Samsung's Advanced Chips Give Its Cameras a Big Boost 192
GhostX9 writes: SLR Lounge just posted a first look at the Samsung NX1 28.1 MP interchangeable lens camera. They compare it to Canon and Sony full-frame sensors. Spoiler: The Samsung sensor seems to beat the Sony A7R sensor up to ISO 3200. They attribute this to Samsung's chip foundry. While Sony is using 180nm manufacturing (Intel Pentium III era) and Canon is still using 500nm process (AMD DX4 era), Samsung has gone with 65nm with copper interconnects (Intel Core 2 Duo — Conroe era). Furthermore, Samsung's premium lenses appear to be as sharp or sharper than Canon's L line and Sony's Zeiss line in the center, although the Canon 24-70/2.8L II is sharper at the edge of the frame.
Center sharpness is not as important (Score:5, Informative)
The whole reason to pay a premium price for a lens is that you get better sharpness across the frame.
I'm sure Samsung's lenses are pretty good, but I'm dubious about them until I see more photographic testing over this spec fest which doesn't tell you a lot about a lens.
I have to say Samsung has some serious balls pushing so hard to enter a shrinking market against giants like Nikon and Canon...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm talking about DSLR lenses (Score:5, Informative)
Consumer grade lenses are already blurry at the corners. I'm talking about higher-end DSLR lenses, in those lenses center sharpness is pretty much assumed, the bigger deal is sharpness across the whole frame. That's what you are paying money for in high end lenses, not the easily achieved center sharpness but really great sharpness everywhere.
Also there was no mention of how the bokeh was... that's the element that brings people back to certain lens makers like Zeiss.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, but the Samsung S lens is still a $1k lens, and they're pitching it as a L-type lens.
The video here shows that think they can catch up using technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ7XbVZTj-k&src_vid=p0jLIuurH64&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_882327
I think their 300/2.8 will be the real arbiter. That has to compete against Canon's 300/2.8 if they want to really be a player. Tokina and Tamron have not been successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a 300 mm lens be critical to Samsung's success? It's too long for portraits, especially on a APS-C sensor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For portraits, "bokeh" at the strength of lenses like Canon's 85/1.2L on FF will give you a better picture than almost anything out there. Since portraiture has good lighting either natural/studio/strobes, all of the strengths of the NX1 are limited.
The NX1 is boasting 15 fps which could actually be useful in sports. The ultra fast AF would be useful also. The 300/2.8 is the workhorse of most sporting events. If they can pull off a fast 300/2.8, theyll be able to compete against Canon and Nikon.
T
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, ok. As for portraits-- the 200mm f/2 is said to be commonly used for head shots.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like this came straight from Ken Rockwell.
A lot of pros prefer the 85mm-105mm range for portraiture on full frame cameras. 135mm is rather unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 90mm was the traditional portrait lens.
I'm weird, I like wide angle shots for portraits. Probably why I'm not as good as the pros :)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1959 Nikkon called their fast versions of 3.5 cm, 5 cm, and 10.5 cm lenses the three sacred treasures [nikkor.com]. Tastes have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, samsung cameras don't have mirrors, and therefore are not DSLRs.
Re:Center sharpness is not as important (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh.
SLR (single lens reflex) has a mirror, with either a pentaprism or pentamirror (where you stick your eyeball) to show you the view as it is through the lens. This was an upgrade from the TLR (twin lens reflex) system, which through the magic of two lenses, let you look through the viewfinder and one lens, while the second lens was presented in front of the film. The bonus to TLR is that there is no lag due to lock up of the mirror, since there is no mirror present. But SLR won out because it was lighter and cheaper since you were only carrying around the important half of what makes a camera work.
When you use live view or EVF or to view what the imaging sensor is capturing, that's mostly equivalent to what you'd normally see on the SLR/DSLR. What the capture is going to capture. No parallax error. Rangefinders were in this category (think Leica M series) - valued to size and discretion - but they use a window to the side of the lens, and they begin to shine not-so-much when you have a telephoto on the body - start guessing where the frame actually is due to parallax differences. It's an acquired skill between bodies and lenses. This is more the size/form factor now used by the mirrorless systems, as a lot of people are attracted to the size and weight, costs ~ same (Leica M9 vs 1Dx and relevant lenses likely just as costly to be honest). If you can shoot in that style, cool. Advantages to DSLR's also still, but that's equalising. EVF resolution especially made a difference, lens availability, autofocus, etc.
DSLR's all have mirrors - otherwise they would be known as a mirrorless camera (such as the sony and panasonic micro four thirds systems) OR if it exists, a DTLR. Electronic viewfinder of whatever size (EVF vs bigger screen you can maybe touch) to show you what the sensor is seeing.
The D90 quoted has a mirror, it's just moved out of the way for your video shooting abilities on what was a film camera to begin with...It's phase detect AF and analogue optical view for the photos (dedicated AF sensor + mirror), and contrast detect (on capture sensor dedicated points) for the video. You can also shoot photos with live view, for a punishment in AF speed if anything like Canon. Most DSLR's work in this way to provide video. The SLR part of it is just moved out of the way for video. Yet to be seen if phase detect or contrast detect is better, manual focus for video still feels better for now.
Re: Technically DSLR doesn't specify a mirror or n (Score:3)
Correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't the "reflex" part indeed imply a mirror?
Re: (Score:2)
100+ years ago when TLRs were around, there were still shutterless cameras. The TLR meant it was shuttered, and in no way required a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
The shutter was a mirror. At the time did they have a shutter behind the mirror, or use the mirror as the shutter?
Wikipedia's article on the history of SLR camera [wikipedia.org]
states:
Early 35 mm SLR cameras had similar functionality to larger models, with a waist-level ground-glass viewfinder and a mirror which remained in the taking position—blacking out the viewfinder—after an exposure, returning when the film was wound on. Innovations which transformed the SLR were the pentaprism eye-level viewfinder and the instant-return mirror—the mirror flipped briefly up during exposure, immediately returning to the viewfinding position.
Now, when the viewfinder blacks out, that means that the mirror has been raised to take a picture. If the mirror did not return instantly, or even worse, did not return until the film was rewound, this would mean that the shutter would be the only thing keeping the film from being overexposed. To solve this problem You could add a film door, and use a leaf shutter [taunusreiter.de], but this complicates matters.
Mirrors are heavy. Shutters are light enough to be moved in
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you can find a definition (in a reputable dictionary) that equates
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a mirror to be a reflex camera, and it is only related to the shutter in that the mirror has to not block the light to the sensor/film when a picture is taken. Twin Lens Reflex (TLR) cameras use a fixed mirror, unrelated to the shutter. Beam splitter Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras like the Canon Pellix and Canon EOS RT use a fixed mirror unrelated to the shutter. Conventional SLRs use a flip-up mirror that moves before the shutter opens and flops down after the shutter closes.
Reflex refers to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I own a D7000, the D90's successor. It has an optical viewfinder, and a mirror. When I press the shutter button, the mirror flips up, blanking out the viewfinder, the shutter is tripped for a fraction of a second, and then the mirror flips down again, letting me see through the viewfinder again. The viewfinder is a purely optical device, relying on a pentaprism to show an upright version of what the film or sensor will be exposed to.
After turning off the camera, and even after removing the batteries, the v
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/one-single-samsung-nx-1-test
Re: (Score:2)
Ballsy to enter with such a good sensor? I don't think so.
Yes, here's why (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how good the sensor, camera, or lens are really - because the entire non-smartphone camera market is shrinking rapidly.
How can Samsung hope to make back the R&D costs of making even a great sensor, camera, and series of lenses? Where will the customers come from? It will take YEARS to pry even marginally serious photographers away from the systems they are already invested in.
It's like having an ocean shrink to a small pool, seeing a writhing mass of sharks within, then putting on a
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think the smart phone sensor tech starts from?
Doing neat new stuff in the big sensors is easier than trying to do it from scratch in tiny sensors.
This applies to everything. Car companies do all their R&D on massive sports cars which don't make a profit. A few years later the regular cars get some of the benefits.
Re:Yes, here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're misinterpreting the numbers. The market at the low end is contracting because cell phones are cutting into it. The market at the high end is contracting because neither Canon nor Nikon is really innovating much. If each generation has only small, incremental improvements, people are going to upgrade their gear less and less frequently.
Nobody is replacing their DSLRs with cell phones, within some small epsilon. At best, cell phones can replace DSLRs for outdoor portrait photography, when you're within a few feet from the subject. On the opposite extreme, if you try to use a cell phone to take photos of your kid's stage play, you'll annoy everyone by standing up in the front row, and you'll still only get shots with blown-out faces that are six pixels by six pixels in size and so severely smeared by motion blur that nobody would be recognizable even if you could fix those first three problems.... All the while, the parent with the real camera might be taking amazing close-ups with a 300mm (or longer) lens on a full-frame camera from the back of the auditorium.
Of course, half the time, the parent with the real camera has a lens that's too short to be usable and hasn't learned enough about the camera to avoid getting blown-out shots. Unfortunately, some of those folks get discouraged and never upgrade their gear. Fortunately, there's a steady supply of people who can't be bothered to learn the basics, so them getting discouraged isn't a big problem market-wise. :-)
Lots of people are replacing SLR cameras (Score:2)
Nobody is replacing their DSLRs with cell phones, within some small epsilon.
Quite a few people are, which is why the market is shrinking rapidly. Especially at the low end, which you just said...
if you try to use a cell phone to take photos of your kid's stage play, you'll annoy everyone by standing up in the front row
I've done just that - only from the back row. You can easily attach teleconverters if you want zoom, and frankly lots of people are willing to use digital zoom also. The result you get is m
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, six pixels was an exaggeration—in a small hall, by my math (based on photos I've taken with other cameras), an 8MP iPhone would yield faces ranging from 26 to 50 pixels tall. With a 6D, a full-pixel crop at 40mm isn't great, but it is usable for people near the front of the stage By the time you get down to a 10MP APS-C sensor, it is barely usable for people at the front of the stage, and is
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention that those pixel counts were for adult-size heads. Scale accordingly for younger kids. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all true but for most people 28-50 pixels face is close enough, especially considering the burden carrying a real DSLR and lenses - even smaller mirrorless cameras mean a case and some weight. Some people will do it (I've done it) but fewer and fewer... the iPhone 6 plus IS also works pretty well for helping with lower light.
The iPhone burst capture also really helps with low light, I've used the same technique on "real" cameras where in a burst one will be sharp as it was taken at just the moment y
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say Samsung has some serious balls pushing so hard to enter a shrinking market against giants like Nikon and Canon...
From the fact that their "weak point" was the lenses, I'm guessing that they have body and chip manufacturing down for other things, and decided to try cameras on a lark, and managed to out-class the leaders on a first attempt. What's that say about the others?
Re: (Score:2)
Sony sell NX mount lenses?
decided to try cameras on a lark, and managed to out-class the leaders on a first attempt
Sigh. So the sixteen ILC cameras they've released in the last five years don't count?
Re: (Score:1)
Loose is the opposite of tight, and it's means it is.
Not gonna happen (to Sony anyway) (Score:2)
But I agree, their lenses aren't as good as Canon's right now BUT if Samsung sold their sensors to 3rd parties like Sony...
I'm sure Samsung will sell some sensors to someone, after all, they sell parts to other companies so it's only natural.
However I can't see Samsung selling sensors to Sony, it would be like selling ice to an eskimo - Sony is the company that makes sensors for many other camera makers and I sure don't see Sony not using their own sensors in cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure you can just crop off bad edges on glass. But then your glass is much larger than it needs to be, your lens is heavier than it needs to be, and larger than it needs to be.
"Math" alone cannot fix blurred edges. It can fix things like CA or barrel distortion, but not really outright blurring, at least not to a degree that it can equal the results form a good lens.
Good point about the REAL consumer cameras (like an iPhone) not be blurry across the lens, if that was in answer to my post I should have qua
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect. The process is called deconvolution [deconvolve.net].
It's limited by your knowledge of the len's point spread function (or in the case of blurred corners and edges, how the PSF changes as you get further from the center), and the sensor's ability to accurately capture the resulting image. And you can't deconvolve close to the edges, where you're missing image data. But mathematically the process is straightforward, if processing-intensive. Technically the light
Informative as it is irrelevant (Score:3)
This is incorrect. The process is called deconvolution.
Yes, I know about that...
It's limited by your knowledge of the len's point spread function
Which varies per lens and is different across the whole lens so GAME OVER MAN.
Re: (Score:2)
Deconvolution is a tricky game. For one thing, as you mentioned, the deconvolution matrix varies across the frame, and for another, it often must be much larger than the related convolution matrix (PSF). It is often ill-conditioned (effectively, that means there's a number close to zero in the denominator), and it always magnifies noise. If there are saturated regions in the image, they can't be handled properly.
Deconvolution and other postprocessing can improve images, but turning a grey mess into a beauti
Re:Crop + correction makes this pointless (Score:5, Informative)
but fixing these effects in the lens is pointless now. The computer can do it better.
You can't fix spatial frequency response with software.
Your picture quality is limited by the worst of the sensor and lens.
There is no use having a kick-ass sensor with shitty optics, and no use having great optics with a shitty sensor.
In regards to the small cameras like on the iphone 6, there are serious limitations in having a sensor so physically small. Having such a small sensor makes lens design for it a great deal easier, but you're paying the price in light collection ability and overall resolution as the system will be limited by diffraction effects far sooner.
Large sensor sites are beneficial in many circumstances, if you have the same amount of pixels in a full 35mm frame and a 1/2.3" system, the 35mm will come off looking far better with a lens to suit.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is software to recognize that the subject is a cute cat, and then replace it with a similar picture from a database of professional studio-shot cats.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the judgemental and rabid fanatics (Score:1)
Cue the judgemental and rabid fanatics who are fans or detractors of various brands. This should be as good as a discussion on audio quality... :P
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't much matter as the lens largely determines which brand of body one buys. I have several grand invested in Canon lenses, so in order to switch to Samsung, Sony or Nikon bodies, I would have to be convinced that their technology won't just be better for the next generation, but will be better for a very long time. Not likely to happen.
What this might do is change where new photographers wind up, but if they don't have good glass to back this up with, it's not going to make much difference.
Re: (Score:1)
You might find this article to be useful and informative.
Trolling for Dummies [newcameranews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So laughing at the expected arguments and flame wars that are about to ensue is "trolling"? I said nothing to actually start an argument.
Methinks you need to look up the definition of the word...
Re: (Score:3)
http://vimeo.com/105855767 [vimeo.com]
Ridiculous comparison, pure FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
They are comparing against the Canon EOS 5D Mark II... which was released in 2008. Sensor tech advances at a fast rate, basically being eclipsed every 18-24 months. So the review compares Samsung's latest sensor against a Canon sensor from 7 years ago that is essentially 3 sensor generations old.
Re: (Score:1)
So the [bought] review compares Samsung's latest [tech] against a [competitor] [tech] from [n] years ago that is essentially [x] [tech] generations old.
FTFY. Standard Samewrung practice, nothing to see here. Move along.
No mention of crop factor WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice how the 5dMKII pics are zoomed out? That is because it is a full size sensor. Due to sensor crop, the image produced by the other two cameras gets zoomed in by a factor of 1.6 or so. Naturally, you can see more detail if it is zoomed in. Also, the reviewer is talking about having issues with camera shake while on a tripod, has he not ever heard of a remote shutter release?
It is interesting to wonder how much process size vs. pixel density effects sensor noise, and Samsung certainly has some nice fab facilities.
Still this reviewer seems like an idiot or a paid shill. I’ll wait for something from DPReview.
Re: (Score:2)
Still this reviewer seems like an idiot or a paid shill. ...wait for something from DPReview.
THIS.
Re:No mention of crop factor WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Why wait? [dpreview.com]
Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014 [dpreview.com]
Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014 [dpreview.com]
Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014 [dpreview.com]
Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014 [dpreview.com]
Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014 [dpreview.com]
Samsung NX1 [dpreview.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The Samsung camera uses an inverted sensor, which loses less light in the silicon, so it can get lower noise with smaller pixels. It isn't a direct result of a smaller process size.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
I don't see crop factor mentioned anywhere in the title, interesting stuff about sensor noise though.
99% of people commenting on this... (Score:2)
Will be talking out of their ass, just trying to raise a ruckus.
The very first comment gets it wrong: photographers care about anything that gets them The Picture.
Sometimes that means more megapixels.
Other times it means FEWER megapixels but a lot of frames per second.
And yet other times it is simply the camera you have NOW that matters, so a small, pocketable camera (even a cell phone) is the best choice.
Even having the SHARPEST lens possible is not always a critical point, folks.
Here is the big trick:
came
So we'll get a camara as good as the iPhone? (Score:4, Informative)
Seems like Android phones can outspec the iPhone in every way, including megapixels, but none that I've seen have the image quality of the iPhone camera. It's quite embarrassing how good of pictures my friends with iPhones can actually get. Mine are always noisy and blurry. Even with the LED flash. What's crazy is that even Sony, who makes the camera and camera chipset for Apple cannot even get a camera as good on their Android phones. What am I missing?
Re:So we'll get a camara as good as the iPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
did you swap iPhone for Android in your text? I usually have iPhone people asking me to take pictures with my SIII because it takes so much better shots.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, the OnePlus One costs 1/3rd the price of an iPhone 6 and has an equal or better camera: http://fortheloveoftech.com/20... [fortheloveoftech.com]
Notice how the colours on the iPhone are over-saturated. The OnePlus One gives truer colours and has RAW support, so if you like over-saturated you can either set it up as a filter in the options or just apply it later.
As usual there is nothing magical about Apple cameras. Same sensors as everyone else has access to, and the lenses are usually similar or slightly worse due to them
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting observation indeed. Just not my experience.
Re: So we'll get a camara as good as the iPhone? (Score:2, Informative)
Nexus 6 camera beats iPhone 6 hands down in a blind test. http://bgr.com/2015/01/07/nexus-6-vs-iphone-6-plus/
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Blind testing cameras? Hmm...
Re: (Score:3)
And even that Nexus 6, the absolute current top-of-the-line flagship in the Android world, has a laggier camera app. And focuses more slowly.
The gap is closing, sure, but what a phone camera needs to be is INSTANT. Keep it in memory at all times for all I care, as long as it's open within milliseconds of me tapping the button to open the camera app.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like Android phones can outspec the iPhone in every way, including megapixels, but none that I've seen have the image quality of the iPhone camera. It's quite embarrassing how good of pictures my friends with iPhones can actually get. Mine are always noisy and blurry. Even with the LED flash. What's crazy is that even Sony, who makes the camera and camera chipset for Apple cannot even get a camera as good on their Android phones. What am I missing?
I own a Samsung Galaxy S5 through T-Mobile. It was it's camera that sold me, 16.9 Mpix and it does indeed take great pictures.
The rest I would post about the S5 wouldn't be praise for it's other abilities.
What are you missing? HDR mayhaps?
HDR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], adds a lot to this quality, as without the setting pictures don't come out as well.
Its only restriction I've found is if a light is in anywhere in the picture, it throws HDR off and ones better off turning HDR off.
I've used HDR on a t
Re: (Score:2)
Yet for all but low light/high zoom situations, your photos will be better.
Only a tenth of my photography is high zoom. Half of it is low-light. Some of it is high shutter speed. Half of it gets post processing that may pull/push, change colour balance, probably crop (due to my shite framing) and otherwise tweak the photograph. The rest is a mix of snapshots I could use my phone for and photographs that came out of the camera already looking good.
Could I use a smartphone camera for all that lot? No. Does that make me a mainframe programmer? No.
I think that makes you a prejudiced b
Still waiting for the obvious (Score:3)
Someone, some day, will make a digital camera the size of a 35mm film cassette, with a pullout sensor the size of a 35mm film strip that fits over the sprockets on the film plane of the good film cameras. Make it Bluetooth or wifi-controllable. For the viewfinder-impaired, put a display driver on the takeup reel side and a stick-on display on the back; reinterpret the film advance lever action. The utterly obvious stuff.
Why not yet? We don't *ing* need disposable cameras, and there are plenty of good robust ones that will last another century.
Re: (Score:2)
It came and went; you missed it (sort of).
http://cultureandcommunication... [cultureand...cation.org]
The closest thing to your idea that actually existed was the Digital Modul R back for Leica R8 and R9 SLRs. Even this was a white elephant compared to Canon's full frame cameras at the time. Photographers would buy a Canon 1-series camera and take a Dremel to the mirror so they could fit Leica R lenses on it, rather than deal with the Modul R.
Re: (Score:3)
They tried that. Didn't work. There's a whole lot more electronics than a simple sensor that goes into a digital camera. The result was big and bulky and didn't work very well.
Re: (Score:2)
The new Pentax 645z is bloody gorgeous, and (by medium format standards) relatively affordable.
The camera alone though weighs more than my camera and any three of my lenses. Some serious compromises needed to get that quality..
Sensors are only part of the equation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll withhold judgement on the Samsung claims until the sensors have been properly tested in the field.
That said, there is a reason pro lenses cost so damn much. Five years from now, my top end lenses will still be worth every penny I paid for them, while I probably wouldn't even be able to GIVE away the DSLR body. A whole lot of optical engineering goes into lens design. Especially the high end glass. If there is a cheaper way to do it without sacrificing quality, Canon and Nikon would really like to talk to you about it.
Someone asked why the 300mm/2.8 lens was significant. The reason for it is the 300mm/2.8 and the 70-200mm/2.8 lenses are pretty much lenses that set the bar or standard for optical clarity, so to speak, for both the Nikon and Canon camps.
Yes, tiny sensors can achieve better magnification with less glass than their full sized counterparts, however, this normally comes at the price of noise since you're packing all those mega-pixels into a much smaller footprint. Don't get me wrong, in perfect lighting ( say ISO 100 ) it'll probably make a really nice image. In the real world, however, perfect lighting rarely exists outside the studio. This is where low light capability and low noise sensors pull away from the camera wannabe's. It's more or less a balancing act between low light and noise.
If they want to impress me, show me what the camera can do when the light goes crappy on you and you need to push the ISO above 3200. This is where the full frames really start to flex their muscle. Show me what the image looks like edge to edge when this sensor is paired with decent glass. How's the bokeh ? Chromatic Aberration ? If you can impress me with the first few, now you need to build an inventory of lenses I can choose from depending on what I'm shooting. Portrait, landscape, macro, sports, wildlife, etc. One size doth not fit all here. Don't forget all the other goodies that go into this very, very expensive hobby. Flashes, tele-converters, filters, etc. etc.
Someone mentioned how silly it is to " get it right in the camera when we can do it all post ".
The idea is sound, IF you shoot one or two photos. OTOH, the reason you get it right in the camera is so you don't have to spend so much damn time fixing things in post. So, if you just shot up 1000 images for a wedding or your vacation or whatever, trust me when I tell you that reviewing them all in Lightroom is bad enough. Having to apply various fixes to compensate for silly oversights you SHOULD have done in camera is just annoying as hell.
In the end, it still takes a lot of skill and a bit of luck to pull of a shot to be proud of. The tech will only get you so far.
Re: Sensors are only part of the equation (Score:2, Funny)
Har har har you stupid old man with your quaint cameras. Our iPhones and whatever take better quality pictures than any high-end full-frame camera. Who cares about depth of field and white balance or RAW processing. We computer nerds know anything. Har har har. Now let's jerk off.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone asked why the 300mm/2.8 lens was significant. The reason for it is the 300mm/2.8 and the 70-200mm/2.8 lenses are pretty much lenses that set the bar or standard for optical clarity, so to speak, for both the Nikon and Canon camps.
According to DXOMark, the top scoring lenses for both the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon 810E are both made by Carl Zeiss-- e.g Carl Zeiss Apo Planar T* Otus 85mm F14 ZF.2 [dxomark.com].
The top scoring Canon is, indeed, the 2.8 300mm. But Nikon's best lens [dxomark.com] is the 2.0 200mm. Now, it has a 2.8 400mm and 2.8 300mm that are almost as good-- but it has a number of portrait lenses up there as well.
(The 70-200mm zooms are almost second rate in comparison. Besides, people have accused the Nikkor of being slightly short.)
If you're a spo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can't tell if you're trolling or merely completely clueless. But I'll humor you anyway.
The sensors have moved on massively since then. CCDs have gone, largely replaced by CMOS, CMOS was replaced by backlit cmos which improves noise response.
Now we have STACKED pixels, with the colors stacked onto each other. Again it substantially reduces the area needed.
1) The only vendor selling cameras with stacked pixel sensors today is Sigma. Stacked pixel sensor today delivers good images in base ISO, and then completely falls apart when you knock it up a few stops. None of the image processor software is ready for stacked pixels either.
2) Stacked pixels doesn't do jack about "area needed." What it does do is avoid the artifacting effect introduced by the traditional Bayer layout
Re: Yet sensors have improved (Score:2)
Sigma has recently released a f 1.8 zoom lens. It's merely the 17-35mm range, though. f2.8 is useful because many of the existing bodies have focal points that are extra precise at f 2.8 or faster. So if a photographer uses the existing "holy trinities", that functionality is never lost. As for faster aper
How long will Samsung will support the camera? (Score:3)
Almost every device from Samsung I've owned lost support as soon as a newer device/os came along. I would not touch this company for anything I expect to use for longer than 2 years.
I'd take the Samsung check (Score:2)
So a well funded player rolls out a new camera missing a feature its established and highly regarded competitors have, and a web site gives them a great review. Dang, why didn't I have that domain name! I should write bad reviews of the new Samsung and wait for the next model and ask for a reviewers copy. I ought to get some spending cash then!
35mm full frame sensors? Puny. :-) (Score:2)
Interesting that there's no mention of Nikon's top 36MP chip in their new D810.
However, even that's wimpy. Take look at any of Phase One [phaseone.com]'s medium format digital backs in 50, 60, or 80 megapixels, with the world's highest resolution and widest dynamic range in any commercially available camera system. They're generally used with the world's best German lenses, like Schneider and Rodenstock This is what pro fashion, product, landscape, and repro shooters use when money is no object.
Re: (Score:2)
Like you said, they have higher resolution and better dynamic range. That comes at a cost though . . . . . speed.
Let's go outside and start shooting birds in fli
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Who cares would still buy a Canon (Score:2)
There is always Sigma with their own Foveon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:5, Insightful)
Only gadget guys obsessed with numbers would buy a Samsung camera. Photographers just don't care about nm and megapixels.
What an idiot.
Really? So if the numbers look great in the die size of the sensor and the megapixels, but the lenses front focus that's OK? Or they have twice the megapixels on the sensor and the glass is soft outside of the center of the FOV? Focus speed is insanely important to sports photographers. All the megapixels in the world aren't going to change that.
Professional photographers, and most amateurs will tell you to purchase good glass. camera bodies are temporary. Canon and Nikon have the majority of the high-end market for a reason. I can purchase the Canon 24-70mmL lens for around $2K. It will fit on virtually every Canon DSLR that I'd consider using. Anything from a couple hundred dollar Rebel APS to a full frame 5D mark3 for 3 grand.
Will Samsung still be doing that in five years? I don't know. So for most serious hobbyists, to pro photographers, it's simply a big risk. After Samsung has been in the market for a few years, this may change. But not for someone who has half a dozen or more pro grade lenses. You don't toss $20K+ worth of lenses simply because some newcomer to the market puts out a new sensor.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:4, Informative)
With respect the the Samsung:
Autofocus: good in bright light, passable in low light, it really is better than the old canons (5Dii) in mid-low light. Nowhere near the newest AF SLRs. There is no good way to control focus in C-AF mode.
Weight: Very nice! Even with the 16-50 f2-2.8.
Durability: Appears to be at or above the 5Diii level. Not quite as overbuilt as an D810. It feels basically like a 7D.
Usability: Complete garbage! Nice button placement but boneheaded firmware. In video mode, we let it slide because the video is so awesome.
Support: 2 Firmware updates already, new ones on the way (sadly these ones are video focused).
Weather Sealing: S lenses are gasketed, body appears robust. We won't know till someone tears one down though.
Lenses: 24-70 eq available and quite good. 70-230 eq reportedly of similar quality sharp and fast. Neither are landscape lenses. 85mm f1.4 (135mm eq) check, very sharp very corrected a bit high on CA but its a system of lenses that are supposed to be software corrected. 60mm macro check. 30mm pancake check. UWA zoom check minus.
Viewfinder Quality: A new standard as far as latency, good sharpness as compared to A7.
Lightroom support out of the box: It includes a copy of lightroom! Sadly no Capture One support other than through an included DNG converter.
At the moment it really is an astounding 4k video camera.
Stills are good enough for events, there are reports of sports working fine if you can fill the frame. Its a PITA for slow fine arts stuff because of wide open focusing and a nerfed AF-S mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Megapixels are already there, there is no need for more.
So very wrong.
A 40 MP sensor (which yields less than 40 million pixels of output) won't even get 1200 DPI on a 8"x5" print.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to display your photo on a slice of dead tree ?
Re: (Score:2)
So it actually gets seen.
Re:Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends. If you already have a lot of hardware, you're locked in by vendor.
But if you don't, you get another option. That's not a bad thing.
Re:Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:5, Insightful)
Camera bodies are indeed temporary, but they are still important. I shoot high school gymnastics. During the season, which started a couple weeks ago, I regularly shoot 4000 to 5000 images at each meet, and there will be 12 meets this season. I know my Canon 7D can take that kind of use week in and week out, and its on its third season now. That Samsung may take pretty photos, but it has no track record for dependability. If one were handed to me I'd use it for day-to-day "walking around town" shots, but I won't even consider using it as a main shooter at a gymnastics meet until its been out long enough, at least a couple of years, to have a reputation for taking heavy usage.
Yes, to answer other comments I've seen on this story, when you buy Canon (and Nikon) you're paying a premium for the name. But you're also buying a decades-long reputation of dependable cameras that can do the job and won't let you down. I'm willing to pay a premium for a quality camera body that I know I can depend on. Samsung has a long way to go before it has that kind of reputation in the camera market.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense that people stick with the companies that has reliable and dependable products. Yet in the end, someone has to be the guinea pig when a newcomer arrives. Most won't touch it. But somewhere out there, someone's going to pick up the duty and do the dirty work for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that you should mention the number of exposures and reference a 7D (a DSLR, with a mirror that needs to flip up for EVERY SINGLE SHOT!) in comparison with a MILC camera, which has far fewer moving parts.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the flip up mirror has been going strong for many decades now for millions of shots in very rough conditions.
Surprisingly it's one of the more reliable mechanical technologies out there that works with practically zero maintenance despite harsh conditions, being tossed around, vibration, a
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting that even pro level cameras have mirror/shutter mechanisms rated for just a few 100k flips. I'm a DSLR shooter too, but I have no illusions about the durability of a mirror+shutter mechanism.
Re: Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:4, Interesting)
Then the parents are in on it too, seeing as how they pay me to take the photos and all. The local paper is in trouble too, since they occasionally print my photos.
Please feel free to go fuck yourself. You're probably the only partner you can get. Actually your hand probably even rejects you.
Re: Gadget guys vs photographers (Score:5, Informative)
(I don't normally reply to ACs, but three of you bring up good points, which outweighs the one asshole.)
Actually, no on the toe. Of course there are shots where the gymnast is in a type of pose that doesn't need to be immortalized in a photograph. You'll get that in any sport where the standard method of shooting is "spray and pray" (set the camera on continuous shooting, hold down the button as the gymnast starts a flip, and pray you get a good printable shot at the peak of the flip). And yes, I go through and make sure those don't go out in the wild. But in all honesty, I've never seen a camel toe shot in the schools I shoot at. High school leotards are designed to prevent just that sort of thing. If a high school gymnast is showing toe, then the coach did a really poor job of selecting leotards for the team.
As for the "reasonable suspicion" part, no it really isn't. You'll see more skin at any public beach (and probably most shopping malls in the summer) than you will at a high school gymnastics meet. And most gymnastics meets are so lightly attended that the parents and coaches generally know quickly if anyone suspicious is showing up. If someone unknown shows up and just starts taking photos, someone else is going to ask questions. I started out by taking photos of a family member and her friends on the team 8 years ago, I didn't just randomly walk in off the street with a camera and start shooting. There's also the part, at least in my state, where one must obtain permission from the school principal or the state sanctioning body (depends on particular meet) to distribute the photos commercially. And finally, getting good gymnastics photos is not a cheap endeavor, nor is it something you're going to learn overnight. You're generally in a very large room with piss poor lighting and a strictly enforced rule of no flash photography, and photograph is only allowed in certain areas if you're shooting from the actual gym floor and not the stands. You ain't going to get even passable shots with an entry level camera you bought the day before a meet, a kit lens, and the camera set on "Programmed". A pedo isn't going to devote that much time, money, and effort to something that only lasts 12 weeks a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I hadn't thought of resale value, although that is an advantage for many and a very good point. I didn't think about it because I tend to use camera bodies until they start shedding parts :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The advantage to mirrorless is the lack of front/back focus relative to traditional SLRs. Right now, the Samsung is fast for daylight AF but still hunts in low light. Still, it's 15 fps. It's good enough to be competitive with the 1Dx believe it or not -- I have the 1D Mark IIn which had better brightlight focusing than the 1D3 or 1D4 (the whole Rob Galbraith series of articles). The 300/2.8 will be Samsung's make-or-break lens for the industry.
Good glass is critical, but Sigma has come out of nowhere w