No love for the EISA 2012 Advanced CSC ?

Spy

Spy

Messages
442
Edit My Images
No
Looking at this year's recently announced EISA awards, the Samsung NX20 received the Advanced CSC award with the OMD E-M5 getting the 'standard' CSC and the Fuji X-Pro1 the Professional CSC award.

Although there is a lot of support and talk about both the OMD and Xpro1 on here, there is comparatively little for the Samsung NX20.

The Sammy seems to have received some excellent reviews and has more lenses than the Sony NEX series yet it doesn't seem to get a lot of love around here.

Is there a reason for this ?
 
Your right they have some great pancakes and producing the lens people want for there aps-c CSC's. Amateur Photographer awarded it best CSC of the year too. Give them a few years to find there feet. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them at the top of the list in 10yrs time, they are a gigantic company.
 
Nx20 looks okay but it's a Samsung and they want £900 for the body and a 18-55 lens. That's a lot for a company trying to get into the market.
 
Don't have an EVF do they?

I've tried back screen only cameras and decided that I'd much rather have a VF of some sort.
 
I've just read up on the NX20 and it looks very interesting. I'm pleased to see that the max shutter speed is 1/8000 as MFT and others are limited to 1/4000.

There don't seem to be many NX fit lenses but I'll deffo keep an eye on this.
 
Yes, not as many lenses as others but more than the Sony NEX series and they seem popular.

Samsung has a couple of primes and a few zooms up to 200mm as well as an adaptor for Pentax K lenses.

What I don't understand is that if the camera is as good as the reviews say it is, why it isn't more popular - is it because Samsung is seen as an inferior photography brand ?
 
Spy said:
What I don't understand is that if the camera is as good as the reviews say it is, why it isn't more popular - is it because Samsung is seen as an inferior photography brand ?
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's because micro 4/3 is starting to be seen as a viable alternative to APS-Cs from Canon & Nikon. No need for yet another incompatible format - especially one from yet another company.
 
arad85 said:
I wonder if it's because micro 4/3 is starting to be seen as a viable alternative to APS-Cs from Canon & Nikon. No need for yet another incompatible format - especially one from yet another company.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they are getting seen as a viable alternative. These cameras are marketed not to slr users but for compact and camera phone users. Canon have just released a aps-c csc Nikon has filed a patent for a aps-c csc kit lens, so looks like they will be releasing one soon too which kind of leaves m4/3 out in the cold on there own again just like there 4/3 dslr's. There perceived size advantage thanks to there marketing over a aps-c CSC is not worth the sensor performance penalties. They are not even particularly smaller lenses. The kit lens is because they are collapsable (nex collapsable out by the end of the year) Looks to me like they have made the same mistake twice.
 
Last edited:
Picked up it's older brother, the NX10 with a 30mm f2 as my indoors / grab and go camera and it's been a stonking performer. The 30mm lens is razor sharp and the NX10 is producing images on a par with my 5Dmkii which I was really wasn't expecting.... Picked up the NX10 2nd hand on eBay for an absolute steal as there is little love for the Samsung NX range which is both a blessing and a curse.

Sample image:

7480768306_942784fe18_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
CReid said:
Picked up it's older brother, the NX10 with a 30mm f1.2 as my indoors / grab and go camera and it's been a stonking performer. The 30mm lens is razor sharp and the NX10 is producing images on a par with my 5Dmkii which I was really wasn't expecting.... Picked up the NX10 2nd hand on eBay for an absolute steal as there is little love for the Samsung NX range which is both a blessing and a curse.

Sample image:

7480768306_942784fe18_c.jpg
Click to expand...
Sharp as a pin.
 
The reason they are not popular is because they are Samsung. Samsung is not a premium camera brand so people are not drawn to it, especially when they can buy the Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc,. which are seen as more established.

It doesn't matter how good they are or how they do in reviews as people are still not buying them. I had an NX100 for a while and the IQ is very high and the build quality is also very good. I bought it at a massively discounted price presumably because of the lack of sales. As soon as Canon and Nikon have their CSC APS-C cameras estabilished Samsung may as well give up with that avenue.
 
rjbell said:
There perceived size advantage thanks to there marketing over a aps-c CSC is not worth the sensor performance penalties.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there are significant performance penalties. u4/3 has a different aspect ratio which makes the esensor almost as big in one direction as APS-C. The difference is definitely NOT what the crop factors would have you believe.

rjbell said:
They are not even particularly smaller lenses.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I saw a 450D/18-55 the other day. It looked HUGE compared to my G3 and 14-42...

I have to say I saw this elsewhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4G0Z-_9--w

which should worry Canon - assuming the focus performance is similar on the EOS-M
 
Last edited:
I only received very good IQ on my NX100. Only had it a few weeks but the IQ with the standard kit lens was a match with any DSLRs I have owned.
 
rjbell said:
I'm not sure they are getting seen as a viable alternative. These cameras are marketed not to slr users but for compact and camera phone users. Canon have just released a aps-c csc Nikon has filed a patent for a aps-c csc kit lens, so looks like they will be releasing one soon too which kind of leaves m4/3 out in the cold on there own again just like there 4/3 dslr's. There perceived size advantage thanks to there marketing over a aps-c CSC is not worth the sensor performance penalties. They are not even particularly smaller lenses. The kit lens is because they are collapsable (nex collapsable out by the end of the year) Looks to me like they have made the same mistake twice.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I disagree with most of that. I have an APS-C DSLR (a D5000) and an MFT (GF2) and the size difference in lenses is significant. The 20mm pancake is MUCH smaller than the 35mm prime I had on the Nikon - probably 1/5 the size. The MFT 14-140 is much smaller and lighter than the Nikon 18-200. I'm not a fan of 3x zooms, but even the non-collapsing MFT 14-42 is shorter than the equivalent APS-C 18-55 (probably about 2/3 length and weight).
So, if the ONLY lens you own is a 3x kit zoom, then maybe the lens size difference is negligible. Ditto on body size as the NEXs are pretty small for APS-C. But as soon as you start adding primes or telezooms to your kit bag, the difference in size and weight is significant.

The difference in IQ between APS-C and MFT is also becoming neglible. The old 12MP MFT sensor suffered from poor DR and noisy high ISO compared to APS-C, but the new Sony sensor in the EM-5 seems capable of rivalling the best crop sensors.

AF is a mixed bag - for static objects, MFT contrast AF outperforms the phase detect on most consumer DSLRs, but isn't as quick or reliable for tracking moving objects. But I understand that Sony are already working on on-chip PDAF for their NEX system, so it should be possible to add to the MFT chips they make. Nikon already have it on the Nikon 1. So this advantage of APS-C DSLR (for some users in certain conditions) over MFT and mirrorless APS-C will soon cease to be significant too.

As you say, the target market for mirrorless is upgrades from P&S. Size and weight will be a significant factor for such users, and MFT has got the jump on APS-C mirrorless there. Even if Sony and Canon can shrink their bodies to MFT size (Sony are very close), the lenses will always be bigger. And that becomes more pronounced with zooms (which appeal more to P&S upgraders than primes).

I actually see the future being smaller sensors. Shallow DoF is only of interest to keen photographers, and all the other benefits of larger sensors can be overcome with improving sensor technology. Ultimately bodies can only be so small to accommodate human hands, but smaller sensors mean smaller, lighter lenses and more in-body room for other features (flash, GPS, IBIS, wireless...). Or how about a collapsible body?....
 
twist said:
Perhaps the NX20 is better but with poor results like this link shows out of a APSC sensor Im not surprised nobody bought the earlier NXs.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/carpet.jpg
Click to expand...

Horses for courses, I researched the NX10 fully before buying so I was aware of it's limitations and it was only ever going to be a companion camera for my DSLR. I wanted a compact camera for the car / work / with great IQ for those "wish I had my camera with me" moments, and frankly the price I paid it was an absolute steal compared to the Olympus PEN etc due to Samsung brand perception...

Carl
 
CReid said:
Horses for courses, I researched the NX10 fully before buying so I was aware of it's limitations and it was only ever going to be a companion camera for my DSLR. I wanted a compact camera for the car / work / with great IQ for those "wish I had my camera with me" moments, and frankly the price I paid it was an absolute steal compared to the Olympus PEN etc due to Samsung brand perception...

Carl
Click to expand...

Its definitely cheap but in comparison an E-PL1 can be had for around £150 used and the NX10 around £140 so not much in it at current prices. That image you posted does show its capable of fantastic images, just a shame they couldnt get a little more out of the larger sensor.
 
Llamaman said:
Shallow DoF is only of interest to keen photographers,
Click to expand...
This is true (well, until people experience it and want to understand how to recreate it). One advantage with smaller sensors is the DoF is higher with equivalent lenses. A 25mm f1.4 is equivalent (i.e. will prouce similar pictures) to a 50mm f4 on full frame. This means it is easier and cheaper to keep shutter speeds high without having to go to a wafer thin DoF.
 
Llamaman said:
....The 20mm pancake is MUCH smaller than the 35mm prime I had on the Nikon - probably 1/5 the size.

.......Shallow DoF is only of interest to keen photographers, ...
Click to expand...

While the m4/3 lenses are smaller for equivalent sizes (they would be, the sensor is smaller) this particualr comparison is not a fair one. You are comparing a pancake lens with a non pancake lens!
Pancake lenses are not common on DSLR but where they do exist (Canon 40) they are very small and light.

Shallow DoF is very much of interest to most people. Why do you think so many people ask for cameras that "give that blurred background thing"
And to get that blurred background when taking say a whole person shot from 5 meters away takes a lens with a pretty shallow DoF. They may not understand how they get the blurred background but they sure want it...
 
Llamaman said:
I'm afraid I disagree with most of that. I have an APS-C DSLR (a D5000) and an MFT (GF2) and the size difference in lenses is significant. The 20mm pancake is MUCH smaller than the 35mm prime I had on the Nikon - probably 1/5 the size. The MFT 14-140 is much smaller and lighter than the Nikon 18-200. I'm not a fan of 3x zooms, but even the non-collapsing MFT 14-42 is shorter than the equivalent APS-C 18-55 (probably about 2/3 length and weight).
So, if the ONLY lens you own is a 3x kit zoom, then maybe the lens size difference is negligible. Ditto on body size as the NEXs are pretty small for APS-C. But as soon as you start adding primes or telezooms to your kit bag, the difference in size and weight is significant.

The difference in IQ between APS-C and MFT is also becoming neglible. The old 12MP MFT sensor suffered from poor DR and noisy high ISO compared to APS-C, but the new Sony sensor in the EM-5 seems capable of rivalling the best crop sensors.

AF is a mixed bag - for static objects, MFT contrast AF outperforms the phase detect on most consumer DSLRs, but isn't as quick or reliable for tracking moving objects. But I understand that Sony are already working on on-chip PDAF for their NEX system, so it should be possible to add to the MFT chips they make. Nikon already have it on the Nikon 1. So this advantage of APS-C DSLR (for some users in certain conditions) over MFT and mirrorless APS-C will soon cease to be significant too.

As you say, the target market for mirrorless is upgrades from P&S. Size and weight will be a significant factor for such users, and MFT has got the jump on APS-C mirrorless there. Even if Sony and Canon can shrink their bodies to MFT size (Sony are very close), the lenses will always be bigger. And that becomes more pronounced with zooms (which appeal more to P&S upgraders than primes).

I actually see the future being smaller sensors. Shallow DoF is only of interest to keen photographers, and all the other benefits of larger sensors can be overcome with improving sensor technology. Ultimately bodies can only be so small to accommodate human hands, but smaller sensors mean smaller, lighter lenses and more in-body room for other features (flash, GPS, IBIS, wireless...). Or how about a collapsible body?....
Click to expand...

I was not comparing a mft csc with a aps-c dslr i was comparing it to a aps-c csc like the sony nex which contrary to believe and marketing hype by panny and oly because they have nothing else to shout about the nex is not particularly bigger. Infact the kit lens on the panasonic before they released there collapsible kit lens was bigger than the nex kit lens. When sony releases there collapsible kit lens later this year this argument will disappear.

As for closing the gap between mft and aps-c it’s far from it. mft sensors have performed very badly up until the sony sensor in the em-5 don't forget the any gains in the sony mft sensor has been equalled with gains in sonys aps-c sensors too, so the gap will never be closed.

DOF is a big interest for people even if they don't know what it is they want to achieve it. This is far from the only draw back iso performance has also been covered, Just as there are lots of people finding the extra zoom capability a plus for the mft there are just as many who want to go wider for landscapes they will have to spend £1k on a panny 7-14mm and put up with terrible distortion.

So what you will be left with will be an over saturated sector with the majority of brands using aps-c’s and then the mft will be left out in the cold not selling just like what happened with there dslr’s.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
A 25mm f1.4 is equivalent (i.e. will prouce similar pictures) to a 50mm f4 on full frame. This means it is easier and cheaper to keep shutter speeds high without having to go to a wafer thin DoF.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with your DoF equiv. My own little tests show that it's much closer to the 2x crop factor, MFT f1.4 giving much shallower DoF that FF f4 and much closer to FF f2.8, which is how it should be. Agree with the rest though. With MFT and APS-C you stand a much better chance of being able to hand hold a shot at much lower shutter speeds than you can with FF.

As to general IQ. At low to middling ISO's I'd say that there's next to no difference unless you pixel peep. Even the DR disadvantage is arguable as with MFT you get an in view histogram so you can avoid clipping the highlights and you can then boost the shadows a little post capture. What I do know is that in some respects in difficult lighting conditions I can probably more often than not nail a shot first time with my G1 when I'd have to take seeveral shots at different exposures with my non live view and no histogram 5D :D
 
woof woof said:
Don't agree with your DoF equiv. My own little tests show that it's much closer to the 2x crop factor, MFT f1.4 giving much shallower DoF that FF f4 and much closer to FF f2.8, which is how it should be.
Click to expand...
Oops - you're right. I seemingly can't do simple maths this morning: 1.4 x 2 = 2.8... so a 25mm @ f/1.4 on MFT gives "the same" pictures as a 50mm @ f/2.8 on FF.
 
arad85 said:
Oops - you're right. I seemingly can't do simple maths this morning: 1.4 x 2 = 2.8... so a 25mm @ f/1.4 on MFT gives "the same" pictures as a 50mm @ f/2.8 on FF.
Click to expand...
You get the added distortion for free!;)
 
left to right
oly (collapsible), sony, panny, panny & sammy. Panny do now have a collapsible but sony's one is on the way too.

kitlens.jpg


Don't believe the hype!
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Oops - you're right. I seemingly can't do simple maths this morning: 1.4 x 2 = 2.8... so a 25mm @ f/1.4 on MFT gives "the same" pictures as a 50mm @ f/2.8 on FF.
Click to expand...

Sadly it's not as simple as that :D Although 25mm on MFT will give the same FoV as 50mm on FF it will not give exactly the same image... the background may be brought forward a little more with the longer lens so the spacial relationships between the different things in the image may not look quite the same. This could affect how you perceive DoF as things outside of the DoF may be rendered larger in the longer focal length image and therefore more obviously out of the DoF.

It all depens on the focal lengths you are using and the spacial relationship of the things in the image but, for example, 25mm x2 crop may look diffferent to 50mm FF. YMMV from image to image.
 
There is nothing like a 50mm on a FF that's my biggest problem with any crop.
 
That's a problem.

If you like the look 50mm gives on FF then 30mm on APS-C or 25mm on MFT may get very close most of the time but not 100% of the time. Just like FF will not give the exact look of a larger system all the time.

To be honest though, most of the time you wouldn't really know. I could show you images I've taken with 50mm f1.4, 30mm f1.4, 25mm f0.95 and 55mm f1.7 on various cameras and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
 
woof woof said:
Sadly it's not as simple as that :D Although 25mm on MFT will give the same FoV as 50mm on FF it will not give exactly the same image... the background may be brought forward a little more with the longer lens so the spacial relationships between the different things in the image may not look quite the same.
Click to expand...
Sensor aspect ratio and lens distortions/characteristics aside (and whether or not a 25mm f1.4 and 50mm f2.8 are exactly what they claim), same field of view, same background compression, same image so they will look the same. There's no "may" about it - it's physics.
 
rjbell said:
There is nothing like a 50mm on a FF that's my biggest problem with any crop.
Click to expand...
Really :thinking:

This is totally unscientific and are just a couple of snaps (no tripod, no controlled lighting - hence the colour differences as the sun came out between shots, didn't even check focus). One of these is from a u4/3 camera with 25mm, the other from a 5D2 with 50mm, but cropped to 4:3 to get the same aspect ratio...

IMG1-1024.jpg


IMG2-1024.jpg
 
So... the focus points aren't the same, but here's the 2 at 1:1 in an out of focus area. Raws out of camera, no processing applied. Would you like to say which is from the Panasonic G3 (@f10) and which is from the 5D2 (@f11)?

compare.jpg
 
Not to bad the the lens correction on the panny has done a nice job. Wider you go is surely going to alter perspective a subject in a 50mm ff images just fills the frame better.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Not to bad the the lens correction on the panny has done a nice job.
Click to expand...
No lens correction applied - it is direct from a RAW file which isn't corrected in camera ;)

rjbell said:
Wider you go is always going to distort perspective a subject in a 50mm ff images just fills the frame better.
Click to expand...
You are totally missing the physics that 25mm on a 2x crop gives EXACTLY THE SAME picture as 50mm on FF taken from the same position. There is no change of perspective.

When people refer to change of perspective, they are talking about the same size lens on different sized sensors taking the same photo (i.e. to take the same photo as above on two different sensors, you have to move to different positions - the perspective changes).
 
I am as guilty as the next man for taking threads off course but how does any of this go back to a consumer lack of interest in Samsung CSCs using APS-C sensor even though the cameras are very well rated? :)
 
Physics is never my strong point (or punctuation and spelling sorry) but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. A 50mm on a ff has little or no magnification, the front and back lens are identical. To fit the same field of view onto a smaller sensor there will need to be some sort of opposite magnification (what ever this is called) . I think your misunderstanding perspective regarding wideangles, yes moving your position e.g birds eye view is changing the perspective, but when people are using the term in regards to wideangles, they are on about the perceived distance from something in the foreground (larger) to something in the background (smaller) or vanishing point. This is exaggerate with wideangle lenses. I do appreciate that cropping the edges like a mft does makes the perspective less prominent but it’s still there. (To be fair looking at your pictures this is much lesser problem than i expected, but looking at the perspective I would say the 1st one is the mft)

If we look at your argument and took a wideangle lens and shot a person’s face close up it would make their nose look larger than usual because its exaggerated perspective. This is greatly exaggerated by being so close to the lens but this phenomenon or distortion is still happening to a lesser extent further away from the lens. If did this experiment on your 5d then cropped the mft out of the image the person would still have a distorted face would it not?
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
I am as guilty as the next man for taking threads off course but how does any of this go back to a consumer lack of interest in Samsung CSCs using APS-C sensor even though the cameras are very well rated? :)
Click to expand...

I think it's down to awareness. People tend to buy big-ticket items that they've heard or read about, or are from brands they recognise.

Nikon or Canon have a headstart here. Anyone who's ever seen an SLR/DSLR will recognise them as being 'proper' cameras that you 'see pros using'. You could probably stick a Canon/Nikon badge on a poo and someone would buy it.

Sony and Panasonic have a harder job. Sony have the benefit of well-regarded SLRs to show that they can make a 'proper' (non-compact) camera. Plus Sony always make stylish consumer electronics that attract media attention (the mini review in glossy mags and newspaper supplements written by non-togs and focus on aesthetics and MP count) plus fans who'll buy anything Sony.
Panasonic appear to have thrown a lot of money at marketing the G range - it's the only non Canon/Nikon ILC I've seen advertised on TV. They've also pushied the "smallest ILC" thing, although that thunder has been stolen by Nikon and Pentax (although when did you last see a Pentax Q in the shops?).

Olympus are a half-way house. Some will be aware of their photography heritage, but they also have the "hip" thing going for them since the launch of the digital PENs. Buyers will recognise them in the shops.

Samsung have been much lower profile. I've seen virtually no advertising for the NX cameras and they aren't well stocked in shops or by online suppliers. Samsung have deep pockets so they could have thrown cash at NX to build market share, but have chosen not to. Maybe they wanted to let CSC mature before muscling in, or are just taking a low-risk strategy by dipping their toes in the water.

In any case, the market is now full of brand choice (more so than conventional DSLRs), which cannot be a bad thing for consumers. I would have liked to see a third manufacturer join MFT, but I guess the lure of controlling a proprietary mount is too strong for the big boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top