Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: memento on September 19, 2011, 11:47:49 am
-
Hello,
it is with very great interest that I have read the new first impressions report on the Sony NEX-7 at luminous-landscape.com, after already soaking in every bit of information on the other websites (as well as sample images) about this camera. I am almost 100% sure that I will get rid of all my DSLR gear and make the move to the NEX-7. It's just a camera (and two new lenses – 24 and 50) that are as if they were specifically designed to answer my needs. Probably other readers will see this the same? I even bought a NEX-5 so I could get at least a small glimpse of what I will be using from November onwards, and try out some of the exiting features – like focus peaking – for myself right now....
However, one thing in the new report puzzles me, to the point where I just have to ask if there could not be any error being made.
This is the comparison of the Zeiss 24/1.8 to the Leica 24/1.4 Summilux adapted to the NEX. While the Zeiss results look very good and resemble the great full size samples that have been made available elsewhere in the net, the Leica results are just too bad to be believed. Yes I understand the microlens issue and that the Sony sensor is not ideally suited to the rangefinder lenses. But, it can't be THAT bad. Even the image center is a complete mess.
There are hundreds or thousands of users out there who have adapted old lenses, even rangefinder ones, to their NEX-3 or NEX-5 cameras already. Some of these lenses, even 12 mm ones, have been reviewed and measured in the net e.g. at photozone.de and never ever have I read of such terrible, useless results before. And while 24 MP is much more than 14 MP, its not that a image would be perfectly sharp on a 14 MP – but such a total useless mess on a similar sized 24 MP sensor. I also had several old lenses – even outright crappy ones, such as a totally beaten Soligor 21 in M42 mount – on my EOS 7D already and the results also do not resemble in the slightest those that are shown here from the Leica 24 Summilux.
The last thing is that as if I understand it right, the microlens issue effects the image quality on the borders of a sensor, as the lens pattern is somewhat "shifted" in relation to the underlying actual pixels? But in the image center, there is no such difference between a rangefinder-optimised sensor and a more standard DSLR-type sensor? So even if the 24 Summilux might suffer from this issue on the NEX-7 borders, it should NOT affect the image center, certainly not in such a totally catastrophic way.
I really do believe that the results of the 24 Summilux on the NEX-7 should be re-tested to make really sure that the lens or adapter used has no malfunctioning in any way, or that there even might be some kind of focusing issue going on.
regards,
Thomas
-
Hi,
Keep in mind that Michaels article is not a test but "first impressions". That said, it's quite obvious that Michael regards the comparison of the Leica and the Zeiss lens relevant. I'm a bit surprised by the outcome. The large aperture shots look a bit defocused to me. On the other hand, the Sony NEX-7 draws 24 MP from a APS-C sensor while the Leica M9 draws 18 MP from a full frame sensor, so the NEX-7 is much more demanding.
Best regards
Erik
Hello,
it is with very great interest that I have read the new first impressions report on the Sony NEX-7 at luminous-landscape.com, after already soaking in every bit of information on the other websites (as well as sample images) about this camera. I am almost 100% sure that I will get rid of all my DSLR gear and make the move to the NEX-7. It's just a camera (and two new lenses – 24 and 50) that are as if they were specifically designed to answer my needs. Probably other readers will see this the same? I even bought a NEX-5 so I could get at least a small glimpse of what I will be using from November onwards, and try out some of the exiting features – like focus peaking – for myself right now....
However, one thing in the new report puzzles me, to the point where I just have to ask if there could not be any error being made.
This is the comparison of the Zeiss 24/1.8 to the Leica 24/1.4 Summilux adapted to the NEX. While the Zeiss results look very good and resemble the great full size samples that have been made available elsewhere in the net, the Leica results are just too bad to be believed. Yes I understand the microlens issue and that the Sony sensor is not ideally suited to the rangefinder lenses. But, it can't be THAT bad. Even the image center is a complete mess.
There are hundreds or thousands of users out there who have adapted old lenses, even rangefinder ones, to their NEX-3 or NEX-5 cameras already. Some of these lenses, even 12 mm ones, have been reviewed and measured in the net e.g. at photozone.de and never ever have I read of such terrible, useless results before. And while 24 MP is much more than 14 MP, its not that a image would be perfectly sharp on a 14 MP – but such a total useless mess on a similar sized 24 MP sensor. I also had several old lenses – even outright crappy ones, such as a totally beaten Soligor 21 in M42 mount – on my EOS 7D already and the results also do not resemble in the slightest those that are shown here from the Leica 24 Summilux.
The last thing is that as if I understand it right, the microlens issue effects the image quality on the borders of a sensor, as the lens pattern is somewhat "shifted" in relation to the underlying actual pixels? But in the image center, there is no such difference between a rangefinder-optimised sensor and a more standard DSLR-type sensor? So even if the 24 Summilux might suffer from this issue on the NEX-7 borders, it should NOT affect the image center, certainly not in such a totally catastrophic way.
I really do believe that the results of the 24 Summilux on the NEX-7 should be re-tested to make really sure that the lens or adapter used has no malfunctioning in any way, or that there even might be some kind of focusing issue going on.
regards,
Thomas
-
I have added a mention to the review that this test may be flawed because of accidental misfocusing. I'll repeat the test as soon as I can under more stringent conditions.
Michael
-
I too was eagerly awaiting the Nex 7 as a backup to my M9. I have tried the SX24 on the GH2 and it looked pretty good, and given that the Sony has about the same pixel pitch on the 1.6x crop sensor, I was suprised by the results as well. Looking forward to Michael's retest, as it would be a real bummer if I couldnt use my Leica glass on the Nex...the sony glass is just too big and too few.
-
Hi,
The Sony glass is made for the Sony sensor, while Leica M lenses are essentially made for film. Also, Sony NEX is APS-C, essentially turning your wide angle into a normal lens.
Leica made a great effort to get their M9 to work with digital.
Best regards
Erik
I too was eagerly awaiting the Nex 7 as a backup to my M9. I have tried the SX24 on the GH2 and it looked pretty good, and given that the Sony has about the same pixel pitch on the 1.6x crop sensor, I was suprised by the results as well. Looking forward to Michael's retest, as it would be a real bummer if I couldnt use my Leica glass on the Nex...the sony glass is just too big and too few.
-
I am truly impressed with the product and what Michael mentioned a while back, about the convergence of stills/video in a product, has now appeared with no discernible weakness. I was not too impressed with the older NEX5 (even the video being 1080i) and sold off my NEX5 and the 2 kit lenses, a couple of months after purchase - the interface and the lack of a viewfinder being the culprits.
The only weaknesses that I see in the NEX7, are the lack of in-body stabilization (one of the really small Olympus models has it, and thus body size should not be the limitation), lack of a fully swiveling screen (the tilt screen does not satisfy me fully) like the Canon 60D, and also the exclusion of GPS from the product. The exclusion of GPS is a bad move, especially since even low-end p&s products from Sony come with GPS. The A77 and the A65 also come with GPS. The HX100V also comes with GPS and surprising that they skipped GPS in a higher-end product like the NEX7.
-
Of course if this were a NEX9 (with a FF sensor) and if they had top-notch (zoom) lenses covering ranges from 24mm to 200mm, with a few primes (35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm), I would be in hog heaven and my A900 kit would hit the dust, before the day was up.
-
The specs sure are impressive but it seems that lenses will be the limiting factor to extract the full quality of the sensor, along with shooting technique of course.
Is the $1K 24mm Zeiss the only E lens expected to deliver all the juice from this camera?
What all the other E lenses? How much IQ loss can we expect from the 16mm pancake or the stock 18-55mm zoom for instance?
-
Hi,
You have some detailed tests here:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests
Best regards
Erik
The specs sure are impressive but it seems that lenses will be the limiting factor to extract the full quality of the sensor, along with shooting technique of course.
Is the $1K 24mm Zeiss the only E lens expected to deliver all the juice from this camera?
What all the other E lenses? How much IQ loss can we expect from the 16mm pancake or the stock 18-55mm zoom for instance?
-
There is also the new 50/1.8 OSS, the first image samples on the net (on the NEX-5N) are very, very good.
I guess that the 30/3.5 Macro will be of similar optical quality, but ... hey ... what can go wrong with a lens that has such a simple specification ;)
Anyway, fast 24 + 50 (in traditional terms 35 + 75) just cover my specific needs for photography so good that I don't really ask for any more. YMMV....
And: there is always the possibility to use other Sony Alpha lenses (with AF and some even with stabilisation, as long as you go for the Sigma OS lenses) where you need them, or just other adapter lenses e.g. for macro work. That's all probably not the definite answer but, again, I can only speak for myself and I am perfectly happy with all this.
Without both the new NEX 24 and 50 lenses, it would make absolutely no sense. I agree on that. There seems to be a roadmap for future lenses including a higher-quality "G" standard zoom. But that's all science fiction, for now....
Thomas
-
Thanks for the photozone.de link.
The 16mm is only sharp in the very center. Not a great contender for landscape photography on a 24mp camera. So no decent wide angle lens yet.
The 18-55mm standard zoom seems about as good as what you get with entry level Nikon or Canon cameras. Ok sharpness but lots of irregular distortion and CA. Again that's fine for snapshots but a waste of the sensor quality. My current walk around lens is a Canon 24-105mm L. I'm not sure I could stand too much of a downgrade from that level of quality.
The 24mm and 50mm seem to be well covered though we still need to see how they will fare on the NEX 7. Those are not very versatile lenses though, specially for landscape.
I realise that one can add non E lenses using an adapter but as Michael showed with the Leica fitted on the NEX 7, we can't assume they will all work well.
So my initial impression remains that the NEX 7 is a fantastic camera waiting for similarly fantastic glass.
-
Put any of the Sony G or Zeiss glass on it via the LE-A2 adaptor and you have everything that you need.
By the way, the new DT 16-55mm f/2.8 lens is superb and nicely balanced on the NEX-7 + LE-A2. It should have been labeled a "G" lens, but isn't for internal political reasons. Optical and build quality is excellent.
The small E mount lenses will be fine for casual use.
Michael
-
If only Sony could release something like Samsung 30/2 or Panasonic 20/1.7 pancakes it will be really interesting system.
-
the Nex-7 is priced and speced for at least semi -serious use, and the appeal of the camera is to those who would like quality images from a camera more the size of a Leica than a SLR. If Sony produces only "casual use lenses" in E-mount then they will have another mediocre me-to product which will very likely be second best to micro 4/3 with it's smaller image circle which makes compact high - quality lenses easier to produce
the LE-A2 seems to me like an awkward band-aid allowing larger lenses to be used without the benefit of image stabilization. this may be acceptable for those already committed to the Sony SLR system, but it's not going to convert Canon and Nikon users
so far, each of the mirrorless camera manufacturers has built at least one serious flaw into their line -- hopefully Canon and Nikon will learn from this - but given past performance, that too may be wishful thinking
-
Put any of the Sony G or Zeiss glass on it via the LE-A2 adaptor and you have everything that you need.
By the way, the new DT 16-55mm f/2.8 lens is superb and nicely balanced on the NEX-7 + LE-A2. It should have been labeled a "G" lens, but isn't for internal political reasons. Optical and build quality is excellent.
The small E mount lenses will be fine for casual use.
Michael
Thanks. That helps getting an idea of what lenses are up to the sensor quality.
However, I can't find anything online about the DT 16-55 f/2.8 beside your review.
I've also just noticed that there are slides of Sony's lens roadmap (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/sony_e-mount_lenses_for_2012/) going around the web. They lists a new G "normal zoom" E mount lens planned for 2012. That obviously targets the NEX-7 crowd.
-
I seriosly doubt that the 24/1.8 Zeiss as well as the 50/1.8 OSS (from the image samples I've seen so far) are only suitable for "casual use".
It might be that a lot of people are all crazy about big fast standard zooms, and obviously I can only speak for myself when I say that I am "through" with all these huge lenses – like my ex 24-70/2.8L – that weight a kilogramm and are just so fat and big and bulky.
The NEX-7 finally gives this ultimate picture quality – the sample images even suggest it really BEATS the zooms especially in corner sharpness! – with just two REALLY pocket-sized lenses. Of course a lot of photographers will miss the zooming, but I don't. For those who really can't do without it, there will be a future G-spec zoom lens for 2012. (I just hope that one can take the NEX roadmap more seriously than that of Olympus FT a few years back....)
I do not want to say that 24 + 50 cover it all. Especially there is still something in the same style missing in the telephoto and macro range. The 55-210 with f/6.3 aperture at the tele end is not really what we are looking for, is it? And the 30/3.5 macro is nice, small and cheap – I might buy one – but a really useful macro lens rather should be a 100 or at the very least a 60 .... anyway, 24 + 50 in this high quality and this small form factor cover (at least for me) the basics a hundred times better than any DSLR zoom lens on the market.
One factor I wasn't sure about until today was what the competition will be like – Nikon and Canon have not entered this market so far. But now Nikon has presented their new thingy and they are seriously out of the game for me, just as Pentax with the Q. These are just additional reasons that strengthen my decision for the new Sony NEX-7. The only camera that ever will be able to challenge it in the next couple of years could come from Canon. (Yes there is still Samsung with their nice APS-C sized mirrorless system, but technologically they always seem to lack behind Sony.)
Thomas
-
I am coming from 4 by 5 landscape work, and wanting to enter the digital realm. While being unable to afford the present cost of mfdb's, I am intrigued by the offerings of the Nex 7. According to Michael's "First Impressions Report", Sony seems to have been smiling my way, by making available a product versatile in directions so appropriate to my present needs. I will always be using a tripod, so image stabilization, auto focus, or iso above base, are features not relevant to me, but here at last (apparently) comes an opportunity to make full use of my highly prized manual Nikon and Canon glass via Novoflex adapters. However, I am wondering how capable of supporting lens weight without being damaged, the Sony e-mount is, in comparison to the Nikon f or other slr mounts. Obviously, when tripod mounting a camera while using lenses without collars, all of the lens weight stress is placed upon the mount, and I'm wondering what weight limits should be conservatively considered therein. I have been thinking about the possibility of using lenses up to 1.5--2 pounds, but I have so far been unable to find any info on the internet which addresses this issue, so any knowledgeable help will be much appreciated. If I were to purchase the nex-7, I would want to test on it the image quality result of the lenses I already have, as these are potent old friends I know well, before considering a need for additional lenses.
-
Hi,
There is at least one adaptor for the NEX with tripod mount. Some of the nex lenses are quite heavy, like the 18-200. The Sony adapters for A-series lenses both have tripod mounts. So my guess is that you need an adaptor with a tripod mount for long lenses but probably not for lenses that are shorter/lighter than the 18-200 from Sony.
Best regards
Erik
I am coming from 4 by 5 landscape work, and wanting to enter the digital realm. While being unable to afford the present cost of mfdb's, I am intrigued by the offerings of the Nex 7. According to Michael's "First Impressions Report", Sony seems to have been smiling my way, by making available a product versatile in directions so appropriate to my present needs. I will always be using a tripod, so image stabilization, auto focus, or iso above base, are features not relevant to me, but here at last (apparently) comes an opportunity to make full use of my highly prized manual Nikon and Canon glass via Novoflex adapters. However, I am wondering how capable of supporting lens weight without being damaged, the Sony e-mount is, in comparison to the Nikon f or other slr mounts. Obviously, when tripod mounting a camera while using lenses without collars, all of the lens weight stress is placed upon the mount, and I'm wondering what weight limits should be conservatively considered therein. I have been thinking about the possibility of using lenses up to 1.5--2 pounds, but I have so far been unable to find any info on the internet which addresses this issue, so any knowledgeable help will be much appreciated. If I were to purchase the nex-7, I would want to test on it the image quality result of the lenses I already have, as these are potent old friends I know well, before considering a need for additional lenses.
-
Of course, with fix-focal lenses, they can only get it wrong for someone, no matter which focal lens they choose.
If you really want 21+30, then 24+50 is wrong. No question about that. (There is also a 30/3.5 Macro now available – if you can live with its slow aperture and probably even appreciate its 1:1 macro feature. Personally I'd have liked this to be a 30/2, and even as a macro lens it really should at least be a 30/2.8.)
Time will tell if there will be a sufficient lens choice for the NEX so that everyone could get what he or she wants, as with Leica M, for example, where everything up to about 90...135 mm is covered by several manufacturers in the smallest possible focal length increments.
By that time, hopefully also the new "G" standard zoom has emerged. BTW there are some image examples at dpreview.com taken with the already available 18-55 kit zoom. I personally don't care too much about the performance, and I strongly dislike the built of this lens: Metal on the outside, okay, but *inside* where it matters most, its really wobbly plastic.... but still that kit is surely not bad in general terms and far from useless on the 24 MP sensor.
If you want to call all this "pocketable" .... well it won't fit in my clothes pockets, that is for sure, but then, I consider nothing else than a slim mobile phone really as pocketable in this strict sense. (Other people might have clothes with bigger pockets. :)) However, the NEX would still offer considerable downsizing when compared to a typical DSLR outfit, in at least the same sense that a Leica M outfit does. I need a seperate camera bag anyway, no matter which camera system, but with the NEX, this bag will be lighter and smaller as with my DSLR, and I appreciate that very much. Last not least, the NEX-7 seems to offer really nice handling. So, again, they have just found the *exactly right size* at least for my preferences, and everyone's elses mileage may vary, as always....
Thomas
-
Erik...Thanks for your perspective on my ponderings. I located what seems to be an appropriate tripod collar, which is the very one designed to go on the Novoflex adapters I have been considering for use on the nex 7, for Nikon f and Canon fd. As Novoflex apparently offers collars only for nex adapters, this fact seems to echo your thoughts about the relevancy to the strength of the nex mount, of Sony's offering tripod mounts for both of their nex adapters to A-mount lenses. Of course, with any collar, there is always the issue of lens weight vs solidity of collar. If at any point extra strength is needed, a special plate could probably be contrived which utilizes an attachment point at the collar and at the camera, similar in principle to the one by Kirk that was used with the Nikon pn-11 spacer for the Nikon ais 300 4.5 edif. If all goes well in the next few months, I will post any results that come about.
Regards
Clyde
-
I am truly impressed with the product and what Michael mentioned a while back, about the convergence of stills/video in a product, has now appeared with no discernible weakness. I was not too impressed with the older NEX5 (even the video being 1080i) and sold off my NEX5 and the 2 kit lenses, a couple of months after purchase - the interface and the lack of a viewfinder being the culprits.
Technically, the video in the Nex-5 is 1080p30... stored in a 1080i wrapper. Since a lot of people want 24p video, this is at least not far from that. The problem was lack of control over some of the settings during video (particularly to control shutter speed). In a later firmware update, you could at least control the aperture.
The only weaknesses that I see in the NEX7, are the lack of in-body stabilization (one of the really small Olympus models has it, and thus body size should not be the limitation), lack of a fully swiveling screen (the tilt screen does not satisfy me fully) like the Canon 60D, and also the exclusion of GPS from the product. The exclusion of GPS is a bad move, especially since even low-end p&s products from Sony come with GPS. The A77 and the A65 also come with GPS. The HX100V also comes with GPS and surprising that they skipped GPS in a higher-end product like the NEX7.
GPS would be a nice feature, as would IBIS. Some say that using in-lens stabilization is better for video.
Although, if I have to geotag my photos, I can probably use an iPhone/Geosetter combination. Although the one time I tried this, it was really off.
-
I'd like to ask about the manual focusing on the NEX-7. Particularly, I'd like a comparison with manual focusing on the Panasonic GH-2. On the Panasonic, when I am in manual focusing mode, as soon as I touch the focusing ring, the image in the viewfinder/LCD screen is immediately magnified, making focusing rather easy, and (especially important on macro shots) allowing me to put the focus exactly where I want it. So maybe Michael R. could respond based on the trial run in San Diego, or perhaps the answer is the same as for the existing Nex cameras and a current Nex user could describe it. The comment in the review about increased contrast in the viewfinder didn't help me understand what's going on. Is there any magnification of the portion of the image you want to optimize? I've been very much enjoying my GH-2 as a camera I have with me almost everywhere, but a smaller body/lens with significantly higher image quality and at least comparable viewfinder quality would warrant a draw on the bank account. --Barbara
-
Barbara,
see this Youtube video for how the "focus peaking" works on the Sony NEX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q44dIt_gSK4
As you can see, this feature does NOT need you to focus into the image for focussing. But it only works in areas of the image where high contrast detail is present. Anyway, of course you can also zoom into the image to focus. I can't tell you if it switches on automatically whenever you touch the focus ring – as I, so far, don't have any autofocus lenses for the NEX. With manual lenses, you just press a button on the rear of the camera to switch to 7x and 14x magnification.
Thomas
-
Thomas, thanks for the answer and thanks for the link. I was surprised to see the SX-70 -- I still have mine. I was also surprised to see the Korean! Good thing the visuals were enough! Thanks again. --Barbara
-
Hi,
On the A55 when you press the button a small marker is shown. That marker can be moved around. Pressing the button again magnifies 7.5 times and pressing it again goes 15X. I'd presume NEX-7 will be similar. It works well, but is quite slow.
Best regards
Erik
Barbara,
see this Youtube video for how the "focus peaking" works on the Sony NEX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q44dIt_gSK4
As you can see, this feature does NOT need you to focus into the image for focussing. But it only works in areas of the image where high contrast detail is present. Anyway, of course you can also zoom into the image to focus. I can't tell you if it switches on automatically whenever you touch the focus ring – as I, so far, don't have any autofocus lenses for the NEX. With manual lenses, you just press a button on the rear of the camera to switch to 7x and 14x magnification.
Thomas
-
Erikl, thanks for the additional feedback.
-
I have never used an electronic viewfinder. Can you see the effect of a polarizer, or grad ND filters in the finder?
Thanks
Dave
-
Hi,
Yes, you see the actual sensor image.
Best regards
Erik
I have never used an electronic viewfinder. Can you see the effect of a polarizer, or grad ND filters in the finder?
Thanks
Dave
-
Thank you Erik.
Dave
Hi,
Yes, you see the actual sensor image.
Best regards
Erik
-
I too am intrigued by Sony's latest. But I approached it from a different direction.
Am going with an A77 body first. Weather-sealed, in-camera stabilization and Zeiss-ready make it very attractive. Sort of wavered between the 65 and 77, but the 77 isn't really much larger and seems more robust. If the system does as well as they claim, I'll get a NEX-7 (or 9) as a second body. Right now their pancake offerings are not attractive to me, and the good looking zooms in their line appear as though they might make the 7 imbalanced and certainly pocketable only in a baggy pocket.
But hey, as long as it's fun...
-
As you can see, this feature does NOT need you to focus into the image for focussing. But it only works in areas of the image where high contrast detail is present.
This is correct, and needs to be emphasized as a cautionary note to those using focus peaking. Under certain situations, like if your image has any areas that are naturally high in contrast, focus peaking can be fooled by these areas of high contrast. There is an edge detection algorithm in the software, and that's what you are seeing when you get the highlights on the EVF. I have found in a few limited situations, that I get an image that is not totally sharp (in focus) due to a scene that is naturally high in contrast. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.
-
New full size samples are available here, showing the NEX-7 with all kinds of different NEX lenses:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/with/6231485889/
To be honest, I am beginning to feel a bit underwhelmed by what I see. I don't really care about all those zoom lenses, but even the images with the Zeiss 24/1.8 at f/2.8 are showing several unsharp areas, and generally the detail rendition is way too smudgy everywhere. For this kind of performance, one would really not need a 24 megapixel body.
Or are these all still issues with preproduction firmware, incorrect JPG settings or the like?
Thomas
-
Related, the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 is being reported by Sony (.ca) as having a delayed ship date - now January 13, 2012, set back from December. I don't know if that affects folks who ordered much earlier (stock related) or has to do with production delays, affecting all.
-
This is correct, and needs to be emphasized as a cautionary note to those using focus peaking. Under certain situations, like if your image has any areas that are naturally high in contrast, focus peaking can be fooled by these areas of high contrast. There is an edge detection algorithm in the software, and that's what you are seeing when you get the highlights on the EVF. I have found in a few limited situations, that I get an image that is not totally sharp (in focus) due to a scene that is naturally high in contrast. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.
I've been using my new NEX 5N and EVF for about a month now with a ZM 35/2.8 and CV 75/2.5. I have never had such a high percentage of in focus shots as with the NEX. I would say that manual focusing with my D300 (and Katz Eye split prism screen) and comparable lenses ( I have a ZF 35/2 and CV 75/2.5 SL I) I achieve critical focus on about 70-80% of my shots. With the NEX, I am above 90%, possibly 95%.
I use focus peaking at normal view for a rough cut and then zoom in 5x or 10x to complete focus. I typically stop the aperture down to my shooting aperture before I focus because I find it quicker and there is less camera movement after I focus.
So, I agree. Focus peaking is not a 100% solution, but focus peaking plus magnified view is at least a 95% solution for me.
-
I have preordered the NEX 7. I also have a A900 and numerous A mount lenses. I note there are two adapters: the LA-EA1, and LA-EA2. I do not intend to use the camera for video, so is there any advantage to the more expensive LA-EA2?
Thanks in advance
Dave
-
The more expensive adapter has AF with Alha AF lenses using SLT technology.
BR Erik
I have preordered the NEX 7. I also have a A900 and numerous A mount lenses. I note there are two adapters: the LA-EA1, and LA-EA2. I do not intend to use the camera for video, so is there any advantage to the more expensive LA-EA2?
Thanks in advance
Dave
-
The more expensive adapter has AF with Alha AF lenses using SLT technology.
BR Erik
Thanks Erik. Does the older adapter allow auto focus with Alpha & Minolta AF lenses as well (albeit maybe slower?)
Dave
-
The EA1 allows autofocus using the NEX camera's contrast detection. It's slow with A mount lenses because they weren't designed for it.
The EA2 uses the complete phase detection autofocus system as found in the A65 and A77 cameras, and is very fast. SSM lenses are the fastest, SAM next, and older screww thread the slowest - though still now worse than on an Alpha camera.
I have the new EA2 and am using it on a NEX-5n, and will be reporting on it here soon.
Michael
-
"I have the new EA2 and am using it on a NEX-5n, and will be reporting on it here soon."
That's great to hear. I've been interested in whether the mirror or the possibility of a thicker AA filter has an effect, if any, on slight image differences between sensors used on NEX vs Alpha APSC slrs. Most, 99%, of my work is static. I've been on the fence between the Nex 7 and the A77 as well as the LE-AE1 vs LE-AE2. I have a stable of Alpha lenses, to compliment my A900, that I was hoping to use while waiting for a full frame upgrade. Slow auto focus is not a big deal as I would often use the zoom live view/ peaking for critical focus.
david
-
Thanks Erik. Does the older adapter allow auto focus with Alpha & Minolta AF lenses as well (albeit maybe slower?)
The la-ea1 will only autofocus Alpha mount lenses that have a built in focus motor. Here is the list of Alpha Lenses with SAM or SSM:
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM (36 mm - equivalent focal length on the NEX)
CZ Vario-Sonnar® T* 16-35 mm f2.8 Zoom SSM (24 - 52.5 mm)
CZ Vario-Sonnar® T* 24-70 mm f2.8 Zoom SSM (36 - 105 mm)
Sony Alpha 30mm f/2.8 Macro Lens SAM (45mm)
SA 35 mm f/1.8 SAM (52.5 mm)
SA 50 mm f/1.8 SAM (75 mm)
SA 85 mm f/2.8 SAM (127.5 mm)
SA 300 mm f/2.8 G SSM (450 mm)
SA DT 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens SAM (27 - 82.5 mm)
SA 28-75 mm f/2.8 Zoom Lens SAM (42 - 112.5 mm)
SA 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 Zoom Lens SAM (82.5 - 300 mm)
SA 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM (105 - 300 mm)
SA 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 G Zoom Lens SSM (105 - 450 mm)
SA 70-400 mm f/4-5.6 G Zoom Lens SSM (105 - 600 mm)
Certain Sigma lenses with HSM will also work, but the results have been sporadic. My Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 works on my NEX-5 with the la-ea1.
However, with the peaking feature, MF is so easy, it's almost faster to focus that way than to wait on the slower CD-AF...
-
The EA1 allows autofocus using the NEX camera's contrast detection. It's slow with A mount lenses because they weren't designed for it.
The EA2 uses the complete phase detection autofocus system as found in the A65 and A77 cameras, and is very fast. SSM lenses are the fastest, SAM next, and older screww thread the slowest - though still now worse than on an Alpha camera.
I have the new EA2 and am using it on a NEX-5n, and will be reporting on it here soon.
Michael
Thank you Michael. Appreciate your input.
Dave
-
Lonnie,
The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.
Michael
-
Lonnie,
The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.
Michael
I'm very much looking forward to read about your findings .
-
The EA2 even works with screw drive lenses like the 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Just the same as on an A77 and with the same speed.
I understand that, but that wasn't the question that was asked.
-
Here is a substantial (shooting, not technical) review of the NEX-7, with Sony and Leica lenses:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/23/the-sony-nex-7-digital-camera-review-by-steve-huff/
Enjoy (whilst we wait for Michael's review...) Bob.
-
With rumours of some limited availability of NEX-7's persisting, some of us holding pre-orders that might yet be filled must be wondering how Leica and other M glass holds up on the NEX-7.
Unfortunately, as seen in the limited sampling published by others, it looks like edge colour casts are likely back after having disappeared in the updated NEX-5N.
But what of edge detail? The first versions of the NEX-3 and NEX-5 showed detail smearing problems on the edges; that went away with the 5N and possibly also with the C3.
I could live with fixing magenta shift in shots done with wider angle rangefinder lenses as long as edge details are preserved and not mangled.
I'm hoping Michael has had an opportunity to revisit the NEX-7 with some Leica glass mounted so we can know what the real scoop is. If edge performance is compromised unlike with the 5N, I'd happily hand my pre-order spot over to someone intending to use native or adapted A mount glass only.
Mike
-
Just received word that my NEX-7 will be shipped on 11/11/11 (how prophetic)
anyone have an earlier date?
already have the A77 and am very impressed with the "kit" 16-50 and the Z's. will be very pleased if the NEX gives the same degree of IQ. Comparing the A77 to the M9 shows only slightly better IQ at large crops. Even then minimal delta. As far as M-glass on NEX I cannot see why it would be optimal. The M's are for a totally different sensor geometry/design.
"Published MTF's"???? Learned a long time ago to not trust slick marketing sheets. real world can be far different in many devices with "published" specs. I tend to trust what I see.
if the NEX is as good as hoped for, may just sell the M and all the lenses. Buy an RRS tripod... Arca-Cube (possessed by a strange lust for this item) etc.
-
As soon as I have a NEX-7 in my hands again (hopefully next week) I'll be doing some extensive testing with my Leica lenses.
Michael
-
allegretto - there's a lot of interest in M lenses on NEX from folks who have them (or adapted LTM lenses). There seems to be significant new interest in M lenses on NEX from those who are willing to buy new to fill perceived holes in Sony's lens line up, or who want a somewhat more compact package. That last point is debatable - I have some full frame Contax/Yashica glass which isn't any longer, despite the larger Contax-NEX adapter, than an adapted M lens in the same focal length. It is however a little wider. My reasons are simple: I have M glass but am no longer shooting film and am unwilling to purchase a M9. Cameras like the GXR or NEX-7 (or 5N) make a lot of sense for me, at least until an affordable M-capable full frame camera shows up on the market. Ricoh maybe? Perhaps in 2012 we'll see a maker bring out a full frame compact that can take adapted lenses and I'll get back the perspective the lens designers intended for my M glass.
Michael - I predict your site will see a massive influx of traffic once you post your findings. There is a lot of interest in this topic.
-
allegretto - there's a lot of interest in M lenses on NEX from folks who have them (or adapted LTM lenses). There seems to be significant new interest in M lenses on NEX from those who are willing to buy new to fill perceived holes in Sony's lens line up, or who want a somewhat more compact package. That last point is debatable - I have some full frame Contax/Yashica glass which isn't any longer, despite the larger Contax-NEX adapter, than an adapted M lens in the same focal length. It is however a little wider. My reasons are simple: I have M glass but am no longer shooting film and am unwilling to purchase a M9. Cameras like the GXR or NEX-7 (or 5N) make a lot of sense for me, at least until an affordable M-capable full frame camera shows up on the market. Ricoh maybe? Perhaps in 2012 we'll see a maker bring out a full frame compact that can take adapted lenses and I'll get back the perspective the lens designers intended for my M glass.
Michael - I predict your site will see a massive influx of traffic once you post your findings. There is a lot of interest in this topic.
I get it. Sorry didn't mean to be pedantic. I have an M9 with 28/35 /50 all -crons and it would be cool if I could use them on the NEX when it comes. But actually I like the A77 vs. the M9 head to head (Z-zoom vs. M-lens) right now. Maybe the M's would help the A77 be clearer... but it really looks good now. Not the same color balance as the M9 (or any Leica) to be sure, but very sharp and comparable on that basis when focus is good with each. Neither can match the S2, that's another world. But with a system as the A77 and NEX and some good glass I'm wondering if I'll need the M-system, except as a different type of adventure....
-
Understood. I also agree that the combo of RF lenses and compact digitals may not (always) be optimal, but given the experience of many with the NEX-5N, there is some reason to be hopeful that the NEX-7/M lens combo is worthwhile which would be good news for existing M glass owners or those few who care to build new systems using them. If not, the 5N remains a refuge. One nice thing about the M glass is the potential for less vendor lock in. Hopefully NEX and Ricoh offerings won't be the end of choice going forward.
-
Erik...Thanks for your perspective on my ponderings. I located what seems to be an appropriate tripod collar, which is the very one designed to go on the Novoflex adapters I have been considering for use on the nex 7, for Nikon f and Canon fd. As Novoflex apparently offers collars only for nex adapters, this fact seems to echo your thoughts about the relevancy to the strength of the nex mount, of Sony's offering tripod mounts for both of their nex adapters to A-mount lenses. Of course, with any collar, there is always the issue of lens weight vs solidity of collar. If at any point extra strength is needed, a special plate could probably be contrived which utilizes an attachment point at the collar and at the camera, similar in principle to the one by Kirk that was used with the Nikon pn-11 spacer for the Nikon ais 300 4.5 edif. If all goes well in the next few months, I will post any results that come about.
My wife bought the E 18-200 for her 5N, and as the weight of that lens is quite big we were not happy with attaching it to a tripod via the tripod mount on the camera - feels rather wobbly, I'd say. But salvation was at hand, in the form of SRB-Griturn in the UK, which made a nice collar for the lens, that has a very rigid tripod mount. It is detachable and held in place by a single screw - better would three screws have been as the lens barrel is fairly soft, being a metal/plastic mix. But it is OK, as long as you don't tighten the screw too much!
-
Hi. I've read the test articles and really enjoyed them. Thanks a lot!
I would like to make a minor remark though ...
You (correctly) saw the need to resample the higher resolution NEX7 images to do a pixel-peeping noise comparison to the NEX5N. You used Bicubic Sharper to downsample the images. This is not something one should do in this situation.
Let me explain why: The larger 5N pixels do a kind of binning collecting photons into 1 pixel which hit separate pixels with the 7. This is best replicated when using the bilinear method in Photoshop. Bicubic or Bicubic Sharper adds sharpening which adds noise. You end up with images which are too sharp and too noisy to be compared. Sharpening isn't actually needed for downsampled images if you can live with the sharpness of an ideal lens and ideal sensor. Anything beyond is actually sharper than a computer-generated image would be ... So. comparing at the level of ideal lenses and sensors is ok and then bilinear should be good enough too.
However, this is not enough. The original 5N image is the output of the demosaicing process and cannot be compared directly with a downsampled image. Its noise and contrast characteristics are different. It is better to downsample the images from both cameras, 7 and 5N, to a common target size (like 8MP or 4MP) and only then compare noise at the pixel level.
-
I won't disagree with your theory, but my practice shows that appropriate resampling needs to be done with a measure of sharpening to be worthwhile. Straight Bicubic may be technically more accurate, but it makes images appear softer than they might be. Using Bicubic sharper usually leeds to a more appropriate look, but one has to watch out for artifacts.
For web display, which is what I do here, it's the best choice. If I was aiming for prints only then I would likely not choose it.
Michael