«

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8b9d2e41-7a35-41a1-b51c-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Admittedly, they aren't the most likely company to start an revolution
> in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/

Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus quickly?
How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can contain a
larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).

Bowser wrote:
>
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:8b9d2e41-7a35-41a1-b51c-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Admittedly, they aren't the most likely company to start an revolution
>> in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/
>
> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).

The only other such model is probably that Leica?

This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
expect the price to reflect that.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:

>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>
> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>
> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
> expect the price to reflect that.
>

I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:28:09 +0000, Peter Chant
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>>
>> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>>
>> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
>> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
>> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
>> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
>> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
>> expect the price to reflect that.
>>
>
>I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
>do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
>4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?


The significant advantage is the increased area of the sensor, which
is about 1.5X that of Micro Four Thirds. This should offer lower
noise at higher ISOs and will definitely offer less depth of field,
allowing greater ability to defocus obtrusive foregrounds and/or
backgrounds.

The advantage over of APS-C over Micro Four Thirds is about the same
as the advantage of a full frame sensor over APS-C. If you are not
aware of, or don't understand the differences, or don't value
increased control over depth of field, you will probably be perfectly
happy with the small format.

Peter Chant wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>>
>> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
>> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
>> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
>> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
>> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
>> expect the price to reflect that.
>>
>
> I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
> do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
> 4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?
>
> Pete

The advantage that I see over the mu4/3 cameras is the sensor size:
about 30% bigger.
Some-one on the depreview.com forums did a size comparison and found
that the Samsung NX10 is slightly smaller than the Panasonic G1 and much
smaller than the smallest Olympus 4/3 dslr.
Bigger sensor plus smaller body (as long as reasonable price and good
build quality are there as well) would make this seem to be the one to
get, assuming that you can put up with an EVF.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:31:23 +1100, dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>Peter Chant wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>>>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>>>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>>> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>>>
>>> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
>>> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
>>> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
>>> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
>>> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
>>> expect the price to reflect that.
>>>
>>
>> I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
>> do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
>> 4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?
>>
>> Pete
>
>The advantage that I see over the mu4/3 cameras is the sensor size:
>about 30% bigger.
>Some-one on the depreview.com forums did a size comparison and found
>that the Samsung NX10 is slightly smaller than the Panasonic G1 and much
>smaller than the smallest Olympus 4/3 dslr.
>Bigger sensor plus smaller body (as long as reasonable price and good
>build quality are there as well) would make this seem to be the one to
>get, assuming that you can put up with an EVF.


I agree that, all things being equal, the larger sensor should be
better.

The only problem is that this particular Samsung sensor, which is
currently used in Pentax DSLRs, is a disappointing performer. At high
ISO, noise levels are high. So high that its performance lags behind
the sensors in the Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.

Unless there has been a very dramatic reduction in noise levels from
the Pentax DSLR application, the Samsung NX10 is probably NOT the one
to get.

Bruce wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
>> Peter Chant wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>>>>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>>>>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>>>> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>>>>
>>>> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
>>>> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
>>>> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
>>>> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
>>>> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
>>>> expect the price to reflect that.
>>>>
>>> I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
>>> do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
>>> 4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?
>>>
>>> Pete
>> The advantage that I see over the mu4/3 cameras is the sensor size:
>> about 30% bigger.
>> Some-one on the depreview.com forums did a size comparison and found
>> that the Samsung NX10 is slightly smaller than the Panasonic G1 and much
>> smaller than the smallest Olympus 4/3 dslr.
>> Bigger sensor plus smaller body (as long as reasonable price and good
>> build quality are there as well) would make this seem to be the one to
>> get, assuming that you can put up with an EVF.
>
> I agree that, all things being equal, the larger sensor should be
> better.
>
> The only problem is that this particular Samsung sensor, which is
> currently used in Pentax DSLRs, is a disappointing performer. At high
> ISO, noise levels are high. So high that its performance lags behind
> the sensors in the Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.
>
> Unless there has been a very dramatic reduction in noise levels from
> the Pentax DSLR application, the Samsung NX10 is probably NOT the one
> to get.

Maybe ...if it costs less :-)
I would want good jpegs though, raw is too much for the time lapse &
stacking work I have in mind.

I'm hesitant to go micro 4/3 because my other lenses would have nothing
even vaguely wide angle and I'm also interested in the 720p video where
I'd want wide angle.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:24:15 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 4:47*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:28:09 +0000, Peter Chant
>>
>>
>>
>> <pet...@MpeteOzilla.Vco.ukE> wrote:
>> >Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>> >>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>> >>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>> >>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>>
>> >> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>>
>> >> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
>> >> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
>> >> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
>> >> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
>> >> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
>> >> expect the price to reflect that.
>>
>> >I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. *What is it? *They both
>> >do away with the reflex mirror. *The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
>> >4/3 can do that if it wants? *Is it just variations on a theme?
>>
>> The significant advantage is the increased area of the sensor, which
>> is about 1.5X that of Micro Four Thirds. *This should offer lower
>> noise at higher ISOs and will definitely offer less depth of field,
>> allowing greater ability to defocus obtrusive foregrounds and/or
>> backgrounds.
>>
>> The advantage over of APS-C over Micro Four Thirds is about the same
>> as the advantage of a full frame sensor over APS-C. *If you are not
>> aware of, or don't understand the differences, or don't value
>> increased control over depth of field, you will probably be perfectly
>> happy with the small format. *
>
>Noise levels aren't helped when exaggerated by mid-level boosting like
>we see in the sample images.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/samsungnx10_preview2/


Indeed. However, the 30mm pancake lens looks rather nice, with
excellent background bokeh at f/2.3. I just hope that the AF system
measures up.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:21:35 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I agree that, all things being equal, the larger sensor should be
>> better.
>>
>> The only problem is that this particular Samsung sensor, which is
>> currently used in Pentax DSLRs, is a disappointing performer. At high
>> ISO, noise levels are high. So high that its performance lags behind
>> the sensors in the Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.
>>
>> Unless there has been a very dramatic reduction in noise levels from
>> the Pentax DSLR application, the Samsung NX10 is probably NOT the one
>> to get.
>
>Maybe ...if it costs less :-)
>I would want good jpegs though, raw is too much for the time lapse &
>stacking work I have in mind.
>
>I'm hesitant to go micro 4/3 because my other lenses would have nothing
>even vaguely wide angle and I'm also interested in the 720p video where
>I'd want wide angle.


Understood. But the initial lens offerings from Samsung don't offer
much in the way of wide angle lenses either.

I was surprised to see the lens selection starting only at 18mm (full
frame equivalent FOV 27mm) with an 18-55mm, 30mm fixed focal length
and a 50-200mm. The zoom focal length ranges seem uncannily close to
the kit lenses for the Samsung and Pentax DSLRs, and I suspect they
come from the same factories that supply several DSLR manufacturers
with these focal lengths.

Bruce wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that, all things being equal, the larger sensor should be
>>> better.
>>>
>>> The only problem is that this particular Samsung sensor, which is
>>> currently used in Pentax DSLRs, is a disappointing performer. At high
>>> ISO, noise levels are high. So high that its performance lags behind
>>> the sensors in the Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.
>>>
>>> Unless there has been a very dramatic reduction in noise levels from
>>> the Pentax DSLR application, the Samsung NX10 is probably NOT the one
>>> to get.
>>
>> Maybe ...if it costs less :-)
>> I would want good jpegs though, raw is too much for the time lapse &
>> stacking work I have in mind.
>>
>> I'm hesitant to go micro 4/3 because my other lenses would have nothing
>> even vaguely wide angle and I'm also interested in the 720p video where
>> I'd want wide angle.
>
> Understood. But the initial lens offerings from Samsung don't offer
> much in the way of wide angle lenses either.
>
> I was surprised to see the lens selection starting only at 18mm (full
> frame equivalent FOV 27mm) with an 18-55mm, 30mm fixed focal length
> and a 50-200mm. The zoom focal length ranges seem uncannily close to
> the kit lenses for the Samsung and Pentax DSLRs, and I suspect they
> come from the same factories that supply several DSLR manufacturers
> with these focal lengths.

For pocket use, I'd just get the fast normal, then any lens can be used
for tripod work. I have a 10.5mm fisheye, a 12mm zoom, a 20mm f/2.8
which is quite small. For lightweight hiking telephoto or sneaking into
a venue that doesn't allow 'pro' cameras, my 75-150 would be nice and
for closeups, my Voightlander 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar Leica screw mount
which is super compact and has a very limited 0.5x focus range on my DSLRs.

Canon now has a silent live view mode with electronic shutter, which
this actually lacks. That might be ideal for my macro bellows stacking
but I don't think the shutter actually causes much shake, it's just
painful listening to that mirror flap hundreds of times for no reason
for this application.

Most people would want their kit zoom and not mess around with lens
adapters. This should be an inexpensive entry level DX camera. If it
can't meter with weird lenses, I'm not interested.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam