EX2 has been announced

Forums: 

and they http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samsung-announces-ex2f-camera-19637 get you
The camera is priced at £429 RRP and will be available from early August.
as price and availability

Ybspics wrote: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_ex2f/
Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth of field isn't much deeper. I also like the built in ND filter, that should be nice for keeping some shallow depth of field in bright light. Price looks pretty good too. My thought is the RX100 is overpriced, I would rather buy an m4/3 camera, might not be as small, but would rather have interchangeable lenses. The one thing the RX100 has going for it is that it is truly pocketable. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

Yeah DOF samples would be nice ... not sure why Samsung doesn't have the full specs for the camera on their website yet - same goes for DPreview. I'm hoping this does 720p 60fps and has full manual control in video as well. Would probably buy it in a heartbeat.

viking79 wrote:
Ybspics wrote: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_ex2f/
Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth of field isn't much deeper. I also like the built in ND filter, that should be nice for keeping some shallow depth of field in bright light. Price looks pretty good too. My thought is the RX100 is overpriced, I would rather buy an m4/3 camera, might not be as small, but would rather have interchangeable lenses. The one thing the RX100 has going for it is that it is truly pocketable. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)
if the pricing here in North America will be priced around $430, then that should be an easy sell. the ND filter did caught my attention. and I agree that the selling point of the RX100 is a pocket camera with great IQ (not much so with sensor size but has sensor quality). the price of the RX100 imo is also a bit on the steep end, and I agree that the slimmest m4/3 camera would make a better deal. however, the RX100 would be great on those everyday candid and unexpected moments where you want to reach your pocket for it rather than use your smartphone for taking pictures. anyway, I have to see these in person first.

I forgot to mention that the NX1000 would also be a great deal at $500. although if the rx100 and NX1000 are priced the same, it would come down to specific usage for the buck.

viking79 wrote:
Ybspics wrote: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_ex2f/
Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth of field isn't much deeper.
That's wishful thinking. BSI does not help that much, especially not with the pixel size of 12 MP 1/1.7" (BSI gives the most benefits in really small pixel sensors like 8 MP 1/3.2" typically used in phone cameras or 12-16 MP 1/2.3" in compacts). Nikon CX has 2.7 times larger sensor area than 1/1.7" sensors and it has much larger pixels, so FSI tech is no disadvantage. In reality the 1/1.7" BSI sensors probably about matches a 2/3" FSI CMOS sensor with similar pixel count, which has "only" 34% larger sensor area.

SLove wrote:
viking79 wrote:
Ybspics wrote: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_ex2f/
Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth of field isn't much deeper.
That's wishful thinking. BSI does not help that much, especially not with the pixel size of 12 MP 1/1.7" (BSI gives the most benefits in really small pixel sensors like 8 MP 1/3.2" typically used in phone cameras or 12-16 MP 1/2.3" in compacts). Nikon CX has 2.7 times larger sensor area than 1/1.7" sensors and it has much larger pixels, so FSI tech is no disadvantage. In reality the 1/1.7" BSI sensors probably about matches a 2/3" FSI CMOS sensor with similar pixel count, which has "only" 34% larger sensor area.
Pixel size is irrelevant. A good sensor will perform about the same at the image level regardless of the number of pixels. The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop. This is 2/3 stop for the sensor size, and an additional half stop better, so you are looking at just over 1 stop improvement. So if the sensor in the CX is 2.7 times larger, that is only 1.43 stops larger (log 2.7/log 2), the 1" sensor will only have a slight advantage (maybe 1/3 to 1/2 f/stop). There is no reason for a larger BSI sensor to perform worse than a smaller BSI sensor. They started with cell phones, and scale the technology up (it is going to require special equipment to fabricate so the larger sensors don't get the tech as fast). Where are you getting your estimate for only matching 34% larger sensor (vs over 100% larger sensor from what we have seen in real world examples)? Looking at DXO Mark again, the Q scores the same as the Fuji X10 and S1 (roughly, within 3 points) and that is a 1/2.33" BSI vs 2/3" FSI. The area difference is just over 1 f/stop. So again, a 1.7" sensor is going to perform close to a 1" sensor (more like 1/1.2" sensor) assuming the technology is equivalent to other BSI sensors. So based on real examples I see at least 1 full f/stop advantage to the BSI sensor. It won't quite equal the 1" sensor, but it makes the difference less noticeable. All I can say is how impressed I am with my phone sensor performance given the small sensor size. Eric

that you proclaim is not a Samsung special.....nor is it the magical design that makes a small sensor perform as well as a well designed large sensor. We've seen enough (many ) BSI sensored cameras to know that many are very good and are an advancement...BUT they do not close the gap in a significant way as compared to well designed up to date larger sensors. Sony, in fact is the source of many of these sensors used by many manufacturers in their DCs.

jimr wrote: that you proclaim is not a Samsung special.....nor is it the magical design that makes a small sensor perform as well as a well designed large sensor. We've seen enough (many ) BSI sensored cameras to know that many are very good and are an advancement...BUT they do not close the gap in a significant way as compared to well designed up to date larger sensors. Sony, in fact is the source of many of these sensors used by many manufacturers in their DCs.
remember that the lens also plays a significant role in this. one of the reasons why the EX1 was a hit IMO is not just because of it's smaller sensor, but the lens quality.

Ariston wrote:
jimr wrote: that you proclaim is not a Samsung special.....nor is it the magical design that makes a small sensor perform as well as a well designed large sensor. We've seen enough (many ) BSI sensored cameras to know that many are very good and are an advancement...BUT they do not close the gap in a significant way as compared to well designed up to date larger sensors. Sony, in fact is the source of many of these sensors used by many manufacturers in their DCs.
remember that the lens also plays a significant role in this. one of the reasons why the EX1 was a hit IMO is not just because of it's smaller sensor, but the lens quality.
I own the TL500 and the lens is excellent. We know nothing about the new lens. It was still noisy sensor by today's standards and a great lens can do nothing about that.

jimr wrote: that you proclaim is not a Samsung special.....nor is it the magical design that makes a small sensor perform as well as a well designed large sensor. We've seen enough (many ) BSI sensored cameras to know that many are very good and are an advancement...BUT they do not close the gap in a significant way as compared to well designed up to date larger sensors. Sony, in fact is the source of many of these sensors used by many manufacturers in their DCs.
What about when BSI is used for m4/3 or APS-C? Granted, sensor size is important, but the better smaller sensors get the less important the larger sensor is. Current APS-C technology offers fairly similar performance to full frame sensors from 6 years ago or so (Canon 5d). If BSI adds a stop to how much light is captured by the sensor, that means some future BSI APS-C sensor would perform pretty close to a current FX camera (D4, etc), but that technology is a ways out for APS-C or FX cameras. A point where this is going is that technology to increase sensor performance costs money, when is it cheaper to just use a larger sensor? Larger sensors are also much more expensive. I imagine sensors will stabilize around APS-C or 4/3 size if they can reach the performance of current full frame cameras. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

Our expectations are always increasing. The gap in IQ from smaller to larger current leading edge sensors remains. That has not changed.

jimr wrote: Our expectations are always increasing. The gap in IQ from smaller to larger current leading edge sensors remains. That has not changed.
It has changed. The Pentax Q (Sony Exmor R 1/2.33" BSI sensor) scores as high at DxOMark as the Fuji X10/S1 Sony Exmor 2/3" sensor. Both technologies are from around Aug 2009 as you mention, with minor improvements I am sure. If BSI scales well to larger sensor (too expensive of technology right now) the performance gap between smaller BSI sensors and larger FSI sensors will narrow. If a BSI 4/3 sensor performs as well as a traditional APS-C sensor, it could hurt sales of APS-C. The only issue I see now is there is a cost trade off. If the BSI 4/3 sensor costs more than a traditional APS-C sensor, it makes more sense to use the larger traditional sensor. Eric

viking79 wrote: . . . If BSI scales well to larger sensor (too expensive of technology right now) the performance gap between smaller BSI sensors and larger FSI sensors will narrow. If a BSI 4/3 sensor performs as well as a traditional APS-C sensor, it could hurt sales of APS-C. The only issue I see now is there is a cost trade off. If the BSI 4/3 sensor costs more than a traditional APS-C sensor, it makes more sense to use the larger traditional sensor.
Sorry, SLove was right and you're wrong about BSI technology. The fact is that it doesn't and can't scale to larger sensors. What BSI sensors offer is only greater utilization of the sensor's surface area, because the parts that block light (the wiring), preventing photons from being captured by the photosites are moved to the opposite side of the sensor. The area recaptured is primarily a function of the number of megapixels, proportional to the length or width of the sensor, not the area (length times width). The percentage of the sensor area that BSI recovers gets smaller and smaller as the sensor gets larger and larger. The Q may greatly outperform other, larger sensors, but it's mainly due to improvements other than BSI. For Samsung's sensors to do much better, Samsung would have to improve the tech. used by its sensors (including using extremely low noise circuits) and learn how to produce better JPEGs. That's a lot more difficult than simply creating smaller, compressed RAW files, and Samsung hasn't yet managed to do even that very well.

Billx08 wrote:
viking79 wrote: . . . If BSI scales well to larger sensor (too expensive of technology right now) the performance gap between smaller BSI sensors and larger FSI sensors will narrow. If a BSI 4/3 sensor performs as well as a traditional APS-C sensor, it could hurt sales of APS-C. The only issue I see now is there is a cost trade off. If the BSI 4/3 sensor costs more than a traditional APS-C sensor, it makes more sense to use the larger traditional sensor.
Sorry, SLove was right and you're wrong about BSI technology. The fact is that it doesn't and can't scale to larger sensors. What BSI sensors offer is only greater utilization of the sensor's surface area, because the parts that block light (the wiring), preventing photons from being captured by the photosites are moved to the opposite side of the sensor. The area recaptured is primarily a function of the number of megapixels, proportional to the length or width of the sensor, not the area (length times width). The percentage of the sensor area that BSI recovers gets smaller and smaller as the sensor gets larger and larger.
Okay, fair enough, it impacts smaller pixels to a greater degree, so we will likely see less benefit for BSI at the 1/1.7" sensor size with 12 MP, as that is on the edge for BSI sensors, so the bottom line is we have to wait until it is released and see how image quality performs. Don't think I am knocking the Sony, it looks great, but costs more than a NEX 5n with kit lens which will perform even better. The reason to buy the Sony is truly compact camera with fairly large sensor and good image quality. The reason to buy something like the Samsung is it is much cheaper, offers an articulated screen, etc. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

viking79 wrote: . . . Okay, fair enough, it impacts smaller pixels to a greater degree, so we will likely see less benefit for BSI at the 1/1.7" sensor size with 12 MP, as that is on the edge for BSI sensors, so the bottom line is we have to wait until it is released and see how image quality performs.
Right, and that helps to see it from another angle. Take a 10mp or 12mp sensor and the wiring/traces (which don't have to deal with high currents) are about as fine as it's practical to make. Bump that up to 20 megpixels or more and the wiring won't get any finer but there will be a lot more of it, so moving the wiring to the other side of the silicon will do more for gazillion megapixel, small sensors.
Don't think I am knocking the Sony, it looks great, but costs more than a NEX 5n with kit lens which will perform even better. The reason to buy the Sony is truly compact camera with fairly large sensor and good image quality.
I don't find Sony cameras very appealing but if I had to own and use one it would be the NEX5n. Much of the resolution of very high resolution cameras is squandered if shot discipline isn't really high, so unless the Sony can shoot most of its photos at very high shutter speeds or be used on a tripod (eliminating the small size advantage) it won't really outperform more modest cameras most of the time. But it will do better with tests like DPR's Studio Comparison photos, because those test photos don't try to compare hand-held photo quality. I wonder how many owners of the S95, S100, EX1, LX5, etc. ever use tripods?
The reason to buy something like the Samsung is it is much cheaper, offers an articulated screen, etc.
You could throw in "well crafted" too. The WB850f appears to be an anomaly. The other cameras in that line are also made well and perform well. FWIW, Adorama seems to start selling different Samsung camera modelss for very low prices just about the time that B&H starts listing those models as "Discontinued". The most recent is the NX200 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $600. It's almost a twofer.

viking79 wrote: The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop.
What sensor does Q outperform? It's doesn't out perform any larger Sony sensor. It outperforms the Canon'a sensor in G10 But how does that prove anything? The Sony's 16 MP sensor outperform Canon's APSC sensor too, despite having no BSI and equal size..

ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote: The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop.
What sensor does Q outperform? It's doesn't out perform any larger Sony sensor. It outperforms the Canon'a sensor in G10 But how does that prove anything? The Sony's 16 MP sensor outperform Canon's APSC sensor too, despite having no BSI and equal size..
Go look at DXO Mark. It performs similar to Sony 2/3 sensor in the Fuji X10 and S1. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

viking79 wrote:
ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote: The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop.
What sensor does Q outperform? It's doesn't out perform any larger Sony sensor. It outperforms the Canon'a sensor in G10 But how does that prove anything? The Sony's 16 MP sensor outperform Canon's APSC sensor too, despite having no BSI and equal size..
Go look at DXO Mark. It performs similar to Sony 2/3 sensor in the Fuji X10 and S1.
WTF? No Sony sensor has "Orb" issues like X10 Who told you X10 had a Sony sensor? Post proof for that claim

ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote:
ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote: The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop.
What sensor does Q outperform? It's doesn't out perform any larger Sony sensor. It outperforms the Canon'a sensor in G10 But how does that prove anything? The Sony's 16 MP sensor outperform Canon's APSC sensor too, despite having no BSI and equal size..
Go look at DXO Mark. It performs similar to Sony 2/3 sensor in the Fuji X10 and S1.
WTF? No Sony sensor has "Orb" issues like X10 Who told you X10 had a Sony sensor? Post proof for that claim
Besides, X10 uses EXR technology, which isn't on any Sony sensor. If EX2 doesn't have a Sony sensor (most likely it is Sony, but we will see), it might end up scoring even lowert than EX1, which was a Sony sensor.

ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote:
ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote: The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop.
What sensor does Q outperform? It's doesn't out perform any larger Sony sensor. It outperforms the Canon'a sensor in G10 But how does that prove anything? The Sony's 16 MP sensor outperform Canon's APSC sensor too, despite having no BSI and equal size..
Go look at DXO Mark. It performs similar to Sony 2/3 sensor in the Fuji X10 and S1.
WTF? No Sony sensor has "Orb" issues like X10
Sure it does, I can make my NEX sensor make orbs if I really want to (point it at the sun). Joking aside, you are right though. Purple Fringing is Sony's strong point
Who told you X10 had a Sony sensor? Post proof for that claim
okay, I figured it was Sony, but that might not be correct then, but my point stands regardless, the Fuji 2/3 sensor is a pretty well rated sensor and the Pentax Q performs fairly close and is half the size. Does Sony have a current 2/3 inch sensor? Will go look at how their other sensors perform as well. Eric

viking79 wrote: Does Sony have a current 2/3 inch sensor? Will go look at how their other sensors perform as well.
None of Sony's P&S cameras before RX100 offered RAW, so they were never rated by dxomark. RX100 Dxomark score is going to shock a lot of people, though .. I predict it will score higher than 12 MP 4/3 sensor, and somthing like Samsung older APSC sensor, as in K-7 (with higher DR score than K-7 but probably lower lowlight score).

Myari wrote:
viking79 wrote: Does Sony have a current 2/3 inch sensor? Will go look at how their other sensors perform as well.
None of Sony's P&S cameras before RX100 offered RAW, so they were never rated by dxomark.
Okay, that is what I was afraid of, and I didn't find much searching for Sony 2/3 sensors that weren't CCD.
RX100 Dxomark score is going to shock a lot of people, though .. I predict it will score higher than 12 MP 4/3 sensor, and somthing like Samsung older APSC sensor, as in K-7 (with higher DR score than K-7 but probably lower lowlight score).
I don't doubt it will perform well, and the K-7 was not great, and I do expect the RX100 will perform better than the EXF2, was definitely not trying to say the EXF2 would be better. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

Myari wrote: RX100 Dxomark score is going to shock a lot of people, though .. I predict it will score higher than 12 MP 4/3 sensor, and somthing like Samsung older APSC sensor, as in K-7 (with higher DR score than K-7 but probably lower lowlight score).
It better as the ex1 scores better dr at base iso than either of those....

The Q is 1/2.33" BSI sensor and out performs every 1/1.7" FSI sensor by at least half a stop. This is 2/3 stop for the sensor size, and an additional half stop better, so you are looking at just over 1 stop improvement. So if the sensor in the CX is 2.7 times larger, that is only 1.43 stops larger (log 2.7/log 2), the 1" sensor will only have a slight advantage (maybe 1/3 to 1/2 f/stop).
Log( 43.3/ 28.45) / Log (2) = 0.6 stop size disadvantage + 0.5 stop advantage = 1.1 stop advantage Convert ratio of area to stops Log( 116/ 28.45) / Log (2) = 2 stop advantage for large sensor. Assume BSI effectiveness is proportional to sensor area. So, that 1.1 stop advantage becomes much less, maybe only half a stop. Bottom line, about one stop disadvantage.
There is no reason for a larger BSI sensor to perform worse than a smaller BSI sensor. They started with cell phones, and scale the technology up (it is going to require special equipment to fabricate so the larger sensors don't get the tech as fast).
Yes there is. The ONLY advantage BSI offers is to get rid of some of the circuitry blocking the light. The bigger the sensor, the less important that is. That's what a $8000 pro camera doesn't use BSI - no advantage.

Is it really only 28.9 mm thick? Looks thicker based on the look of the depth compared to the width. Really intriguing. I didn't think I'd consider this camera when I heard it had a 1/1.7" sensor, but the lens stats look really good. We'll see what the reviews show.

Rehabdoc wrote: Is it really only 28.9 mm thick? Looks thicker based on the look of the depth compared to the width. Really intriguing. I didn't think I'd consider this camera when I heard it had a 1/1.7" sensor, but the lens stats look really good. We'll see what the reviews show.
between this and the NX1000, I'd go with the NX1000.

the following:
viking79 wrote: Ybspics wrote: Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the > RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth > of field isn't much deeper.
This camera is a good challenger to the smaller sensored G12, LX5.

jimr wrote: Re: i Own And Love My TL500...But We Are Getting More Than A Bit Delusional If > We Bel
the following:
viking79 wrote: Ybspics wrote: Nice, 1/1.7" BSI sensor should perform about the same as the larger 1" sensor in the RX100 and Nikon 1 in terms of noise, and the large aperture lens should mean depth of field isn't much deeper.
The TL500 is a FSI sensor, the light has to shine through the wiring on the sensor before reaching the light sensitive sensels, this substrate absorbs a lot of light. The EXF2 uses a BSI sensor where the pixels will receive about 1 more stop of light. You are right, it won't quite equal a 1" sensor but maybe 1/1.2" sensor. The downside with BSI is that at lower ISO you might lose most of the advantage of having a BSI sensor, but it is higher ISO where most people want improvement and BSI is good for that. Mainly cost is keeping this technology out of larger sensors, it is harder and more expensive to manufacture them. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

You miss my point. I am not comparing it to my TL500 sensor. BSI has been around for awhile and is not the magic to make the small sensor perform as well as a new up to date larger sensor. The gap remains. All size sensors have improved. The gap has not narrowed as current leading edge sensors have advanced the IQ across the board from smaller sensors to larger ones.

jimr wrote: You miss my point. I am not comparing it to my TL500 sensor. BSI has been around for awhile and is not the magic to make the small sensor perform as well as a new up to date larger sensor.
A new up to date larger sensor will be a BSI sensor in the future, most likely.
The gap remains. All size sensors have improved.
They have, but BSI is a new technology. It is an improvement to sensor technology, it does have its disadvantages, but I imagine this is the direction the market will shift.
The gap has not narrowed as current leading edge sensors have advanced the IQ across the board from smaller sensors to larger ones.
It has, because this is a different technology. It is like the difference between CCD and CMOS. They each have their benefits, but the market has mostly moved to CMOS. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

Sony's work on new photo diode materials and processes allowed them to introduce the first consumer back-illuminated sensor as their CMOS-based "Exmor R" in August 2009...so it goes back 3 years in consumer DCs. That is a long time in today's technology.

jimr wrote: Sony's work on new photo diode materials and processes allowed them to introduce the first consumer back-illuminated sensor as their CMOS-based "Exmor R" in August 2009...so it goes back 3 years in consumer DCs. That is a long time in today's technology.
The Exmor Technology used in the latest DSLR is from the same time... Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

viking79 wrote:
jimr wrote: You miss my point. I am not comparing it to my TL500 sensor. BSI has been around for awhile and is not the magic to make the small sensor perform as well as a new up to date larger sensor.
A new up to date larger sensor will be a BSI sensor in the future, most likely.
This is not true, dude and I told you this several times. Larger sensor doesn't benefit from BSI. I didn't make up this fact. This comes from imaging-resource.com Sony interview at PMA 2010 http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS10/1267153570.html R: Sony is not only a manufacturer of cameras but also a major image sensor company, and last year your back-illuminated sensors were a significant advance for high ISO with cameras. A few questions about sensors: Can the back-illuminated technology be scaled up to larger chip sizes, like SLR size chips, or are there issues with the support of the chip, or other problems that would prevent scaling it to that size? Imamura: That's a pretty detailed technical question, but as you may know, back-illuminated technology was developed because of the very small pixel sizes. It's because on the surface of the sensor, a lot of the area is occupied by the interconnect, so the [light-sensitive] area gets very small. This made the engineers think: "How can we make it different, so we can get more area?" In the case of the APS-C or larger imaging sensor, the ratio between the area of the sensor and the peripheral circuits; the light-sensitive part already has a bigger area. So if we made it back-illuminated, there wouldn't be as much advantage as with a smaller sensor. [Editorial note from Dave: This is a significant point: Back-illuminated technology won't bring nearly as much benefit to APS-C size pixels as it does to the tiny ones in digicams, because the larger APS-C pixels lose a smaller percentage of potential light-sensitive area to interconnects and peripheral circuitry. Disappointing to hear, but obvious when one thinks about it.]

ET2 wrote:
viking79 wrote:
jimr wrote: You miss my point. I am not comparing it to my TL500 sensor. BSI has been around for awhile and is not the magic to make the small sensor perform as well as a new up to date larger sensor.
A new up to date larger sensor will be a BSI sensor in the future, most likely.
This is not true, dude and I told you this several times. Larger sensor doesn't benefit from BSI. I didn't make up this fact. This comes from imaging-resource.com Sony interview at PMA 2010 http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS10/1267153570.html R: Sony is not only a manufacturer of cameras but also a major image sensor company, and last year your back-illuminated sensors were a significant advance for high ISO with cameras. A few questions about sensors: Can the back-illuminated technology be scaled up to larger chip sizes, like SLR size chips, or are there issues with the support of the chip, or other problems that would prevent scaling it to that size? Imamura: That's a pretty detailed technical question, but as you may know, back-illuminated technology was developed because of the very small pixel sizes. It's because on the surface of the sensor, a lot of the area is occupied by the interconnect, so the [light-sensitive] area gets very small. This made the engineers think: "How can we make it different, so we can get more area?" In the case of the APS-C or larger imaging sensor, the ratio between the area of the sensor and the peripheral circuits; the light-sensitive part already has a bigger area. So if we made it back-illuminated, there wouldn't be as much advantage as with a smaller sensor. [Editorial note from Dave: This is a significant point: Back-illuminated technology won't bring nearly as much benefit to APS-C size pixels as it does to the tiny ones in digicams, because the larger APS-C pixels lose a smaller percentage of potential light-sensitive area to interconnects and peripheral circuitry. Disappointing to hear, but obvious when one thinks about it.]
Unless you want higher pixel density APS-C cameras? I still don't see that it wouldn't bring some additional advantage to larger sensors. There is clearly some cut-off threshold, but I don't pretend to know where that is. Eric -- I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful. - John Constable (quote) See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly) Flickr Photostream: http:[email protected]/ (updated daily)

VERY interesting, the tilting screen and 1.4. And how is the optional EVF?

if I had to buy a compact now, this would be mine for sure. I used to love my EX1, and even if I'm not using it much (since I stepped to NX), it's still a great camera. The EX2 will be a success for Samsung, IMHO.

Only way I'd consider this is if I can turn of the noise reduction for jpegs in camera.

This looks like my dream compact camera... I'm looking forward to read reviews about IQ and AF speed. I have NX10 + 16mm + 30mm so that EX2F has to be really good to deserve a place in my pocket

If the posted specifications can be believed--and if they're wrong, this would not be a first for dpzen--the EX2's dimensions are 112x62x29mm, compared to 113x63x29mm for the EX1. Not a significant difference, but the listed weight of the EX2 is 294g compared to 386g of the EX1--and that's a pretty substantial difference. (That is, unless the EX2 weight doesn't include the battery, as it's supposed to.) How did they manage to reduce the weight that much? The lens is faster and more complex, so it's bound to weigh more. Bob

Robert Deutsch wrote: If the posted specifications can be believed--and if they're wrong, this would not be a first for dpzen--the EX2's dimensions are 112x62x29mm, compared to 113x63x29mm for the EX1. Not a significant difference, but the listed weight of the EX2 is 294g compared to 386g of the EX1--and that's a pretty substantial difference. (That is, unless the EX2 weight doesn't include the battery, as it's supposed to.) How did they manage to reduce the weight that much? The lens is faster and more complex, so it's bound to weigh more.
The EX1 doesn't weigh 386 g, mine is 336g with lenscap, battery and memory card. When also including the neckstrap it's about 360g. This is one the bad points of ALL review sites: They barely check weights and dimensions, and the EX1's depth is definitely not 29mm but about 51mm. That's including lens+lenscap and that's the only thing that's of interest as the lens is not removable. Even for really compact cameras like the WB2000 this nonsense of giving thickness with the protruding lens is done by Samsung (other manufacturers may do the same, not sure).

Robert... I own the TL500. Samsung's stated dimensions are misleading. They do not include the lens which even when the TL500 (EX-1) is off protrudes significantly making the camera much deeper than stated. They give you the depth of the body without including the lens protrusion when the camera is turned off... That is before adding the lens cap. This is not a camera in the same size area as the Canon S or Sony SX grouping. In the $400 dollar range I can see this camera selling well.... Needs to compete with the G12/LX5 prices....
Robert Deutsch wrote: If the posted specifications can be believed--and if they're wrong, this would not be a first for dpzen--the EX2's dimensions are 112x62x29mm, compared to 113x63x29mm for the EX1. Not a significant difference, but the listed weight of the EX2 is 294g compared to 386g of the EX1--and that's a pretty substantial difference. (That is, unless the EX2 weight doesn't include the battery, as it's supposed to.) How did they manage to reduce the weight that much? The lens is faster and more complex, so it's bound to weigh more. Bob

Hi! Interesting that the new EX2 uses the 10A battery (the EX1 used the 11A). Wonder why the new one has a smaller battery. I would have thought with all the new features there would be more power consumption. Anyway, good for me as it is the same battery as my wife's WB750, and will work with my existing eternal charger. So that's a plus for me. The picture of the EX2 shows little icons on the screen. Sort of like whats on our Galaxy SII phone. Wonder if this is an android camera (like was being talked about). Thanks -- Nova Scotia, Canada

Thanks for clarifying that. Looking at the picture of the EX1 and the EX2F, it seemed kind of obvious they can't be 3 cm including the retracted lens (the body including the swivel screen would have to be 1.5 cm or so), and it would be thinner while being wider (111 mm)than the RX100. but wishful thinking made me want to think it was as thin as claimed.
jimr wrote: Robert... I own the TL500. Samsung's stated dimensions are misleading. They do not include the lens which even when the TL500 (EX-1) is off protrudes significantly making the camera much deeper than stated. They give you the depth of the body without including the lens protrusion when the camera is turned off... That is before adding the lens cap.
Robert Deutsch wrote: If the posted specifications can be believed--and if they're wrong, this would not be a first for dpzen--the EX2's dimensions are 112x62x29mm, compared to 113x63x29mm for the EX1. Not a significant difference, but the listed weight of the EX2 is 294g compared to 386g of the EX1--and that's a pretty substantial difference. (That is, unless the EX2 weight doesn't include the battery, as it's supposed to.) How did they manage to reduce the weight that much? The lens is faster and more complex, so it's bound to weigh more. Bob

At last, nice to see Samsung has not dropped the EXn series. Goods:
  • f1.4
  • same extremely robust body
  • same great AMOLED screen
  • ND Filter
  • moved the ISO button away from the thumbwheel (On EX1 it's too easy to accidently change the ISO, happens to me all the time)
  • potentially better IQ (EX1's is already pretty good)
Still needs improvement:
  • still too easy to hit the movie button accidently
  • no filter thread (lens assembly probably too fragile to support a filter)
  • (slow) motor-driven zoom (I would have liked a manual zoom like the X10, and would allow for a filter thread without the need for an adaptor, and thighter lens assembly that would minimize dust getting sucked into the camera)
  • max shutter speed ? (unknown, but given the presence of the ND filter, I suspect still the same)

announced it too. http://www.dpzen.com/news/2012/07/03/samsungreleasesex2f This is a much more interesting camera than the RX100 to me. Better lens, tilt screen, hotshoe, sensible MP count on a BSI CMOS sensor (above average size), real grip, nice progressive improvement over the EX1 on paper at least. Count me in as majorly interested. Carl http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/ http://alphamountworld.com "I think, therefore....."

Looks like a solid camera and a logical progression from EX1.

Yep a logical, sensible, upgrade. Interesting to see if they eliminated some quirks from the EX1 and how the sensor performs, otherwise doesnt' leave me with many questions. -- http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/ http://alphamountworld.com "I think, therefore....."

I bought the LX5 as a back up to my K5 ..... its a good camera but as I have said elsewhere I reALLY regret not buying the EX1 ... as I really want an articulated screen if there is no viewfinder .... thats just me. I would be tempted by the Sony ?RX100 but I am not as it does not have an articulating screen. To be truthful I would be tempted by the NX200 210 if they just put the articulated screen from the EX1 on it !!! Then i would use it with two primes mainly ... I agree this is a tempting upgrade ... fast / wide angle/ great art scree/ good menu system/ built like a tank ... Very well done .. .nothing gimmicky ... -- Tom Bell Dartmoor Devon http://flickr.com/photos/tombell1

Yep so far looks solid. Only thing I'm waiting to see if there are any weird menu/feature quirks and of course how good the sensor performs. Carl -- http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/ http://alphamountworld.com "I think, therefore....."

Add new comment

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.