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

[mercer]

41 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

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.

That's true about the focal reducer. They'll probably do a FF as you said and then a super 35mm crop like they did with D750... that way they have a better chance to pull professionals toward their mirrorless line. 

Honestly, I'm unsure what I want to do for a second cam. I was messing around with D5500 files and GX85 files today and neither impressed me compared to the 5D3 stuff I've been shooting. It's tough going back. Or I'm used to Canon color. I don't know. Maybe I'll just get a point & shoot.

Of course, I can't deny the appeal of the GH5, but I'm also not excited by it either. The footage looks pretty good, but I like the footage I've seen from the X-T20 and the 5D4 and the 1DC better, but none of them have the features of the GH5.

The answer is probably simple and I am content with what I have, but it would be nice to have a grab and go camera... well I've never tested an LX100... LOL. 

[BasiliskFilm]

22 hours ago, Cinegain said:

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.

Unless Nikon produces a focal reducer you are going MF adapted lenses so there is no advantage to having a Nikon body. My dilemma is Nikon full frame lenses and no decent AF adaptors to mirrorless, certainly none with focal reducers. So that is why a full frame Nikon mirrorless with native-performance AF, however achieved, would be interesting. If it is a 42 MP sensor, then you could presumably get the best of crop performance at S35/APS-C, like the A7RII.
Nikon might prioritise ergonomics/ease of use over miniaturisation, which is, to my mind, one of Sony's problems (overheating, fiddly controls and menus etc)

 

[noone]

20 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Unless Nikon produces a focal reducer you are going MF adapted lenses so there is no advantage to having a Nikon body. My dilemma is Nikon full frame lenses and no decent AF adaptors to mirrorless, certainly none with focal reducers. So that is why a full frame Nikon mirrorless with native-performance AF, however achieved, would be interesting. If it is a 42 MP sensor, then you could presumably get the best of crop performance at S35/APS-C, like the A7RII.
Nikon might prioritise ergonomics/ease of use over miniaturisation, which is, to my mind, one of Sony's problems (overheating, fiddly controls and menus etc)

 

I think a large part of the issue for Nikon lenses isn't that there are no (well one maybe to a degree) AF adapters for other make lenses, it is they would need an adapter to get the latest NIKON lenses to work on many even current Nikon cameras!    

You can not even focus the latest Nikon AF-P lenses on even some current NiKON cameras let alone on anything else!

Nikons flange distance is going to be their biggest decision in going mirrorless.      Keep the current set-up and that limits adapting others ON Nikon cameras (and isn't helped by their hodge podge of different options using the F mount)..       Bring it back to the likes of other mirrorless systems and they will need an adapter or more likely several different ones to be able to use their different technologies (AI/AF/AF-P/G whatever).

[SMGJohn]

According to DXO Mark the Sony A9 has almost a stop worse dynamic range than the NX500, LOL.

It seems to me most people seem more interested in just eyeballing one side of the statistic, while NX500 may have better dynamic range at lower ISO, it has worse ISO performance compared to Nikon. 
If you take into consideration all 3 of the stats then yes, and funny enough sensor technology has not really improved much lately as it had for example 5 years ago. 
If you look at all the recent cameras, none of them really stand out much, I mean the statistically the Sony A7R II is much better camera than the A9, its got twice the pixels, yet rate similar to the A9 in low light ISO performance, has superior dynamic range, has amazing colour rating as you would expect of a high megapixel camera. 

I think Andrews underlying core issue with Nikon and probably all other Japanese camera manufacturer, no innovation lately, none at all. 
Its come to a point were milking their own customers is far more important than making something new and brilliant. 
Samsung made a bold move, they may not have sold lots of cameras as they had hoped for, but they sure went down in the history books and will be remembered as that one anomaly super camera that did it all, the perfect mirrorless that did great photos and great videos. 
Maybe it did not do amazing photos or amazing videos, but you just cannot have it all after all it was only 1300 dollars, and Sony asks 3200 dollars for a camera that has questionable design elements to it.

[Marco Tecno]

While (IMHO) the NX1 is still the best hybrid APS-C camera on the market, for several reasons, Nikon is trying hard to push the envelope and if they release a new mirrorless high end product within a couple of years from now, they could finally be the ones matching my beloved NX1.

 

That said, it's so sad Samsung decided to quit. A next gen NX1 (which in 2014 was at least 3-4 years ahead of its times) could have seriously crushed the competitors.

 

p.s.: for a real comparison at high ISO among NX1/500 and other cameras, try shooting at ISO 100 and then pull the shadows, even by several stops. NX1 is incredible at this, better than Nikon, Sony and MUCH better than Canon.

[BTM_Pix]

I think its an interesting standoff with Canon and Nikon regarding releasing a full frame or at least pro level APS-C mirrorless.

Both of them have got a user base at that level that they can't afford to view as early adopters who'll accept some quirks and work round issues. People will just want to unmount their current DSLR, put the new mirrorless version on and carry on working. Seamlessly. They'll want to use them side by side with their DSLR as they transition and not have to think twice about which one they're using and make accommodations for it. There won't be any acceptance of a difference in performance whatsoever. The only difference they'll want to notice is the reduced weight and maintenance costs!

So they both have to get it exactly right first time.

I was getting pissed off with the Fuji on yesterday's job and as much as I want it to work - and can get it to work - the fact is that the Nikon was just easier to use and was outperforming it.

Even with all the power saving options switched off, it has a little nap if you leave it untouched for a minute so you pull it up to grab a shot and there is nothing in the viewfinder or it has a tiny delay when you engage the AF ON. Its a quirk that I'm working around because I'm an early (for which read practically the only) adopter for sport's use but the joke's wearing thin with it and truth be told I or no one else will accept that in a replacement Nikon mirrorless. Nor would I be happy with the way it chews through batteries when you have to leave it in this high power mode. And the AF, whilst very good, doesn't give me that same confidence that Nikon does and I find I'm having to fine tune it a lot to get the tracking working for example.

What worries me for Nikon is that Fuji only do mirrorless and only have to work with a very limited - and recent - range of lenses and they still can't get it right enough so can I expect Nikon to get it right first time?

Its a lot to ask really.

Of the two, I'd say that Canon have more chance of pulling off that trick than Nikon do.

Again, that puts even more pressure on Nikon to get it absolutely spot on otherwise Canon - who I fully expect have got a mirrorless 1DX just sat there waiting -  will crush them.

For now, I think both of them are content to let Sony have a go with the A9 and use them to introduce pro mirrorless cameras to see what the appetite for them is, safe in the knowledge that, without the right glass, they're on a hiding to nothing. I'm boring myself over the A9 and lenses now but without them Sony don't threaten Canon and Nikon's dominance, they actually just cement it.

If I was Nikon, I'd be looking at making a mirrorless version of the D500 as my first port of call.

Its a sweet spot for a lot of markets, particularly if they give some attention to the video.

For pros, the extra reach makes it a good choice to start the transition to mirrorless as it offers something different and as a B cam effectively they might be forgiven a couple of minor teething issues whereas that just won't happen if its going to be the D5 replacement.

[jonpais]

22 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think its an interesting standoff with Canon and Nikon regarding releasing a full frame or at least pro level APS-C mirrorless.

Both of them have got a user base at that level that they can't afford to view as early adopters who'll accept some quirks and work round issues. People will just want to unmount their current DSLR, put the new mirrorless version on and carry on working. Seamlessly. They'll want to use them side by side with their DSLR as they transition and not have to think twice about which one they're using and make accommodations for it. There won't be any acceptance of a difference in performance whatsoever. The only difference they'll want to notice is the reduced weight and maintenance costs!

So they both have to get it exactly right first time.

I was getting pissed off with the Fuji on yesterday's job and as much as I want it to work - and can get it to work - the fact is that the Nikon was just easier to use and was outperforming it.

I forgot I owned the Fuji X-T2 till I read your post.

[TwoScoops]

You can get the D750 now in the UK for under 1000 on ebay. I think it's quite a bargain at that price, probably as good as the 5D4 (for stills) to most eyes.

[ND64]

21 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

What worries me for Nikon is that Fuji only do mirrorless and only have to work with a very limited - and recent - range of lenses and they still can't get it right enough so can I expect Nikon to get it right first time?

Its a lot to ask really.

At this point introducing a new mount is stupid business wise. Nikon announced only 4 new lenses this year and rumored to release another one before Christmas. So only 5 in a year. While its not a bad record at all, this capacity is far from adequate for supporting a completely new system. Unless they manage to make a perfect adapter. But even a perfect adapter can't solve the problem DSLR lenses have: their AF mechanism is not designed for CDAF. 

[Eno]

I don't think Nikon is struggling with their sensors, just DXO mark is very unreliable!

For example, any sample image you compare between the 1Dx mk2 and the D5, the D5 starts with 1/3 advantage in noise at medium ISO values and improves with almost one stop at very high high ISO. If you do an average between those values the D5 is around half a better in noise department compared with the Canon, but DXO scores the low light performance of the D5 with almost 1/3 stops worst than the Canon (that's more than 2/3 stops worst than the camera really is). So are Nikon sensors bad, or just DXO measurements poorly made?

The same thing appliers to the Nikon D500 sensor, Panasonic GH5 and a couple of other cameras that are underrated by DXO. Wen directly confronted them about the flawed I got a permanent ban on their site from the computer I was writing the observations (very curios).

 

 

[IronFilm]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:33 PM, TwoScoops said:

You can get the D750 now in the UK for under 1000 on ebay. I think it's quite a bargain at that price, probably as good as the 5D4 (for stills) to most eyes.

Yup, the low prices which both the D750 and D500 are reaching are unbearably tempting me....

[MdB]

On 18/07/2017 at 5:26 PM, Eno said:

I don't think Nikon is struggling with their sensors, just DXO mark is very unreliable!

For example, any sample image you compare between the 1Dx mk2 and the D5, the D5 starts with 1/3 advantage in noise at medium ISO values and improves with almost one stop at very high high ISO. If you do an average between those values the D5 is around half a better in noise department compared with the Canon, but DXO scores the low light performance of the D5 with almost 1/3 stops worst than the Canon (that's more than 2/3 stops worst than the camera really is). So are Nikon sensors bad, or just DXO measurements poorly made?

The same thing appliers to the Nikon D500 sensor, Panasonic GH5 and a couple of other cameras that are underrated by DXO. Wen directly confronted them about the flawed I got a permanent ban on their site from the computer I was writing the observations (very curios).

 

 

This just goes to prove that so few people understand DXO scores and measurements and therefore go and complain about it. 

Your ignorance is not other people’s problem. I know you think the GH5 should get top billing on everything, but not understanding the number or how they are presented doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes you look desperate. 

On 14/07/2017 at 6:51 PM, Andrew Reid said:

It's a comparison, that luckily for Nikon, none of their customers are making.

Read the full article

I don’t know Andrew, after this article do you really want to be making claims now about Nikon’s abilities using DXO as your methodology? 

http://www.eoshd.com/2017/01/opinion-dxomarks-camera-scoring-makes-zero-sense/

Either be a non believer or a believer, but don’t just do it to suit your needs of the day.

[tupp]

37 minutes ago, MdB said:

This just goes to prove that so few people understand DXO scores and measurements and therefore go and complain about it. 

Your ignorance is not other people’s problem. I know you think the GH5 should get top billing on everything, but not understanding the number or how they are presented doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes you look desperate. 

Ouch!

 

... and yet, DxOMark gives color depth scores in "bits" (bit depth?), implying a fundamental misunderstanding of digital color depth.  Their explanation of their color depth metric is somewhat vague and based on a dubious characteristic, which they term as "color sensitivity."

 

There is a mathematical formula for absolute color depth of a digital system.  A fairly accurate figure can also be given to represent the absolute number of shades above the noise floor (effective bit depth -- not color depth).  Don't know why DxOMark doesn't use these basic metrics.

[Ilkka Nissila]

If you look more closely at DXOMark measurements (the graphs) the D5 has better dynamic range from about 3200 to 51200 than the 1DX II. Which is more important (low ISO or high ISO dynamic range), can be argued depending on the application. Typical sports shooters are shooting publication ready jpgs in the camera which mean their dynamic range is limited at that point in practice even if they once in a blue moon get the chance to use low ISO.

Furthermore the tonal range (number of tones that can be separated from each other and noise) and color sensitivity (number of color values that can be distinguished from each other and noise) are greater in the D5 across the 100-25600 range than in the 1DX Mark II. For me these are very important measures of the smoothness of tones and colour gradations especially if the contrast is increased in post they determine how well the image's tonal and colour integrity hold up. To decide on which sensor is best for a given application, one needs to look at the shooting conditions and what kind of post-processing / look is preferred for the final image.

The D5 isn't the ideal camera to shoot in direct sunlight due to its lower base ISO dynamic range; that much is clear. On the other hand, the 35mm full frame camera which has the best base ISO dynamic range is also made by Nikon: the D810. So they have solutions for this situation also, just in a different camera.

The D500/D7500 sensor allows fast reads for high fps use, which the D7200's sensor (which scores better on dxomark for low ISO metrics) is apparently not well equipped to do. However, many users of the D500 report that they find the high ISO image quality to be better in the D500 than in the D7200 and the color neutrality is held across a greater range of ISO settings than in previous cameras. This is also true of the D5. So there are characteristics of the new sensors which are missed by dxo's overall scoring (which is mostly based on low ISO performance and ignores large parts of the elevated ISO measurements) but appreciated by photographers who use these cameras. In dxomark's graphs, the D7500 has better dynamic range than the NX500 at every ISO setting but the difference is pronounced from ISO 400 to 25600. DXO weight their overall score heavily on base ISO results which is usually not what people are using in practice unless they work in the studio or are tripod based landscape photographers. I think there is useful information in DXOMark data but you have to go into the graphs in the Measurements tab to access it.

I think the cropped 4K (which is the same actual pixels crop as is used in Canon's 4K capable DSLRs) is used because it requires less processing and produces less heat than doing a full sensor read and resampling the images to 4K. I don't think it's a question of who makes the sensor so much. If they wanted to they could make a full frame 4K camera but it would cost more and most Nikon users are focused on still photography and only need some video capability on the side for occasional use.

I realize you are interested primarily in video and would like Nikon to do better in that area. I am sure this sentiment is shared by many, however, Nikon's history is in still photography and they remain primarily focused on that. Users who have greater priority needs in video tend to congregate to other brands. Since Nikon is working on a full frame mirrorless camera I would expect that they will implement some form of phase-detect focus sensors in the main image sensors and at that point there will probably be more interest in using Nikons for video. But at present it seems that all the optimization that Nikon do is to get the best still image quality possible for the applications expected for each particular camera.

[Ilkka Nissila]

20 hours ago, tupp said:

Ouch!

... and yet, DxOMark gives color depth scores in "bits" (bit depth?), implying a fundamental misunderstanding of digital color depth.  Their explanation of their color depth metric is somewhat vague and based on a dubious characteristic, which they term as "color sensitivity."

There is a mathematical formula for absolute color depth of a digital system.  A fairly accurate figure can also be given to represent the absolute number of shades above the noise floor (effective bit depth -- not color depth).  Don't know why DxOMark doesn't use these basic metrics.

Noise depends on the luminosity or number of photons detected; it is not constant but increases approximately proportionally to the square root of the signal (the luminosity or photon count). The number of distinct tonal or colour values (that can be distinguished from noise) can be calculated if the SNR is known as a function of luminosity or RGB values. From this graphs it is possible to calculate how much tonal or colour information there is in the image which is what DXOMark is estimating. You cannot estimate how many colours or tones are separable from noise by assuming that there is a fixed "noise floor". In my opinion the DXOMark analysis here is sound.

 

Color depth is just the number of bits that are used to encode the colour values of the pixel. It doesn't consider noise.

[PannySVHS]

 

It is a great pleasure to read Andrews latest articles. They are awesome, informative, entertaining and beautiful reads, awesome trademark quality content.

This article I do not agree with, regarding its premise.

From 3200 ISO on D5 and D500 sensors are among best in their classes, trumping Canon and Samsung cameras.

DXO numbers show minor differences. DXO numbers have always been taken with a grain of salt from a lot of people on this forum.

So why would they matter now regarding the small differences they are showing between NX500 and D500?

Andrew is still right on the awesome performance and value of the NX500 and its competitive image quality even compared with the newest APS C cameras

from Nikon.

 

[tupp]

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Noise depends on the luminosity or number of photons detected; it is not constant but increases approximately proportionally to the square root of the signal (the luminosity or photon count).

Don't confuse "photon shot noise" with the noise generated by a digital (or analog) system.  This type of noise is the random photons that strike the film, sensor, video tube, retina, etc.  Since photon shot noise is something that applies equally to almost any type of imaging system using electromagnetic waves yet is not inherent in any of these systems, this type of noise is irrelevant to a discussion on the noise produced by a camera, sensor or digital system.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

The number of distinct tonal or colour values (that can be distinguished from noise) can be calculated if the SNR is known as a function of luminosity or RGB values.

SNR in imaging is not based on RGB values, and it is a metric that is used in analog imaging systems that might not even have RGB values.  SNR is essentially the ratio of a signal's amplitude to it's noise level, and SNR is usually expressed in decibels.  Dynamic range is a similar metric that also applies to both analog (some without RGB values) and digital systems.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

From this graphs it is possible to calculate how much tonal or colour information there is in the image which is what DXOMark is estimating.

Not sure how that would work.  Sounds a bit shaky.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

You cannot estimate how many colours or tones are separable from noise by assuming that there is a fixed "noise floor".

Yes.  You can.  The noise floor within an imgaging system can usually be determined fairly easily,  Just look at any proper dynamic range chart/test.

 

Keep in mind that the increase in photon shot noise with greater exposure is not inherent in the imaging system itself.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Color depth is just the number of bits that are used to encode the colour values of the pixel.

No.  You are describing bit depth, which is not color depth.

 

Color depth in digital systems is simply the resolution multiplied by the bit depth to the power of the number of color channels, so for an RGB digital system, the formula is: 

COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH x RESOLUTION)³

 

Also, keep in mind that we can have great color depth without any bit depth, as in analog imaging.

 

In addition, because resolution is a fundamental factor of color depth, we can have great color depth in digital imaging systems that have a bit depth of "1," as in digital screen printing.

 

 

15 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Color depth [snip] It doesn't consider noise.

Agreed.  We don't usually separate the noise from the color depth of a system -- even the noise has color depth.

[Mattias Burling]

I think Nikons biggest issue right now is having to recall the D750 for the third time... ouch.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I think Nikons biggest issue right now is having to recall the D750 for the third time... ouch.

Welll.... that is one way to misinterpret it and put a massive negative spin on the situation! 

All they're doing is further expanding the range of D750 that they're accepting back.
That is *not* the same as a recalling it for the 3rd time.

This is extremely generous of Nikon!
If only other manufacturers could have as good customer service as Nikon has..... do we ever hear about Sony offering a recall for the overheating a6300? (just to pick out one Sony camera, but really, it could apply to ***ALL*** Sony cameras! They've all had some issues or another with them)

Clearly Nikon is being a good corporate citizen here, is head and shoulders above the others. Yet people repay Nikon by ripping into it? Sad. 

The Nikon D750 still stands strong as arguably the best choice DSLR for stills in its niche (i.e. the $1.5Kish all rounder FF DSLR).

[Mattias Burling]

The camera is great for sure. Quality control of the shutter, not so much.