Jump to content

Big news - Samsung NX1 with 4K, 24p and **H.265 HVEC codec**


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Typical of demo videos to be a little oversharpened, but I viewed it at 1440p on my 2.5K monitor and yes, it looked decent. Not much moire if at all; maybe slight nervousness at the vines.

 

But shit me this is only making me want a GH4 more, even if I don't need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed this spec sheet circulating the interwebs, and according to that list, the NX1 seems to be the fist model from Samsung that doesn't do the "Noodleman," and does seem to offer 25p and 50p for the PAL regions, but apparently in basic HD mode only. 

I wonder why they didn't do things properly this time, all the way through the resolution scale. Doing it like this is both corn fusing and frustrating.

Hm, better to wait for a while, until the camera will get some mileage out in the wild, in the hands of some experts. 

 

http://samsungimagingblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nx1_table1_blog.jpg?w=526&h=1024

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What quantity of lens has to do with it? And no, there is no point in counting A-mount lenses and its extra bulk, it's about native lenses.

 

That depends.     For many people A mount lenses would be just fine and does not bulk up the camera too much (still smaller and lighter than many DSLRs for instance.

 

 

I said better sorted, which means that they offer more focal length options. First, the E-mount has no f/2.8 constant zoom. Between the bright primes, the longer focal length for E-mount is 50mm f/1.8. There is a big intersection of lenses in very close focal length.

 

Well there is also a Sigma 60 2.8 macro

 

Quick comparison:

Samsung has the 16-50 f/2-2.8 and 50-150 f/2.8 zoom lenses and Sony's best offer is a f/4.

 

What about primes?

Samsung: 16mm f/2.4, 20mm f/2.8, 30mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.4

Sony: 16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 30mm f/3.5 macro, 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8

 

For E mount And Sigma 60 2.8 and Mitakon 50 f0-95 and Handevision 40 f0.8 and Loxia 35 f2 and Loxia 50 f2 and all the Samyang/Rokinons from memory and so likely others too.

 

This is what I said about better sorted, Sony has 4 lenses that fit between 16mm and 35mm, four lenses! And not a single one after 50mm.

 

What about quantity? Sony has tons of zoom lenses, tons, they even have a version II of one of them despite not have an f/2.8 constant zoom or new primes for these E-mount APS-C cameras.

 

 

 

So that's why I said that few people know but the NX mount has better sortes lens line up than the E-mount line up.

The E mount already can take more lenses with full or nearly full functionality than any other system.

 

Full frame lenses might be a bit small a range for some people but there are enough for most with more all the time.

 

I am waiting for the 35 1.4 in March (unless I get a Leica 35 before hand).

 

Here is the Samsung lens list.

Not including third party but there are not many of them (third party).

 

http://www.samsung.com/za/nx/lenses/

 

Here is Sony's (again not counting third party but there are lots of them with more coming too).

 

A mount lenses are on the same page and for me the A mount lenses are effectively native (not that I need or use them).

 

 

 

http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/

 

Sony has a 90mm 2.8 by March (I think it is) and a fast prime in a year or so and some very nice lenses on the roadmap.

 

Samsung also has some nice lenses and some nice ones on the roadmap.

 

Again, I think that it is not going to be lenses that are the issue for E mount if the Samsung camera is better.

 

Those specs are REALLY good.   

 

I wont get the Samsung as I already have Sony, M4/3, K mount and Nikon cameras (and Q mount though dead) but starting from scratch for a stills and video camera, I would give the NX a serious look as I would a A6000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also for wide angle lenses lovers the Canon's 10mm-ish counterpart ($300) from Sony costs $800 and from Samsung $300. So another advantage! God this is basically the camera I've always wanted: not pricey, APC-S, mirrorless, great 1080p video (it should), great for stills (it should) and it even has 4K! Now it only has to really have no weird video issues nor awful low light quality (like high ISO digital noise and such). Even though I truly feel it will have some kind of stupid problem that would make it worthless (like aliasing or horrible low light quality). It's like too good to be true :(

 

I must say though that I'm a little biased towards the idea of buying Samsung lenses, how good can they be? I doubt Samsung has the knowledge on camera systems like Canon/Nikon... am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What quantity of lens has to do with it? And no, there is no point in counting A-mount lenses and its extra bulk, it's about native lenses.

 

 

You got me interested with this.

 

I just did a check and it turns out the FF Sony A7 and La-ea4 is still smaller and lighter than the APSC NX1.and the Sony A6000 APSC is smaller and lighter again.

 

The A7 and A6000 would only be larger in terms of depth and only by about 26mm for the A7 and 23mm for the A6000. .

 

For height, width and weight the NX1 is larger and heavier than either E mount camera with LA-EA4.

 

If you only want to use A mount lenses with motor in lens, the LA-EA3 is even smaller and lighter still and would only be about 7mm/9mm thicker on the A6000 and A7 than the NX1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

 

He's talking about lenses, not the camera.

He discounted the A mount lenses (which are more extensive and much greater choice) because the LA-EA# adapters are "bulky"

 

It seems they are not.

 

Again, the Samsung may well be brilliant and the best yet.    For those who use it Is it may well be but not  because of the lenses if it is.

 

I think Samsung lenses ARE very nice and not well understood.      I also think the same applies to Sony (both also seem to have had one or two dogs of a lens that people judged all the lenses on)..

 

Give yourself an uppercut!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much prefer the Samsung lens lineup. I find the lenses far more appealing and think they tend to be a better value. And at least up until recently there were occasional sales on the lenses with serious discounts that would make them very affordable. Plus I think most or all of the Samyang/Rokinon lenses are available for Samsung. I think the Sony bodies are often good value, but the Sony E mount lenses, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He discounted the A mount lenses (which are more extensive and much greater choice) because the LA-EA# adapters are "bulky"

That's not what he meant. Here's the quote again:

 

What quantity of lens has to do with it? And no, there is no point in counting A-mount lenses and its extra bulk, it's about native lenses.

 

 

Give yourself an uppercut!

I think you should apply your advice to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what he meant. Here's the quote again:

 

 

 

I think you should apply your advice to yourself.

Lets look at the "bulk" of the A mount lenses.

 

I have already shown the cameras WITH adapter are smaller and lighter.

 

Lets look at those bulky lenses.

 

I only looked at two.

 

The quoted 16-50 2-2.8 VS the Sony A mount 16-50 2.8.    Yes, it is slower at the short end but that means extra bulk and the Samsung lens is bigger and heavier (622 g for the Samsung and 577 g for the Sony).

 

Not like for like?    Ok how about the 85 1.4?    Sony A mount ZA is 640 g and 81x75, Samsung is 696 g and 92.2x79.

 

 

There is NO extra bulk using A mount lenses on an LA-EA# adapter and E mount camera.

 

I would not be surprised if I look at all the A mount and all the Samsung NX lenses if some where more bulky and some where not for each.

 

There are not that many directly comparable lenses for Samsung though (not even a 50mm prime amongst them while there are several for E mount either alone or with LA-EA#).

 

Lets leave it there shall we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I can use my Sigma 18-35mm + Samyang 85mm with Nikon Mounts on the Samsung NX1 with an adapter, right? Like a Novoflex adapter so I can change the aperture with the adapter's ring?

 

No need for the Speed Booster anymore than since this is already a super 35mm sensor. I'm really interested in the NX1 at the moment as an upgrade from the GH3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets leave it there shall we.

 

Yes, please. Take the OT nerdy-nam-nam to some place else.

 

 

I suppose I can use my Sigma 18-35mm + Samyang 85mm with Nikon Mounts on the Samsung NX1 with an adapter, right? Like a Novoflex adapter so I can change the aperture with the adapter's ring?

 

Depends on the adapter and the lenses. If the adapter has a ring and a mechanism to move the aperture mechanically and the aperture in the lens can be moved mechanically, like in all the classic Nikkor lenses (Nikon F), then yes.

 

The Samyang won't be a problem, but the Sigma might. I believe it's an electronic only G lens, with no mechanical coupling to the aperture blades. Which means it'll work with full aperture only.

 

Then again, if you're really into going for the NX sytem, I believe you'd have no problem whatsoever to sell the Sigma and then buy a Samsung or Samyang equivalent, or something similar. Trading just one lens should not be a major hurdle in swapping camera systems, whereas a dozen might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing worries me looking at the samples...it looks like video and it doesn't have the cinematic look. Am I right?

Also colors...mmm looks like shot on a smartphone.

 

Most of the shots are very contrasty 0-255.  A bit over-saturated.  All can be adjusted in post.  Also, it looks like it was shot in 60p or 30p.  As long as the camera itself shoots ins 24p at 4K and 1080p, I will give them the benefit of a doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is the online footage for this camera just not very good? The compositions are great, but the actual rendering of the images look very artificial and brittle. 

 

Is this Youtube's fault? When watching in 4k the moire and aliasing is absolutely shocking. If the translation to web is this bad then this isn't the camera for me. But cool to see another option!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...