NX10

[Vivek]

Jonathon,

That is the adapter (I have ordered one after checking with them). I asked the seller explicitly for the one for Samsung NX10.

I do not have much hope that CaNiko will do anything on the mirrorless front soon. Even if they do, Nike's is likely to be unusable for non propriety lenses.

Sony holds some promise and I will jump at anything they may offer with an EXMOR-R sensor. Anything else is going to be as good as the NX. This also is at least another 6 months away..

I am hoping that Samsung will come with a firmware to make the cam useful.

My primary interest in the NX10 is to use T/S lenses. I find the m4/3rds pretty much useless for this purpose due to the smaller sensor. I have had success using T/S lenses on Nikon's APS-C sensored cams.

While using T/S lenses (the way I use them and for the applications I intend to use), the zoom function just gets in the way.

If anyone offers a cam with even larger sensor, I am all for it. Pre-production models would be greatly appreciated as well.

 

[Jonas]

My apologies for a truncated thought. I meant to point out that there were no "flare" comparisons there. :ROTFL:

Lol, who would trust their word on that anyway?

 

[Jonas]

My impression this far is that the NX10 would be so much better with some simple firmware tweaks. (And so can the Panasonic G1.)

I'm not that interested in the NX10. I'm convinced that LIVE cameras will dominate the market in some years. But, for me the difference i sensor size is important and 60% larger area doesn't cut it, I can just as well stick to µ4/3. Some day somebody will release a FF LIVE camera and that will be the next important step for me.

 

[Vivek]

There is a sample shot (shooting into the Sun, horribly exposed) showing flare from the NX 30/2 while the Pana 20/1.7, magically, was "devoid" of any flares. :ROTFL:

It is a pity that Samsung sells hood for this lens separately.

But..it is better than Pana and Oly who do not make any hoods for their primes. :thumbup:

Lol, who would trust their word on that anyway?

 

[Vivek]

I'm not that interested in the NX10. I'm convinced that LIVE cameras will dominate the market in some years. But, for me the difference i sensor size is important and 60% larger area doesn't cut it, I can just as well stick to µ4/3. Some day somebody will release a FF LIVE camera and that will be the next important step for me.

As I specifically mentioned, real estate does matter for me.

OTOH, if there is a back illuminated sensored m4/3rds cam, I will snap them up without thinking twice about the costs.

If there is a APS-C sized back illuminated mirrorless cam available, even better!

 

[monza]

After reading the dpreview the Nx10 is disappointing on three fronts:

-viewfinder is small. G1 still rules. Tried using a GF1 with EVF and it was far too small to be of use with manual focus lenses, at least for me. Viewfinder size is at or near the top of the list in my book, whether it is film or digital.

-high iso didn't seem to be appreciably better despite the larger sensor. Seeing as that is the entire point of a larger sensor, this to me is a fail.

-no manual focus option for adapted lenses. So there goes the advantage of a smaller crop factor. Luckily this could be a pending firmware fix.

 

[Terry]

As I specifically mentioned, real estate does matter for me.

Most of the real estate difference is the difference in aspect ratios. Vertical difference pretty small.

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

Most of the real estate difference is the difference in aspect ratios. Vertical difference pretty small.

Terry, I think that depends on how you define small. The NX10's sensor measures 234mm x 156mm whereas the G1's is 180mm x 135mm. If you crop the NX10 sensor so that has the same aspect ratio as the G1, the width drops to 208mm for the same 156mm height.

The "cropped" NX10 sensor is 15.5% wider and taller than the G1's. The area is 33.5% larger than that of the G1. I wouldn't describe that as small.

Although that way of doing the calculation does favor the G1, I think it's the fairest and most logical. But if you crop the G1's sensor to match the NX10's aspect ratio, the NX10's area is 69% larger than the G1's.

 

[Terry]

I guess I was thinking about the pixel density and crops. When I was looking at the review of the NX10 and the RAW comparison with the GF1 the 100% crops looked pretty close

"Like the Canon on the previous page, the Panasonic has a very light anti-aliasing filter (as hinted at by the moiré that appeared in the JPEG comparison of this scene). This is likely to be the reason that the Panasonic is also slightly out-resolving the Samsung. This isn't a huge upset though, despite the apparent disparity in pixel counts. If you take a look at the number of vertical pixels they're using to render this scene, you'll see that both are using around 3000 - the Samsung's extra two megapixels are being used to describe the left and right edges that the Panasonic's 4:3 aspect ratio crops off.

In real-world situations, this distinction would only be visible in fine details in the very largest prints."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnx10/page26.asp

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

I guess I was thinking about the pixel density and crops. When I was looking at the review of the NX10 and the RAW comparison with the GF1 the 100% crops looked pretty close

"Like the Canon on the previous page, the Panasonic has a very light anti-aliasing filter (as hinted at by the moiré that appeared in the JPEG comparison of this scene). This is likely to be the reason that the Panasonic is also slightly out-resolving the Samsung. This isn't a huge upset though, despite the apparent disparity in pixel counts. If you take a look at the number of vertical pixels they're using to render this scene, you'll see that both are using around 3000 - the Samsung's extra two megapixels are being used to describe the left and right edges that the Panasonic's 4:3 aspect ratio crops off.

In real-world situations, this distinction would only be visible in fine details in the very largest prints."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnx10/page26.asp

Except that the comparison has been done in DPreview's typical sloppy and dishonest way: the framing is inconsistent, so that for the NX10 image the "around 3000" pixels is about 2860 pixels. In other words, "around 200" vertical pixels have been wasted in the NX10 shot. How difficult would it have been for them to have ensured that the vertical framing was the same for both cameras?

Admittedly, if one prefers a 4:3 aspect ratio, then this is all somewhat academic. But for someone who prefers the traditional 35mm 3:2 aspect ratio, the NX10's sensor does provide significantly more usable pixels.

As for the statement that the Panasonic GF1's very light anti-aliasing filter is "likely to be the reason that the Panasonic is also slightly out-resolving the Samsung", surely a contributing factor is that they used an Olympus 50 mm F2 Macro lens* at f/6.3 on the GF1 and a Pentax FA 50mm F1.4** lens at f/8 on the NX10. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Was their true goal to show the NX10 in the worst possible light?

* "We've long praised the Olympus 50mm macro in our camera reviews as one of the sharpest lenses we've ever used, and true to form it turns in an exceptional performance in our studio tests... The lens is extremely sharp across the frame even wide open, and easily outresolves the L10's 10Mp sensor from F3.3-F7.1, suggesting plenty in reserve for future higher resolution models."
** "The [Pentax FA 50mm F1.4] lens is distinctly soft wide open, and the checkerboard crops reveal extremely low contrast with blacks rendered as blue-grey. Sharpness improves rapidly on stopping down; it's very good at F2, and excellent right across the frame in the lens's sweet spot (around F2.8-5.6) even on the K20D's 14Mp sensor."

 

[Vivek]

Clarification

This USD 12.99 adapter is the only one I could find on eBay, but the description says "T Mount T-Mount Adapter Panasonic G1 GH1 Samsung NX10" and the label on the packaging says "T-Mount f/Olympus DSLR 4/3". So it's suitable for neither m4/3 cameras nor the NX10. Further on down the page it says: "For use with 500mm , 800mm , 420-800mm, 650-1300mm and telescopes." Or did you find a different one?

Jonathon, Though I specifically asked them if that is for NX10 before buying (they said yes), I received a Kipon T-mount adapter for m4/3rds.

There is no NX10 adapter. If they do not drop the NX10 in their listings, I am going to lodge a complaint with eBay.

 

[Vivek]

After reading the dpreview the Nx10 is disappointing on three fronts:

-viewfinder is small. G1 still rules. Tried using a GF1 with EVF and it was far too small to be of use with manual focus lenses, at least for me. Viewfinder size is at or near the top of the list in my book, whether it is film or digital.

-high iso didn't seem to be appreciably better despite the larger sensor. Seeing as that is the entire point of a larger sensor, this to me is a fail.

-no manual focus option for adapted lenses. So there goes the advantage of a smaller crop factor. Luckily this could be a pending firmware fix.

I do not believe what dp revs says. As Jonathon pointed out nicely, their "review" appears like an advert in disguise for the m4/3rds.

That said, I would like to see good manual focus operation with any manual focus lenses as in the current m4/3rds (with a real EVF that is).

Samsung perhaps underestimates the value of this option. If that is the case, it is very unfortunate.

The NX10 sensor (if it is the same as that of the KD20 and the Samsung clone), has 5 micron (square) pixels. Larger than Pana's. Also, the NX10 sensor has microlenses (which may not be the case with the Pana NMOS sensor. Edit: Scratch that- see http://news.softpedia.com/news/Panasonic-039-s-Next-Generation-MOS-Image-Sensor-54765.shtml). This (microlenses) bodes well for using older lenses.

Here is some info on the Samsung (KD20) sensor: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_14_megapixel_cmos_sensor/

Any cam with a superb OLED screen and a regular EVF (not OLED) is going to make the viewfinder look bad. I think that is the case with the NX10's.

 

[monza]

(A 38/3.5 Pen F Macro arrived in the post today. )

I think you got my old Macro, Jonathon. It's a beauty isn't it?

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

I think you got my old Macro, Jonathon. It's a beauty isn't it?

Robert, I bought it on eBay three weeks ago. Was that your lens? Either way, it's a beauty indeed, the remaining Pen F lens I wanted but didn't have. They don't come up all that often. I missed out on another one last year -- although I was the highest bidder, my bid didn't reach the reserve price.

But now, happily, I have one. And yet I seem to recall your saying: "My Pen 38/3.5 Macro is fab. And it's not for sale."

 

[Bill Wilby]

I have just returned home from a quick trip to Edmonton to attend a meeting. I took a NX10 with me and read the book on the flight. I had an opportunity to use it during some free time. I very much like the feel and operation with the adjustment dial located on the top behind the shutter release. The rear screen is very good, and I found myself using manual exposure often because of the lack of "gain up" in the viewfinder and screen combined with the good histogram. This is something that I find different than using my G1. Manual focus was possible but more difficult than on the G1. I do have stock of the body and 18-55 and plan on having stock of the 30 mm and the 50-200 when they are shipped, cheers, Bill

 

[monza]

Robert, I bought it on eBay three weeks ago. Was that your lens? Either way, it's a beauty indeed, the remaining Pen F lens I wanted but didn't have. They don't come up all that often. I missed out on another one last year -- although I was the highest bidder, my bid didn't reach the reserve price.

But now, happily, I have one. And yet I seem to recall your saying: "My Pen 38/3.5 Macro is fab. And it's not for sale."

Yes, it wasn't for sale then. However I did end up trading it. I have a few pics around here taken with it.

 

[vincechu]

After reading the dpreview the Nx10 is disappointing on three fronts:

-viewfinder is small. G1 still rules. Tried using a GF1 with EVF and it was far too small to be of use with manual focus lenses, at least for me. Viewfinder size is at or near the top of the list in my book, whether it is film or digital.

-high iso didn't seem to be appreciably better despite the larger sensor. Seeing as that is the entire point of a larger sensor, this to me is a fail.

-no manual focus option for adapted lenses. So there goes the advantage of a smaller crop factor. Luckily this could be a pending firmware fix.

I just tried out a NX10 on Monday and agree, I was quite disappointed with the high ISO performance - in my opinion the Olympus Pen's actually look better at high ISO, by that I mean the way they process noise, and IMO the GH1 is actually better at low light, check at the high ISO/noise tests on DPreview and see what you think.

I was hoping that the NX10 would have very good high ISO performance, if it was like the K-x I would have snapped one up right away, for now though I'm sticking with m4/3rds - although I have to admit it's just a matter of time before someone brings out mirrorless cams which perform better, the larger sensor definately has the potential to be better at high ISO.

Right now though I'm dreaming of a mirrorless full frame, it'll be interesting to see how small one could be made

 

[LCT]

...I'm dreaming of a mirrorless full frame, it'll be interesting to see how small one could be made

Small like a Leica M9 i guess.

 

[hot]

Some pictures with NX10 ...

 

[otumay]

Beautiful shots...