Samsung NX1 - New Flagship CSC

sashbar · Nov 1, 2014

What an ugly looking camera. Did not expect that from Samsung.

bryguy_ASU · Nov 1, 2014

New review:
Exclusive - Samsung NX1 hands-on and samples [UPDATED]

This camera looks like a beast to me..

Derrel · Nov 1, 2014

Little camera, big lens! Is that the new 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom mounted? The lens's cosmetics look very sleek, very sexy to me: BIG front element, ostentatious, probably useful for sales on a lens that costs that much. People want and expect a certain type of look on higher-end glass, and I think this lens looks "expensive". I notice the top of the lens barrel appears roughly level with the Samsung name plate's height on the "prism hump", and the bottom of the lens extends clear down to the baseplate: big lenses satisfy the customer's desire for a lens that looks serious, looks expensive. It'll be nice to hear some actual shooting reports from this with the two "good zooms" they are offering.

Vince.1551 · Nov 1, 2014

I'll be receiving a set with 2 lens from Samsung to try out before I assign it to some pro to do test shoots and blog about it. Samsung wants to penetrate the pro market with these ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bryguy_ASU · Nov 1, 2014

Derrel said:
Little camera, big lens! Is that the new 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom mounted? The lens's cosmetics look very sleek, very sexy to me: BIG front element, ostentatious, probably useful for sales on a lens that costs that much. People want and expect a certain type of look on higher-end glass, and I think this lens looks "expensive". I notice the top of the lens barrel appears roughly level with the Samsung name plate's height on the "prism hump", and the bottom of the lens extends clear down to the baseplate: big lenses satisfy the customer's desire for a lens that looks serious, looks expensive. It'll be nice to hear some actual shooting reports from this with the two "good zooms" they are offering.

Yeah I agree.. very sleek and sexy glass. That is the new 16-50mm "S" lens. Sammy is also coming out with a 50-150mm f/2.8 S ED OIS.

goodguy · Nov 15, 2014

Derrel said:
Little camera, big lens! Is that the new 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom mounted? The lens's cosmetics look very sleek, very sexy to me: BIG front element, ostentatious, probably useful for sales on a lens that costs that much. People want and expect a certain type of look on higher-end glass, and I think this lens looks "expensive". I notice the top of the lens barrel appears roughly level with the Samsung name plate's height on the "prism hump", and the bottom of the lens extends clear down to the baseplate: big lenses satisfy the customer's desire for a lens that looks serious, looks expensive. It'll be nice to hear some actual shooting reports from this with the two "good zooms" they are offering.

Well if they make good, big, expensive and heavy glass then where is the advantage over DSLR ?
Might as well get a MUCH cheaper DSLR and get lenses that will be just as good and cost much less especially if they are used.
The whole and main advantage of mirrorless is the size isnt it ?
If its about same size and weight as DSLR then I dont see the logic in paying much more to new tech which might or might not be better then DSLR.

Derrel · Nov 15, 2014

No, the whole advantage is not just "size", but it is MORE than just size alone. Some of the advantages of a mirrorless camera can include: lower mechanical complexity due to the elimination of the mirror and the mirror balancing and mirror shock-reduction systems, as well as eliminating the need for lenses with high-speed, ball-bearing iris diaphragm mechanisms and the entire lens diaphragm open aperture/close aperture/open aperture system that SLR viewing requires: lower camera body cost due to elimination of mirror and associated sub-systems; ease of implementation of dual-mode AF systems (phase detect and also on-chip detection); easy use of multiple off-brand lenses due to selecting a smarter flange-to-sensor distance; EVF finders with focus peaking and zebras;and a few others.

So NO, it is NOT just simply about "size", but instead one of the possible advantages of many mirrorless cameras is the ability to use a LOT of widely different lens options with simple adapters. And as far as SLR lenses being "just as good" as mirrorless lenses, I think that is giving wayyyyy too much credit to 35mm system lenses; the best lenses being made right now are probably the m4/3 lenses Olympus is making, and the earlier 4/3 system "pro" lenses Olympus made. Smaller sensors demand bnetter optics, with better MTF curve performance. "Many" 35mm system lenses are inadequate performers now that we are moving into the era of really small sensors with very tiny, densely-packed pixels, and Leica, Panasonic, Olympus, and Fuji have all responded with lenses that are flat out better than similar equivalent focal length lenses in older, legacy 35mm system lenses.

Panasonic has locked up a huge segment of the videography market with what many pros consider to be the best small camera/video camera hybrid solution. Kirk Tuck's blog really has made me see the reason Panasonic is the leader among people who want great lenses and who want to be able to shoot pro-quality video AND have multiple cameras that can easily have the footage time-coded and synched up easily so two cameras, A and B, can easily be switched between without hassles. SMALLER-sensor video is actually a LOT easier to work with than FF d-slr video, which has a big problem with shallow DOF in many types of scenes.

We're starting to see NEW 35mm system lenses that have similar high-performance optics, like the new Sigma ART series, the Zeiss Touit series, and so on, at fairly high prices.

For a good amount of photography, having a SMALLER capture size means more depth of field, and the ability to shoot near/far wide-angle photos in social situations, making a SMALLER-sensored camera actually a BETTER choice than a camera with even an APS-C size sensor, let alone a FF sensor. For street, social documentary, and even news photography, the smaller sensored cameras have a mix of advantages that make the cameras less-threatening, more consumer-y, and also BETTER when the goal is to be able to get deep depth of field shots at WIDE apertures that lead to fast shutter speeds, either on still, or video; in video, the shutter speed is pretty rapid, and there's not much control over it, so moving to the SMALLER-sensored Panasonics makes for a better video option if one needs to shoot location video and get deep depth of field.

No, you cannot just reduce the entire camera issue down to "size", and make an argument on size alone...

bryguy_ASU · Nov 15, 2014

+1 to Derrel's in-depth answer.

I would add, the advantage of being able to interchange the lenses on different much smaller bodies, depending on the application. So for example, you have the larger/heavier NX1 for gigs and other professional applications. Then have a much more compact rangefinder-style second body, like the NX300 or NX3000 when on the go. Swap lenses between bodies. The NX system has many good prime lenses as well. The 30mm f/2 pancake (along with 3 other pancake primes, and 1 zoom pancake) for size/weight reduction, for example.

Also having an electronic shutter will give the nx1 an advantage of fast shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 sec.

The weight still gives the NX1 an advantage too over a comparable DSLR. It's 640g vs 1390g of the 7DMKII, while still squeezing a whole lot of extra features at a lower pricepoint (keeping in mind, DSLR's cost more to produce due to the mirror). Here's a snapshot comparison:

Samsung NX1 vs Canon 7D Mark II

Derrel · Nov 15, 2014

Samsung NX 3000 Samsung NX3000 Review: First Shots

Looks pretty sexy with that very compact 16mm-50mm Optical Image Stabilizer zoom on the front of it!!! Annnnnnnnd, it retails bundled with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 included in the price!

Having a smaller, lighter, 20-megapixel APS-C pocket-type camera (actually two others are available!) as part of the NX system is something that does make the NX1 more attractive, yes.

goodguy · Nov 15, 2014

Derrel said:
No, the whole advantage is not just "size", but it is MORE than just size alone. Some of the advantages of a mirrorless camera can include: lower mechanical complexity due to the elimination of the mirror and the mirror balancing and mirror shock-reduction systems, as well as eliminating the need for lenses with high-speed, ball-bearing iris diaphragm mechanisms and the entire lens diaphragm open aperture/close aperture/open aperture system that SLR viewing requires: lower camera body cost due to elimination of mirror and associated sub-systems; ease of implementation of dual-mode AF systems (phase detect and also on-chip detection); easy use of multiple off-brand lenses due to selecting a smarter flange-to-sensor distance; EVF finders with focus peaking and zebras;and a few others.

So NO, it is NOT just simply about "size", but instead one of the possible advantages of many mirrorless cameras is the ability to use a LOT of widely different lens options with simple adapters. And as far as SLR lenses being "just as good" as mirrorless lenses, I think that is giving wayyyyy too much credit to 35mm system lenses; the best lenses being made right now are probably the m4/3 lenses Olympus is making, and the earlier 4/3 system "pro" lenses Olympus made. Smaller sensors demand bnetter optics, with better MTF curve performance. "Many" 35mm system lenses are inadequate performers now that we are moving into the era of really small sensors with very tiny, densely-packed pixels, and Leica, Panasonic, Olympus, and Fuji have all responded with lenses that are flat out better than similar equivalent focal length lenses in older, legacy 35mm system lenses.

Panasonic has locked up a huge segment of the videography market with what many pros consider to be the best small camera/video camera hybrid solution. Kirk Tuck's blog really has made me see the reason Panasonic is the leader among people who want great lenses and who want to be able to shoot pro-quality video AND have multiple cameras that can easily have the footage time-coded and synched up easily so two cameras, A and B, can easily be switched between without hassles. SMALLER-sensor video is actually a LOT easier to work with than FF d-slr video, which has a big problem with shallow DOF in many types of scenes.

We're starting to see NEW 35mm system lenses that have similar high-performance optics, like the new Sigma ART series, the Zeiss Touit series, and so on, at fairly high prices.

For a good amount of photography, having a SMALLER capture size means more depth of field, and the ability to shoot near/far wide-angle photos in social situations, making a SMALLER-sensored camera actually a BETTER choice than a camera with even an APS-C size sensor, let alone a FF sensor. For street, social documentary, and even news photography, the smaller sensored cameras have a mix of advantages that make the cameras less-threatening, more consumer-y, and also BETTER when the goal is to be able to get deep depth of field shots at WIDE apertures that lead to fast shutter speeds, either on still, or video; in video, the shutter speed is pretty rapid, and there's not much control over it, so moving to the SMALLER-sensored Panasonics makes for a better video option if one needs to shoot location video and get deep depth of field.

No, you cannot just reduce the entire camera issue down to "size", and make an argument on size alone...