Nikon struggling to match Samsung NX500 stills quality with 2 year head start

[Arikhan]

@tdonovic

Quote

Andrew, for as much as I agree with you on most things, the fact of the matter is that Nikon is still in the camera business despite a soft market and Samsung isn't. Would I love it if Samsung continued NX? Yes, I almost bought a 1st Gen one. But clearly image quality doesn't matter as much as we all here think, the proof is in the pudding.

Well, OK...Could you post some real world examples (photos AND video compared side by side. please) to prove your theory on IQ (-->  QUOTE: "But clearly image quality doesn't matter as much as we all here think, the proof is in the pudding."). I would just like to see the "proof in the pudding" you mentionned...Nikon D500/D7500 vs. Samsung NX500/NX1. Just can't await to see the "proof in the pudding"...

Oh, and please post real world, general/common usage examples for APSC users too: low light, gymnasium indoor sports arena shooting ("basketball / soccer moms" style), eventing, landscape, architecture, portraiture...As it seems you've tested this excessively, there would be no problem to just upload the clear "proofs" within minutes...

[Trek of Joy]

How can you compare image quality without using actual images?

SMH.

[maxotics]

You can't sell papers if you don't annoy people--Andrew certainly has that down   But his main point is valid, much of the technology development that Panasonic, Sony and Samsung have done is still years ahead of Nikon, with Canon struggling to keep up.  He's been saying that for years about video.  Yes, anyone shooting photography stills would always consider the Nikon D810 or D5 first--for good reason--but mirrorless technology is so compelling in other areas, like video, legacy glass, size and sound that it becomes more and more difficult to just use a Nikon.  Want a cool looking, old school camera?  Why get a super expensive Nikon DF when Fuji has so many affordable options?  What to shoot old lenses?  Sony allows you to in full-frame or crop.  Want crystal clear video that runs all day, Panasonic has a camera for you (which can also work as an 6K 30 fps still shooter).  Then you have Fuji working to make medium format affordable.  Nikon full-frame or Fuji Medium format?  Scary times for Nikon?  I love Nikon products.  But Andrew has a point.  They still haven't caught up to Samsung in many regards.  If the economy for digital cameras hadn't fallen, and Samsung was still innovating, where would Nikon be?  

[Arikhan]

@maxotics

I see his point...But claiming "the proof is in the pudding" is simply NOT true. There is no proof for this claim in the real world. I own, shoot and like both systems. But I don't like myths and overrating of any technical device...

Anders Petersen said once: "Photography offers a lot of opportunities. For me, the camera is like an entrance to the private lives of other people. And if you are curious like me, it is a fantastic tool."

As filmers/photographers we could agree him...Nearly every camera is much more an opportunity than a problem - for every user and every need. DXO is a tekkie mess, more a gimmick than a useful benchmark for practical shooting. For most practitionners - simply useless. It's a great source for losing time and efforts...

Buy / rent / borrow an D7500 and a NX500. Shoot them in almost any circumstance you need the camera for.Take a look at the photographs/footage, compare and conclude...And return the one you don't like...Ask advice from people owning and using them daily...But don't care about the "pixel peepers bilble" - and don't ask people reading reviews...

Even Andrew said some weeks ago, DXOmark makes no sense...How does it now make sense?

[BasiliskFilm]

My Nikon D600 has stills pretty much nailed from my point of view, so I am unlikely ever to buy another DSLR. A Nikon mirrorless that matches Sony for video, but lets me use my existing glass, without breaking the bank, with DSLR quality autofocus? That might be very tempting.

[DBounce]

On 7/14/2017 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Reid said:

There are more people today taking pictures with a Samsung camera than with a Nikon. Fact.

No, there are more people today taking pictures with a Samsung smartphone, that can also take pictures. No one refers to a smartphone as a camera. They call it their phone. And in any case, this comparison is not between as Samsung phone vs a camera... I already did that shootout, and in some respects the phone was better. But that said I would not consider it my goto tool for video, on a real project. It's mainly used out of convenience. 

As a former NX1 owner, I can tell you it was a great camera. The touch screen /UI was far and away the best I have used. The camera felt balanced. And I have many great pictures from it. As a video capture device it was capable. Though I found it had a tendency to crush the black levels. Lens selection was somewhat inflexible. And frankly build quality was subpar for it's place in the market. In the end I left that system for the Sony α, then later I turned my attention back to Canon (still great btw), and most recently I have been exploring the GH5, which might be the best of breed to date. 

There can be little doubt that if Samsung had been determined to own the market they could have. They have the tech, and I would have put a NX1MK2 on my short list of must have cameras. It's a shame that  Samsung bailed on their user base. I know I will never trust them again in the camera space, and I am certain I am not alone in this thinking.

The take away here is none of this matters. Better, worse... Samsung no longer makes enthusiast cameras. And if they ever come back, they are going to need to do something to assure users that they are in it for the long haul. 

[maxotics]

1 hour ago, Arikhan said:

@maxotics

I see his point...But claiming "the proof is in the pudding" is simply NOT true. There is no proof for this claim in the real world. I own, shoot and like both systems. But I don't like myths and overrating of any technical device...

Anders Petersen said once: "Photography offers a lot of opportunities. For me, the camera is like an entrance to the private lives of other people. And if you are curious like me, it is a fantastic tool."

As filmers/photographers we could agree him...Nearly every camera is much more an opportunity than a problem - for every user and every need. DXO is a tekkie mess, more a gimmick than a useful benchmark for practical shooting. For most practitionners - simply useless. It's a great source for losing time and efforts...

Buy / rent / borrow an D7500 and a NX500. Shoot them in almost any circumstance you need the camera for.Take a look at the photographs/footage, compare and conclude...And return the one you don't like...Ask advice from people owning and using them daily...But don't care about the "pixel peepers bilble" - and don't ask people reading reviews...

Even Andrew said some weeks ago, DXOmark makes no sense...How does it now make sense?

I agree with all your posts.  Many people don't want to think about the science part of photography.  They don't understand why many photographers lust after a D810 just to get a base ISO of 64!  Most people only think about high ISO performance.  Many people who shoot video have never shot photography in a real way, where they can see how cameras behave under different circumstances, from working with their RAW files.  It's only by working with RAW files that one can understand just how much degradation the video chain does on the image.  Few work hard to separate the different effects between what the sensor/camera is doing, and what the video compression system is doing.  They confuse which is the cart and which the horse

As you know, a sensor is just the start of image acquisition.  The mathematics, and secret-sauce matrix transformations, to make the data usable is beyond most people, especially me   I wish I understand more about how Nikon gets such great images.  @jcs might have speculated a long time ago that Canon gets its warm effect by using redder bayer filters over their sensors.  That makes sense to me.  Of course, if you're a photo purist, that's not cricket and why so many end up with Nikon which has the most neutral image to me (at least).   

To expect Samsung to deliver the same still quality over Nikon, which lives, breathes, and eats pure photography every day--nope, not going to happen.  Like you say, spend enough time with a Nikon camera and you'll appreciate those subtleties.

All that said, I now shoot Sony.

[mercer]

@maxotics well it makes you wonder why none of the major camera manufacturers have implemented Raw video into one of their cameras. We already know it's possible, so for Nikon that does have that rich heritage in photography, if they were to introduce, even 720p, Raw into one of their consumer/enthusiast cameras, I would be one of their first customers.

I had the NX500 and now have a D5500 and although the NX500 wins with resolution, the D5500 I still own.

As much as I wish Nikon would introduce more features and make the video process easier, every time I get those humble files into FCPX, I am blown away by the latitude of its Flat Profile. I don't know the technical intricacies of the curve, but I know I can easily push the image to a modern or vintage look with cold or warm colors. The image will break much quicker than other footage, with better bitrates but it's amazing what a simple curve adjustment can do with a Nikon.

If a beginner came to me and asked me to recommend a camera for video, without a doubt I would recommend the D5500, or D7500 if they want 4K. The NX1/500 would be at the bottom of the list. But this is just my opinion and in no way am I even suggesting that the NX1 or NX500 are bad cameras... they're just not a Nikon.

[mercer]

@BTM_Pix I know this post is more about still photography than video, but don't you have a D500? And if so, can you shed some light on the 4K from the D500... particularly shot with the Flat Profile. There really aren't a lot of samples out there, but I am dying to try it. 

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

@BTM_Pix I know this post is more about still photography than video, but don't you have a D500? And if so, can you shed some light on the 4K from the D500... particularly shot with the Flat Profile. There really aren't a lot of samples out there, but I am dying to try it. 

Have you activated the webcam on my macbook???

I do have a D500 and it is literally in my hand as I'm reading this as I'm unpacking everything at my hotel for this tournament. (52 kilos of equipment, 1 kilo of clothes  )

I don't have much in the way of short glass with me in Nikon mount so with that 2x crop I could do you a few shots of the moon.

I think I have an old manual 24m in the bag so I could sort something out for that.

On the upside, this promises to not exactly be a thrill a minute three weeks (and I've got a lot of gear with me for various reasons) so I am able to give you comparisons against :

Fuji X-T2

JVC LS-300

Panasonic GX-80

EOS-M RAW *not 4K obviously and I'm presently starting at menus on it like a labrador trying to work out a card trick

I've got enough adapters to use the same lens on all of the cameras and if Nikon are at the tournament then I can loan some short stuff off them.

So, take your pick of subject from windmills, clogs, cheese or interesting coffee shops.

 

EDIT >>>

I've found it. Its a 28mm

[mercer]

Wow, that would be awesome. Any or all of the above... of course we don't have too many windmills in the states, so that could be interesting. 

I'm in the process of selling off a lot of lenses, cameras and crap I've accumulated over the years. I assume it will take a couple months but I will probably use some of the money to buy a second cam. As of now my preliminary options are either an upgrade to a D7500, try my hand with Fuji and the X-T20 or resign to the fact that for run and gun, even casual shooting, the GH5 is the best deal around as far as bang for buck goes.

For any "serious" shooting I'll continue with my 5D3 but for casual, off the cuff, grab and go footage, I'd like a second camera. I'd love to stay with Nikon but if the price gap closes around the holidays, the GH5 may just be the smart buy. But I'm really, really hoping the D500 4K beats the GX80 in your test.

[BTM_Pix]

I've got an X-T20 with me as well so I'll use that.

Let me get the first couple of matches out of the way tomorrow and Monday and I'll see what I can do.

And tulips of course. 

[PannySVHS]

25 minutes ago, mercer said:

Wow, that would be awesome. Any or all of the above... of course we don't have too many windmills in the states, so that could be interesting. 

I'm in the process of selling off a lot of lenses, cameras and crap I've accumulated over the years. I assume it will take a couple months but I will probably use some of the money to buy a second cam. As of now my preliminary options are either an upgrade to a D7500, try my hand with Fuji and the X-T20 or resign to the fact that for run and gun, even casual shooting, the GH5 is the best deal around as far as bang for buck goes.

For any "serious" shooting I'll continue with my 5D3 but for casual, off the cuff, grab and go footage, I'd like a second camera. I'd love to stay with Nikon but if the price gap closes around the holidays, the GH5 may just be the smart buy. But I'm really, really hoping the D500 4K beats the GX80 in your test.

@BTM_Pix, I second that. Unfortunately out of likes for today for the both of you

[mercer]

25 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I've got an X-T20 with me as well so I'll use that.

Let me get the first couple of matches out of the way tomorrow and Monday and I'll see what I can do.

And tulips of course. 

If you get a chance that would be great, if not, no big deal... I'll probably be interested in 3 other cameras by this time next week for a second body. 

[Mark Romero]

3 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

A Nikon mirrorless that matches Sony for video, but lets me use my existing glass, without breaking the bank, with DSLR quality autofocus? That might be very tempting.

For what it's worth, the autofocus on my Mirrorless a6300 is superior to the autofocus on my D750.

There are some instances where the D750 will autofocus faster than the a6300, but when it does, it is almost always less accurate than the focus of the a6300.

That is not to say that the AF on the D750 is bad, just that for my needs, the AF on the a6300 is better.

By The Way: I am rooting for a Nikon Mirrorless as well (preferably APS-C size).

[BasiliskFilm]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero said:

For what it's worth, the autofocus on my Mirrorless a6300 is superior to the autofocus on my D750.

There are some instances where the D750 will autofocus faster than the a6300, but when it does, it is almost always less accurate than the focus of the a6300.

That is not to say that the AF on the D750 is bad, just that for my needs, the AF on the a6300 is better.

By The Way: I am rooting for a Nikon Mirrorless as well (preferably APS-C size).

Would prefer full frame as all my glass is full frame (assuming they either keep the F mount or have some smart adaptor). 
The A6500 pretty much has APS-C nailed from my point of view, and a focal reducer enables all my full frame glass for MF, so a Nikon version would not add much.

[tupp]

On 7/14/2017 at 6:12 AM, akeem said:

They've gotten their maths all muddled up in the color depth scoring (which is heaving biased to high res camers), which has a big effect on the sports score.

Actually, resolution is a big factor of color depth, and color depth is mostly an independent property from ISO (the DxOMark "sports" score).

 

On the other hand, the DxOMark "color depth" rated as "bit depth" is dubious (to say the least).

 

Most do not realize that resolution and bit depth are equally weighted factors in determining color depth in digital systems.  The actual formula to determine the color depth of digital RGB systems is simple:

COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH x RESOLUTION)³

 

The bit depth is the number of values per channel, so 10-bit=1024, 12-bit=4096, 16-bit=65536, etc.  The resolution is usually that of one color channel of the entire frame, which would yield the absolute color depth of the entire digital image (ie. with 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups, the resolution of one color channel would be 2,073,600).

 

So, given resolution's equal weighting to bit depth as a factor of color depth, DxOMark use of "bit depth" figure to express color depth seems fundamentally flawed.  DxOMark's explanation of their color depth metric is vague and apparently involves a characteristic which they call "color sensitivity," but they give no information on how this property is derived.

 

 

[Cinegain]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I've got an X-T20 with me as well so I'll use that.

Let me get the first couple of matches out of the way tomorrow and Monday and I'll see what I can do.

And tulips of course. 

Maybe go to the Heineken museum. Though, in all honesty, if you get the chance, drink Hertog Jan, Grolsch, Amstel etc instead. xD

55 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Would prefer full frame as all my glass is full frame (assuming they either keep the F mount or have some smart adaptor). 
The A6500 pretty much has APS-C nailed from my point of view, and a focal reducer enables all my full frame glass for MF, so a Nikon version would not add much.

APS-C would allow easy adaptation of DX lenses as well and stuff like the Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be native to it as well. Like you said, a focal reducer in between and you're set to still get fullframe coverage out of your F-mount lenses. Like, I don't want to waste a fullframe sensor and only use a S35 crop out of it... in meanwhile paying the premium. I don't mind rigging up my camera with cage, rods, follow focus, etc and throw it on some sticks with one of the 'Bourne' lenses on there, I've got the Nikkor ED 17-35, 28-70 & 80-200mm f/2.8 D lenses, but they are big 'n bulky and I'm speedboosting those now anyways. Seriously needs the appropriate occassion to throw 'em on.

For me it's just about the up from 4/3" sensor performance to APS-C, which gets you quite a bit better dynamic range, lowlight high-ISO performance and richer colors. I notice the lack of performance from the somewhat tiny 4/3" sensor, but APS-C I'd be more than happy with. For me, no need for fullframe, but it's nice to have a option to use a focal reducer. And otherwise I just love compact mirrorless cameras with sensor stabilization that also have compact lenses. A 35mm f/1.8 DX lens goes a long way. If they bring a smart adapter, they can immediately benefit from a native line-up to the sensor size. Sony hasn't been developping any consumer level APS-C lenses for like 3 years now (they've only released a few big 'n expensive cine/ENG-style zooms), it's like the entry level to get into their fullframe system... but for the people without the fullframe money quite yet. They're seducted to buy the tiny A6x00 camera and throw on fullframe lenses they can later throw on their A7-line-up camera. For me it would be nice if Nikon would develop an even more compact (than DX) mirrorless APS-C line-up (after all flange distance is shorter)... like Canon is doing with EOS-M. Actually, they might just ask Samsung if they can copy their line-up. That 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S lens and those primes look like the exact sorta thing you want in your mirrorless APS-C line-up! Of course, they could pull a Sony and do just that. An APS-C camera for the fullframe wannabees and a fullframe one/fullframe ones that they'd really be pushing. Just... to me, it makes more sense to make a D5600 mirrorless than it is a D810. But maybe that's just me.

[mercer]

@Cinegain I agree with a lot of your post. A mirrorless D5500, even in the DSLR form factor would be what I would ask for... I would just keep the same mount... Nikon has too rich of a lens history to start a new collection. It didn't work with the J1 or V1 or whatever that was, so why invest in one now when they already have some of the best lenses ever made available in the F mount. And personally, for me, after using so many different cameras over the past couple of years, I am just tired of big, clunky adapters. I'd rather have a native mount. Apparently Canon is planning the same thing with their rumored FF mirrorless and if the rumors are true, it will be an EF mount camera. 

[Cinegain]

Problem with keeping the mount on an APS-C body is that there'd be no room for a focal reducer anymore... so I certainly would hope not, but I can imagine that could be the case... we'll see, for now the rumors mention fullframe, nothing APS-C I believe... of course, then theres other rumors about Fujifilm releasing something video centered... guess wait 'n watch it unfold is the key here. In meanwhile I'm still keeping an eye out for a good deal on a GH5+12-35mm f/2.8 II kit or E-M1 Mark II perhaps. Though, no rush, GX80/G80 are serving their purpose well as a welcome change to the GH4. And I might even need to follow your approach; slowly sell off all the stuff I have lying around to make that future leap to something APS-C, whatever that will turn out to be.