# Samsung NX1 - FF level quality in an APS-C?? Imaging Resource samples...



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

So...I was browsing around imaging resource, checking out the NX1 preview. I started comparing the sample images with the 7D II. I was blown away by the quality of the NX1 up through ISO 6400, and even 12800 for that matter. You can clearly tell the 7D II is noisier. So, I decided to compare with the 5D III.


All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!!  I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.


NX1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx1/FULLRES/NX1hSLI06400NR2D.HTM


7DII: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/FULLRES/E7D2hSLI06400NR2D.HTM


5DIII: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/FULLRES/E5D3hSLI006400NR2D.HTM


The NX1 has more megapixels than even the 5D III, and the noise is just about as clean. The NX1 definitely has lower chroma noise. The links above are NON-normalized...I intend to normalize once I get home, and once normalized, I expect the NX1 may even TOP (!!) the 5D III for ISO6400 IQ. Now that would be a thing of wonder...an APS-C with BETTER IQ than an FF?? Noo! Say it ain't so!  


The 5D III does seem sharper...not sure why. It almost seems as though the lens is not fully focused with the NX1...but, that kind of seems to be par for the course for IR. I've never felt they get the best example images. 


Another source of examples, although not comparisons, is Luminous Landscapes review of the NX1:


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/samsung_nx1_first_impressions.shtml


The bookshelf examples near the bottom are just mindblowing. The IQ up through ISO 6400 is just amazing. It starts to fall apart after that, but still...I am extremely impressed by the IQ from this BSI ISOCELL sensor at ISO 6400. 


I think Sony has a real competitor. Samsung is another electronics powerhouse...I am very curious to see how they do in the marketplace. I love that they have produced a DSLR-style mirrorless body, instead of some micro-cramped body like the Sony A7 series. I think it is much more along the lines of what I have been looking for, and in comparison to the 7D II...it seems the NX1 tops it in just about every category except lens selection (and, if the adapters work well, that may not even be an issue...and certainly won't be an issue for terribly long, as Samsung is already working on some nice big white supertelephoto lenses.)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

Based on currently available information I also find Samsung NX1 and its sensor very interesting ... but I think, 
we should still exercise some caution regarding Hi-ISO images of well-lit studio test scenes [including the LL bookshelf] 

in real life, when I turn to Hi-ISO settings it is usually in "light limited" conditions. IQ then is quite different and images (on all cameras) turn out much noisier, even when correctly exposed, and even worse, when underexposed. I'd definitely like to see more real-life use in low light/adverse lighting conditions [red stage lights etc.] before coming to a conclusion whether it really matches or beats 5D III IQ at ISO 3200 and 6400.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 26, 2014)

Edited: The NX1 looks very good overall. Just the color is duller.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Low noise for sure, but doesn't the NX1 image look like it has more artifacts when viewed up close? Also, the color is duller overall.




They all have noise artifacts. The nature of them changes between cameras, but I am not too concerned about that. The A7r had it's unique noise characteristics as well, as does the D800. I also suspect that once normalized, much of those unique characteristics would just fold away as they are averaged out.


I also just noticed that those are all NR2 (default NR) images. I don't think there are any no-NR versions for the NX1 yet, although there are for the 5D III. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the noise characteristics we're seeing are the result of in-camera NR, which I am personally entirely uninterested in (especially with a tool like PixInsight at my disposal...I have multiple multi-scale, wavelet, and contrast-directed noise reduction tools that should make short work of the clean, low color noise kind of noise characteristic of the NX1.)


As for color, color is a matter of processing. Of all the cameras I've used this year, Canon cameras at higher ISO have some of the most difficult color to control, because the color noise is so high. The color noise is very low on the NX1, so I honestly do not believe that improving color would be a problem.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D III does seem sharper...not sure why. It almost seems as though the lens is not fully focused with the NX1...but, that kind of seems to be par for the course for IR. I've never felt they get the best example images.



Seems like the NX1 is using a more aggresive NR setting for the JPGs.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Edited: The NX1 looks very good overall. Just the color is duller.



I agree. Especially reds.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Based on currently available information I also find Samsung NX1 and its sensor very interesting ... but I think,
> we should still exercise some caution regarding Hi-ISO images of well-lit studio test scenes [including the LL bookshelf]
> 
> in real life, when I turn to Hi-ISO settings it is usually in "light limited" conditions. IQ then is quite different and images (on all cameras) turn out much noisier, even when correctly exposed, and even worse, when underexposed. I'd definitely like to see more real-life use in low light/adverse lighting conditions before coming to a conclusion whether it really matches or beats 5D III IQ at ISO 3200 and 6400.




This is true...however better data is better data. I keep saying that...I don't know if people understand what I mean. That comes from constantly digging ultra-deep into the levels of shadow that most people never even consider when I do my astrophotography. The NX1 clearly has very, very clean data up through ISO 6400. That isn't surprising, given the technology employed in the sensor. So, if it looks this good in good light levels (I mean, it looks better than the 7D II up through ISO 12800), it should still do better in more challenging light levels. The noise is very, very clean...very low color noise, even tonal gradients without funky color shifts and stuff like that. The noise is lower at a higher frequency level as well, so on a normalized basis, it should be EVEN BETTER. That is so much easier to deal with once you start processing the data and pushing it around. The limits of processability should be higher with the NX1 in more challenging situations than with the 7D II. 


I really want to see some raw statistics generated for the NX1. I am very curious to know what it's SNR and DR are at higher ISO. I think this could be a phenomenal camera for astrophotography (with the one major caveat that there really isn't any control software out there that will work with it...most of it is for Canon, some of the newer stuff supports Nikon now, as Nikon is starting to take the lower end astrophotography world by storm.)


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Edited: The NX1 looks very good overall. Just the color is duller.
> ...




There is lower contrast in some of the reds, I noticed that on the fabrics. Hopefully IR will have RAW images up soon...I'd like to know if that can be corrected in post. I also wonder if it is due to the NR...


----------



## tolusina (Nov 26, 2014)

@jrista
Have you done the arithmetic yet to estimate FF and MF mega pixels with NX1 pixel density?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 26, 2014)

These observations about the NX1, particularly about the sensor, coming from *jrista* got my attention. The fact that *jrista* is impressed, impresses me too.

Just curious *jrista*... what are your thoughts on the Pentax K-3? If I was going to buy into another system, the K-3 is what I've been interested in due to its superior build, ruggedness, true weather sealing and interesting feature set.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D III does seem sharper...not sure why. It almost seems as though the lens is not fully focused with the NX1...but, that kind of seems to be par for the course for IR. I've never felt they get the best example images.
> ...



yes, but only slightly more [@ ISO 6400] ... to my eye, on my monitor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 26, 2014)

BSI tech will eventually get incorporated into all sensors just like microlenses did. The NX1 is the first step and everyone else will follow.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!!  I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.



I also find Samsung's entry into higher end ML to be quite interesting and might consider one myself, especially if there's a nice post-intro price drop next year.

Did you read the link in the post I made a while back?

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8958f61376cc00ed7968518a7299d155&topic=23052.0

it mentioned a bit about the hardware tech inside the camera, an aspect of which I think that you, given your vocation, might find extra appealing. 


I returned my 7D2, mine had some serious initial AF lag issues which may well be improved in a firmware update but for now, ALL of my ML bodies and comparably long lenses can AF faster than the 7D2 I tried with its initial firmware. EDIT: that's with the long lens I tested it with, the venerable, original, 100-400mm L.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

tolusina said:


> @jrista
> Have you done the arithmetic yet to estimate FF and MF mega pixels with NX1 pixel density?




I haven't really done any analysis yet. When I get home, I'm going to poke around with the images in PixInsight. It's got some powerful statistics tools and whatnot, and I can run the math on various things. I really want to see normalized results. 


A FF camera with this sensor technology and this pixel size would be...phenomenal, IMO.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> I really want to see some raw statistics generated for the NX1. I am very curious to know what it's SNR and DR are at higher ISO. I think this could be a phenomenal camera for astrophotography (with the one major caveat that there really isn't any control software out there that will work with it...most of it is for Canon, some of the newer stuff supports Nikon now, as Nikon is starting to take the lower end astrophotography world by storm.)



In that context a little detail - the NX1 relies much less then most other cameras on application specific hardware, it's more in line with Samsungs other consumer electronics products, quite programmable and general purpose. Remember the part of the presentation where they talk about what you can do with lots of full res frames, and how the camera being designed to be extendable. Basically the interviewer asked about why only jump/ball detection, with the answer going along the lines of "just load an app, no big deal".
There shouldn't be a fundamental problem in doing ML-like stuff with that camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2014)

I had heard that, and checked some online comparisons, and it was nowhere near a FF camera, at least at higher ISO levels.

I saw the NX1 at ISO 3200 being about the same as the 5D MK III at ISO 12800, not quite, but close when I view the dark red cloth detail.

I think that different people, me included, see somewhat what they want to see.

Three crops below.

[email protected] 12800

[email protected] 3200

[email protected] 6400


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 26, 2014)

tolusina said:


> @jrista
> Have you done the arithmetic yet to estimate FF and MF mega pixels with NX1 pixel density?



It would correspond to a 63MP FF sensor.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had heard that, and checked some online comparisons, and it was nowhere near a FF camera, at least at higher ISO levels.
> 
> I saw the NX1 at ISO 3200 being about the same as the 5D MK III at ISO 12800, not quite, but close when I view the dark red cloth detail.
> 
> ...




You are comparing non-normalized images here. Aside from the muddying of the red (which I believe is NR), I think the NX1 DOES have about the same noise as the 5D III. On a non-normalized basis, you are comparing a frequency of noise that is smaller than the 5D III (because the NX1 has significantly smaller pixels.) You have to downsample to the same size to compare appropriately. Do that, then tell me if you don't think that ISO 6400 on the NX1 is about the same as ISO 6400 on the 5D III. I am not sure about ISO 12800...that does seem to be where the NX1 starts to fall apart, while the 5D III still largely holds it together. But at ISO 6400, I think the two cameras have very similar IQ. The NX1 certainly does better than the 7D II, even if it doesn't actually match or top the 5D III....it's getting very close.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!!  I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.
> ...




I hadn't read that yet, but yeah. Incredibly impressive technology. Programmable hardware...as hardware? I've never heard of anything like that in a consumer product. That's incredible! Bringing apps to cameras in a way that is actually meaningful to cameras...that kicks ass. 


Yeah, I think Samsung has a solid winner here. All they need to do now, now that they have some seriously competitive sensor and ISP technology, is to build out the ecosystem...lenses and customer support. I hope they do that properly.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 26, 2014)

With regard to lenses - Samsung could simply build a solid adapter/converter to use other lenses. Make the AF, etc work flawlessly. Even if they had to work out an agreement with the Canon, Nikon, etc it would be worth it to have an instant and excellent lens arsenal that many would already own. Canon, et al. would still sell a ton of lenses and I some folks would probably buy their DSLRs too. Sort of like people buying iPhones and iPads and then later buying Macs because they think they can use an Apple computer to go with the already purchased Apple devices.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Another review, this time from the video side:


http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/samsung-nx1-review-glory-technology/#prettyPhoto


Sounds like the 4k video in the NX1 is really good. Between the IQ, the nice DSLR-style body and ergos in a mirrorless design, and the hardware programmability...this is one hell of a camera. The programability, more so than the IQ even, is the real gamechanger.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Sounds like they're using an FPGA at some point in the pipeline.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

I might have to take a rain check on analyzing any of these images. It looks like it's going to be a clear night, and I get very few of those these days...whenever I do, I HAVE to do astrophotography (which is rather timeconsuming). Besides, I'd rather do some analysis on RAW images rather than processed JPEGs. If I find time later tonight, after getting my imaging sequences going, I'll try...otherwise, next time I have free time.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 27, 2014)

GraFax said:


> My 7D2 has zero focus lag with the 100-400L or any other lens I've tried it with. Yours, or your lens, may have had problems. I assume I'm using the same firmware. The 100-400L is not known for being a particularly fast focusing.


I expected it to be, at least, no worse than my 40D or 60D with that lens. That was not the case.
7d2 I had exhibited a definite and significant pause before driving the lens to focus and it hunted, and missed, far more than the 2 older bodies. 7d2 AF was very zippy with a few shorter zooms and lenses but that's not what I needed it for.
I only mentioned it in this thread because my Olympus EM10, a consumer-grade, CDAF-only mirrorless, with a 75-300mm lens that's even slower aperture than the 100-400mm L, would confirm AF on the same target, in the same low light, before the 7d2 even started to drive the 100-400mm.
I think the 7d2 will perform very well for AF, but there seems to be some buggy ones out there (There's a thread on that topic here somewhere.) and I'm not about to hold onto another buggy camera, waiting for a fix.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 27, 2014)

GraFax said:


> That does sound odd. Maybe, as you say, you received a defective one. I've been shooting BIF's with the 100-400 no problem. Not in low light though. That may have been a factor.


Not sure but the lag I experienced was not unique to my experience alone.
Light level was decent enough that the ML bodies with slow long glass could outperform it handily. i was more impressed with my EM10 than disappointed with the 7d2 in the conditions I was testing.

I wanted to use the rig for BiF and similar types of shooting, where the 7d2 should really excel. I might try another 7d2 in the summer; hopefully they'll have attended to any early production glitches by then. I really liked the 7d-series handling and controls. Until then, I'll use my 60d with the 100-400 and my Oly with the 75-300mm when I'm packing light.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> So...I was browsing around imaging resource, checking out the NX1 preview. I started comparing the sample images with the 7D II. I was blown away by the quality of the NX1 up through ISO 6400, and even 12800 for that matter. You can clearly tell the 7D II is noisier. So, I decided to compare with the 5D III.



Really? I'm surprised you're impressed. 

These are JPEGs and the NX1 is obviously using more aggressive NR. NX1's ISO 6400, at this NR setting, looks a little like "water color" to me. The 7D II JPEG looks worse but that's because Canon's JPEG engine is...not ideal when it comes to preserving detail. I would take the 5D III JPEG any day, but I also would not shoot any of these cameras in JPEG.

I've downloaded, converted, and compared the 7D II and NX1 RAW files using ACR. At 6400 with zero NR the 7D II has a bit more color noise. With color NR set at 35 on both all the color noise is gone and it appears the NX1 has slightly more luminance noise. In the end it's too small to matter either way, a click on the NR slider changes the results, but both cameras benefit substantially from RAW+ACR. (From a detail perspective Sony has a great JPEG engine, too bad their AWB sucks.)



> The NX1 has more megapixels than even the 5D III, and the noise is just about as clean.



I doubt that's true in RAW. And the MP didn't seem to matter comparing to the 7D II. At base ISO after scaling the 7D II file up I couldn't find any additional detail in the NX1 file, and the 7D II was even a little sharper.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think the NX1 DOES have about the same noise as the 5D III.



Screenshot of 5D3 and NX1 at ISO 6400, converted in ACR with NO sharpening, LNR, or CNR. All other settings default, 5D3 scaled up to match NX1 pixel dimensions.

NX1 has more noise.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2014)

In case anyone is interested, here's the 7D2 and NX1, again with no sharpening or NR and the 7D2 scaled up. I would say the 7D2 here is a bit worse.


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

Hmm, I am not sure what your using to process, but you are getting radically different results than I am. This is from ACR in PSCC...I simply opened both ISO 6400 NR0 RAW files without any edits in ACR, downsampled the NX1 to the 7D II dimensions, and aligned the images as layers, then cropped the following area:









There appears to be visibly less noise in the NX1 image. The color also appears to be richer, less washed out. The differences in noise can be most clearly seen in the fiddler himself, in the glass of all the bottles, and in the black border and several swatches of the color checker card. The primary detractor that I notice with the NX1 image is the darn CA. 


To see if my feelings about the images were correct, I saved the cropped areas as 32-bit TIFF and ran both through PixInsight's statistics tool. I created previews around four areas for statistical testing, and propagated those previews to the other image (so exactly identical regions of each image were compared):








According to PixInsight, the noise on the black part of the Fiddlers Elbow bottle, just under the label, has a standard deviation of:


7DII: 0.048 (R), 0.048 (G), 0.051 (B)
NX1: 0.037 (R), 0.037 (G), 0.038 (B)


Statistically, the NX1 DOES have lower noise. I also checked the maximums:


7DII: 0.325 (R), 0.325 (G), 0.349 (B)
NX1: 0.278 (R), 0.294 (G), 0.302 (B)


The NX1 also has lower maximums, so the black glass there is indeed deeper and richer, with less noise. The preview on the right-hand bottle had the following standard deviation:


7DII: 0.087 (R), 0.061 (G), 0.042 (B)
NX1: 0.077 (R), 0.055 (G), 0.039 (B)


And on the left-hand bottle:


7DII: 0.046 (R), 0.042 (G), 0.039 (B)
NX1: 0.037 (R), 0.034 (G), 0.033 (B)


In every preview, the noise levels of the normalized NX1 image are lower, by a pretty decent margin (enough for the difference to be detected visually.) I also checked the noise levels in the preview around the red part of the fiddlers bottle label:


7DII: 0.067 (R), 0.045 (G), 0.050 (B)
NX1: 0.057 (R), 0.044 (G), 0.043 (B)


Not as much difference in the green and blue channels, big difference in the red channel. That explains the loss in color fidelity with the 7D II...again, more noise, higher standard deviation, so some of the pixels are reaching a brighter/lighter (and therefor, according to color theory, less saturated) "red" tone. 


It should also be noted, for maximum clarity here, that the 7D II is at a slight 'advantage.' I downsampled the NX1 image as a whole directly to the same image dimensions as the 7D II image. That did not, however, normalize the objects within the image. It can be clearly seen in my GIF that the NX1 objects are a little larger. This is probably the result of a framing discrepancy. Technically speaking, for a properly normalized test, I should make the objects the same size. If I did so, that would be downsampling the NX1 image even more, thus reducing it's noise even more in comparison to the 7D II.


It should also be noted that I could not find an actual 5D III raw file for download from IR. I looked around, and I could be missing it...but all I could find was a JPEG converted from RAW. That appeared to have considerable color noise in it, so I opted not to even bother using that in this comparison, as newer versions of LR seem to handle Canon noise a lot better than in the past.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Hmm, I am not sure what your using to process, but you are getting radically different results than I am.



Since there's only one ACR update that can process RAWs from either camera, it's pretty obvious what I'm using 



> This is from ACR in PSCC...I simply opened both ISO 6400 NR0 RAW files without any edits in ACR, downsampled the NX1 to the 7D II dimensions, and aligned the images as layers, then cropped the following area:



I turned off sharpening, LNR, and CNR, and then scaled up, just like I said. I want to see what comes off the sensor. And I didn't want anyone replying that I made the 7D II look better by scaling the NX1 down to its dimensions.

Your results are not "radically" different from my 7D2vNX1 screenshot. Are you confusing that with the 5D3vNX1 screenshot?



> There appears to be visibly less noise in the NX1 image. The color also appears to be richer, less washed out.



The NX1 appears darker in both our samples. Not sure why. That affects perception of noise and color, even more so at a smaller scale, and would affect any statistical analysis. That said, I would give the edge to the NX1 by a hair, but not enough to matter when using NR and other settings in ACR and PS.

More to the point, the NX1 is not equivalent to the 5D3, and the difference there matters.



> To see if my feelings about the images were correct, I saved the cropped areas as 32-bit TIFF and ran both through PixInsight's statistics tool.



You're splitting hairs. No one would ever know the difference in a processed print. The NX1 has the expected IQ for a modern crop sensor, but it does not leap ahead of anyone else. In fairness, neither does the 7D2, though I think it does gain a little on the 70D to put it on par with the competition in terms of high ISO.

I would have expected BSI to result in more of a gain based on its impact on smaller sensors, but perhaps Samsung isn't quite on par in some other respect like micro lenses.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> It should also be noted that I could not find an actual 5D III raw file for download from IR. I looked around, and I could be missing it...but all I could find was a JPEG converted from RAW.



5D3 review, samples, thumbnails, scroll way down for this scene in ISO 6400.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/E5D3hSLI006400NR0.CR2.HTM


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2014)

could the difference in findings be caused due to dtaylor *upsampling* the 7D II pic, whereas jrista *downsamples* the NX1 pic?


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!!  I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.
> 
> ...an APS-C with BETTER IQ than an FF?? Noo! Say it ain't so!
> 
> I think Sony has a real competitor. Samsung is another electronics powerhouse...I am very curious to see how they do in the marketplace. *I love that they have produced a DSLR-style mirrorless body*, instead of some micro-cramped body like the Sony A7 series. I think it is much more along the lines of what I have been looking for, and in comparison to the 7D II...it seems the NX1 tops it in just about every category except lens selection (and, if the adapters work well, that may not even be an issue...and certainly won't be an issue for terribly long, as Samsung is already working on some nice big white supertelephoto lenses.)



Are you the same *jrista* who so vehemently crossed swords with me a few months ago?


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> According to PixInsight, the noise on the black part of the Fiddlers Elbow bottle, just under the label, has a standard deviation of:
> 
> 
> 7DII: 0.048 (R), 0.048 (G), 0.051 (B)
> ...



Are we sure that Samsung isn't cooking the RAW images—either with a denoise algorithm or by exposing to the right and then scaling the values?


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > All I can say is...WOW. I'm hooked on the NX1!!  I think it may be my new high speed birding camera some time next year, assuming the lenses pan out. I think I'd get this before I got an A7r even...as I am well and truly impressed.
> ...




I'm not sure I remember ever "vehemently" crossing swords with you. I think I remember some inane debate over batteries...honestly not sure how the conversation ended up there. But batteries is beside the point. (I also remember you being exceptionally obscure in a lot of your posts...I think people were...befuddled a bit, by a lot of your replies in some of the mirrorless vs. DSLR debates that have occurred in the past. If anyone was "vehement" with you...I'd say it was Neuro...)


Specifically regarding the statement you bolded, I quote myself, from "months ago":




jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...




If you are claiming I disagreed vehemently with you on the notion that mirrorless cameras in DSLR-sized bodies would be the turning point for them...well, see above.  I've always believed that...hence the reason I am fairly excited about the NX1. (I still have to see the EVF, it sounds better than Sony's (which definitely have their problems)...I really don't like EVFs, but, if I want the NX1's features...well....yeah...bleh...)


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > To see if my feelings about the images were correct, I saved the cropped areas as 32-bit TIFF and ran both through PixInsight's statistics tool.
> 
> 
> 
> You're splitting hairs. No one would ever know the difference in a processed print.




We keep getting to this point, and I keep saying the same thing, and my point always seems to get ignored:


It isn't about the end result. It is about how you get to the end result. Better data is easier to process. This was evident when I rented the A7s...it was EXTREMELY easy to reduce noise. I very light application of NR sliders in LR was it, even at very high ISOs or with significant shadow pushing. In contrast...the 5D III required extensive NR, after which the data was still not nearly as usable. Additional means would have been required to make the 5D III images as viable as the A7s'...say HDR. 


That's my point. Statistically, the NX1 has lower noise, which leads to richer color and contrast (hence the reason the parts of the NX1 image that are supposed to be dark look dark! ) Better data is better data...and better data is easier to process. For me, it's not just about how B (the end result) looks. It's very much about how I get from point A (the OOC RAW) to point B. Canon doesn't offer me the best data anymore...maybe they never did.


----------



## jrista (Nov 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > According to PixInsight, the noise on the black part of the Fiddlers Elbow bottle, just under the label, has a standard deviation of:
> ...




Well, I know for a fact that the 7D II is cooking the RAW with DIGIC 6.  I mean, that's what DIGIC 6 does...cook data.  If it wasn't for that, I highly doubt the 7D II would be able to achieve the IQ levels it does.


I don't know about the NX1...however, given that the current trend IS to cook the RAWs, I have to assume so. Nikon and Sony both cook their RAWs...Nikon with Expeed and Sony with Bionz X. Canon just got into that game. The NX1 sounds like it has the most powerful processor ever to be placed into a camera, and if they weren't utilizing that processing power to reduce noise, I'd be pretty surprised.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 28, 2014)

When I read Lula review of Samsung NX1 sensor I was really impressed and I was much interested to see how it compares with other cameras (including FF). I am also as much impressed as MR and Jrista about NX1 sensor technology, not only low noise level but by AF capabilities and the fact that AF points cover 95 percent of the screen. 
This AF tracking technology is my dream for many years for sport/action medium format camera – especially for acrobatic events. With Canon 1Dx and tele zoom lens I can get close to the performer but movements are so fast and so erratic that it is not possible to track that manually – performer always jump out of the view. With MF camera (around 80mp) and NX1 tracking technology it is possible to have much wider angle of view , camera will track object without need to move camera and then you can do required crop of the shot and get high quality resulting image . With this it would not be required to use long tele lens. I hope to see that in a couple of years in coming Mirrorless MF cameras
Now back to NX1 sensor noise levels at high ISOs and comparisons with Canon 5Dm3, 7Dm2 and Sony A7.
I did that using DP Review studio –shot comparison tool and below are screen snapshots for comparisons of Samsung NX1, Canon 7DII, Canon EOS 5D M3 and Sony A7S, and also one with Sony A7 at ISO3200 from.
-	At ISO3200 NX1 is very close to 5Dm3, a bit more of luminance noise but noise structure is better than 5Dm3 – less blotchy and easier to clean up. 
-	At ISO6400 5Dm3 looks better than NX1 which could be expected for FF compared to APS-C sensor.
-	At both iso3200 and ISO6400 NX1 is better that Canon 7DM2
-	King of low light in FF segment is still Sony A7S, at ISO6400 it has less noise than Canon 5Dm3 at ISO 3200.. 
At ISO 12800 A7S is also noticeably better than 5Dm3 at IS06400. 
From comparison it is easy to see that A7S is about 1.5 stop better than Canon 5Dm3.
I bought A7S recently (could not resist temptation) and since then enjoy it to great extent – it makes impossible possible especially in combination with DXO Optic Pro 10 PRIME noise reduction. Getting very clean images (in shadows areas) that were shot in very dim light at ISO up to 20000 which was almost unbelievable even 1 year back. Now using 1Dx much less than before.

What is interesting and bit surprising that at ISO3200 and especially at ISO6400 and ISO12800 Samsung NX1 crop sensor is significantly less noisier than full frame Sony A7 sensor.
Good for Canon 7Dm2 owners - at ISO3200 and ISO6400 it also has less noise than FF 24mp Sony A7. And in general it is not far behind 5DM3 in noise performance. So Canon really did some improvements in 7Dm2 sensor technology. 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=samsung_nx1&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_3=sony_a7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.3743389872393283&y=0.5096437954588491


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> That's my point. Statistically, the NX1 has lower noise, which leads to richer color and contrast (hence the reason the parts of the NX1 image that are supposed to be dark look dark! )



It does have very slightly lower noise, but that is not the reason it's a darker image which is what leads to the difference in our perception of color and contrast.

Again I'll note that with color NR the 7D II ends up looking a tiny bit cleaner, i.e. lower luminance noise. But in the end neither requires a different work flow or more work. Neither has "better data."


----------



## Neutral (Nov 28, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That's my point. Statistically, the NX1 has lower noise, which leads to richer color and contrast (hence the reason the parts of the NX1 image that are supposed to be dark look dark! )
> ...



My perception is a bit different and I tend to agree with Jrista. 
My comparison of RAW samples (no NR at all - no Chroma no Luminance NR) at DP comparison tool which I posted a bit earlier shows that at ISO3200 NX1 RAW samples visually look better/cleaner/crisper than ones from 7Dm2 and as I also noted NX1 noise pattern is visually better and more pleasant than noise pattern of 7Dm2. NX1 is less blotchy , has a bit more higher noise frequencies and a bit more regular - so should be easier to clean up compared to 7Dm2 . Blotchy noise pattern from many Canon Cameras is something that was always irritating me as well as low performance at low contrast details in red channel - just smearing them away. 1Dx fortunately is better in this respect though also suffering a bit. 
Also on this samples NX1 is not downsampled/normalized to 7Dm2 resolution which would also add more difference in favor of NX1.

I was interested to see if NX1 could compete with A7S - but so far A7S is far ahead of all the competitors.
Just see here as an example one of test picture done handheld by A7S in extremely low light conditions at ISO20000. 
One small screen snapshot and also full image exported from LR


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0892989376/real-world-test-going-pro-with-the-samsung-nx1


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2014)

Neutral said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Thanks for the analysis and image samples. I think you nailed it on the head, and it's the same stuff I've been saying for a while now. Noise characteristic matters. It isn't simply the amount of noise, it's how the noise presents. I am right there with you...I really dislike the blotchy color noise of Canon cameras. Give me clean, random, primarily luminance noise, and even if it is slightly higher, I'll be much, much happier. Gaussian luminance noise distribution is so much easier to clean up, and it required minimal application of NR. 


One thing regarding the A7s...it is a 12mp camera. I would be very curious to see how the NX1 performs relative to it when the image sizes are normalized. I don't think the NX1 will be better, it is APS-C afterall, and the total light gathering capacity is still limited, despite the BSI design (which, now that more information is out, may actually NOT be an ISOCELL design...not sure why, guess they figured the pixels were big enough to not suffer enough from color crosstalk to warrant the ISOCELL?) I do think, though, that when normalized down to 12mp, the NX1 will approach the A7s's IQ more closely.


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0892989376/real-world-test-going-pro-with-the-samsung-nx1




Nice!  I really love this camera! I think it's pretty much settled...good EF adapters or not, I'm getting an NX1.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 28, 2014)

Can't really start a poll within the thread, but which of the two images below do people think looks better? Both are crops of ISO6400 shots that were downsampled to 8MP and with minor chroma noise reduction but nothing else. You'll need to click on the image, or even better view it in a new tab, to see the full resolution.





.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 28, 2014)

For my personal taste, the images on the left are better in color, contrast and has more organic grains.


----------



## Neutral (Nov 29, 2014)

As Jrista mentioned in his previous post it would be interesting to see comparison of normalized to 8mb images from NX1, 7DM2, 5Dm3 and A7S. Attached are ones at ISO6400, ISO12800 and ISO 25600.
Normalized images comparison just illustrates what was said before about NX1 noise characteristics which are better than 7Dm2 and on normalized images comparison it is even more obvious that NX1 is much less noisy at high ISO than 7Dm2 and not very far behind of 5Dm3. To my opinion for general photography NX1 is much more advanced camera and has more potential than 7Dm2 and I definitely I would recommend NX1 in favor of 7Dm2 if someone asks my advice. Also NX1 AF tracking capabilities looks much more advanced to me than 7Dm2 AF system adopted from 1DX. NX1 AF tracking system looks like something borrowed from military object tracking systems used in optical weapon object recognition and targeting system on missiles and military jet fighters. Maybe Samsung does something this area and they used that experience this in NX1 
I have feeling that now when semiconductors giants like Samsung and Sony are on the market with the latest imaging sensor technologies and their resources in R&D and manufacturing capabilities and the rapidly increasing speed of new technologies development and implementation Canon just cannot compete any more on the sensor market (which is also semiconductor technology). Even if Canon would develop something in their R&D LAB they still need to manufacture that and this is where is their big weakness (manufacturing processes/technologies etc.) which is very difficult to overcome and they cannot run long in semiconductors technology race (as this is not their primary business), unless they ask some other big player (e.g. Samsung) to manufacture their chips, like Apple was doing for their iPhones and iPads.
I would be interesting to see (just my wish) Samsung coming on MF sensor market and possibly build up their own affordable ML MF camera. They just can buy one of the MF makers (e.g. Hasselblad) and enter market easily with top-notch sensor technologies.
On comparisons shots is also could be seen that 1Dx and A7S are almost on par with each other, maybe A7S a bit better. But practically (from my experience) A7S images are easier to clean and they have more margin for post processing (could be pushed more) before exhibiting any problems.
Also there are couple of comparisons with P645Z. 
Images from P645Z almost looks one stop better that 1Dx or A7S at ISO 12800 and ISO25600.
So far nothing can compete with latest MF sensor from Sony for low light performance.
Hopefully we will see soon ML MF camera from Sony.


----------



## zim (Nov 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> For my personal taste, the images on the left are better in color, contrast and has more organic grains.



+1

That's two for the left


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> For my personal taste, the images on the left are better in color, contrast and has more organic grains.



+1

although I don't really care for either of the 2 pics. On my moniitor, both look underexposed by at least 2/3 of a stop. Colors ... too reddish on the left [skin tones], too yellowish on the right.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 29, 2014)

Neutral said:


> My comparison of RAW samples (no NR at all - no Chroma no Luminance NR) at DP comparison tool which I posted a bit earlier shows that at ISO3200 NX1 RAW samples visually look better/cleaner/crisper than ones from 7Dm2 and as I also noted NX1 noise pattern is visually better and more pleasant than noise pattern of 7Dm2.



In the tool the NX1 image is larger and therefore gives a better impression as to sharpness and detail. Psychologically you will always pick the larger image even if the smaller is actually a little better, and even if one image is displayed at two different sizes and you are told they are different cameras. This does not happen when the images are viewed at the same size, even when scaling the 7D2 up.

As to the noise, same as in the IR scene. With no NR the Canon is slightly worse (more color noise). With color NR...which completely eliminates the color noise in ACR btw...the NX1 is sightly worse (more luminance noise, and that's harder to clean up). Never the less, the differences are far too tiny to matter in print.

I would bring up mountains and mole hills but this is more like mountains out of ant hills.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> I am right there with you...I really dislike the blotchy color noise of Canon cameras.



Color noise in the 7D2 samples cleans up completely, with no loss of detail, using CNR in ACR. This is true for the NX1 as well. 

Cleaning up luminance noise, no matter how random/fine, is always a trade off involving noise and detail.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am right there with you...I really dislike the blotchy color noise of Canon cameras.
> ...




I have exactly the opposite experience. Per-pixel color noise isn't difficult...the real difficulty with color noise is the blotches...the stuff that spans 50-100 pixel areas. I believe Neutral knows what I'm talking about. It shows up in shadow areas and at high ISO, and it is nearly impossible to clean up without obliterating detail. I've tried using TGVDenoise as well as several multiscale noise reduction routines on it within PixInsight, and it is just NOT easy to clean up, and impossible to clean up without a visible cost to detail (due to it's scale...you have to factor in large pixel areas, so of course it's going to affect detail.) 


I never even saw any color noise in my A7r images (I was actually able to reduce the slider from 25 to 10 in LR before any of it, which was WAY deep in the shadows, even began to reveal itself), and cleaning up Lum required shifting the Luminance noise slider in LR to +10. That was it. I have to remove color noise AND luminance noise with some fairly significant edits with all of my Canon images. 


Neutrals screenshots clearly demonstrate the lower color noise of the NX1 relative to the 7D II. It does not appear to be as clean as the 5D III or A7s. It's somewhere inbetween the 7D II and 5D III though.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> I have exactly the opposite experience. Per-pixel color noise isn't difficult...the real difficulty with color noise is the blotches...the stuff that spans 50-100 pixel areas. I believe Neutral knows what I'm talking about. It shows up in shadow areas and at high ISO, and it is nearly impossible to clean up without obliterating detail. I've tried using TGVDenoise as well as several multiscale noise reduction routines on it within PixInsight, and it is just NOT easy to clean up, and impossible to clean up without a visible cost to detail (due to it's scale...you have to factor in large pixel areas, so of course it's going to affect detail.)



This is what surprised me about the comparison I posted above, the 7D2 is on the left and the NX1 is on the right. From the DPReview low light samples what I'm seeing is that at 6400 (and 12.8K although I didn't post it since the NX1 seems to fall apart more significantly over 6400) the 7D2 definitely looks worse before chroma noise reduction but then the 7D2 looks considerably better after a small amount of chroma noise reduction.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I have exactly the opposite experience. Per-pixel color noise isn't difficult...the real difficulty with color noise is the blotches...the stuff that spans 50-100 pixel areas. I believe Neutral knows what I'm talking about. It shows up in shadow areas and at high ISO, and it is nearly impossible to clean up without obliterating detail. I've tried using TGVDenoise as well as several multiscale noise reduction routines on it within PixInsight, and it is just NOT easy to clean up, and impossible to clean up without a visible cost to detail (due to it's scale...you have to factor in large pixel areas, so of course it's going to affect detail.)
> ...




Are you reducing the noise on Neutrals screen captures? If so, the NX1 has been downsampled. Reduce noise at full size then downsample, and no matter what you do to the 7D II, the NX1 still look better.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I applied the standard chroma noise reduction to the RAW files and then downsampled to JPGs. The 7D2 definitely looks better at 6400 and 12800; the NX1 has a kind of funky quality to the noise.


----------



## jrista (Dec 8, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...




I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR. 


I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras...  


I am beginning to think now that Adobe's algorithms in Lightroom are indeed becoming rather dated. They don't render the data in the RAW files as well as they could be. I don't remember who asserted that in the past, but I think they may be right. Here's to hoping Lightroom 6.x gets a much-needed rewrite of the rendering pipeline, one that eliminates the color blotch with Canon files. 


I did notice that LensRentals.com now has the NX1 on preorder:


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/compact/samsung/samsung-nx1


Woo! Not sure that I'll have a chance to try it out before the end of the year, but I'm glad they have it. They have a number of lenses as well. I think I'd give the NX1 and the 16-50 a try at the very least...but since this is something I'm curious about as an alternative to a 7D II for birds, I may hold off until Samsung releases their 300mm f/2.8 lens first. One thing I did learn recently is there do not seem to be teleconverters for the NX line mount yet. That might be an issue for me...if I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 lens, I would want both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and not having them would probably be a deal breaker. Maybe if Canon lenses AF well on the NX1 with an adapter...but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for a while. :'(


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.
> 
> 
> I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras...
> ...



I know they've had the NX1 up for pre-order for at least a month or two as I almost tried to order one for testing before an event I shot over the thanksgiving weekend. As for the weird NX1 noise, I can definitely believe that it could have something to do with the LR conversion although I'm not quite sure how DPReview arrived at their DNG files. The craziest part of those results to me is that before color noise reduction the NX1 definitely looks better but after you remove the color noise the 7D2 looks better, at least to my eye. I don't think I've ever seen that happen before. I've seen cameras become essentially equal after you remove the color noise but never swap positions like that.


----------



## jrista (Dec 8, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.
> ...




Hmm, odd. I only saw the Samsung entry in their list of brands show up recently. 




raptor3x said:


> As for the weird NX1 noise, I can definitely believe that it could have something to do with the LR conversion although I'm not quite sure how DPReview arrived at their DNG files. The craziest part of those results to me is that before color noise reduction the NX1 definitely looks better but after you remove the color noise the 7D2 looks better, at least to my eye. I don't think I've ever seen that happen before. I've seen cameras become essentially equal after you remove the color noise but never swap positions like that.




The thing about the 7D II is that after color noise removal, as in the more speckled finer grained color noise, you have that blotchy color left behind. Again, though...maybe that really is just poor demosaicing algorithms. C1 doesn't seem to do that. Kind of funny, to think that Adobe's RAW engine is now old and potentially less effective than it could be today...but I think that may be the case. 


Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.



I know exactly what you mean, this was the issue i had with the A7 at high ISO. I'm not sure I saw anything like that in the 7D2 samples I played with but I'd need to check again. Do you see this on the 5D3 as well or just 7D2 samples?


----------



## Aglet (Dec 8, 2014)

*try a different raw converter*

I've downloaded the new beta 3 of Irridient Developer to try on my older Fuji files and found the new v3 demosaic also to be quite competent; I'm seeing increased detail and accuity from old XE1 files that rival what I get from my XT1.
You might want to compare what it does to deBayer vs DxO, C1 and ACR modules.

mac only tho, I think

http://iridientdigital.com/products/iridientdeveloper_download_v3beta.html


----------



## jrista (Dec 8, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.
> ...




I see it in every Canon file once I start lifting the shadows enough. It usually doesn't take much, a stop and a half. It's pretty bad with the 5D III, it seems milder with the 7D II. I think Canon may have moved to their newer fabs for the 7D II sensor. If Roger Clark is right about the dark current, and if the Q.E. really is 59%, then this is the first sensor from Canon in a long while that is starting to rival Exmor as far as dark current levels go. If Roger is right, it may even be a little better in terms of dark current than an Exmor. 


If the color blotch problem is a consequence of the RAW engine, then Canon has certainly made some strides. They eliminated vertical banding and gained a little bit of horizontal banding (but it is soft, so, not nearly as intrusive as what the 5D III has), lowered dark current, and increased Q.E. Read noise is introduced by the readout pipeline, probably primarily by the ADC units Canon uses. So, that is probably something they could fix (basically, anything that reduces ADC frequency should help.)


I am pretty amazed at how clean the NX1 files are though. Very clean, very neutral random noise, much lower than Canon's. I am hoping Chipworks tears apart both sensors and gives us a detailed look at the designs. I'd love to see what's changed at a low level in Canon's sensor, and what Samsung has done with theirs.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 8, 2014)

IMO, the presence of horizontal banding and the lack of vertical banding suggests that they've started scanning the sensor in the opposite direction, i.e. row major versus column major order or vice versa, rather than an improvement in the sensor or preamplifier technology.


----------



## jrista (Dec 8, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> IMO, the presence of horizontal banding and the lack of vertical banding suggests that they've started scanning the sensor in the opposite direction, i.e. row major versus column major order or vice versa, rather than an improvement in the sensor or preamplifier technology.




Horizontal banding has been present in Canon cameras for years. It's present in my 5D III, just to a slightly lesser degree than in the 7D II. The big difference is that the 5D III has the sharp vertical banding as well...the 7D II lacks that pretty much entirely. I think that just revealed an existing horizontal banding problem (something I've seen before with both the 5D III and original 7D in my astro images). The horizontal banding does seem more pronounced, but it is not a row-wise banding like the column-wise vertical banding was...they are much fatter, around 10 rows and softer. I don't think it's a change in readout orientation...it seems logical that would remain row activate, column readout.


I guess the softer horizontal banding is less likely to be a problem for most photography...it goes in the direction our eyes naturally scan, left to right...so were now scanning with the grain. It is also fairly faint, so it probably wouldn't show up unless you were shooting in low light at a low ISO and were lifting the shadows a lot.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Ah, ok, I thought you meant you were seeing blotchy colors just when using high ISO, I've definitely seen the blotchy colors in the 5D3 files when doing 5+ stop pushes with dual ISO. As for the horizontal banding in the 7D2, do you have any examples? I have yet to see any banding at all in the 7D2. Here is a comparison of the 7D2 and A7R both pushed 5 at ISO 100 from the DPReview low light sample gallery. I don't see any more banding in the 7D2 than the A7R, which is to say none.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2014)

7D II (horizontal, red cast):







5D III (horizontal and vertical, red cast):






NX1 (none, neutral):


----------



## mkabi (Dec 9, 2014)

I don't know if someone has already put this up, but TheCameraStoreTV has up Hand-On Field Test for both NX1 & 7DII:

NX1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flm65f2Gy8

7DII - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ljRc-glN4

They each have their flaws, but call me biased but I'm feeling the 7DII as being a superior overall product.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> 7D II (horizontal, red cast):



That's surprising. The DPReview samples have no sign of banding no matter how hard you push them and yours is definitely the first mention of any kind of banding I've heard about from the 7D2. Even at +7 stops there's nothing but random noise in the DPReview samples, although they don't supply lenscap shots =). Are there RAW files available for those samples? Do you know how much they were pushed?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2014)

mkabi said:


> I don't know if someone has already put this up, but TheCameraStoreTV has up Hand-On Field Test for both NX1 & 7DII:
> NX1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flm65f2Gy8



that one is already posted discussed earlier on in the thread. I find it remarkably stupid made. The guys have no clue whatsoever. They did not bother at all to familiarize themselves at last a little bit with the camera settings. The guy is not able to selct the right AF-setup and terefore does not even manage to track his mate walking rather slowly towards him. To me it is not the camera that fails, but the two testers. 

After having watched the video, I have absolutely no idea, how good, bad, capable, incabable the NX-1 is. 

I would be really ashamed to put such a video on youtube and call it a "camera test".


----------



## Tugela (Dec 9, 2014)

mkabi said:


> I don't know if someone has already put this up, but TheCameraStoreTV has up Hand-On Field Test for both NX1 & 7DII:
> 
> NX1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flm65f2Gy8
> 
> ...



OK, I'll call you biased 

The 7D2 has a small edge on the NX1 in stills, but the NX1 blows it away on video. Overall the NX1 is a better general purpose camera.

The only real competition the NX1 has in its market space is the GH4 (and to a lesser extent the A7s). Canon has no products in that space at all.


----------



## Tugela (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if someone has already put this up, but TheCameraStoreTV has up Hand-On Field Test for both NX1 & 7DII:
> ...



As far as I can tell from comments on various boards, most people who actually own the NX1 like it a lot. It has a few quirks but overall it appears to be a pretty good product.


----------



## arcanej (Dec 9, 2014)

Roger Cicala has favorable first impressions of the NX1. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/12/one-single-samsung-nx-1-test


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2014)

Interesting. I hope he does more testing...very curious to see how the Samsung products (not just the body, but the lenses as well) compare overall, at the wide and long, at max aperture and f/8.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Interesting. I hope he does more testing...very curious to see how the Samsung products (not just the body, but the lenses as well) compare overall, at the wide and long, at max aperture and f/8.



I think chances are very good, since Roger seems to be personally interested in the nx1 himself.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 20, 2014)

Are there any lab tests for the NX1. I can't find anything that looks like a concrete lab test for SNR and DR.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 20, 2014)

For what is worth, Andrew Reid just posted a review of the NX1. Seems to like the video side (his specialty) quite a bit.

I am still tickled that anyone made camera w/ the feature set of the NX1 - my 5dIII is a great machine, I know I am only getting a small portion of its true capabilities out of it. Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago. Perhaps Canon can do a BSI for the 1dx - oof what a low light machine that would be.

Best to all.

Mike


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago.



My presumption was that gapless microlenses were supposed to make BSI unnecessary, but perhaps there's some marginal improvement using both.

Maybe one of our resident EE's can answer this question.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 20, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago.
> ...


I think BSI more about increasing the full well capacity rather than just preventing light from seeping between pixels. With the NX1 pixels being so small (3.7 micron) you want to maximise the pixel surface area hence moving the circuitry to the back. The 1D-X by comparison has 6.9 micron pixels, which is close to 4 times a bigger surface area.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Busted Knuckles said:
> ...



Hmmm...I'd like to hear more explanation of this: I had thought that fwc was not strongly dependent on the surface area.


----------



## jrista (Dec 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...




FWC is dependent upon surface area...the surface area of the photodiode. With an FSI design, some of the pixel area is dedicated to wiring and transistors, which thus necessitates that the photodiode (the actual light-sensitive part of the silicon) become smaller. By flipping the die and etching on the back, the photodiodes can become larger, since the wiring is all on the other side. That increases FWC, which means for the same size sensor, with even the same size "pixel pitch", your actually gathering more light.


There are other benefits with BSI. With FSI, the structure of a pixel ends up being relatively deep. There are layers of wiring and transistors built up around the photodiode. The photodiode sits at the bottom of what is basically a physical "well" (Technically, the "photo well" refers to the potential well, the electronic charge capturing capacity of a photodiode, not a physical thing...but there is a physical "well" as well). The depth of that physical well affects the amount of incident light that can actually be captured, or more specifically, the amount of incident light on the pixel that actually reaches the photodiode and frees and electron. Microlenses helped with that, by bending the light at the periphery of the pixel around the wall of wires around the photodiode. Microlenses aren't perfect, though, and really need to be aspheric, to fully direct all light onto the photodiode. As such, even with them in place, you lose some light to heat as they strike the wiring walls, or they reflect off the walls and hit exposed substrate and don't actually reach the photodiode, etc. 


Lightpipe designs improved FSI designs, by filling the well with a highly refractive material. This helped bend the light and keep more of it focused on the photodiode. Lightpipe designs also lined the wiring walls with highly reflective material, which combined with the high refractive index material, focused a lot more light onto the photodide with FSI designs. That's more complicated, though, and still wasn't as efficient as simply flipping the wafer and etching the photodiodes on the other side. 


With BSI, you can basically flatten the light-sensitive side of the sensor. There is no longer a physical "well"...all you have is a microlens, a color filter, and the photodiode. It's a very short, flat "stack", the photodiodes are larger, basically covering the entire surface area of the sensor. It gives you the highest efficiency thanks to the very high fill factor. 


Given what I've seen so far of NX1 data, the BSI design gives it about a stop better sensitivity than any Canon sensor. I don't know if it's as good as an Exmor, but it doesn't seem to have any banding that I could see...the noise is very random.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> FWC is dependent upon surface area...the surface area of the photodiode. With an FSI design, some of the pixel area is dedicated to wiring and transistors, which thus necessitates that the photodiode (the actual light-sensitive part of the silicon) become smaller. By flipping the die and etching on the back, the photodiodes can become larger, since the wiring is all on the other side. That increases FWC, which means for the same size sensor, with even the same size "pixel pitch", your actually gathering more light.



Thanks for the explanation. For some reason, I'd thought the surface merely translated photos into electrons, but that the electrons were stored below the surface.


----------



## troy19 (Dec 22, 2014)

Samsung tech specs say:

Shutter Speed: Auto : 1/8000 sec. - 1/4 sec. / Manual : 1/8000 sec. - 30 sec. / 

This puzzles me as I'm not familiar with Samsung gear (put aside mobile phones).

Does "Auto" refer to the Auto-modes (Av, Tv, P), that can only be set to 1/4 sec at max.? Is the NX1 not able to shoot up to e.g. 30 sec in Auto-modes?

Maybe someone has better knowledge and can clarify on this?


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > FWC is dependent upon surface area...the surface area of the photodiode. With an FSI design, some of the pixel area is dedicated to wiring and transistors, which thus necessitates that the photodiode (the actual light-sensitive part of the silicon) become smaller. By flipping the die and etching on the back, the photodiodes can become larger, since the wiring is all on the other side. That increases FWC, which means for the same size sensor, with even the same size "pixel pitch", your actually gathering more light.
> ...




The electrons are actually stored around a specific potential layer within the photodiode. Exactly how deep that layer is, and how many electrons it can hold, depends on the specific design of the photodiode. Generally, the amount of charge is related to surface area, but research is has derived ways of changing that layer, deepening it, increasing the potential, etc. I don't know if any of those technologies have been employed yet, and if they have, it's probably only in sensors with ultra tiny pixels (1-1.2 micron), and we might not see them in APS-C or FF sensors for quite some time.


Generally speaking, though, it's the photodiode that has the charge releasing and holding potential, and that potential is realized when a photon (or few, depending on Q.E.) strikes the photodiode, releasing it's energy. The energy either becomes heat, increases the photodiodes potential for releasing another electron, or actually releases an electron. The larger the the area of the photodiode (or more specifically, the layer within the photodiode that is actually responsible for holding the charge), the greater the maximum charge the photodiode can hold. The increased area of BSI photodiodes increases the pixel's FWC (full well capacity), which in turn has the capability of increasing dynamic range.


----------



## weixing (Dec 22, 2014)

troy19 said:


> Samsung tech specs say:
> 
> Shutter Speed: Auto : 1/8000 sec. - 1/4 sec. / Manual : 1/8000 sec. - 30 sec. /
> 
> ...


Hi,
May be you should ask in the dpreview samsung forum... better chance of someone who had the camera to answer your question.

Have a nice day.


----------



## troy19 (Dec 22, 2014)

Thanks. Done.



weixing said:


> troy19 said:
> 
> 
> > Samsung tech specs say:
> ...


----------

