Ho Hum... Boy am I getting fed up with this Samsung system

eyetrip

eyetrip

eyetrip

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
9,237
Bought into the system with the NX1000 to test out, and was happy enough with it that I decided to stick with Samsung NX line, despite some niggles with NX1000 - I mean, what camera is perfect?

Anyway, bought the NX300 upon release, and first one had to go back immediately as was major fault with sensor.

Second NX300 had to go back because touch screen was not properly responsive.

For my third NX300, I opted for the kit with the 45mm 2d/3d lens. Apart from the stupid design decisions Samsung took on a few things, I could not find any fault, but did notice a small speck or bubble on one side of the lens.

I didn't pay much attention to the bubble/speck, and didn't really go looking for issues.

Until yesterday, when I noticed there were now several dust/dirt particles on the inside lens element, one larger in particular near center.

So I went looking to see what affect the new particle has, and it does show up sometimes, but the original speck/bubble (near top) is actually the most noticeable.

Ok, most only become noticeable to smaller apertures (Actually, the original one can become visible from around f8), but I have had this camera/lens less than a month, and it's already gathered particles inside lens, in addition to the one I noticed when I received it.

It hasn't even really had all that much use out and about.... or at all for that matter.

So I am kind of fed up with this system now.

I am in a position now where I can return the camera and 12-24mm for refund, and sell the 30mm, 60mm, and 18-200 for probably not a huge loss.

But I don't know if that is the way to go, or to just get another NX300. But that will be my 4th! Surely, there has to be some limit on when it's a good idea to give in?

It kind of screws me on choice for what to get next though, as I wanted to avoid DSLR for pure bulk, but not sure I like the other mirror-less options.

What would you do in my shoes? I just can't believe am in this sort of decision making position yet again!
 
another vote for the 100d, with a 40mm stm lens its a cracking setup and weighs nothing at all, 2 of my mates have them as backups and i have seen them using them more and more
 
For an SLR, the size looks good, but not 50/60 fps video and would really miss articulating screen...

Though buzzlightweight, thanks for the link. I found him rather amusing to watch :)

I see nobody has suggested, just return the Samsung and get replacement, having spent so much on lenses already... but I am curious if that is because people don't see anything outside of canikon, or because they think that getting 3 bad camera/lens kits in a row just isn't on?
 
eyetrip i might have a 5D mkii in my sig but i also own a Sony Nex 5 system which has been on a few holidays and is the camera i keep on when am out biking, the 100D was suggested as its a fantastic camera it might be time for you to go with a different company as that many faults and problems with the cameras/lens from Samsung might suggest a QC problem
 
Yeah, I know. That is exactly why posting this. It was the system that ticked the most boxes for me, but all these issues... And that's ignoring all the bugs.

But not sure I like the nex system. Cant remember why, so will have to read again.

It's such a pain having to change systems though. Probably going to lose few hundred quid selling it all.
 
I know the D100 is nice and small... but that "only" 30 fps is bothering me.

I was thinking, maybe it would be nice to have a system with small body, leaving me option to get larger body to complement, but Canon seem to be lacking on video - or am I missing something?

Kind of feel like I am stuck with 3 choices. Sony a77, Nikon D7100, or try one more Samsung kit...

a77 and D7100 will never be compact. I doubt that either company will release a much smaller DSLR like the D100, that I could contemplate as a backup.

I love that the a77 has a flip-out screen and how fast it shoots, and I like the specs on the D7100 in general and that it scores high on focus, but I love that the Samsung is as compact or bulky as I choose.

I love the lenses available for Nikon (+ the extra 1.3 crop), while Sony lenses seems less varied, and I guess I never know if there will be high quality zooms for the NX system (which may still be quite unwieldy given size of camera)

D5200 could have been a contender... but interlaced video - yuck.
 
Well, I have made one decision, and that is to return the Samsung NX300, and sell off lenses. I may keep the NX1000 + 20-50mm kit and 30mm pancake as a backup/compact...

So it's Sony, Canon or Nikon SLR. But having looked at my credit cards, will be limited for now on glass I get.

Things important to me - decent quality but not stupidly expensive glass. Decent, relatively light zooms for wildlife/travel. Quiet lenses. Quality video. A relatively light and compact option. Good stabilisation - I hate jerky video.

Things I want, but may have to sacrifice for now - 60 fps video, articulating screen. But sacrificing these is only going to be temporary, as they are useful and important to me.

My current lens setup for the NX was: 30mm pancake, 45mm, 60mm macro, 18-200mm zoom, 12-24mm zoom.

About the only thing I felt like I needed in addition was something with more reach, and something more for walkabout like a 18-105/135.

Initially I would likely only have the general walkabout lens, but may also get a macro and something like a 50 prime.

Canon:
I like the EOS 100D. And while the OES M is disappointing to most at least it shows Canon will likely have a mirrorless option that would take other Canon compatible glass with full functionality, even if via adapter.

But they seem a bit slow on the uptake to 60fps video. And they seldom seem to update sensors from what I can gather so far.

Sony:
I love the IBIS. I like the speed of the alphas with regards to burst and video. And Sony too have a mirrorless option that will allow the alpha lenses to work on NEX, using adapter.

But their glass seems comparatively expensive, and seems like less choice?

Nikon:
I can't seem to think of anything particularly outstanding here, but I think they seem to be doing most things well with regards to my wants. I like the look of the available glass and prices of said glass.

Except they don't have a smaller camera like the 100D, and their mirrorless system (Nikon 1) won't ever take their dslr lenses. Also, read a lot about issues with oil spots?

I honestly don't know how much I even need to consider adapting lenses down to the mirrorless systems.

And one thing I am not sure on, is if I should consider sticking to glass that will work on full format, in case I decided to one day go that way...

Cameras that have appealed so far are Sony a57/a77, Nikon D7100, and Canon 100D.

But I am not buying just for camera, but for system.
 
Well, I finally picked my poison, and went for Sony.

Currently in the form of the a65. a77 would have been nice for certain features, but having handled the a57 previously, I know I like the size and weight.

Besides, can always wait until I can get an a77 cheap 2nd hand one day.

The SLT tech as opposed to SLR, just fits my needs and wants better. It's not perfect, but hey, what is?

That'll be coming some time today. So now I can sit back and look through what lenses I would like to get :)

I was so close to sticking with Samsung, but bugs and so many camera issues.... just had enough, which is a pity, because the system has such potential.

I have not decided whether or not to keep the NX1000. Might even sell that and get a NEX mirrorless.
 
Initial impressions are:
Pros
1) Wow, the focus is fast
2) Stabilisation for video is awesome, just a pity about the crop
3) The EVF is FANTASTIC!
4) Certainly spoiled for lens choice in comparison to the NX. Maybe not as much with the Canon or Nikon systems, but there's any lens I personally would want.

Median:
1) Sure, it's bigger than the NX cameras, but not THAT much bigger when you stick on the larger lenses
2) Not horribly heavy. Still able to hold with one hand comfortably

Cons
1) The picture quality isn't up to the NX300. Not even sure is on par with NX1000, but I need to play a bit more. Currently only got the kit lens - yuck. Got the 50mm 1.8 arriving today.
2) Wow, the noise at ISO 1600 and up is worse than I though. The NX1000 got blasted for that, but this is worse. I am going to need some fast glass to keep the ISO up as much as possible. Pricey!
3) Oh how I miss the touch screen and user interface of the Samsung cameras. The Samsung interface is 2nd to none.

I am not going to sink a fortune into lenses just now. I not only need to try this camera out a bit more, but I want to see how the next gen pans out.

The a58 has already come out, and was a few steps down from the a57 in some regards, and if Sony do the same with their upper models, it will be rather disappointing.

For now, I am likely to get the 18-135mm SAM lens, and maybe the Tamron 90mm macro.

Ideally in future would be looking at something like the 16-50mm f2.8 ssm lens, or maybe the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 for a bit more reach, and while I was originally looking at either 55-300mm or 70-300mm G lens, neither has particularly large aperture, so has me thinking I might pick up the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Macro/Tele which can currently get for £599....
 
Last edited:
Must say, very nearly perfect camera for me.... but the noise!

Even from ISO 400 things can already start to get grainy. Tested this morning taking photo of church next door, and the sky was quite rough...

I am not sure how usable I consider 1600 (and up) to be.

It's quite a harsh grain, and I find it difficult to remove from RAW. To remove the grain I need to apply quite a bit of noise reduction in lightroom, at which point, I start to lose a lot of detail.

Now, this shouldn't be a problem 90% of the time, but I am not sure I could take this camera on holiday with me.

If I had had this camera on my Costa Rica holidays, I would have had far less usable images than I did with the NX300, due to often being in forested/shaded areas and having to up the ISO.

Though I was using a 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 majority of time, I could push to 6400 if the situation really required it.

How much would it help having something like the Tamron f2.8 70-200mm to keep the ISO up to 800 or less, while keeping shutter up for the likes of wildlife?
 
Ok, didn't want to hog up the post your pics thread, and was after some opinions on this one.

Been playing with the macro + converter, and was just after some opinions. Still not sure whether to keep or go 1.4

All of these were taken handheld, with not the greatest light (thank, UK weather), and apart from a couple, are without flash.

So some may not be as clear as they could have been due to slight amounts of shake, but there you go.

Hopefully it's enough to judge quality from.

These four are with


Testing Macro with 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


Testing Macro with 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


Testing Macro with 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


Testing Macro with 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr

These are without extender


Testing Macro without 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


Testing Macro without 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


Testing Macro without 2x ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr


These last two I did a bit more "controlled" against the same subject indoors using flash

You may have to hunt for the in-focus bit, sorry.

without:

Last macro test without ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr

With

Last macro test with ext by chris_rabe, on Flickr

Normally I would just decide one way or another, but if I were to keep this instead of getting a 1.4 ext, then I would need a fast 200mm zoom, and they are darn heavy.

Just not sure how useful it would be sticking a 2x ext on something like a 70-300mm f4-5.6.

Don't think it would be too bad sticking a 1.4 on a 70-300mm as above, and the lenses are considerably lighter...

Soooooooo many decisions!
 
Be warned that if you are intending to use a TC on a 70-300mm f/5.6 lens then depending on which lens/TC/camera combo you might not be able to physically mount the TV and if you can it is unlikely to AF appropriately and baring that the IQ is not going to be any better than simply cropping the 70-300 with the downside that you will be at f/8 and jacking the ISO up even higher.

The 70-300s are great lenses for what they are but they really don't work beyond their specification. Trying to make a 400mm f/8 out of them will lead to disappointment, the money is better invested elsewhere.
 
Yeah, converters are always going to be last resort things.

All I really want to get up to is around 400mm. That will cover me for most of what I want.

Would love to get the sigma 70-200, and use converter when needed. But it's costly and heavy ans as result would be carried sparingly. And likely never on travel.

There are of course the ready made 400mm lenses, but they heavier again. Typically anyway.

Something like 70-300 would be used in conjunction with 17-50 f2.8, when I was happy to take more than just one lens.

Was happy to get the big macro, as I have no desire to travel with it.
 
Well, in the end I decided to drop the 2x ext, and went with the Tamron 70-300mm USD to tide me over 'til I figure out that to do on the long end (and can afford something faster)

Actually, quite surprised by the Tamron. Very decent for the price, and will likely be keeping it as my "don't feel like carrying anything too heavy" zoom. Though it's still not exactly light.

Some samples here, though mixed with some from the 17-50mm Sigma.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14067357@N04/sets/72157634405635254/

I was quite pleased with the results from both lenses, and the a65. Though at the end of the day I did find myself thinking I should have just taken the Sigma 18-250mm.

The only thing I am missing for now is an ultra-wide. And the options are more limited than the at first appeared. Because I am picky.

I want a lens that has it's own internal focus engine, which exludes the Tokina 11-16mm (Version 2 not in Sony mount), the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 (sony mount non-hsm), and apparently the Tamron 10-24mm (again, Sony version uses screw driven type)

So that leaves Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, Sony 11-18mm, Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 12-24mm

Thing that puts me off the 10-20mm f3.5 is it's yet another filter size (82mm, and so far more money on filters - desperately trying to keep to 72/77mm), But I think optically it's the 2nd best of those left I think.

Thing that puts me off the Sony is apparently mediocre performance anywhere but centre. What works in it's favour is weight.

Thing that puts me off the 12-24mm sigma is the weight, and filters apparently attach to the hood (or gel filters on rear?) - and it's the least wide of course - and price. Working in it's favour is pretty much no distortion and general optical quality on aps-c.

The Sigma 8-16mm only downs are price(!) and no filters, maybe weight a bit. But it's good for sharpness apparently, and of course, it's the widest.
 
eyetrip said:
Well, in the end I decided to drop the 2x ext, and went with the Tamron 70-300mm USD to tide me over 'til I figure out that to do on the long end (and can afford something faster)

Actually, quite surprised by the Tamron. Very decent for the price, and will likely be keeping it as my "don't feel like carrying anything too heavy" zoom. Though it's still not exactly light.

Some samples here, though mixed with some from the 17-50mm Sigma.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14067357@N04/sets/72157634405635254/

I was quite pleased with the results from both lenses, and the a65. Though at the end of the day I did find myself thinking I should have just taken the Sigma 18-250mm.

The only thing I am missing for now is an ultra-wide. And the options are more limited than the at first appeared. Because I am picky.

I want a lens that has it's own internal focus engine, which exludes the Tokina 11-16mm (Version 2 not in Sony mount), the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 (sony mount non-hsm), and apparently the Tamron 10-24mm (again, Sony version uses screw driven type)

So that leaves Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, Sony 11-18mm, Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 12-24mm

Thing that puts me off the 10-20mm f3.5 is it's yet another filter size (82mm, and so far more money on filters - desperately trying to keep to 72/77mm), But I think optically it's the 2nd best of those left I think.

Thing that puts me off the Sony is apparently mediocre performance anywhere but centre. What works in it's favour is weight.

Thing that puts me off the 12-24mm sigma is the weight, and filters apparently attach to the hood (or gel filters on rear?) - and it's the least wide of course - and price. Working in it's favour is pretty much no distortion and general optical quality on aps-c.

The Sigma 8-16mm only downs are price(!) and no filters, maybe weight a bit. But it's good for sharpness apparently, and of course, it's the widest.
Click to expand...

What are you planning to shoot with your super wide? These tend to spend a lot of time shooting landscapes etc so super quick silent AF is hardly essential. Sigma's non HSM AF is actually very good, pretty quick and not particularly noisy at all.
 
It's not a case of being worried about focus speed or even noise on the UWA, but more whether future bodies I purchase will have internal focus motor.

Uses - won't be a frequently used lens I don't think, which was why was originally hoping to go with the cheaper Tamron, but will get varied use from landscapes and architecture initially, and perhaps more as I get used to UWA.

So does the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 have it's own internal motor? If it's not HSM, that won't particularly bother me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom