bigp Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Hi all, love the forum, I'm a long time reader, I don't post often but I was hoping to get a bit of advice on changing from the GH4 to the Samsung NX1. Basically I am an artist and make short experimental films to exhibit in a gallery context. I also shoot a fair bit of photos as research and sometimes as artworks. I have a GH4 and as most people know it's a solid video camera but I find it a bit lacking in photos department (of course this could be just me). The Samsung looks to be a great option for both particularly as the price is dropping below €1000 but I am a bit worried about the fact they are getting out of the photo business. I do like the images coming from the NX1 so do people thing it is worth changing? I can only really afford one camera so I will probably sell my GH4 to cover the costs. I currently have three 4/3 lenses (panny 14mm / sigma 2.8 30mm / olympus 45mm 1.8) but I also have a few contax zeiss lens for the video side of things so I think I can adapt these to the samsung?My ideal camera would be the Sony A&s II with is full frame sensor and image stabilisation but I won't be able to afford it any time soon. My main worries with the samsung is the editing the codec on my imac and the rumors of them leaving the business. Also I would need to invest in a couple of auto focus (the 30mm pancake looks like good value to start). So do you reckon its worth changing?thanksP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I wouldn't. NX1 needs the 16-50mm in my opinion and that kit is still expensive, and you will not be able to sell the GH4 for more than $800. Keep the GH4 for videos and sell a couple of lenses that you use only for photographs and get a used A7 for less than $800. Also what is exactly lacking in the photos department? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted January 1, 2016 Super Members Share Posted January 1, 2016 A used NX1 with the 16-50 is $1300 so its doable. Marco Tecno and Alborat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 A used NX1 with the 16-50 is $1300 so its doable.I was thinking about the f/2-2.8... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted January 1, 2016 Super Members Share Posted January 1, 2016 I was thinking about the f/2-2.8...me to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigp Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Thanks Don, never really considered the A7 (I would need stills lens for it also), not sure its so cheap over in Europe, I will check it out. Agreed that the Samsung 16-50mm is too expensive but I thought a couple of the cheap pancakes (16mm & 30mm) would be good enough cover for the stills side of things and not to expensive.The GH4 takes good stills no doubt, but when I want to blow them bigger than A2 I am not so sure they hold up well. I sort of liked the video I seen from the NX1 and the apsc sensor seems excellent for stills so I thought it could be one camera that covers everything. The only thing it seemed to miss was the stabilisation and the codec is problematic as I am in editing in CS6. Have you used both cameras by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddoman Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 For a 16, 30 and 45, you're probably right around the price of the S zoom. Maybe there are still some on closeout in Europe? Don't forget that the S zooms allow you to take photos at a lower shutter speed. Marketing specs say 4 stops, I know I can get at least 1 stop going from 1/125 (my standard for unstabilized lenses) to 1/50, and that's being totally lazy and lackadaisically shooting with the LCD. If I was actually trying, shooting with the EVF, maybe I could get those 3 extra stops, but I've never tried to push the envelope and shoot at 1/8.And that's just photos. You're not going to change your shutter speed in video, but you'll just use the OIS for smoother handheld video.I got along just fine with unstabilized lenses before, but the stabilized lenses sure have a way of sucking you in and making you lazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigp Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Hi Mattias, Don, I wish I could get the NX1 with that lens for that price here in Europe (if I buy from the states I would probbbaly be charge heavy import duty) ... you can get it for €1300 on ebay but thats with the cheap kit lens, not so sure about it. Also seen the body for €800 on this site but need to check out the shipping:https://www.selexion.be/fr/samsung-nx1-body-noir/samsung/1438076917377 Teddoman, the stabilisation would be nice for sure... I like handheld video myself and usually use a cheapo shoulder brace with the GH4 but it would be nice to have decent lens with IS. Have you used NX1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddoman Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Yeah, I've had NX1, NX500, 16-50 S, and the 45 for about a month now, sweet little cams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I wouldn't. NX1 needs the 16-50mm in my opinion and that kit is still expensive, and you will not be able to sell the GH4 for more than $800. Keep the GH4 for videos and sell a couple of lenses that you use only for photographs and get a used A7 for less than $800. Also what is exactly lacking in the photos department? respectfully disagree. I own the NX1 and I adapt lenses to it and it prefers admirably in both stills and video. The lack of an anti aliasing works wonders for film era lenses. The nx1 is on par if not better than the gh4 in terms of video, the only difference will honestly be the aesthetic you prefer. It doesnt have the crazy amount of noise of the gh4 and is clean up to 1600. I would use the gh4 as a B camera and the NX1 as the main one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigp Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Thanks teddoman, Kidzrevil, how do you find using the codec?I find the GH4 fairly noisy and only use iso 1600 if I really have to. I was hoping the NX1 would be a fair bit better but it seems that it is clean up to 1600 but falls apart after that.... so pretty much on par with the GH4? Also I thought I read somewhere that there was some sort of software IS with a firmware but don't see anyone mentioning it?Kidzrevil, in your opinion what would you say are the aesthetic differences between the two cams? I would love to have both but in reality I am an artist on tight budget so can only afford one or the other so would need to sell the GH4 to fund the purchase of the Samsung and lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Thanks teddoman, Kidzrevil, how do you find using the codec?I find the GH4 fairly noisy and only use iso 1600 if I really have to. I was hoping the NX1 would be a fair bit better but it seems that it is clean up to 1600 but falls apart after that.... so pretty much on par with the GH4? Also I thought I read somewhere that there was some sort of software IS with a firmware but don't see anyone mentioning it?Kidzrevil, in your opinion what would you say are the aesthetic differences between the two cams? I would love to have both but in reality I am an artist on tight budget so can only afford one or the other so would need to sell the GH4 to fund the purchase of the Samsung and lens. first of all I wouldn't buy a samsung lens. Not cause they are bad but im investing in the body not the lenses in case they truly go belly up. Get you some m42 mount, canon fd or nikkor lenses. Whatever you can afford. As far as aesthetic it's a 1.53x crop super 35mm sensor. I personally love the look of Super 35 especially for video. As far as aesthetic you get the super 35 look with contrasty and decently saturated picture profiles. I can't really put in words what the difference in aesthetic are, I love the image from both the gh4 and NX and I don't think they are far apart in terms of dynamic range. My only issue with the gh4 when I owned it was the damn grain would be visible even at 400 iso which frustrated the hell out of me. 1600 on the gh4 was for when you had no other choice so you pray for the best. The NX1 I can use at 1600 with no degradation of quality. Honestly Ihaven't tested 3200 because I didn't need to I have lenses that hit f1.2. The h.265 codec holds a lot of detail but requires a faster computer to edit than the gh4 h.264 file. Adobe premiere supports it natively now so no need to transcode. The RAW stills of the NX1 are phenomenal and downscaled to 16-18 mp like the gh4 its blowing it out the water. It's a better camera for my personal use. If I were you I would keep my gh4 and wait for the gh5. I feel like they would announce it soon and im sure it's going to be a beast of a camera. Im waiting for the gh5 too to be honest. I recommend the NX1 but if I know how nerve wrecking it could be to jump to another system especially in light of Samsung shutting down rumors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncy Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I point you to some of my thoughts:http://***URL removed***/forums/post/57013879I don't have a gh4 so I don't know if the difference is big enough to justify a jump.But the Nx1 is dirt cheap right now and here in europe I get the sense camera shops justwant to unload the gear, so you may be able to talk them down. Many camera stores have used samsung gear as well.As I point out, I got my nx1 and both S lens for less than the cost of an A7rII body.The detail with an Nx1 is just insane. I find the footage relatively easy to work with and get cinematic results. I would never buya camera just because its resale might be good. I want to use it for a long time. If I do ever sell it, I will sell the entire system.If I was to advise I would get just the samsung lens your shooting would require for all the auto focus and the rest. Fill in withcanon or Nikon manual lens with adapters. MF works brilliantly on the nx1. Marco Tecno and kidzrevil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Thanks Don, never really considered the A7 (I would need stills lens for it also), not sure its so cheap over in Europe, I will check it out. Agreed that the Samsung 16-50mm is too expensive but I thought a couple of the cheap pancakes (16mm & 30mm) would be good enough cover for the stills side of things and not to expensive.The GH4 takes good stills no doubt, but when I want to blow them bigger than A2 I am not so sure they hold up well. I sort of liked the video I seen from the NX1 and the apsc sensor seems excellent for stills so I thought it could be one camera that covers everything. The only thing it seemed to miss was the stabilisation and the codec is problematic as I am in editing in CS6. Have you used both cameras by any chance?To see a real difference in print quality you would want to add the highest performing lens on the NX1 which is the 16-50 f/2-2.8. Not that the NX1 is not great with other glass, but you will not notice that much of an improvement compared to the GH4. The reason that I suggested the A7 is because will FF you can see a difference in picture quality with even cheaper glass, which you already have. Also the difference in IQ in general is also quite better with a FF sensor: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Samsung-NX1-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-versus-Sony-A7___976_943_916Lastly, if you don't like the A7 you can sell it for almost the same price, but the NX1 I highly doubt it... Now if you can find the NX1 with the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 for $1400 that Matthias mentioned, that might be a good deal indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 To see a real difference in print quality you would want to add the highest performing lens on the NX1 which is the 16-50 f/2-2.8. Not that the NX1 is not great with other glass, but you will not notice that much of an improvement compared to the GH4. The reason that I suggested the A7 is because will FF you can see a difference in picture quality with even cheaper glass, which you already have. Also the difference in IQ in general is also quite better with a FF sensor: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Samsung-NX1-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-versus-Sony-A7___976_943_916Lastly, if you don't like the A7 you can sell it for almost the same price, but the NX1 I highly doubt it... Now if you can find the NX1 with the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 for $1400 that Matthias mentioned, that might be a good deal indeed. can you really see such a difference in FF even with cheaper glass ?? What's the reasoning behind this ?I'm honestly not sure if dxomark is a great reflection of the camera's video performance since all these cameras output the equivalent of an 8mp image at max while the dxomark scores take in account the noise and color depth performance of their stills mode. For example the a7sii scores far less in iso performance than the a7riihttp://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Samsung-NX1___1047_1035_976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 can you really see such a difference in FF even with cheaper glass ?? What's the reasoning behind this ?Put it simply it is because you don't put that much "strain" into the lens resolving power. Or let me give you an example: mount a FF lens on a FF camera with a 28MP resolution, then on the NX1. Then mount it on a m4/3 sensor with the same resolution. Then a 1" sensor with the same resolution. You see where I am going with it... Where do you think its easier to perform best? The resolving power of the lens on a FF camera that is needed for a 24MP sensor would be similar to a 16MP APS-C sensor. I'm honestly not sure if dxomark is a great reflection of the camera's video performance since all these cameras output the equivalent of an 8mp image at max while the dxomark scores take in account the noise and color depth performance of their stills mode. I agree but I was talking strictly about stills performance.For example the a7sii scores far less in iso performance than the a7riihttp://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Samsung-NX1___1047_1035_976I know many people disagree but I tend to find DxOMark tests pretty accurate and informative. For example the ISO score depends on multiple factors. The color sensitivity in high ISOs is one of them and from their tests the A7SII is worse than A7rII. Many people focus on the noise levels when comparing cameras but they forget that color sensitivity and dynamic range are also very important: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Put it simply it is because you don't put that much "strain" into the lens resolving power. Or let me give you an example: mount a FF lens on a FF camera with a 28MP resolution, then on the NX1. Then mount it on a m4/3 sensor with the same resolution. Then a 1" sensor with the same resolution. You see where I am going with it... Where do you think its easier to perform best? The resolving power of the lens on a FF camera that is needed for a 24MP sensor would be similar to a 16MP APS-C sensor. I agree but I was talking strictly about stills performance.I know many people disagree but I tend to find DxOMark tests pretty accurate and informative. For example the ISO score depends on multiple factors. The color sensitivity in high ISOs is one of them and from their tests the A7SII is worse than A7rII. Many people focus on the noise levels when comparing cameras but they forget that color sensitivity and dynamic range are also very important:the first part is confusing. Are you saying its harder for a lens to keep up on an FF sensor than it is on a crop sensor ?Serious question, according to dxomark would you get a sonya7rii or a7sii ? I am on the fence about this as I am debating on which one to get if I were to get a full frame body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 the first part is confusing. Are you saying its harder for a lens to keep up on an FF sensor than it is on a crop sensor ?No the opposite Serious question, according to dxomark would you get a sonya7rii or a7sii ? I am on the fence about this as I am debating on which one to get if I were to get a full frame bodyFor stills the A7rII is better in low light. The difference comes with the EVF noise that is less with the A7sII under low light and of course low light video... but in S35 mode the A7rii is not far off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted January 1, 2016 Super Members Share Posted January 1, 2016 Hi Mattias, Don, I wish I could get the NX1 with that lens for that price here in Europe (if I buy from the states I would probbbaly be charge heavy import duty) ... you can get it for €1300 on ebay but thats with the cheap kit lens, not so sure about it. Also seen the body for €800 on this site but need to check out the shipping:https://www.selexion.be/fr/samsung-nx1-body-noir/samsung/1438076917377 Teddoman, the stabilisation would be nice for sure... I like handheld video myself and usually use a cheapo shoulder brace with the GH4 but it would be nice to have decent lens with IS. Have you used NX1?It is in europe. Maybe I can help you buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidzrevil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 No the opposite For stills the A7rII is better in low light. The difference comes with the EVF noise that is less with the A7sII under low light and of course low light video... but in S35 mode the A7rii is not far off. I think I get what you are saying. You are saying on the NX1 it will take an extremely high performing lens for you to see a difference in quality with your pictures because the camera is rendering a high quality image with any lens ? vs on full frame if a lens is low end the low end qualities will be more apparent ? Sorry for all the questions. I know on my a7s my FD's look better than on my nx1 in terms of character but on the nx1 they are way way sharper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.