sensor I didn't particularly like. For one, it gets noisy quickly, and it's color sensitivity is strange (to my eyes). It's very sensitive to blues and greens to the point of oversaturation.
By contrast 4/3 sensors are very neutral and produce very nice colors straight from the cam.

[Matus]

Truth to be told, I would rather see the D90 or 7D sensor in the NX10 than the K7 sensor ....

Also - the shape of the viewfinder - is probably dictated by the way the flash is implemented (could indeed be moved to side). I am wondering whether larger viewfinder would have implications on the size of the camera though ...

[mabelsound]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

I wouldn't buy a 4/3's camera because - to me, there is one main determining factor regarding the quality of images and that is the size of the film plane. That's true in film, it's true in digital. The 4/3rds sensors are too small. APS-C is a concession over full-frame 35, and that's the smallest I want to go if I'm spending $700, 800, $1000 for a camera. Not a lot for some, but as much as I'm willing to spend as a tool for a serious hobbyist. I view them as glorified "cool looking" point and shoot cameras that are overpriced for what they do and make too many concessions as a photographic tool because they got it backwards regarding form following function. If that places me in the minority - so be it.

As for "paragraph breaks" - he who points out grammar and typos on blog posts loses the race automatically. - analogous to illegally switching lanes during speed skating competitions.

You're missing my point. I'm NOT arguing with you about the relative strengths of the two camera systems. I honestly don't care about that. They are both fine. It's just that every time you say something positive about one, you put down the other. It's like you're going out of your way to piss people off. IT DOESN'T MATTER if one of them is better. Go get an NX10, take good photos, post them here, talk about why you like the camera. You are not at war with the people who chose to adopt a different one. It's perfectly reasonable to say that one camera might be better for certain applications than another, but I don't understand this sense that you feel personally offended by the camera system you don't support, or by other people's positive opinion of it.

And I am not the guy who complained about the paragraph breaks.

[NickTrop]

It is a circular argument. But when making decisions, you "draw a line in the sand" somewhere and that line is a "logically-based" arbitrary one. I'm sure the 4/3-rds cameras take fine images. My little Fuji Finepix F20 takes acceptable images but is not capable of selective focus. Without going through a lot of trouble, I'd say you lose a stop or so of selective focus capability due to the size difference between 4/3rds and APS-C? Other 4/3 users have posted about this. I'm already losing some capability here between 35mm and APS-C. The 4/3 have a 2X crop factor, the APS-C has 1.5, a significant difference when measured as a percentage. As far as the trying the camera, etc... Again, I'm not all that wonky about the subtle differences here which are largely subjective. Here are some quotes from a Luminious Landscape article about the Pentax K-7 regarding picture quality which is directly related to its sensor (and firmware):

"Image quality is fine, but not exceptional, and maybe a bit noisier than some...looking at resolution and high ISO capability, the K7 stood firmly in the middle of the pack."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...k7-hands.shtml

This meets my expectations. "Fine" is "fine". My expectation is it will produce images as good as any other DSLR, that is, very good. As far as shoot a 4/3rds, don't have to. Again, I don't need to shoot these things - I'm sure the images are fine, they just make too many compromises to me and have crossed that arbitrary line. And, the only truly pockable camera - film or digital, to me have collapsable lenses and a form factor small enogh to put in your pocket, comfortably (not all jammed in there... or wearing pant with giant pocket to accomidate it...) Larger than that, and without collapsible lenses, it's not to me "pocketable". Both 4/3 and the NX with a pancake lens fall under the category of "compact" but one is equivalent to, say, a Yashica CC and the other a Konica Auto S3.

[Matus]

The discussion of 4/3 versus APS-C (or DX) reminds me very much the discussions about 6x7 versus 645.

There is a substantial step area wise between 35mm (FX) and APS-C (DX) this shows in the high ISO sensitivity and in the ability to use the selective focus. If you play a bit with some of the DOF calculators on the web, you will find out that for every 1.44 conversion factor (for the effective focal length) you "gain" 1 stop of the DOF for the same subject. In other words a shot taken with FX camera and 50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0, because the conversion factor of 1.5 is close to 1.44.

going down to 4/3 cameras - you "gain" 2 stops as the focal length conversion factor is 2 (2 = 1.44*1.44) so to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed.

Of course the limiting f/stop (when the diffraction kicks in) will be for every format different - as the smaller the format the bigger the scaling factor to get the same sized print.

I hope this makes sense.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by Matus

The discussion of 4/3 versus APS-C (or DX) reminds me very much the discussions about 6x7 versus 645.

There is a substantial step area wise between 35mm (FX) and APS-C (DX) this shows in the high ISO sensitivity and in the ability to use the selective focus. If you play a bit with some of the DOF calculators on the web, you will find out that for every 1.44 conversion factor (for the effective focal length) you "gain" 1 stop of the DOF for the same subject. In other words a shot taken with FX camera and 50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0, because the conversion factor of 1.5 is close to 1.44.

going down to 4/3 cameras - you "gain" 2 stops as the focal length conversion factor is 2 (2 = 1.44*1.44) so to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed.

Of course the limiting f/stop (when the diffraction kicks in) will be for every format different - as the smaller the format the bigger the scaling factor to get the same sized print.

I hope this makes sense.

It makes perfect sense and thanks for doing the leg work. And that's "the line". "50mm lens @ f/2.8 will have nearly the same DOF as APS-C camera with 33mm lens @ f/2.0." It's a concession - a somewhat large one but one I can live with: F2 = F2.8; F2.8 = F4; 30mm = 45mm. "4/3 cameras...to get the same DOF as above a lens 25/1.4 will be needed"... Close but no cigar, it crosses that line. Thanks again.

[gavinlg]

I don't really care that much, but just playing the devils advocate here - my 5d with the voigtlander 40mm f2 will give significantly better IQ than any of these cameras, and really isn't that much bigger. None of them can actually fit into a pocket like an olympus XA. This is the main problem I have with my e-p1. Anytime I need that kind of quality I may as well be using my 5d with a small prime.

Either way, the samsung does look nice.