Nikon bought Samsung NX mirrorless tech. End of Samsung NX (?)

[tugela]

Samsung denies the deal with Nikon ! 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/official-statement-samsung-denies-nikon-is-buying-its-nx-camera-technology-66626

Yes, but remember that at the end of September the also denied the rumours that they were leaving the camera market, then a few weeks later started shutting down their European distribution.

Companies will always deny things until they happen (it isn't the job of CS to prematurely make announcements the CEO would normally make, so they will say the status quo even that is about to change), so this denial might not mean much in light of what they said in September.

This is crazy - better to wait on CES. 

But who can believe Samsung now - just check this post from September http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/23/rumor-busted-samsung-is-not-exiting-the-camera-business-at-least-not-the-on . There was also official statement... :-)

There is also the exchange that Oliver Daniel reported on the other thread here: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9451-is-samsung-shutting-down-their-camera-business/?page=13

That would suggest that something is up, and if they suddenly cease distribution of everything at the same time it is a bit weird and inexplicable.

[tupp]

No, what I am saying is that an APS-C sensor is best mounted with an APS-C lens. Not sure why that is hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand.  It is a very simple notion.  Regardless, it is just an opinion, and there are a lot of valid and beneficial reasons why "professionals" use lenses with larger image circles than the sensor's diagonal.

 

And in any case, if you have a high pixel density sensor you want to have a lens designed specifically for that sensor size and not some other sensor size.

In that case, perhaps we should all just use cameras with fixed lenses optimized for the sensor.

 

Sticking a speed booster in the optical path degrades lens performance.

Not exactly.  There certainly are tradeoffs.  Some of the benefits have already been listed in this thread, but, in regards to sharpness on a given sensor, a good speed booster will give essentially the same resolving power from a lens as if one used it with a dummy adapter.  So, the sharpness stays the same while one enjoys all of the speed booster benefits.

 

If you want maximum performance from your lens you are going to use an appropriate lens, not some lens designed for something else with a gadget stuck in-between.

Not really.  However, again, if we follow this reasoning, we should all use cameras with fixed lenses.

 

Furthermore, you might not be aware of this fact, but some professionals use certain lenses because they like the way they look.

[Nikkor]

A good speedbooster increases resolution.

[tugela]

A good speedbooster increases resolution.

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics.

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics.

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

This is ridiculous for so many reasons...

[Nikkor]

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics.

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

Very interesting tugela. 

Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster.

http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf

check fig 21 for a real world sample

You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

[tugela]

Very interesting tugela. 

Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster.

http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf

check fig 21 for a real world sample

You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

More resolution if you were comparing it to the FF lens without a speedbooster, but not more resolution than a native lens. Your FF lens cannot compete with a native lens no matter what hacks you play with the optical path. Every time you insert a glass element into the optical path that was not designed into the lens you will have degradation of the image.

[Nikkor]

More resolution if you were comparing it to the FF lens without a speedbooster, but not more resolution than a native lens. Your FF lens cannot compete with a native lens no matter what hacks you play with the optical path. Every time you insert a glass element into the optical path that was not designed into the lens you will have degradation of the image.

At least we have reached the point where you accept that the speed booster does indeed increase the resolution. You can't use a speedbooster with a native lens. Do you get the logic behind the argument?

Nikon has a patent of a "native" DX lens which has an built in speedbooster (i posted this earlier). They must be very stupid a nikon, they should know that adding glass elements,bla bla. Yes they were specificly designed for it, but why use a speedbooster anyway?

Even when competing with native lenses, A good speedbooster and some good FF glass does probably piss the very expensive m43 glass in the face. It seems that bigger lenses with larger image circles seem to give better results as their smaller counterparts.

For example, let's take the pentax 105 2.4 for the pentax 6x7. It has a very primitive double gauss design and it is from the 60s, but I can shoot wide open with it and still get good resolution. On 35mm only in recent years there are lenses that give that kind of resolution, planars from the 60s shot at f1.4 are soft and full of aberrations.

[tupp]

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

Some have spent $4000 apiece for full frame Zeiss Compact Primes, and these folks use them with speed boosters on smaller sensors.  Would you say that these folks are not professional because they cannot afford to use the lenses that were made for the specific camera that they are using?

 

Should they throw away their CPs and speed booster and instead buy "proper" Lumix lenses for their GH4s?

[jhnkng]

Adding optical elements that were not designed for a specific optical path degrades resolution and will increase CA. Can't fight physics.

A speedbooster is a poor mans solution to buy greater apparent aperture or focal length. It is a hack. Any professional who uses one is not a real professional since he/she can't afford the proper tools of the trade.

Well I suppose if you only ever work on jobs with six figure budgets then I can see how you can come to that conclusion. But if you've ever spent any time working on sub-10k jobs, or events, weddings, some online content, even reality/bts for TV, you'll find all sorts of pros shooting all sorts of cameras, using all sorts of adapters. And that's a lot of working professionals doing good work. 

[tusoli5]

Lets assume that it will all crack up around the first trimester of 2016.

I hope it will for late january.

Anyway, we have to see it this way, Samsung stopping their NX line means several good things.

- They might had the possibility to convince other brands to buy their processors technology by flagging the NX1 all around the world.

-They were the first brand to implement H.265 (even if it was the poor man version in 8bits ), with success, and it forced companies like adobe to acelerate their transition to this codec.

-They acquired this way an opportunity to sell their research and at the same time, if they sell it it can mean that they have more to come in the future. Maybe as an Aps-c or full frame processor manufacturer, maybe they also have a better product in developpement to come for a full new line of cameras.

-They also proved that their hability to manufacture great quality lens is here and this level of technical achievement might also be for sale for rebranding or in process for other cameras to come.

All of this only means a win win for all of us.

[Husah]

Turns out the rumor was fake. Samsung UK denied any Nikon acquisition of NX system. 

Also, Samsung US has said they won't be pulling out of camera business. 

What happened to the claim that EOSHD doesn't post rumors? That's two rumors in a month, both false

 

[MarcTGFG]

Samsung UK isnt Samsung International, they might simply not have knowledge oft the deal yet. Also look at the wording: Could mean lots of things!

1. The media reports about it are not true (inaccuracies)
2. The term "buying" (not buying, but licensing
3. The term "NX technology" (maybe only technology not related to the NX mount itself, just sensor and processor)

Lots of ways to spin themselves out of such a statement.

Also remember, that Samsung UK denied "having plans" to pull out of the camera market, to confirm it a while later.

  

[Sekhar]

Samsung UK isnt Samsung International, they might simply not have knowledge oft the deal yet. Also look at the wording: Could mean lots of things!

1. The media reports about it are not true (inaccuracies)
2. The term "buying" (not buying, but licensing
3. The term "NX technology" (maybe only technology not related to the NX mount itself, just sensor and processor)

Lots of ways to spin themselves out of such a statement.

Also remember, that Samsung UK denied "having plans" to pull out of the camera market, to confirm it a while later.

  

Absolutely. While we're at it, the government has a lot of explaining to do about the moon landing, 9/11, and Roswell. I mean when they said "landed on the moon," what exactly did they mean by "landed?" Seems like a spin to save face.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I do believe that UK rep message is no official proof of no partnership going on between Nikon and Samsung. First he's not a 100% reliably accurate source (as in a press release), second he only denied the notion if Nikon buying off the entire NX world, a ridiculuos claim from day one, 

-Very very reliable sources hear and see a clear deal going on between Samsung and Nikon, the accuracy of what EXACTLY is these deals is something nobody will be able to leak if his lofe depended on it. This is much like our reliable sources heard for certainty that Samaung is Pulling out, but not to the accurate level of telling they're pulling out of Europe and the middle east. 

It's still a rumor. No rumor is true until proven otherwise. 

However this one is as highly reliable as rumors get, trust me, and all it says is that there's a "deal and talks between Samsung Camera Division and Nikon JP. Everything else speculative. For all we know, Samsung might turn out selling their Point and Shoot camera technology to Nikon and the words just didn't get out accurately, or Nikon selling a high patch of Nikon-made 24mp FF sensors for an upcoming FF Samaung, or a Full partnership where Nikon and Samaung use all their resources to create separate camera systems, or use specific technologies such as specific sensor/processors and certain lens formulas, 

No one knows. But it's a good rumor, so go on and speculate. 

My speculation is if it's true, it's a mere purchase from Nikon of Samsung Sensor technology, the APS-C 28mp (30.3 total) BSI chip for their update of their current 24mp 1080p sensors, as it makes sense. This is the only sensor in the world that they can upgrade to right now as it has a higher quality and incorporates 4K video and incredible high speed readouts at even 6K, still retaining then raw DR and lowlight performamce of the current 24mp ones. Just perfect sense, and if Samsung sells those sensors I am SURE nikon WILL but them, it's what they do. 

In real world terms this results in D3500, D5600, D7300 cameras with 28mp, 4K, 120p 1080p, Nikon LOG and colours. Very very exciting cameras. I always say if Nikon goes 4K and retain all their image charachteristics they will create one of the best images up to 1DC/Red and cinema image quality. All they lack is resolving power. Grain, lowlight, colours, DR, aliasing/rolling shutter are all great on all Nikom cameras, just not a high resolution 2.5K/4K image. 

Another deal the other way might be a solution for the lack of NX lenses, as Nikon could sell some of their best APS-C lens formulas and have them made in Samsung NX bodies with affordable price tags. These include all those DX lenses like the 55-200mm VR, 55-300mm VR, 18-200mm VR, 35mm f/1.8G, 12-24mm DX, 250-500mm f/5.6, these are all dirt cheap lenses that if were to be made available in NX housings with full electronic support, would absolutely re vitalize the NX APS-C cameras throughout the globe. The main reason these aren't selling is simply lens choice line up, price and availability. Solve that and produce cheap high quality versatile glass and you'll be on to the top. Nikon and Canon are the only two really kicking ass in the extreme low budget APS-C lenses for entry level photographers/videographers and this is where most of their sales numbers come from. All your riends with those 650Ds, 18-55mm, 50mm STM, 10-18mm, etc. These are these kind of cameras are the de facto standard for anyone around the globe who wants to step up from smartphone photography, and with gathering this entry level base, they keep buying and upgrading into the system endlesslly. 

[nougat]

Also, Samsung US has said they won't be pulling out of camera business. 

Source?

[M Carter]

This idea that a speedbooster is a make or break item for someone who makes money from their equipment seems ridiculous to me. It is more a concern for amateurs who can't afford to buy appropriate equipment for the job.

Oh, please. The only thing that's kept me from buying a BMC (original cinema camera) is sensor size, and I'll eventually find a used one with a speedbooster, they show up every week. That's a camera that excels at pretty-much one thing: really pretty footage that can be graded like mad, for projects that don't need extensive keying but beautiful IQ on a "let's try to avoid a bunch of rentals" budget. So you're saying a "professional" would, what, go hunting for wide primes with no distortion vs. adapting lenses they already own? I've seen speed boosted Zeiss and Nikkor AIS 28's on that sensor and it's lovely.

I'm a "professional" - I make my living from pitching concepts, writing scripts, and shooting or animating commercial (IE, promotional vs. entertainment) projects for businesses, including some good sized brands. Sad to discover that owning a speedbooster for a specific purpose would make me an amateur.

[Husah]

The guy who runs Nikon rumor is far more credible than mirrorless rumors and EOSHD, and according to him this rumor is nothing more than clickbait by these sites. It's a fake rumor. 

[Brian Caldwell]

. . . . Every time you insert a glass element into the optical path that was not designed into the lens you will have degradation of the image.

This is a false generalization most likely based on weaknesses inherent to teleconverters, which magnify aberrations.  A well-designed focal reducer, on the other hand, will *shrink* the aberrations as mentioned above by Araucaria.  And with a little know-how you can even do better than that to actually design a focal reducer that compensates some of the aberrations in the master lens.  Here's a recent whitepaper that I wrote proving that a Metabones Speed Booster significantly increases the MTF of various lenses, including the extremely challenging case of a Zeiss Otus:  http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/The Perfect Focal Reducer (Metabones Speed Booster ULTRA for M43) - Whitepaper.pdf

Disclaimer:  I develop the optics used in Metabones Speed Boosters

[Nikkor]

Brian, I was wondering if the reason why my nikkor 28 1.4 looks so bad on digital is because of the glass on top of the sensor of my nikon d800 and if using the lens with a speedbooster on a smaller sensor would give it the punch it lacks (it also lacks in the center, but specially in the corners). Or if it's just a bad lens or copy and just not evident on 35mm film.