Shot with the 20mm f/1.7 lens using the full HD 25 fps mpeg setting. Nice and sharp, and certainly the mpeg setting is less fiddly to work with on a Mac. It means that I can look at the clips without importing and converting them in iMovie.
Incidentally as I think you can hear from the bird song, the built in stereo microphone is actually quite good. Since there's no alternative, thats useful.
My thanks to tjobbe for letting me know about the firmware update vers 1.02 for the NX200 which allows an AE lock to be allocated to the custom button. I used it to make this short video and it makes a real difference.
Before going on with my own review - some quotes from other reviews.
From Pocket Lint:- "The kind of resolution and detail we got from the camera’s low ISO shots was nothing short of amazing. ISO 100-400 are stunning in terms of detail and low noise,"
From Photography Blog:- "The Samsung NX200 produced images of excellent quality during the review period. The 20.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS megapixel sensor used in the NX200 produces noise-free JPEG images at ISO 100-800,"
From Dpreview:- "The NX200 also features a lighter optical low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter and advanced moiré-suppression processing."
All reviews are well worth a read in full.
Certainly the Dpreview statement confirms my belief that the NX200 has a very light AA filter. The pictures it produces definitely have that non-AA look. Quality at low ISO's is very good indeed, with detailed sharp files. Things start to struggle from ISO 1600 upwards and Samsung sling ridiculous amounts of pretty unpleasant noise reduction at the jpgs. Actually the images aren't that bad, but are someway noisier than a Sony NEX-5n for example. Here's a comparison between a raw file (with high ISO noise reduction turned off) and a jpg. at ISO 3200. Its a 100% blow up.
I'm going to be doing a full ISO test later today at all ISO settings from 100 to 12800. (The latter is not for the squeamish!!)
In good light the NX200 produces quite stunning pictures. These are taken with the 18-55mm kit lens, which is actually a very decent lens. I tested it back last year and found it to be a excellent performer. This new i-function version seems just as good.
Incidentally I used the settings I have come up with in Capture One to process these images and applied to them to a few A77 and NEX-5n files. I think I assumed that the Sony files would look great, since the ones from the NX200 were so impressive. However the a77 files were noticeably softer and the NEX-5n files were about the same. Showing I think that this Samsung sensor is actually very good indeed, and the weak AA filter is really letting the detail from it come through.
I also shot a bit of hand-held video to see what the OIS in the lens was like. As you can see its pretty effective. You'll notice at the end of the video a rather nasty exposure change. Since there is no AE lock button on the camera, there's no easy way to stop this. I will investigate the possibility of manual control on this. As before I had to colour correct the footage as it was far too blue / magenta.
So, I like the camera more and more in terms of the results at low ISO's, but am consequently getting more frustrated at some of the things that have been left out, like an EVF in particular. I'm currently considering getting an optical viewfinder for some focal lengths, but I can't help thinking more and more that my comments about a missed opportunity indicate my main feelings about the NX200.
I do realise that its half the price of a camera like the NEX-7 and there will be some things missing because of that, but why didn't they include the facility for an add-on viewfinder? This is a top class sensor capable of creating really beautiful images and it seems to be stuck in a point and shoot body which gives rise to a point and shoot attitude. To my mind the sensor deserves more than this, both in terms of what the camera can offer and what Samsung do to the jpgs. which in some cases is little short of criminal.
Is this really a camera for "teenage facebook girl" or could it have been the camera that meant photographers across the world suddenly take Samsung seriously. I just can't help thinking that this could have been Samsungs X100, and the one that turned them into a serious player in the CSC market. From what I've seen so far, the sensor is terrific, the rest of the camera less so. I will continue to use it because the images it produces for me are just what I want, but using it I can't help but have this continual "what might have been" feeling.
As a practice for a future project, I asked my nephew Ben to see if he could shoot a video of me working with the NEX-5n and 18-200mm lens. We managed it despite terrible light, and a very cold wind. The photographs weren't that great but the video turned out OK, and I was pleased with it.
It was his first experience of working with the Olympus E-P3 and 12mm f/2 lens. The Olympus is very good for hand holding with its in-body stabilisation. I added stabilisation during editing in iMovie and despite a few "wobbles" its worked quite well. I'm actually growing to like the wobble effect!
The dark glasses aren't an attempt at anonymity, due to an eye related problem I have to wear them whenever I photograph outdoors. Hence my enthusiasm for the NEX-5n's OLED viewfinder, which is polaroid friendly.
I was keen to show how nice the lens is to work with. Whether or not its "too big" for the camera is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and I'm much more interested by how it works as an outfit. For me it works very well. As you can see I'm very comfortable with it, and its certainly not particularly heavy. When we got home, we compared it to a m4/3 camera with a 14-140mm zoom. While the Panasonic camera / lens combination is slightly smaller, its around the same weight and personally I like the feel and layout of the Sony system better.
The first thing to say about this, is because of the lack of either body or lens stabilisation, its very difficult to use this camera to get smooth hand-held footage. I tried it and even when running it through the iMovie stabilisation feature, it was still pretty jerky.
Consequently the above was shot on a tripod. I guess that's not going to be the chosen option for many who buy this camera. If hand-held video is a priority then cameras like the Sony A55, Olympus E-P3 and Nikon D5100 would be much better options.
However having said that, the video output, though restricted to 720HD only is actually very good. Great colour, very sharp and very impressive overall. I used the 18-55mm kit zoom, as these are often optimised for video, and this proved to work very well. All the usual limitations of still camera video apply but the camera is capable of producing very good looking footage.
I wanted to have a look at how the 12mm lens worked for video, and at the same time see how the E-P3 coped with low light.
I must admit I was very surprised at how good the footage looks. The last shots with the red Stratocaster were shot in very dark conditions and yet there is hardly any noise.
The 12mm lens is also sharper for video than the kit zoom and for a very quick test I was very impressed with the results.
The video on the Olympus E-P3 is something that gets mentioned very rarely. Its now full 1920 x 1080 HD video, with AVCHD files. It follows on from the improvements in the E-PL's and is actually now pretty good.
The great thing is the in-body stabilisation which results in very smooth hand-held footage. Though the above sample has been run through iMovie and its stabilisation software, the raw footage is the best I've seen for smoothness. Indeed when shooting video, the live view image looks very stable and you can see the IS really working when you are recording. I shot the whole thing hand-held and was very pleased with the results.
Its another improvement of the E-P3 over the E-P2 and a very useful one.
However it does throw up a problem. The battery life of the E-P3 is terrible. There is absolutely no way that I will be able to go out for even an afternoons shooting with one battery. For a full days shooting I would have to take at least 3 and maybe 4 to be sure. While I think its a good idea for companies not to keep changing batteries, and Olympus do have the same model for all the Pens, its performance has always been poor, and the better screen on the E-P3 is probably contributing to the power drain.
I did a short test to see how the E-PL1 performed with the IS on for video and then running it through the iMovie stabilisation software. As you can see its pretty smooth for hand held video. Doesn't quite have the lovely floating quality of the Nikon 16-85mm lens, but none the less its a pretty impressive result.
Also the actual video quality is not the same as the Nikons, though it does have lovely punchy colours.
BT fixed my internet connection this morning so I am able to start uploading all the videos I shot last week.
This is shot, 100% hand-held, with Nikon D5100 and D7000 lenses and 10-24mm and 16-85mm lenses.
Again remarkably stable for hand-held, due to the VR in the lens and the stabilisation option in iMovie. You probably get some idea of how windy it was. I am still VERY impressed by the video functions in these two cameras and the ability to do this hand-held is a real bonus.
The Greenway is a disused railway line, that used to run from Stratford-upon-Avon to the Cotswolds. Its a place I often go to cycle and walk, Yesterday I was on foot and shot this video with a Nikon D7000 and 10-24mm and 55-300mm lenses.
I used a tripod for this footage and afterwards was glad I've come up with a way of shooting hand-held!
More video and images, this time with the 10-24mm zoom. No VR on the wide-angle zoom, and the hand-held footage is still pretty smooth. Not quite as good as the 16-45mm but still very usable. Shows that the iMovie image stabilisation function works very well.
The dust spot has disappeared which is good. Again I'm very impressed with the speed and ease of use of this.
The stills are nice and colourful in mostly flat light again.
After my initial experiment with the D7000 I decided to use the D5100 for a prolonged period of video shooting. I was particularly interested in what seemed to be the opportunity to produce very stable hand-held footage.
This is largely down to the lens I used, the 16-85mm AF-S zoom. It has VR, the Nikon image stabilisation sytem built in, and has two settings. Normal and Active. I shot over both days using the Active setting, which is apparently designed for shooting from a moving vehicle, so is ideal for video use.
The second element in this is using the image stabilisation option in iMovie, the Mac video editing software. This analyses the video and makes adjustments. This does result in some shrinking of the frame to compensate for this. It also takes a long time. The short clips I used in the video above took over an hour to process.
As you can see from the above example, it works very well indeed. There's almost a floating in mid-air feel to the footage. It works well on panning, both side to side and up and down. In fact there's a short section where I did both and it looks as good as a steadicam.
I initially thought that this would be restricted to wide-angle use only, but there are a couple of sections on the telephoto end of the zoom that are also incredibly smooth.
Even the shots of walking and climbing stairs are pretty good, with a kind of bouncing effect happening.
There are a couple of things I have to sort out. I have a tencency to lean to the left, so I'll have to be careful about that, and a dust spot found its way on the the sensor. I attempted to remove it with a blower brush last night and it seems to be gone.
Added to my two previous short videos, this is a very useful video option indeed.
All of this of course goes to show just how useless most reviews of the video functions on cameras are. They get dismissed very quickly, usually it seems by people who haven't actually used it or even bothered to see what it can do. These "reviews" ususally seem to consist of people turning it on, following their dog around, getting terrible results and blaming the camera. They then come out with something like "It doesn't do full manual control, so its useless" As if they would know what to do with full manual control anyway!
How useful a video enabled DSLR is to you depends entirely on what you want to use it for. If you want to just video your family and holidays I would suggest that a DSLR isn't the best tool anyway. A small compact or camcorder with a smaller sensor will probably be more suitable in those instances.
The D5100 (Preferable to the D7000 for me because of the articulated screen) has a VERY useful video option for me. I'm able to use the AF (in non-continuous mode) as it then doesn't start hunting around when I'm recording. I can lock the exposure using the AE-L lock button set to AE-L only. I can set the aperture manually, in aperture priority mode and I can operate all of these buttons with one hand without moving it from the hand grip. All this on top of remarkably smooth hand-held footage.
I was very impressed with the Sony A55, but this is better. Shooting the video and stills at Kenilworth yesterday was relatively easy, relatively fast and indeed a pleasurable experience. I will obviously get better at this, but even so I was very pleased indeed with the results. I should also mention that using the latest version of iMovie the whole thing was very quick to edit and I had it all uploaded to YouTube by yesterday evening.
So, if you read somewhere that the Nikon D5100 isn't any good for video, don't believe it!! If you want a walk-around camcorder then it probably isn't, but then I don't think any DSLR or CSC is useful for that. However if you want to produce something that looks a bit more like TV footage then this camera has lots of ways to help that. As far as I'm concerned, this is easily the most useful set of video functions in any camera I've ever owned. To be able to produce something like the Kenilworth Castle footage with no tripod, has both amazed and pleased me.
I tried a bit of video yesterday with the D7000 and the 16-85mm lens. With the VR switched on and running it through the iMovie stabilisation function, I was able to get very smooth hand-held footage.
As you can see, I didn't lock the exposure so its adjusting that on its auto settings, but its very smooth indeed and just as good as the results I got from the Sony A55. Very useful.
Olympus E-PL2 m.Zuiko 14-150mm f/4-5.6 720p edited in iMovie
Easily the best video performance I've yet seen in an Olympus m4/3 camera. This is actually pretty good. The E-P1 and E-P2 were somewhat soft, but this is nice and sharp with good colour. As is usual, nowhere near the flexibility of something like a GH2, but as I've said many times before, is this the point of video enabled stills cameras?
People moan about the lack of full manual control and various broadcast quality features, as if they were using these cameras to shoot some hollywood blockbuster. Some people obviously do use cameras such as this as a budget alternative for some serious filmaking, but the idea of them being a serious alternative to a dedicated video camera has always struck me as like asking for Formula 1 performance in a Nissan Micra!
The great thing is you get seriously good HD quality on many m4/3 cameras, but to expect them to be equipped with the same functionality as a made for the job camera, is asking a lot. Much is made about manual focus and being able to set the aperture manually. This is actually easy to do by buying a manual lens and using an adapter. You can get all sorts of really good manual lenses for m4/3 often at ridiculously cheap prices. I've always found it much easier to use them anyway. I've used MF Nikon lenses on all the Canon and m4/3 cameras I've had, and they work very well.
However this was shot with the 14-150mm zoom, and as you can see its produced some nice crisp footage even at the 150mm end.
An excellent article by Andrew Reid over at EOSHD on comments from Thom Hogan about how we don't need video enabled DSLR's any more because we have large sensor video cameras now.
I certainly don't agree with Andrew all the time, (The Canon colour issue) but this is right on the money.
I've been saying over and over again that video enabled DSLR's and CSC's aren't a substitute for video cameras, though they do get used as such. Nor do I see much point in the Phillip Bloom approach of sticking all the gizmo's on to a DSLR / CSC to try and make it just like a "pro" video camera.
Surely the great benefit of something like a GH2 or Canon 600D is, its a cheap, simple way to shoot very high quality HD footage. At the same time these cameras shoot great high quality stills. I still maintain all you need is a decent tripod and microphone and you're good to go. I read the endless pieces about rolling shutter and other faults that video on DSLR's and CSC's is supposed to have, but how many people are shooting for TV and the Movies? These cameras offer new opportunities and possibilities to do different things. The idea that it is only the top end of the market thats important is surely ridiculous.
To me these cameras give all of us the chance to shoot high quality footage for whatever purpose we want. It may be family memories, something we are interested in for the web, photo journalism or even our own creative expression. A GH2, a NEX-5 or a cheap Nikon or Canon DSLR is perfectly capable of that. What in reality is Thom Hogan saying? Is he saying that unless we are producing material for TV broadcast we shouldn't bother? Or that unless we spend a much larger amount on a "proper" video camera then we can't be taken seriously? There's no question in my mind that my GH2 is miles better than some small sensor camcorder. Its capable of a much higher quality output, and looks much better if used in low light. I don't use the video function much but its there when I want it and in the meantime I can use the camera to make my living shooting photographs.
So Bravo Andrew, I'm with you all the way on this. We should celebrate what video enabled DSLR's and CSC's offer us instead of apologising for the dubious and questionable notion that they are not as good as the "real thing".
