1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Samsung

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by OzRay, Jan 14, 2015.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    DPR has an interesting interview with Samsung on their NX1 and design philosophy and this comment was very interesting and possibly topical, considering recent discussions about lenses:

    You don't get something for nothing.
     
  2. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    which is why I compromise on things and am happy with GF-1 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 ... I honestly think they got the formula right back at the start

    if I was after big and heavy stuff I'd go full frame and be done with it, but I know that I don't want a 5D as my party / travel / day trip camera
     
  3. tomO2013

    tomO2013 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    799
    Oct 28, 2013
    Interesting read and Samsung are doing fantastic camera's and glass lately as are Sony and Panasonic. It's interesting how many people belittle Samsung, Sony and Panasonic as they are perceived to be electronics companies only with no understanding of photography and lacking the big heritage of Nikon, Canon and Leica; but that's another discussion, possibly bigger even than the m43 VS APSC VS FF!!!

    I was at a photo expo recently and got chatting to two reps from both Sony and Olympus - both genuinely appeared to have really good background in both optics and system design.
    The Olympus rep said (and I'm paraphrasing the obvious here) that designers have options designing optical formulas. Everything being a compromise with respect to size/weight/image quality (sharpness, distortions). However full digital end-to-end systems allow designers more freedom when designing lenses than is possible with traditional lens designs from Canon/Nikon.
    On the image quality side of things some things are easier to correct/allow for than others. As the Oly rep put it, they were putting more emphasis into resolving sharper images than for pure optically correct images out of the lens itself as distortion correction in software would allow them to bridge the gap with a lesser loss of quality than if they had met in the middle optically between distortion and sharpness, for a given lens size/weight. The Sony engineer more or less alluded to the same thing.

    (personal pet peeve) I could never understand why people would moan about the size of the EM1 + battery grip or about lenses such as the Nocticron, Oly 40-150 on m43, nevermind some of the larger lenses on X (40-150) or FE (70-200) mounts. The beauty of many of these systems is that you can build YOUR system out to be as big or small as you want with your own understanding of trade-offs rather than starting from a big place.
    It sounds like Samsung are on the same page too.
     
  4. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    That's exactly it, you have a choice as to size, weight, quality, speed, price, but you can't have everything in a small and light package. With m4/3, you can possibly get more of those options together, but certainly not all at the same time.
     
  5. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Part of the misunderstanding from some (that have the idea that M4/3's is supposed to be small, ALL the time) is from from the lack of understanding that a bright telephoto lens (longer focal lengths & in particular zooms) does not have the same smaller size advantage that the shorter focal lengths can have over 4/3's (DSLR mount) & the larger formats like APS-C to some degree & therefore the larger bright zooms are going to be large to some extent. That is the price to pay for a bright, high quality telephoto zoom lens though.
     
  6. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Exactly. That's why the likes of the 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 40-150mm f2.8 aren't f2 lenses, especially if they had been designed to work perfectly at f2, they would have been significantly larger and heavier.
     
  7. In the range of focal lengths from 24 through to 70mm, Samsung's combination of APS-C sensor and their chosen flange distance provides a better balance of lens size and optical performance than even Micro Four Thirds, but only for prime lenses. Fast zoom lenses however, are a different matter entirely.

    One thing in Samsung's favour is that despite their claimed bias towards optical performance over size and weight, their two fast zooms (16-50mm f2-2.8 and 50-150mm f2.8) still weigh less than Fujifilm's 16-55mm f2.8 and 50-140mm f2.8 lenses which have similarly been designed for an APS-C sensor.
     
    • Like Like x 1