Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: bobtowery on November 22, 2011, 05:28:30 pm

Title: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on November 22, 2011, 05:28:30 pm
Michael:

Thanks for the first installment. Good call to break up the review into numerous sections. FWIW my vote for the next one would be the "Nex-7, M9, Leica lenses."

Hope your trip to SMA was uneventful and that it is good to be back.

Question, which you probably covered at some point way back regarding your reviews... Are all of the images SOOC?

Thanks again, Bob Towery.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on November 22, 2011, 05:52:16 pm
Ain't no such thing as SOOC (which I presume means Straight out of Camera). Unless it's for a technical comparison every file I publish has been worked on in one way or another.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 22, 2011, 06:03:57 pm
Good luck with the bracketing request it's been a bugbear on many Sony models for years now even the A65 has a mere 0.7 +/-. Not sure what the problem is it's a dead easy thing to address.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: billh on November 22, 2011, 06:33:26 pm
I’m with Bob - some of the upcoming subjects caught my eye, and the comparison between the M9 and NEX7 using Leica lenses is one of them. I am also curious to learn how the two 24mm lenses compare. I’ve been using a 5n exclusively with Leica lenses, and I love being able to use them on this tiny, capable camera - I sure wish the NEX7 was available.

The explanation and workaround the playback of either/or still or video files was appreciated. It has annoyed, and initially alarmed me when it looked like the stills had vanished. I did discover that combining peaking to outline an area where I want to prefocus with the high speed shutter (10 fps) gives me a reasonable chance of getting one in focus image of action like a dog jumping a log in the woods. I posted a few photos I took during the first few days I had the camera, as well as some showing the 5n with various M lenses to give some friends a sense of the size of this combination.

http://s1140.photobucket.com/albums/n561/billh96007/Sony%20NEX-5n%20with%20Leica%20M%20lenses/

I’m looking forward to hearing more adventures in Mexico and insights into the NEX7 from Michel!

(for people looking for information about the specifications and capability of the NEX7, a Sony rep gave a complete look into the features of it and the NEX5n, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co2Qa9y_1Ns&feature=player_detailpage )
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on November 22, 2011, 07:27:58 pm
Ain't no such thing as SOOC (which I presume means Straight out of Camera). Unless it's for a technical comparison every file I publish has been worked on in one way or another.

Michael

Hi, Michael.  I look forward to more of your rolling review.  I wanted to quickly mention that, assuming you're a raw only shooter (so jpeg settings don't matter,) try turning your picture style contrast all the way down to -3.  That will open up shadows quite a bit in the EVF.  My 5N has been set this way for weeks, and it works well.  A nice by product of this is that it'll give you a histogram reading that is a little closer to the actual raw file.

p.s. you may want to turn peaking and sharpness up a bit to compensate for focus peaking when doing the above.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 23, 2011, 12:13:03 am
Hi,

SOOC is raw I pressume?

BR
Erik


Ain't no such thing as SOOC (which I presume means Straight out of Camera). Unless it's for a technical comparison every file I publish has been worked on in one way or another.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on November 23, 2011, 04:35:50 am
Hi,

SOOC is raw I pressume?

BR
Erik



Eriik, no, as Michael surmised, SOOC means "Straight Out Of the Camera." Although yes, in a sense RAW is more SOOC than a JPG! It just means you haven't tweaked your image in LR, Photoshop, etc.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: madmanchan on November 23, 2011, 09:33:32 am
Like Michael says, no such thing.   ;)  Even if you're shooting raw and haven't touched any sliders in the raw converter, there has been already some processing applied (just not by you!).  For example: default color mapping, default tone curve, default sharpening, default noise reduction, etc.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on November 23, 2011, 11:23:45 am
More to the point, beyond what Eric has mentioned, who would want an SOOC image? If that's what one wants then shoot jpgs and set the camera's  "style" to whatever suites your fancy.

But if one shoots raw then sharpening is needed, as well as a wide range of other adjustments. Essentially, as Eric points out, there's no such thing as SOOC.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 23, 2011, 11:38:24 am
Michael,

You got my point, exactly! ;-)

Best regards
Erik

More to the point, beyond what Eric has mentioned, who would want an SOOC image? If that's what one wants then shoot jpgs and set the camera's  "style" to whatever suites your fancy.

But if one shoots raw then sharpening is needed, as well as a wide range of other adjustments. Essentially, as Eric points out, there's no such thing as SOOC.

Michael

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on November 23, 2011, 01:07:33 pm
Eriik, no, as Michael surmised, SOOC means "Straight Out Of the Camera." Although yes, in a sense RAW is more SOOC than a JPG! It just means you haven't tweaked your image in LR, Photoshop, etc.
My interpretation of SOOC is some engineer(s) somewhere who probably aren't photographers (and under direction of some other person or guideline) have "tweaked" the image based on guessing what the subject matter is about , and trying to deliver an "acceptable" image on average as often as possible.  Perhaps OK for snapshots, not much use otherwise.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on November 23, 2011, 02:18:16 pm
My interpretation of SOOC is some engineer(s) somewhere who probably aren't photographers (and under direction of some other person or guideline) have "tweaked" the image based on guessing what the subject matter is about , and trying to deliver an "acceptable" image on average as often as possible.  Perhaps OK for snapshots, not much use otherwise.

I think the folks at Adobe (and folks named Schewe) might take issue with this POV.

Back to the original post, I was really just asking the question, not intending to start a debate regarding the merits of SOOC vs processed. And I get that a digital image is really a file with a bunch of data, open to the interpretation of whichever program I choose to open that file with.  I also have rarely used an image that was not processed. Looking at a 640px image in a browser doesn't tell us that much anyway, I much more value Michael's written opinion.

So I don't think we have an arguable point here, or at least that was not my intention  ;).
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: JimU on November 25, 2011, 10:14:04 am
Interesting installment regarding The User Interface today.

I wish my Panasonic GH2's UI was as customizable.  I'd say that the GH2's UI is horendously horendous.

Supposedly the GH2's buttons are configurable, but I've yet to be able to find out how to set one of the buttons as an aperature button.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: John Camp on November 27, 2011, 08:33:51 pm
On the NEX noise comparison:

I completely agree with the point about the emphasis on high ISOs. If you run into a guy who can't possibly use a camera because it doesn't have a clean ISO 6400, you've just met a guy who shouldn't be a photographer. Fifteen years ago, I would have killed for a good clean 800...in film. To me, a clean 3200, with adjustable white balance yet, is like a miracle. I've been shooting a Panny GH2 with the Nocton f0.95 and the lens is soft, but jeez, I don't care -- I can shoot in the dark.

At the margins, the 5 is cleaner than the 7, but I doubt most would see much of that in a print. But one thing that has bothered me about good, clean, say ISO 1600 photos with high-resolution cameras, is that you can see *everything.* Like dandruff. The 5's smaller size looks cleaner partly, I think, simply because you don't see so much crap sticking to the targets. It's really there, but who needs to see it?

Is it possible that the real sweet spot for all 35mm-category cameras (that is, everything from the Nikkon V1s to FF), might be about 18mp?

I have to say that the commentary I've seen lately suggesting that 16-18mp is better than 24mp because of space and processing requirements, is silly. Storage and processing speed and ram are cheap.

 

 
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 28, 2011, 12:48:00 am
Hi,

What Michel shows is that noise is very similar between the two models when the images are scaled to the same scale. Michael noted some advantage for the NEX 5N at highest ISO, just about an imperial quibble. This is pretty much what basic theory says, and also DxO-mark. It's nice to have it shown unequivocally by an authority like Michael.

The two enclosed screen dumps show "tonal range" as measured by DxO-mark in screen mode (actual pixels), and print mode (sized to same scale). The DxO data is essentially consistent with Michael's findings.

I have taken the Alpha 55 and the Alpha 77 for this comparison because I assume that the same sensors are used in the NEX 7 and NEX5N, the NEX 7 has not yet been tested.


Best regards
Erik


On the NEX noise comparison:

I completely agree with the point about the emphasis on high ISOs. If you run into a guy who can't possibly use a camera because it doesn't have a clean ISO 6400, you've just met a guy who shouldn't be a photographer. Fifteen years ago, I would have killed for a good clean 800...in film. To me, a clean 3200, with adjustable white balance yet, is like a miracle. I've been shooting a Panny GH2 with the Nocton f0.95 and the lens is soft, but jeez, I don't care -- I can shoot in the dark.

At the margins, the 5 is cleaner than the 7, but I doubt most would see much of that in a print. But one thing that has bothered me about good, clean, say ISO 1600 photos with high-resolution cameras, is that you can see *everything.* Like dandruff. The 5's smaller size looks cleaner partly, I think, simply because you don't see so much crap sticking to the targets. It's really there, but who needs to see it?

Is it possible that the real sweet spot for all 35mm-category cameras (that is, everything from the Nikkon V1s to FF), might be about 18mp?

I have to say that the commentary I've seen lately suggesting that 16-18mp is better than 24mp because of space and processing requirements, is silly. Storage and processing speed and ram are cheap.

 

 
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: KirbyKrieger on November 28, 2011, 09:09:19 am
Hi,

What Michel shows is that noise is very similar between the two models when the images are scaled to the same scale.

That's how I interpreted the "data".  But I'm stuck on Michael's description of this.  He says, in conclusion:
"What this means is that in practical terms, the NEX-7 gives the photographer the choice of higher resolution and larger prints, or comparable resolution and comparable noise characteristics when compared to the NEX-5n, and both are presented at the same size."

I might be suffering the lingering effects of too much turkey (though, honestly, the elderflower martinis probably play a role), but I can't understand the first phrase without adding the word "noisier" as in " ... and larger, noisier, prints".  My take-away is that, normalized for noise, the cameras perform identically across the range of ISO's they have in common.  The NEX-7 records more information per unit area than does the NEX-5N, but at a cost of higher noise.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on November 28, 2011, 01:06:09 pm
Yes and no.

What it means is that when shooting with the NEX-7 you have a higher resolution (bigger print) image, but you do not give up anything in terms of noise performance compared to a NEX-5n if you scale the file down.

With the NEX-5n you do not have the inverse, the choice of "scaling up" without a quality loss.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on November 28, 2011, 01:37:35 pm
Yes and no.

What it means is that when shooting with the NEX-7 you have a higher resolution (bigger print) image, but you do not give up anything in terms of noise performance compared to a NEX-5n if you scale the file down.

With the NEX-5n you do not have the inverse, the choice of "scaling up" without a quality loss.

Michael


Yep, that's why, assuming identical sensor technology, more megapixels is always a net advantage, outside of slower processing speed and taking up more storage space.  

Of course, preliminary tests of the NEX-7 are showing that it doesn't handle wide angle rangefinder lenses as well as the 5N, and that could be related to the smaller pixels.  I can't wait to see Michael's wide rangefinder tests on the NEX-7 vs. 5N.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: madmanchan on November 28, 2011, 04:17:32 pm
The tricky bit is that it's hard to have identical sensor technology when scaling up the res (while keeping the overall sensor size the same, like we have here with the NEX 5N and NEX 7).  Scaling up the # of pixels means smaller pixels, which itself presents more challenges (besides noise and speed).
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on November 28, 2011, 05:38:18 pm
I can't wait to see Michael's wide rangefinder tests on the NEX-7 vs. 5N.

+1

Yep, that's the only question in my mind as to whether to get a NEX-7.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on November 29, 2011, 02:19:54 am
I think the folks at Adobe (and folks named Schewe) might take issue with this POV.


I don't think Adobe nor Jeff have much to do with the camera engineers that developed the firmware to generate a SOOC file.  the only possible interpretation of this acronym is the jpeg file created in camera, because the raw file really is irrelevant to being "sooc"  ... it's just a bunch of data that needs rendered later in the workflow instead of at capture.

In fact, the default rendering of Lightroom from the Adobe engineers is far more useful than the default rendered by the cameras firmware.  And of course with Lightroom that's just the starting point, where as with the camera jpeg it's the end point.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 29, 2011, 08:15:38 am
Hi,

My point is that I presume that most readers on this forum shoot raw, so we never see straight out of the camera images. SOOC is raw, and raw files need to be interpreted.

BR
Erik

I don't think Adobe nor Jeff have much to do with the camera engineers that developed the firmware to generate a SOOC file.  the only possible interpretation of this acronym is the jpeg file created in camera, because the raw file really is irrelevant to being "sooc"  ... it's just a bunch of data that needs rendered later in the workflow instead of at capture.

In fact, the default rendering of Lightroom from the Adobe engineers is far more useful than the default rendered by the cameras firmware.  And of course with Lightroom that's just the starting point, where as with the camera jpeg it's the end point.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on November 29, 2011, 11:16:58 am
Hi,

My point is that I presume that most readers on this forum shoot raw, so we never see straight out of the cmera images. SOOC is raw, and raw files need to be interpreted.

BR
Erik


Exactly.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on November 29, 2011, 05:25:38 pm
Well, I respectfully disagree SOOC couldn't be raw, since it does need rendered and the acronym implies a useable file straight from the camera without further work , so  SOOC could only refer to a jpeg file ... which I completely agree has little interest to those here on LuLa.

I was confused how the Adobe and Jeff tie in was even made and why it was there, as I thought it was pretty clear the only ones influencing the "SOOC" jpeg would be the camera engineers, otherwise I wouldn't have made a follow up comment.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on November 30, 2011, 03:28:48 pm
Agreed. SOOC has always meant Jpeg out of camera without further processing (but I'm a raw shooter.)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jonathan Cross on November 30, 2011, 04:55:36 pm
The rolling review is great.  I hope that IQ will be covered.  I mention this in terms of the recent article on this site about whether sensors 'outresolve' lenses.  It would be nice to know how Sony lenses work in terms of IQ on the NEX-7 with its large number of pixels.  Does Sony glass do justice to the number of pixels on the sensor?

Jonathan Cross

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 01, 2011, 12:34:46 am
Waiting with great interest for the video portion of the review. 
Hopefully, some sound recording aspects, too.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 01, 2011, 02:25:31 am
The performance of the NEX-7 seems extraordinary. Now that the DXO results are out, we can see this is a great example of increased pixel count not having the negative consequences of increased noise, as a result of improving technology, comparing equal size images of course.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the D7000 still retains a 1/2 stop lead in DR at base ISO. On the other hand, the NEX-7 appears to have about 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 12,800 through some electronic trickery. But I would consider the 1/2 stop advantage of the D7000 at ISO 100 to be more useful, although a 1/2 stop may be near the borderline of significance in any case.

We should also not forget the advantages of the larger sensor. The full-frame D3X of similar pixel count, but older technology, still retains an advantage regards SNR at 18% grey (about the level of skin tones), tonal range and color sensitivity, although this wouldn't be the case if we had a 54mp full-frame camera consisting of NEX-7 pixels. By the time we get such a camera, technology will have advanced again in other respects.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 01, 2011, 03:19:57 am
I am glad to see that the DxOMark results are now widely accepted as representing the truth about camera sensors. Heck, even Phaseone is now using these results in their commercial mailings (like the one I received 2 days ago).  ;D

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/736|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/485|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/371|0/%28brand3%29/Sony

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 01, 2011, 11:48:25 am


Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the D7000 still retains a 1/2 stop lead in DR at base ISO. On the other hand, the NEX-7 appears to have about 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 12,800 through some electronic trickery. But I would consider the 1/2 stop advantage of the D7000 at ISO 100 to be more useful, although a 1/2 stop may be near the borderline of significance in any case.


Yes, Nikon has always been very clever with their electronics and usually seems to be able to squeeze a little more out of the Sony sensors than others - although I have not seen Nikon be so clever at taking their electronics and squeezing them into a compact package, an area where it seems Sony has a one generation lead considering the size of the NEX cameras, quality of the sensor and the class leading EVF.

I never thought I would feel this way, but after using the Sony EVF and then using my D300 and Pentax K5, I think I actually prefer using the EVF, at least for all manual focus lenses. Being able to see a live histogram in the EVF,adjusting ISO and EC without taking the camera from my eye, focus magnification and focus peaking in combination are very compelling.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 01, 2011, 03:37:49 pm

...Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the D7000 still retains a 1/2 stop lead in DR at base ISO. On the other hand, the NEX-7 appears to have about 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 12,800 through some electronic trickery. But I would consider the 1/2 stop advantage of the D7000 at ISO 100 to be more useful, although a 1/2 stop may be near the borderline of significance in any case.


There are two reasons that I know of that cause this discrepancy, outside of power supply conditioning, software, etc. 

First of all, Sony uses a more dense color filter than Pentax, Nikon or Canon.  This leads to better color and metamerism in general for Sony compared to the competition, but the disadvantage is that less light hits the sensor, which requires a little more gain from the camera.  So, it's a trade off.  If you compare cameras in DxO Mark, you can't see the "Color Response" tab, but you can see the tab if you look at the camera individually.  Sony cameras nearly always have the highest metamerism.

The second reason is the 14 bit process that Nikon uses, which is believed to be some kind of oversampling or multisampling with EXMOR based cameras. 

I'm not sure if I'd want to make the color trade off, but I do wish that Sony would use the 14 bit method, now that the advantage is starting to become tangible.


Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dreed on December 01, 2011, 04:30:49 pm
As a side bar to this rolling review, over at DxO they've tested both the A77 and NEX-7 (which we assume have the same sensor) and found that the NEX-7 narrowly bests the A77 in all of their tests. Presumably this gives us an idea of the actual impact that the translucent mirror really makes on photos - aside from light loss.

DxO Labs - NEX-7 vs A77 (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/734|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/736|0/%28brand2%29/Sony)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on December 01, 2011, 05:19:11 pm
Re: The size comparison video...

You sure all that noise in the background isn't a bunch of photographers trying to storm the gate and their hands on all your toys? DROOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 01, 2011, 06:36:34 pm

First of all, Sony uses a more dense color filter than Pentax, Nikon or Canon.  This leads to better color and metamerism in general for Sony compared to the competition, but the disadvantage is that less light hits the sensor, which requires a little more gain from the camera.  So, it's a trade off.  If you compare cameras in DxO Mark, you can't see the "Color Response" tab, but you can see the tab if you look at the camera individually.  Sony cameras nearly always have the highest metamerism.


That's a good point, but what's not clear is the significance in practice of that higher SMI figure. I imagine it's something I might be concerned about if I were employed to produce the most accurate color possible when, for example, producing a catalogue for a paint company or fashion house.

As it is, when processing a RAW image I find that I'm always always changing the white balance or vibrancy or hue and saturation of colors to produce the most pleasing result to my eye. I don't really care whether or not in reality the sky was exactly the same shade and intensity of blue as it is in my rendition. It's what looks best that counts.

The easiest way to compare cameras in DXOMark is to use the option to compare up to 3 cameras side by side, and view 3 separate graphs on each page under the various measurement headings. However, such headings do not include Color Response where the SMI is found. I wonder why.

I did a search amongst the various explanations on the DXOMark site, and found the following comment which seems relevant.

Quote
In practice, the SMI for DSLRs ranges between 75 and 85, and is not very discriminating. It is different for low-end cameras (such as camera phones), which typically have a SMI of about 40. For this reason, we give this measurement as an indication but do not integrate it in DxO Mark.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 01, 2011, 10:28:15 pm
That's a good point, but what's not clear is the significance in practice of that higher SMI figure. I imagine it's something I might be concerned about if I were employed to produce the most accurate color possible when, for example, producing a catalogue for a paint company or fashion house.

As it is, when processing a RAW image I find that I'm always always changing the white balance or vibrancy or hue and saturation of colors to produce the most pleasing result to my eye. I don't really care whether or not in reality the sky was exactly the same shade and intensity of blue as it is in my rendition. It's what looks best that counts.

The easiest way to compare cameras in DXOMark is to use the option to compare up to 3 cameras side by side, and view 3 separate graphs on each page under the various measurement headings. However, such headings do not include Color Response where the SMI is found. I wonder why.

I did a search amongst the various explanations on the DXOMark site, and found the following comment which seems relevant.


  I think, at this point, we're all starting to split hairs between DR numbers, SNR, color, etc.  FWIW, if you talk to Iliah Borg, he'll tell you that the color separation difference is most noticeable in greens when comparing Nikons and Sonys, and the Sonys show more green hue resolution.  He still generally prefers his A900s over his D3x for landscapes for this reason, despite the D3x having other advantages.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: John Camp on December 02, 2011, 02:06:36 am
For me, the size comparisons are absolutely critical. When I'm traveling by car, and only moving around on foot for short distances, I prefer a FF or APS-C DSLR (specifically, now, the Pentax K5) because I like the viewfinders better than EVFs. However, when I'm traveling by air, or walking longer distances, or doing certain kinds of street photography, I take the m4/3 system, the Panasonic. I wish the comparison had shown the GF1 rather than the GH2, because that's the more size-critical version of the Panasonic cameras. But, I understand that you can't have everything in practical reviews.

Some questions, if Michael is inclined to answer them:

-Is the "bag" of gear you carry, with native-mount lenses, much different in terms of weight and size between the Panasonic and the NEX cameras? Could you stow both bags in the overhead in regional jets?
-Is there a sharp difference between the Panasonics and the NEXs in print quality for, say, 19-inch prints?
-Leica lenses aside, how do you judge the lens quality of the two systems?
-Do the Leica lenses provide an increase in performance that is apparent in prints?

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Craig Arnold on December 02, 2011, 06:49:01 am
Thanks for the size comparison Michael !

As an X100 fan it's only fair to point out that you had the X100 hood attached the whole time, which makes it look a lot bigger. :)

But the NEX7 does look like a very nice little camera. Really cleverly done, lots of good, even brilliant technical and design touches all round. Probably the single most impressive piece of high-tech camera design I have ever seen.

If I didn't hate Sony Group so much* this camera would be very tempting indeed.



*Completely off-topic rant...
I swore after their rootkit fiasco with their music CDs in 2005 that I would never buy another Sony product unless there was no alternative. So far I haven't - and a lot of people I know in IT made similar pledges. It was in my view simply unforgivable. The biggest single act of cynical abuse of customers' online security ever committed by any corporation. Sony officials should have gone to prison. I do accept that Sony BMG have nothing to do with the camera and electronics division.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: erictoddjohnson on December 02, 2011, 08:16:51 am
Michael,

Thanks for the very thorough and informative rolling review of the NEX-7. In your size comparison video, you talked about the 18-200mm Sony lens as a video lens, and described its benefits for that mode.  I don't shoot much video, but am more interested in the NEX system as an alternative to a FF DSLR for times when size and weight are an issue, e.g., travel or hiking.  I already have an NEX-5 with the 18-55, and find it ideal for those situations.  Could you give us your impressions of the IQ and overall utility of the 18-200 for shooting stills in one of your future installments? 

Thanks!

Eric
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 02, 2011, 08:54:07 am
The 18-200mm is a great lens for stills as well. I should have made that clear in the video.

As long as you have decent light, it's the lens to have mounted on the camera for spontaneous shooting. The IS works really well.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: grzybu on December 02, 2011, 10:22:58 am
Michael,

Is Nex-7 viewfinder much better than one in GH2?
I know resolution is higher, but does it make really big difference?

Grzegorz
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 02, 2011, 12:58:50 pm
It has twice the resolution and much higher contrast and brightness. I wouldn't say it's twice as good, but it is visibly better.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: DaveCurtis on December 02, 2011, 02:16:55 pm
Michael/Chris,
I really enjoy the video as a review medium. Well done.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 02, 2011, 05:06:43 pm
It has twice the resolution and much higher contrast and brightness. I wouldn't say it's twice as good, but it is visibly better.

Michael


Agreed. The EVF on my NEX-5N (same as NEX-7) is the first EVF that I've owned, and I was pretty stunned to try out my friend's GH2 the other day.  The Sony EVF is a pretty significant step up, and really looks close to reality in good light.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 02, 2011, 06:19:06 pm
Agreed. The EVF on my NEX-5N (same as NEX-7) is the first EVF that I've owned, and I was pretty stunned to try out my friend's GH2 the other day.  The Sony EVF is a pretty significant step up, and really looks close to reality in good light.

+1 and it works even better now that I've implemented Douglas' trick of lowering the contrast in the jpeg settings which opens up the shadows in the EVF. (Of course, this works if you shoot raw and aren't relying on the camera's jpeg engine for your output.)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: adanac on December 03, 2011, 03:55:19 pm
I've used the X100 extensively and now somewhat less extensively the NEX-5N and EVF and if comparing EVF to EVF the Sony EVF is superior. In abundant light the image is more like the output; in low light situations it is noisy just as the X100 is but suffers from far less lag. You can reduce the viewfinder lag in the X100 with a half press of the shutter but still the Sony wins out here.

While I do miss a little the optical half of the X100 hybrid finder, I was using the EVF half more often than not so the transition to the NEX wasn't hard for me. The diopter adjustment on the X100 is a lot less fiddly than the NEX and less likely to be moved, but I've only knocked the NEX adjustment slider out once or twice.

Yes, I'd buy an EVF only Sony camera after this experience.

Mike

PS: I'd also like to thank Michael for the informative rolling review of the NEX-7 and comparisons. Looking forward to the M lens examination and hope there's some comparison with the NEX-5N (and maybe the GXR?) too. I've become quite impressed with the 5N and can see some photographers opting to remain with that body thanks to the tilt EVF. I'd still prefer the handling of the 7 but to be honest if mostly shooting M or legacy SLR glass, some of the features of the 7 are wasted.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on December 04, 2011, 01:03:54 am
I am glad to see that the DxOMark results are now widely accepted as representing the truth about camera sensors. Heck, even Phaseone is now using these results in their commercial mailings (like the one I received 2 days ago).  ;D
Cheers,
Bernard

I agree most are finding it a useful tool, but still has the caveat of being a strictly scientific measurement of certain sensor characteristics which ends up  primarily based on sensor design and sensel size without regard to total pixels.  So useful when comparing sensors of similar resolutions, less so when comparing those significantly different and certainly only one of many factors when it comes to real world workflows.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2011, 04:16:13 am
I agree most are finding it a useful tool, but still has the caveat of being a strictly scientific measurement of certain sensor characteristics which ends up  primarily based on sensor design and sensel size without regard to total pixels.  So useful when comparing sensors of similar resolutions, less so when comparing those significantly different and certainly only one of many factors when it comes to real world workflows.

Not at all, Wayne. DXO are well aware of the differences between the two situations of comparing individual pixels on any sensor as opposed to comparing the total number of pixels on those sensors.

That's why at the top left corner of their pages with graphs showing direct comparisons of up to 3 cameras on the same page, there's an option of 'screen' or ' print'.

The 'screen' option gives you the pixel per pixel comparison. The 'print' option shows you results when the images from both sensors have been downsampled to 8mp.

The rather low figure of 8mp has been chosen in order not to include too many models of cameras which would require upsampling rather than downsampling, such as the old Canon 10D dslr, presumably because upsampling is a different ball game which is more susceptible to variations in software sophistication.

As I understand, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the results for two cameras which have both been downsampled to 8mp, as seen when clicking on the 'print' box in DXOMark, would be the same (for all practical purposes) if the print resolution were increased to the lowest resolution of the two cameras in the comparison, which may be considerably more than 8mp.

In other words, to take a specific example,  if one is comparing the 24mp NEX-7 with the 16mp D7000 in print mode, which results in both images being downsampled to 8mp for comparison purposes, those results in the DXOMark graphs would be equally applicable if the NEX-7 had been downsampled to 16mp (instead of 8mp) and compared to the D7000 at its native resolution of 16mp.

I've assumed this to be true for a long time. If it's not true, then please provide the evidence. I just hate to walk around with false notions in my head.

If one compares images from the NEX-7 with identical scenes from the Nikon D7000, at the same size, whether big or small, then the NEX-7 compares very favourably with the D7000 in terms of SNR, Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity etc.

The D7000 has a slight advantage in terms deep shadow detail. The NEX-7 may have a slight advantage in terms of color accuracy, and certainly a slight advantage in terms of fundamental resolution and detail when using a good lens. 24mp is usually better than 16mp, even if the lens is the same.

However, let's not kid ourselves that the NEX-7 pixel is as good as the larger D7000 pixel, and the even larger D3X pixel. Hit the 'screen' mode on DXOMark to see the differences.


Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2011, 05:47:57 am
Hi,

I agree with Wayne that DxO measures only some aspects of image quality. In my view they essentially measure noise characteristics, of which DR is a part.

Wayne likes to print large, so other aspects of image quality like resolution, microcontrast (which I assume to be MTF near Nyquist) is important to the type of pictures he makes. Those parameters are not taken into account by DxO.

Best regards
Erik


Not at all, Wayne. DXO are well aware of the differences between the two situations of comparing individual pixels on any sensor as opposed to comparing the total number of pixels on those sensors.

That's why at the top left corner of their pages with graphs showing direct comparisons of up to 3 cameras on the same page, there's an option of 'screen' or ' print'.

The 'screen' option gives you the pixel per pixel comparison. The 'print' option shows you results when the images from both sensors have been downsampled to 8mp.

The rather low figure of 8mp has been chosen in order not to include too many models of cameras which would require upsampling rather than downsampling, such as the old Canon 10D dslr, presumably because upsampling is a different ball game which is more susceptible to variations in software sophistication.

As I understand, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the results for two cameras which have both been downsampled to 8mp, as seen when clicking on the 'print' box in DXOMark, would be the same (for all practical purposes) if the print resolution were increased to the lowest resolution of the two cameras in the comparison, which may be considerably more than 8mp.

In other words, to take a specific example,  if one is comparing the 24mp NEX-7 with the 16mp D7000 in print mode, which results in both images being downsampled to 8mp for comparison purposes, those results in the DXOMark graphs would be equally applicable if the NEX-7 had been downsampled to 16mp (instead of 8mp) and compared to the D7000 at its native resolution of 16mp.

I've assumed this to be true for a long time. If it's not true, then please provide the evidence. I just hate to walk around with false notions in my head.

If one compares images from the NEX-7 with identical scenes from the Nikon D7000, at the same size, whether big or small, then the NEX-7 compares very favourably with the D7000 in terms of SNR, Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity etc.

The D7000 has a slight advantage in terms deep shadow detail. The NEX-7 may have a slight advantage in terms of color accuracy, and certainly a slight advantage in terms of fundamental resolution and detail when using a good lens. 24mp is usually better than 16mp, even if the lens is the same.

However, let's not kid ourselves that the NEX-7 pixel is as good as the larger D7000 pixel, and the even larger D3X pixel. Hit the 'screen' mode on DXOMark to see the differences.



Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2011, 09:16:04 pm
Hi,

I agree with Wayne that DxO measures only some aspects of image quality. In my view they essentially measure noise characteristics, of which DR is a part.

Wayne likes to print large, so other aspects of image quality like resolution, microcontrast (which I assume to be MTF near Nyquist) is important to the type of pictures he makes. Those parameters are not taken into account by DxO.

Best regards
Erik



Hi Erik,
The reason that resolution is not taken into account is because it's so dependent on lens quality, as you must already know. I think it is generally understood that all sensors with a higher pixel count have the potential to deliver higher resolution when used with a sufficiently sharp lens at an appropriate aperture. Do we really need someone to scientifically verify that fact?

Of course, it is true that a particular sensor which has a  marginally greater pixel count than another, may not deliver the expected marginal increase in resolution because its AA filter is marginally stronger than the AA filter in the sensor with the slightly lower pixel count.

I suppose it would be possible for DXO to measure the strength of the AA filter in all its cameras tested, and give a ranking in terms of percentage of resolution in relation to the theoretical Nyquist limit of the sensor.

I suspect the reason they don't do this is because the rankings of such results would be so subjectively contentious. Consider all the lengthy discussions on this forum about the benefits and disadvantages of the lack of an AA filter. If DXOmark were to provide precise information on the strength of the AA filter in each camera it tested, how could it be determined whether or not a weak AA filter which causes more aliasing is more desirable than a stronger AA filter which more successfully prevents aliasing?

I guess they would have no choice but to exclude such results from their rankings, and such results would become just an extraneous piece of information, useful to some perhaps but not to many who wouldn't know if it were a good thing or a bad thing.

If one considers the current categories of sensor performance that DXOMark address, such as ISO Sensitivity, SNR, Dynamic Range, Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity, all across the full range of ISO settings, there is surely no doubt or confusion about which result is better, or which is more desirable.

I've never heard anyone complain that the Dynamic Range of their camera is too great, or the color too accurate, or the noise too low.

As I write this, I'm reminded of the great contoversy surrounding comparisons between the Canon 1DsII and the 5D which was released later and was the first affordable full-frame DSLR.

The pixel count of the 5D was slightly less (12.7 versus 16.2 for the 1Ds2) but in practice the resolution of compared images sometimes seemed to be so close as to be almost nonexistent. To explain this, it was suggested that the 5D had a slightly weaker AA filter than the 1Ds2.

Having been involved in that controversy myself, in the days when the Rob Galbraith forum was active, I find it interesting to now view the DXOMark comparison of the 5D and 1Ds2.

One can now understand the reasons for the controversy which took place before the DXOMark site existed. These cameras really were very close in performance.

What we find is that in all the parameters which DXO address, the 5D and 1Ds2 are neck and neck, except with regard to DR at high ISO. At ISO 1600 the DR of the 5D is a full 1/2 stop better than the much more expensive 1Ds2 at ISO 1600. A 1/2 stop is worthwhile, and I'm referring to comparisons of equal size images.

If we compare relative performance at the pixel level, the 5D is marginally ahead in all parameters, except its DR lead exceeds 1/2 a stop, as one would expect.

Sites such as DXOMark are tremendously useful because they help us dispel some of our subjective illusions about camera performance which we may have presumed from the price of the product and general advertising.

Those who had already bought the 1Ds2 before the 5D was released would naturally tend to be outraged at any suggestion that the much cheaper 5D was not only the equal of the 1Ds2 in most IQ departments but actually superior in at least one.

Without the benefit of the DXOMark results, an enormous amount of hot air was generated trying to justify the superior image quality from the 1Ds2, when in fact the real reasons for buying a 1Ds2 instead of a 5D would have been for practical issues not addressed by DXOMark, such as superior waterproofing, sturdier construction, greater number of predicted shutter actuations before maintenance, and autofocussing capability at F8 instead of the maximum F5.6 for the 5D, which has implications when using teleconverters.

The main attraction of the NEX-7 is not that it has better image quality and higher resolution than many other cameras on the market, but that it is significantly lighter and more compact than other cameras of similar resolution and IQ.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dreed on December 04, 2011, 10:06:39 pm
The reason that resolution is not taken into account is because it's so dependent on lens quality, as you must already know.

Indeed and this makes me speculate whether or not DxO does their camera sensor testing in a lens-less fashion. Does anyone know if that's a fact or not?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 04, 2011, 11:06:07 pm
Indeed and this makes me speculate whether or not DxO does their camera sensor testing in a lens-less fashion. Does anyone know if that's a fact or not?

Good point! I'm assuming that they not only test the sensor in a lens-less fashion, but they also examine the unconverted RAW image in order to avoid the endless speculation about the qualities of any particular RAW converter that might have been used, including their own.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 05, 2011, 12:15:38 pm
Michael,


Thanks for the great work with the NEX 7 rolling review!

In the last installment, you mention that you've had an opportunity to compare most of the Sony E mount lenses with your Leica lenses, but don't intend to publishing any more results. That's very understandable considering that only a very small percentage of NEX users will be using $6,000 lenses on their NEX cameras. However, I think it would help a lot of us if you could just make a general comment on what you're seeing in image corners using your wider angle M mount lenses on the NEX 7, as some other reviewers have posted images that seem to indicate corner smearing and color shift with wider angle lenses on the NEX 7, an issue that has been much improved with the NEX 5N as compared to the NEX 5.

For example, I have a NEX 7 on order and want a lens in the 24 mm range. I'm considering getting a Zeiss ZM 25 instead of the Sony/Zeiss 24/1.8. They're in the same price range and for me the ability to use the Zeiss ZM with other systems is more important than autofocus and image stabilization. But, if the NEX 7 sensor has problems in the corners with the native wider M mount lenses, I would then get the Sony/Zeiss 24.

Jeff
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 05, 2011, 12:40:39 pm
Thanks for recent installment, Michael. I agree with Jeff in that the most questionable area of performance with the Nex-7 is corner performance with rangefinder lenses. Other early testers have shown that the Nex-7 has much more color shift than the 5N with the wide rangefinder lenses from CV and Zeiss, and we could really use a comparison between the two cameras. My Nex-5 shows more color shift and less resolution in the corners with my ZM 35mm lenses when compared to the 5N, and it only gets worse as I go wider. If the Nex-7 performs like the old Nex-5 in the corners, it'll be a step back for many of us.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 05, 2011, 01:06:17 pm
This will be covered in the next installment later this week. Short answer is that ZM lenses are a poor choice with the NEX-7 because they are of symmetrical design. Most Leica WA lenses since the 1980's are retrofocus designs and therefore much more amenable to the NEX-7's sensor and microlenses.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 05, 2011, 01:39:22 pm
This will be covered in the next installment later this week. Short answer is that ZM lenses are a poor choice with the NEX-7 because they are of symmetrical design. Most Leica WA lenses since the 1980's are retrofocus designs and therefore much more amenable to the NEX-7's sensor and microlenses.

Michael


Thanks, Michael.  I'm aware of the symmetrical design of many of the ZM and Voigtlander wides, but the NEX-5N has solved most of corner issues with these lenses when compared to the older NEX-5.  Judging by tests from others, and your comments here, it seems the NEX-7 is a step backwards for those of use that use these lenses on the NEX-5N, which is unfortunate, because I think the body of the NEX-7 looks pretty nice.  

Even with 35mm ZM Biogons, I get around .75 EV less vignetting, less color shift, and better resolution in the corners with the 5N compared to the old 5.  While the Leica wides don't seem as symmetrical as the ZMs, I'd bet that the Leica wides would also perform a little better in the corners on the 5N compared to the 5 (and maybe 7.)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review - back to the viewfinder
Post by: AFairley on December 05, 2011, 03:48:17 pm
To loop back to the EVF for a moment, one thing I am noticing with the Olympus m4/3 VF-2 EVF is that the shadows do block up quite a bit, making composition more difficult when one corner or side of the frame is in shadow, a very noticeable (and annoying) difference from the open shadows though a DSLR OVF.  In fact, the image in the EVF has considerably less dynamic range than the actual files have.  How is the NEX-7 in that respect?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review - back to the viewfinder
Post by: douglasf13 on December 05, 2011, 04:14:14 pm
To loop back to the EVF for a moment, one thing I am noticing with the Olympus m4/3 VF-2 EVF is that the shadows do block up quite a bit, making composition more difficult when one corner or side of the frame is in shadow, a very noticeable (and annoying) difference from the open shadows though a DSLR OVF.  In fact, the image in the EVF has considerably less dynamic range than the actual files have.  How is the NEX-7 in that respect?

Assuming that you shoot raw, you can just lower the contrast in the NEX-7/5N EVF and it opens up shadows quite a bit.  It gives you a more accurate histogram for the raw, too.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: marcmccalmont on December 05, 2011, 05:11:07 pm
I hope there will be a recommendation for a general purpose "walk around" zoom?
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on December 05, 2011, 06:14:29 pm
I hope there will be a recommendation for a general purpose "walk around" zoom?
Marc

Look on page 2 of this thread, second post from the bottom (Michael's).
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2011, 12:15:59 am
For many of us, this issue of available lenses is a huge problem. The camera body is essentially just a device to accommodate the sensor (with associated electronic processes) and hold the lens.

A camera is of no use without a lens. The quality and characteristics of available lenses is just as important as the performance of the camera body. In fact, in some respects the quality of the lens is more important because improvements in sensor performance, which requires a change in camera body to appreciate, occur more frequently and with more dramatic results than improvements in lens performance.

There's a good argument for choosing one's lenses first, then choosing a body to match.

If the shot requires a 14mm lens and the widest you have is 18mm, and the subject is not static, then you are stuffed. You may miss the shot, in terms of desired composition, unless you have the time and opportunity to walk backwards.

At the telephoto end of the spectrum, you will not miss the shot. It'll just be downgraded as a result of fewer and noisier pixels, if you don't have a sufficiently long lens.

The NEX-7 body is impressively light and compact in relation to its performance, but it would be foolish to make any weight comparisons without equivalent lenses attached

If one cannot find lenses for the NEX-7 of equivalent quality, focal length and aperture to match what one already has, uses and desires, then it becomes a rather expensive exercise to buy into an NEX-7 system in order to save 1/2 a kilogram of body weight.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 06, 2011, 01:24:20 am
Hi,

I'm pretty sure they use lenses for their tests. The sensor tests only measure sensor signals. So the lens is only used to render the test target on the sensor.

DxO-mark also does extensive tests of lens/sensor combinations, measuring lots of parameter but those are a different set of tests.

DxO mark sets some kind of figure of merit on both sensor that make no sense to me, but digging in the data can be quite useful.

Best regards
Erik


Indeed and this makes me speculate whether or not DxO does their camera sensor testing in a lens-less fashion. Does anyone know if that's a fact or not?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 06, 2011, 02:47:05 am
For many of us, this issue of available lenses is a huge problem. The camera body is essentially just a device to accommodate the sensor (with associated electronic processes) and hold the lens.

A camera is of no use without a lens. The quality and characteristics of available lenses is just as important as the performance of the camera body. In fact, in some respects the quality of the lens is more important because improvements in sensor performance, which requires a change in camera body to appreciate, occur more frequently and with more dramatic results than improvements in lens performance.

There's a good argument for choosing one's lenses first, then choosing a body to match.

If the shot requires a 14mm lens and the widest you have is 18mm, and the subject is not static, then you are stuffed. You may miss the shot, in terms of desired composition, unless you have the time and opportunity to walk backwards.

At the telephoto end of the spectrum, you will not miss the shot. It'll just be downgraded as a result of fewer and noisier pixels, if you don't have a sufficiently long lens.

The NEX-7 body is impressively light and compact in relation to its performance, but it would be foolish to make any weight comparisons without equivalent lenses attached

If one cannot find lenses for the NEX-7 of equivalent quality, focal length and aperture to match what one already has, uses and desires, then it becomes a rather expensive exercise to buy into an NEX-7 system in order to save 1/2 a kilogram of body weight.

It's not really an issue for many of us.  In fact, many professional photographers that I know only use 2-3 lenses on any system. I usually only use a CV 15, Zeiss 35 and Zeiss 50 on my 5N, just like I use a 20mm, 50mm and 85mm on the a900, or a 50, 80 and 150 on a Hasselblad.  The difference in size between my Nex system compared to the other two systems is pretty astounding.

Working within constraints is often favorable to an artist.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2011, 07:14:40 am
Hi,

I'm pretty sure they use lenses for their tests. The sensor tests only measure sensor signals. So the lens is only used to render the test target on the sensor.

DxO-mark also does extensive tests of lens/sensor combinations, measuring lots of parameter but those are a different set of tests.

DxO mark sets some kind of figure of merit on both sensor that make no sense to me, but digging in the data can be quite useful.


You might be right, Erik. I can find only one reference to the non-use of a lens amongst the DXOMark technical explanations, and that is for ISO Sensitivity tests. Apparently they don't use a lens attached to the camera when measuring ISO sensitivity.

I find it odd that they seem to make no reference at all to their policy on choice of lens for sensor testing. One would think they might state somewhere that they try to use a standard prime where possible, for example, or that the choice of lens for sensor noise measurements, tonal range, color sensitivity etc. is irrelevant, if that is indeed the case.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2011, 07:17:11 am
It's not really an issue for many of us.  In fact, many professional photographers that I know only use 2-3 lenses on any system. I usually only use a CV 15, Zeiss 35 and Zeiss 50 on my 5N, just like I use a 20mm, 50mm and 85mm on the a900, or a 50, 80 and 150 on a Hasselblad.  The difference in size between my Nex system compared to the other two systems is pretty astounding.

Working within constraints is often favorable to an artist.

I use only one lens on one system (the 100-400/F5.6 zoom with the Canon 50D) and two lenses on my other system, the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 & 24-120/F4 with D700 & D7000. This provides me with a continuous range of focal lengths from 14mm to 640mm with a moderate degree of overlap. The weight is a problem though, when attempting to carry all 3 cameras and 3 lenses together.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 06, 2011, 01:52:35 pm
I use only one lens on one system (the 100-400/F5.6 zoom with the Canon 50D) and two lenses on my other system, the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 & 24-120/F4 with D700 & D7000. This provides me with a continuous range of focal lengths from 14mm to 640mm with a moderate degree of overlap. The weight is a problem though, when attempting to carry all 3 cameras and 3 lenses together.


Yeah, we must be world's apart in style, and I agree that a system like NEX probably wouldn't be all that advantageous to someone that needs that much gear at once.  I personally see systems like NEX as modern takes on small rangefinder systems with a few small primes, rather than DSLR replacements, although others see it differently.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 06, 2011, 11:37:52 pm
Yeah, we must be world's apart in style, and I agree that a system like NEX probably wouldn't be all that advantageous to someone that needs that much gear at once.  I personally see systems like NEX as modern takes on small rangefinder systems with a few small primes, rather than DSLR replacements, although others see it differently.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I frequently carry all that gear on my person at one time, but rather I try to have it available when I travel because I rarely know beforehand what I'm likely to come across that is worth photographing.

I'm essentially a travel photographer and most of my photos are of exotic locations, although I do sometimes find fascinating subjects in my own backyard.

I'm sometimes undecided whether or not to include the rather heavy 100-400 zoom with Canon body when I travel, because on occasions I haven't used it even once. But last time I travelled I did use it when I espied a paraglider above. I couldn't have taken the following shot without that 400mm lens (640mm equivalent on the 50D).  ;D

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jonathan Cross on December 07, 2011, 08:17:48 am
The rollong review continues to be very interesting.  I commented earlier in this discussion that I would be interested in IQ, particularly in light of the article on this site about whether sensors 'outresolve' lenses.  I have a Canon 5d Mk2 with various L lenses, and a Canon G11.  I am delighted with the G11 as long as the light is good, but it is 10MP and I think it shows on A3 prints (16.5" x 11.7").  I am looking for a good light travel camera with an APS-C sensor.  As far as I am concerned it is the body and lens package that matters.  Michael's comments on lenses on 5th Dec I find very interesting.  To buy a NEX-7 and a Sonnar 24mm is going to be expensive by my standards, not far off what I would pay for a Canon 5d Mk2 and a 24-105 L lens in the UK.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: marcmccalmont on December 08, 2011, 02:58:26 am
Which would be a better choice the e-mount 18-200 or the LA-EA2 + 16-80 Zeiss? or the  LA-EA2 + Sony 16-105?
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 08, 2011, 03:54:41 am
Hi,

I have the 16-80 Zeiss, it's unusable in the corners at 16 mm at f/3.5, stopped down to f/8 it is very good in my view across the range, except corners at 16 mm. Center is very good at all apertures. I never made a real test with the lens, but I'm pretty satisfied.

http://www.photozone.de and Kurt Munger ( http://kurtmunger.com/ ) has good tests.

Best regards
Erik



Which would be a better choice the e-mount 18-200 or the LA-EA2 + 16-80 Zeiss? or the  LA-EA2 + Sony 16-105?
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: marcmccalmont on December 08, 2011, 05:09:41 am
Maybe I should be patient and wait for their high quality midrange zoom that should be released next year?
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Isaac on December 08, 2011, 12:50:19 pm
As a side bar to this rolling review, over at DxO they've tested both the A77 and NEX-7 (which we assume have the same sensor) and found that the NEX-7 narrowly bests the A77 in all of their tests. Presumably this gives us an idea of the actual impact that the translucent mirror really makes on photos - aside from light loss.

Our generous host has been using NEX-7 both without and with Translucent Mirror Technology™ (built into the LA-EA2 α A-mount adaptor (http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=LAEA2)).

Given that the lenses will be different, I don't know if there's a sensible way to evaluate or discuss using NEX-7 with and without phase detection AF, with and without Translucent Mirror Technology™.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 08, 2011, 01:58:55 pm
Our generous host has been using NEX-7 both without and with Translucent Mirror Technology™ (built into the LA-EA2 α A-mount adaptor (http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=LAEA2)).

Given that the lenses will be different, I don't know if there's a sensible way to evaluate or discuss using NEX-7 with and without phase detection AF, with and without Translucent Mirror Technology™.

Can you elaborate on your point? The translucent mirror loses about 1/3rd of stop and contributes a tiny bit of resolution reduction. This has been shown in numerous tests.

Is there more that you need to know?

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dseelig on December 08, 2011, 02:22:37 pm
I am waiting to hear bottom line how good is the image quality say with a  24summliux compared to a  m9 with a 35 summilux at 160 or 200 and 400 as well say 1600  iso ? passed that I know sony will be better. I use m9s and have a sony 5n for iso 6400 with my leica lenses. Yes I need 6400 on occasion aslo I use it with my 90 when I need more reach. I also love the sweep panorama. One more wuestion better combo 16-55 and the 55-200 or just the 18-200. Which is sharper.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Isaac on December 08, 2011, 05:38:11 pm
The translucent mirror loses about 1/3rd of stop and contributes a tiny bit of resolution reduction.

Yes, and the same for SLT-A35 compared to NEX-5N (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/737|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/716|0/%28brand2%29/Sony).

Have you seen any advantage with phase detection AF?

Just idle curiosity on my part - I'll be learning to use the entry level SLT-A35 for several years yet ;-)

Maybe dreed had a sound basis for the question?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 08, 2011, 06:24:46 pm
AF is superior with Phase Detection, but not blindingly so. The differences and how the effect ones work will very much depend on each person's needs and style of shooting. I don't do sports any more, so lightning fast AF simple isn't imperative for me. Most recent contrast detect AF systems are pretty good. Not like they were a few years ago.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 08, 2011, 08:12:43 pm
Thanks for the 5N vs. 7 comparison, Michael.  Unfortunately, for many of us, using CornerFix isn't a big deal, but we're worried about the corner resolution differences.  I was stunned to see how much better my NEX-5N resolved in the corners with my ZM 35/2, when compared to my NEX-5, and I hope the NEX-7 isn't back to the smeary NEX-5 ways.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on December 10, 2011, 12:15:07 pm
Really nice NEX7 writeup:

http://petersills.wordpress.com/

Note at the end a nice shoutout for the Nex7 rolling review here.

Also, lots of good info on shooting in Cuba.

I find his comparison of real life street shooting with the Sony system vs his Canon 5D2 system quite interesting.

Enjoy! Bob.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Maurício Costa on December 14, 2011, 05:42:19 pm
Hi dear Michael,

I am a big fan of your work as a Photographer, and honestly - I have learned just about everything I know about digital photography in the luminous landscape site...

That being said, I can't understand how your last comparison wasn't flawed. You start it by cutting M9's resolution to about 12Mp with that crop - correct me if I'm wrong...

I think the only way to be fair, is to use different focal lengths - that would appear the same in the end result, and would not decrease the original resolution.

Am I saying nonsense? I really don't know...  ???
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 14, 2011, 06:14:23 pm
It's not nonsense and neither is the way I conducted my test. It's just the way that I chose to do it.

If I used a different lens then there would be those that complained about that. If I used the same lens then I would have to reposition the camera.

The point of the test was to see how the same lens shooting from the same spot at the same time would compare.

Remember, though I cropped the M9 frame I also reduced the resolution on the Sony frame.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: allenmacaulay on December 14, 2011, 06:27:22 pm
That being said, I can't understand how your last comparison wasn't flawed. You start it by cutting M9's resolution to about 12Mp with that crop - correct me if I'm wrong...

Less.  It would actually be around 9Mp given the sensor size ratio of the cameras.

Quote
I think the only way to be fair, is to use different focal lengths - that would appear the same in the end result, and would not decrease the original resolution.

Agreed.  Leica's 35mm and 50mm lenses will both outresolve the sensors on the NEX-7 and M9.  It also gets the field of view pretty close so that cropping is not a factor and we can look at what the sensor as a whole can do.  As the test stands we're looking at lines/mm on the sensor and disregarding sensor size, taking it to a logical conclusion the camera in an iPhone will have higher resolution than the NEX-7 if we used the same test methodology.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Maurício Costa on December 14, 2011, 06:32:28 pm
Sorry, I don't mean to be like those pricks that pick on you for Madonna's cycle...

But isn't there a better way of doing that comparison? Because as I understood it, you are comparing a 12 Mp crop from a 18 Mp camera to a 18 Mp resize from a 24 Mp...  ???
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Maurício Costa on December 14, 2011, 06:38:31 pm
As the test stands we're looking at lines/mm on the sensor and disregarding sensor size, taking it to a logical conclusion the camera in an iPhone will have higher resolution than the NEX-7 if we used the same test methodology.

Maybe you went too far, or as we say here in Brazil - you kicked the bucket...
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on December 14, 2011, 06:43:05 pm
Thank you Michael. I see the debate has already started about the methodology. I see why you dislike posting your findings, so many are unhappy.

Certainly what can be deduced is that Sony has created quite an interesting piece of photographic machinery. For the money, even someone that is a dedicated M9 shooter would be wise to consider one as a backup body. Not to mention those things it can do that the M9 cannot, like AF (given one of their lenses of course), higher ISO and so on.

I don't know how long you plan this review to keep on rolling, but another "comparison" comes to my mind: Bokeh. One of the reasons people invest in an M9 and lenses is for the incredible wide open bokeh.  Since it is viewed that it is the lens that makes the bokeh, would it be the same on the Sony vs M9? Since the subject matter is paramount for bokeh, seems like a comparison where you can move with your feet and get the same approximate field of view is desirable.

I wonder if the greater number of smaller photosites in the Sony's sensor will have an effect on the bokeh? Perhaps not quite as creamy/dreamy as on the M9?  

OTOH if you loathe further abuse I completely understand!

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: billh on December 14, 2011, 07:22:53 pm
I don’t worry about Michael’s methodology - it’s his opinion/conclusion I’m after. In every case I can remember, when I own the equipment he is testing, his opinion has been the same as mine. The only issue I have with this report is it will make the NEX7 even more difficult to obtain! It was also very interesting to discover the reason behind the unavailability of Leica Lenses. Given their cost these days, I could not understand the reason for this situation. Leica must be delighted.

I’ve been using the 5n exclusively with Leica M lenses, and with the instant image magnification, focusing is a snap. I find I have to turn off peaking because it obscures the the magnified image to the point it makes focusing difficult for me. I’m from the same era as Michel, and used Nikons and an M4 as a newspaper photographer in the 60s and 70s. It’s a real treat to again use these wonderful M lenses and focus accurately anywhere I please in the frame.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dseelig on December 14, 2011, 07:39:30 pm
Hi Michael
I wish you would do equivalents such as the 35 on the m9 and the 24 lux on the sony any chance? thanks though for the hard work.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: pindman on December 14, 2011, 08:39:10 pm
Hi Michael
I wish you would do equivalents such as the 35 on the m9 and the 24 lux on the sony any chance? thanks though for the hard work.


Michael,

I appreciate your tests, which compare the quality of the sensors using equal dimensions of each sensor. The real life question is the quality of the image when using each camera at a given distance to photograph a given scene using the entire sensor. From a practical standpoint, in real life I would choose lenses to match the field of view and use as much of the sensor as possible.  As implied above, if I were to use a 50mm on the M9 I would use a 35mm on the NEX-7, or longer lens on medium format. Hopefully you aren't too worn out to do this, as I think it would also be valuable.

Thanks.

Paul
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Faintandfuzzy on December 14, 2011, 08:54:51 pm
Sorry Michael, but just because that's the way you did it, doesn't mean it makes sense.  In fact, the reasoning is rather bizarre.  Simply use different lenses, or change your camera position.  Cropping out the FF M9 is not the way I've ever seen any review done by anyone else. 
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: hiepphotog on December 14, 2011, 10:21:05 pm
It's not nonsense and neither is the way I conducted my test. It's just the way that I chose to do it.

If I used a different lens then there would be those that complained about that. If I used the same lens then I would have to reposition the camera.

The point of the test was to see how the same lens shooting from the same spot at the same time would compare.

Remember, though I cropped the M9 frame I also reduced the resolution on the Sony frame.

Michael

I find the method you used is the more scientific way to do it. Using 2 different lenses would defeat the purpose of comparing two different sensors. Moving the camera to achieve the same framing would ultimately change the perspective, which is not the right way to do, IMO. However, I would suggest a different method of resizing. After you cropped the M9 image to get the same framing as the NEX-7, whatever the resolution of the crop (e.g. 12MP or 9MP) is the final size you should downsize the NEX-7 picture. That should eliminate any discrepancy.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 14, 2011, 11:03:58 pm
Using 2 different lenses would defeat the purpose of comparing two different sensors.

First of all, let's acknowledge that there is no way to test two sensors of different sizes without there being some valid criticism of the methodology. Knowing this, I applaud Michael for his efforts. I remember when Bjorn Rorslett did extensive testing of the Nikon D2X against some full frame Canon and he was crucified on the web.

Having said that, I do think that Michael's 35 and 50 Leica's would both out resolve the M9 and NEX 7 sensors.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: stever on December 14, 2011, 11:18:11 pm
i don't understand the logic of the "test" and the numbers don't add up, and i'm a bit disappointed - and no, i'm not posting to any other forums

i'm not a Leica fan, but have enormous respect for their lenses.  my personal experience with full-frame vs crop frame cameras is that for an equal linear pixel count, the full frame camera has about a 15% resolution advantage over APSC -- if the APSC isn't lens-limited.  the linear pixel difference between the M9 and NEX 7 is almost exactly 15% which would suggest equal performance - pretty much Michael's conclusion, but i'm not sure how conclusive this is.  It is certainly evidence that the NEX 7 is not a bad camera.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dreed on December 14, 2011, 11:31:15 pm
To my eyes at least, the M9 has the advantage on the NEX-7 in the corners in the wider apertures. At f/5.6, they appear close to equal. The part of the corners that I compared was the blue wall, where its shadow is cast onto the red building and the light brown/white building that abut each other above that (there's a fine small shadow between the two and this is not rendered the same.) At the wider apertures, the M9 appears (to me), to be slightly sharper?

If I look at the telegraph/power powers further down that image, the M9 also appears to suffer less from CA?
Does that make sense?

Is it just my eyes/pc?

I can't find any difference in the center shots worth noting.

That's my contribution to the pixel peeping!
:)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 14, 2011, 11:59:46 pm
Hi,

I think you have mixed up the pixel pitches. Sony has 3.9 micron pitch and Leica 6.87. That means that the Sony sensor is much more demanding on the lens than the Leica sensor.

The way Michael tests he down samples to the Sony to 6.87 microns.

In my view the reasonable solution would be to resize both images to a equal size. I normally use 70x100 cm at 200 PPI for my comparisons.

Best regards
Erik

i don't understand the logic of the "test" and the numbers don't add up, and i'm a bit disappointed - and no, i'm not posting to any other forums

i'm not a Leica fan, but have enormous respect for their lenses.  my personal experience with full-frame vs crop frame cameras is that for an equal linear pixel count, the full frame camera has about a 15% resolution advantage over APSC -- if the APSC isn't lens-limited.  the linear pixel difference between the M9 and NEX 7 is almost exactly 15% which would suggest equal performance - pretty much Michael's conclusion, but i'm not sure how conclusive this is.  It is certainly evidence that the NEX 7 is not a bad camera.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: viztyger on December 15, 2011, 01:47:41 am
I've really enjoyed reading the NEX-7 rolling review; thank you for all the work. I'm not sure though that the test comparing resolution between the M9 and NEX-7 is valid in the "real world." If I was shooting from the same roof top, I would decide how much of the scene I wanted to capture, then pick the focal length suitable for the job. I feel it would have been more representative of a "real world" situation if you had tested the M9 with a 50mm lens and the NEX-7 with a 35mm lens. Of course you're now introducing another variable - different lenses - but both cameras would now be capturing a similar view. And the test would probably be more representative of how many of us would use the respective cameras.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on December 15, 2011, 02:19:48 am
After reading the article, Michaels goal of trying to see some "real world" perspective instead of simple pixel peeping seems logical. His method appears to offer something pretty close on screen to what we might see viewing identical size prints side by side.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: paratom on December 15, 2011, 07:19:49 am
I dont understand the relevance for the comparison M9-Nex7.

1) the Nex images look sharper than the ones of the M9 - so why does the Nex7 sensor outresolve the lens?? It would outresolve the lens if the lens on the Nex7 would not deliver better images even though the sensor has more resolution.

2) I think we all have seen before that different sensors-even when having the same pixel density can lead to different results, for example cause by micro lens assignment etc. (remember how some m-lenses dont shine on thre Nex5 but look better on the Nex5N)

3) Comparing a downsampled image to a cropped 100% image doesnt tell much IMO.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: JohnBrew on December 15, 2011, 07:50:38 am
Hey Michael, that was fun (the NEX-7 vs. M9). And an interesting read. I think both cameras did just fine and for me the bottom line is the print. And who knows which one would win using the paper with which I most like to print? I think a photographer as opposed to a pixel-peeper would be happy with the output of either one.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bjanes on December 15, 2011, 09:39:08 am
It's not nonsense and neither is the way I conducted my test. It's just the way that I chose to do it.

If I used a different lens then there would be those that complained about that. If I used the same lens then I would have to reposition the camera.

The point of the test was to see how the same lens shooting from the same spot at the same time would compare.

Remember, though I cropped the M9 frame I also reduced the resolution on the Sony frame.

Your test may have achieved its intended purpose, but it does not reflect how the cameras would be used in practice. Cropping of the M9 reduces its 18 MP to 7.7 MP. I don't know why one would pay US $6K for an 18MP camera and then use it as an 8MP low end model. In practice one would move the camera or switch to a wide angle lens.

You downsized the Sony to 18MP, but why not to 7.7MP? The Leica has a Nyquist of 72 cy/mm and the Sony 128 cy/mm. Naturally, the Sony will win out under your conditions, even without deconvolution sharpening to offset the effect of the low pass filter.
Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bjanes on December 15, 2011, 09:45:44 am
After reading the article, Michaels goal of trying to see some "real world" perspective instead of simple pixel peeping seems logical. His method appears to offer something pretty close on screen to what we might see viewing identical size prints side by side.

Since the images are being observed at 100% on screen, in effect pixel peeping is being done. No prints were made. In the real world, one would not crop the M8 18MP image to 7.7MP.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: samdman on December 15, 2011, 09:54:40 am
I think it would be just if any of us compare NEX-7 vs Leica M9 using our own best methodology(s) rather than judging what has been done by Michael.

I myself would do it, if I can get my hands on both system at the moment. (And the lens of course). Since it's simply unavailable nor unreached (financially), there is some points that we could take away with. Since there are samples available everywhere on the net. We might just get on with our own comparison method, and draws personal justification out of it. Personally, any method available being used, it would greatly sucking one's energy, time, and (possibly) other resources.

My two cents.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: xxl_and on December 15, 2011, 10:35:17 am
Is it possible maybe to do the same comparison versus NEX-5n maybe. I would be very interested in this so that we (owners of NEX-5n) can decide if it makes sense that at some point in the future we switch to NEX-7.

A reply would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks :-)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review - back to the viewfinder
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 11:31:57 am
Assuming that you shoot raw, you can just lower the contrast in the NEX-7/5N EVF and it opens up shadows quite a bit.  It gives you a more accurate histogram for the raw, too.

Douglas, could you please point me to how one does this. I have the NEX 5n and the EVF. The only instruction I could find is on page 143 of the 5n manual where they say the brightness of the finder can be varied by +/- 1, whatever that means, but nothing about contrast or the impact on the histogram.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: 01af on December 15, 2011, 11:46:12 am
Michael's NEX-7 vs M9 comparison is badly screwed up, invalid, and thus, entirely pointless.

I do appreciate the effort, and I do agree that the latest generation of Micro-4/3rds and APS-C-format mirrorless cameras are a serious competition for the M8 and M9 cameras when used with M lenses. Actually, I believe Leica must, and will, develop some kind of "NEX-7 look-alike with 35-mm-format sensor and M mount" pretty soon.

However this partcular comparison is not worth the electrons required to transmit them. It would be better to take it down from this site because it's not only invalid but highly misleading. Michael's word has some weight in the world of today's photography, and he should not put his reputation at risk with such a nonsense.

Michael wrote, "I cropped the M9 images to the same field of view as the NEX. [...] I then resized the NEX files from 24 MP down to 18 MP so that they matched in both field of view and resolution."

After cropping the M9 files, to match not only the field-of-view but also the resolution, the NEX files must be downsized from 24 MP to 7.8 MP, not to 18 MP.

However, this is not the worst thing about this comparison yet. Even worse than this hard-to-believe arithmetical error is the fact that the M9 shots are out of focus. Hey! How can you dare to compare test shots when one set is properly focused and the other is not?

For the six shots (three with NEX-7 at f/1.4, f/2.8, and f/5.6, and three with M9 at the same set of apertures), the same lens was used from the same shooting distance. So any differences in sharpness at the same aperture can only come from the different sensors, right? However, in the NEX shots, the sharpness at the frame's center improves only marginally when stopping down; in the M9 shots the sharpness improves significantly when stopping down. How can the sensor affect the lens' response to being stopped down? Simple—it cannot. Instead, the M9 was slightly out of focus, and at f/2.8, increasing depth-of-field compensated partly; at f/5.6, almost fully.

Of course, it is to be expected that in NEX-7's higher resolution will lead to more detail in the final image, even after downsizing to the same pixel count. But the difference is by far not as great as the M9 comparison shot at f/1.4 suggests. Moreover, when Michael really was interested in image quality rather than pixel peeping then he would shoot his test with equivalent lenses (i. e. 35 mm on NEX and 50 mm on M9, for example) and then resize both full frames, without any cropping, to the same final size for presentation, be it digital files or prints. This way, you'd assess actual, real-world image quality rather than academic per-pixel quality (or here: per-sensor-area quality), and the M9's larger sensor area would be able to compensate, to a degree, for the lower pixel count. Throwing away the M9's biggest advantage over the NEX-7 is not a good start to arrive at a valid (from a photographer's point of view) comparison.

So if this screwed-up comparison teaches us anything then it's this: The opto-mechanical rangefinder is outdated by now. It cannot provide the precision that is required to reliably exploit the full potential of modern lenses on modern sensors. Accurate focusing with a manual-focus lens is much easier to achieve with the NEX-7 than with the M9. I believe the next Leica M will include some sort of electronic focus confirmation. The days of the traditional rangefinder are over.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: pservice on December 15, 2011, 11:57:57 am
I agree with other comments that, given the way the test was done, it would have been "fairer" to downsize the NEX-7 image to 7.7 MP, which is the approximate size of the M9 crop.  Still, I think it would be interesting to do the comparison when both sensors are recording the same field of view.  Which obviously requires changing the camera-subject distance or using different lenses.  Either way, I would expect the NEX-7 image to have higher resolution.  Because it would be sampling the scene at higher frequency.  Although it might depend on the amount and kind of detail present in the scene.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 12:04:02 pm
Is it possible maybe to do the same comparison versus NEX-5n maybe. I would be very interested in this so that we (owners of NEX-5n) can decide if it makes sense that at some point in the future we switch to NEX-7.

A reply would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks :-)

I'm interested in this comparison as well. Michael has partly implemented it already in respect of the noise comparison, which is a very important part of the overall story. But as Eric Chan correctly mentioned further above, the challenges must be greater putting 24 rather than 16 MP on the same size sensor. It is really of academic interest to me, because I already bought a 5N, I really like it, and it's highly unlikely I would upgrade to a 7 when it becomes available (see below). I think further comparison of other aspects of image quality apart from noise would be interesting, simply because it would provide further insight into how the technological frontier is being pushed in respect of outcomes from ever smaller pixel pitches.

The night before last was the first time I actually got down to making 13*19 inch prints with raw files from my 5N, shot with the 18~55 kit lens. I bought this camera because I've been doing a heap of really long-distance air travel lately and weight and portability became a consideration. So I was prepared for some trade-off between IQ and convenience, especially considering the price difference between a 5N and a Canon 1Ds3. But I have to say, it's quite amazingly good. Smoothness of tonal gradation is excellent, rendition of shadow detail at lower ISOs is excellent - in fact overall the DR seems great, sharpness of the kit lens over most of the image area is on the whole remarkably good (especially after mild capture and output sharpening), and I'm finding CA is less prevalent with this kit lens than I've observed with my Canon 24~105 L. There is some barrel distortion at wider angle settings, easily corrected in LR or ACR or PS. Using an Epson 4900 and Ilford GFS, I'm able to print at non-resampled resolutions in the range of 220~300 to a high standard of print quality. I think the print size I'm working with is at about the limit for this camera without resampling. If I wanted to make yet larger prints or have the luxury of more cropping headroom with an equivalent print size/resolution and no resampling, in that set of conditions a NEX 7 may be indicated. But personally I'm not feeling that need.

The two operational downsides I'd note with the 5n, although I think it is a truly well-designed and well-constructed camera system, is that the flash and EVF are a bit fiddly to screw-down correctly (probably just takes more getting accustomed to) and I find the movie button something I need to pay attention to avoid, but then again, there ain't much room on that little beast for putting stuff!.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review - back to the viewfinder
Post by: Isaac on December 15, 2011, 12:39:01 pm
Douglas, could you please point me to how one does this. I have the NEX 5n and the EVF. The only instruction I could find is on page 143 of the 5n manual where they say the brightness of the finder can be varied by +/- 1, whatever that means, but nothing about contrast or the impact on the histogram.
I believe Douglas means lower the contrast setting for the current "Creative Style" - find "Creative Style" in the manual index and there should be further information there.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 15, 2011, 01:01:03 pm
The methodology of comparing a cropped image from one camera to a full frame image from another camera almost certainly has a much larger effect on resolution than any difference in actual sensor quality.  What Michael has effectively shown is that a stitched image from the NEX-7, with enough stitching to enlarge the field of view to match the Leica, gives superior resolution.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 01:36:18 pm
I'm frankly having trouble seeing what's wrong with Michael's methodology. He took great pains with the focusing in terms of camera set-up and focusing technique. He used the same lens for both cameras, and one must assume that the Leica lens is at least perfectly (as possible) adpated to the Leica camera. Reducing the field of view of the Leica to what one sees from the NEX is necessary and doesn't change resolution because PPI doesn't get affected purely from cropping. There's just less image, the stuff that can't be compared being deleted. Downsampling the NEX resolution is necessary to standardize for that variable, so that's one difference of treatment that CAN affect relative image quality insofar as it introduces the question of what the resampling algorithm does to the quality of apparent image detail. We've been brought up to believe that all resampling comes at some sacrifice of IQ, depending on the quality of the algorithm, but downsampling generally less than upsampling, so if anything this could be expected to work against the NEX - but here too, Michael addresses the possible impact of that issue with the quote from Bob Newman - which if I've understood it in context means to say that if you start from a higher native resolution and downsize to the comparator lower resolution using a very good resampling algorithm, you'll still end-up with higher apparent resolution compared with that of the lower resolution camera - the point being that the resampling step doesn't vitiate the effort to compare apparent resolution of image detail.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 15, 2011, 01:57:15 pm
I'm frankly having trouble seeing what's wrong with Michael's methodology ... Reducing the field of view of the Leica to what one sees from the NEX is necessary and doesn't change resolution ... There's just less image, the stuff that can't be compared being deleted. 
  Cropping is the problem.  More than half of the Leica pixels were thrown out at the start, given no opportunity to contribute to the camera comparison.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bjanes on December 15, 2011, 02:06:54 pm
  Cropping is the problem.  More than half of the Leica pixels were thrown out at the start, given no opportunity to contribute to the camera comparison.
+1.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 02:20:05 pm
Hi!

The problem is that it is hard to say what question the comparison answers. The cameras in the setup have different field of view. A Sony NEX7 would not be a good replacement for a a Leica M9 with the same 50 mm lens. If we want to compare the two as picture making machines we would need to use lenses giving the same field of view on both cameras, with 35 mm lens being a good candidate on the NEX 7.

For the chosen crop the Leica would have 7.7 MP. In this comparison the Sony image is scaled to same size, so 68% of the resolution is effectively discarded. The image is downsized with bicubic sharper, which increases edge contrast and will also induce some aliasing.

What Michael's test shows is that the NEX 7 works well with a 50 mm lens and that the OLP filtering and the micro lenses don't lead to an unacceptable degradation of image quality.

Best regards
Erik

I'm frankly having trouble seeing what's wrong with Michael's methodology. He took great pains with the focusing in terms of camera set-up and focusing technique. He used the same lens for both cameras, and one must assume that the Leica lens is at least perfectly (as possible) adpated to the Leica camera. Reducing the field of view of the Leica to what one sees from the NEX is necessary and doesn't change resolution because PPI doesn't get affected purely from cropping. There's just less image, the stuff that can't be compared being deleted. Downsampling the NEX resolution is necessary to standardize for that variable, so that's one difference of treatment that CAN affect relative image quality insofar as it introduces the question of what the resampling algorithm does to the quality of apparent image detail. We've been brought up to believe that all resampling comes at some sacrifice of IQ, depending on the quality of the algorithm, but downsampling generally less than upsampling, so if anything this could be expected to work against the NEX - but here too, Michael addresses the possible impact of that issue with the quote from Bob Newman - which if I've understood it in context means to say that if you start from a higher native resolution and downsize to the comparator lower resolution using a very good resampling algorithm, you'll still end-up with higher apparent resolution compared with that of the lower resolution camera - the point being that the resampling step doesn't vitiate the effort to compare apparent resolution of image detail.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bobtowery on December 15, 2011, 02:23:23 pm
Michael's NEX-7 vs M9 comparison is badly screwed up, invalid, and thus, entirely pointless. [ET AL]

I find this reply completely over the top, unprofessional and unwarranted. At the beginning of the piece, Michael states that he loathes even posting these comparisons because people like you attack them.

It's fine for you to render your opinion on another way the test could be conducted.  There is no need to go nuclear, going on and on.  Replies like yours insure the rest of us won't get future information we can use from Michael. Does he need to put up with this crap? I doubt it.

Furthermore, his methodology is just one way, the way that worked for him. He clearly states there are many ways. No one is paying him to do this work, so I believe it is valid that he does it the way that suits him. Again, it's fine for the rest of us to suggest numbers of other methods, but really, what is in it for him?

This particular test methodology might not be the way many people would do it. Nevertheless, you can easily see there are many hours of effort, and if you read between the lines he is expending even more time to make sure there's no muff like his quick first attempt in San Diego. Even if you would do the test differently, there is good information here regarding the camera systems and the lenses. Free of charge, my friend.

Photography and its gear are subjective. Show me all the mtf charts you want: can you prove that a manufacturer's f/1.2 is worth 10x their equivalent f/1.8?

There was a thread recently about what websites compete with LuLa. Some other worthy sites were mentioned, but there is simply no other site that has this particular mix of content and expertise.  So I for one will thank you for not pooping in our punchbowl.

And lastly:

The days of the traditional rangefinder are over.

I wonder how long people have been saying this?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Anadrol on December 15, 2011, 02:30:51 pm
I think that there is no perfect methodology as simply sensor sizes are different.

Michael's test is interesting,
but it should also be done with a 35mm Leica on the NEX and a 50mm on the M9.
With if possible both lenses having about the same resolution.

Also, testing the Zeiss 24mm on the NEX VS a 35mm on the M9 would be interesting.
After all this would be comparing the best of what the NEX system has to offer VS the best of Leica.

I'm also curious about bokeh differences.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 02:36:35 pm
Hi,

I agree entirely! Fortunately I'd think Michael has a thick skin.

Best regards
Erik


I find this reply completely over the top, unprofessional and unwarranted. At the beginning of the piece, Michael states that he loathes even posting these comparisons because people like you attack them.

It's fine for you to render your opinion on another way the test could be conducted.  There is no need to go nuclear, going on and on.  Replies like yours insure the rest of us won't get future information we can use from Michael. Does he need to put up with this crap? I doubt it.

Furthermore, his methodology is just one way, the way that worked for him. He clearly states there are many ways. No one is paying him to do this work, so I believe it is valid that he does it the way that suits him. Again, it's fine for the rest of us to suggest numbers of other methods, but really, what is in it for him?

This particular test methodology might not be the way many people would do it. Nevertheless, you can easily see there are many hours of effort, and if you read between the lines he is expending even more time to make sure there's no muff like his quick first attempt in San Diego. Even if you would do the test differently, there is good information here regarding the camera systems and the lenses. Free of charge, my friend.

Photography and its gear are subjective. Show me all the mtf charts you want: can you prove that a manufacturer's f/1.2 is worth 10x their equivalent f/1.8?

There was a thread recently about what websites compete with LuLa. Some other worthy sites were mentioned, but there is simply no other site that has this particular mix of content and expertise.  So I for one will thank you for not pooping in our punchbowl.

And lastly:
I wonder how long people have been saying this?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Wayne Fox on December 15, 2011, 03:00:56 pm
Since the images are being observed at 100% on screen, in effect pixel peeping is being done. No prints were made. In the real world, one would not crop the M8 18MP image to 7.7MP.

Regards,

Bill
Seems to me the M9 images in the article are at max resolution, because although he "cropped" them, he didn't resample them so the images are still at 100% as captured by the camera - they are as good as they can be.  The fact that he down sampled the NEX7 files to match the cropping seems quite similar to what would happen when printing.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 15, 2011, 03:22:16 pm
The problem is that it is hard to say what question the comparison answers...

The test as conducted answers the question: does the full NEX-7 sensor (24MP) provide superior resolution to the center section (8MP) of the Leica M9 sensor?  The answer is obvious from a comparison of the pixel sizes -- the NEX-7 with 4um pixels has superior resolution to the Leica M9 with 6.8um pixels. 

Sensor size was deliberately excluded from the comparison.  Using the same methodology, a small sensor camera with 2um pixels would blow away either of these cameras, and a medium format sensor with 8um pixels would score worse than either of these cameras.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 15, 2011, 03:26:23 pm
Eric,

Yes, this is true in theory based on pixel pitch alone, but wouldn't be in practice, because the IQ would be crap. The whole point of this was that DxO has already passed their judgement on the relative merits of the sensors – excluding resolution. That's why the DxO chart was at the top of the segment.

I was then trying to level the playing field on the resolution topic. Guess some people just don't get it.

Michael
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 15, 2011, 03:29:18 pm
Seems to me the M9 images in the article are ... as good as they can be. 
They would be better if a longer focal length lens was used, so that all of the pixels on the sensor contributed to the image. 
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: 01af on December 15, 2011, 03:38:02 pm
I'm frankly having trouble seeing what's wrong with Michael's methodology.

Then why don't you simply open your eyes and take a look? That's all it takes ...


He took great pains with the focusing in terms of camera set-up and focusing technique.

That's the primary point. He might have taken great pains in achieving accrate focus but as a matter of fact he ended up with inaccurate focus. Worse yet—and that's the reason why I am so furious about it—he didn't even notice when processing the files and carried on publishing the distorted result regardless.


Reducing the field of view of the Leica to what one sees from the NEX is necessary ...

It's necessary because he started with using the same lens on two different-format cameras. This method is fine when you're interested in comparing the same portion of the sensor—like, say, one square millimeter. But then why all this 'subjective analysis of real-world images yada yada' talk in the first paragraph? If he's interested in a result that correlates to real-world usage of these cameras then it would make sense to apply a methodology that will yield this kind of results. Shooting with the same lens does give valid results (provided focusing was accurate)—however not the kind of results he pretends to be interested in but a different kind. Both kinds are equally valid—but serve different intents.

But then—I keep repeating myself—the essential problem with this comparison is the inaccurate focus of the M9 shots. In relation to this, the methodology issue is secondary.


If we want to compare the two as picture making machines we would need to use lenses giving the same field of view on both cameras, with 35 mm lens being a good candidate on the NEX-7.

Exactly. When using the same lens and cropping out the same subject detail (as Michael did) then the pixel count for that detail with the NEX-7 will be almost 3.1× greater than with the M9. When using equivalent lenses (as a real-world photographer would do) then the NEX-7's pixel count for a given subject detail will be only 1.33× greater. So in Michael's test the NEX-7's advantage over the M9 appears 2.3× as big as it actually is. Or rather, it would appear 2.3× as big when focus would have been accurate. The M9's poor focus inflates the apparent difference even more.


What Michael's test shows is that the NEX-7 works well with a 50 mm lens and that the OLP filtering and the micro lenses don't lead to an unacceptable degradation of image quality.

Agreed.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 03:45:44 pm
Hi,

Well, a lot of things happen when printing. Sharpening for output, dithering...

Anyhow, I don´t have an issue with pixel peeping. What's on the screen is what gets on the print. So if something is visible on screen it will also be visible in the print. But the differences are much larger on screen at actual pixels than on moderate size prints.

We had a recent discussion on diffraction and I was comparing a P45 image shot in the great MFDB shootout of 2006 at f/8 and at f/22, the difference caused by diffraction was as visible on the prints as on the screen. Printing in smaller size won't show the same difference. Sharpening matters a lot.

The enclosed image compares studio shots from "The Imaging Resource" for Nikon D3X and Pentax 645D, these center crops are flatbed scans from A2-size prints. The left and right image are sharpened using "Landscape" setting in Lightroom while the center one from the Nikon D3X is using deconvolution.

Best regards
Erik

Seems to me the M9 images in the article are at max resolution, because although he "cropped" them, he didn't resample them so the images are still at 100% as captured by the camera - they are as good as they can be.  The fact that he down sampled the NEX7 files to match the cropping seems quite similar to what would happen when printing.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 04:03:30 pm
Hi,

You may be right on the focusing issue. On the other hand the Leica is not easy to focus exactly, at least according to Leica expert Erwin Puts and also Lloyd Chambers. There is also some probability that Michaels Leica is not aligned within 10 microns. Ten microns defocus would result in a circle of confusion of 7 microns a f/1.4.

Many testers assert correct focus by shooting focus brackets. But in real life you would probably not bracket for focus.

Another factor is that the Summilux with all probability has focus shift, the Summicron f/2.5 has a lot. That is actually a problem for both NEX and Leica. The NEX can be focused stopped down, but how do you adjust a coupled rangefinder? For correct focus at full aperture or for the lens stopped down to medium aperture?!

Best regards
Erik


But then—I keep repeating myself—the essential problem with this comparison is the inaccurate focus of the M9 shots. In relation to this, the methodology issue is secondary.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 04:03:49 pm
Then why don't you simply open your eyes and take a look? That's all it takes ...


You've ended all discussion with me, bud. Hide behind your acronym and carry-on your keyboard warfare with someone else.I have better things to do with my life.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 04:10:55 pm
+1.

-1

because cropping simply normalizes the comparison of covered scene but leaves the resolution of the retained material intact and that is what matters here.

As for the focusing argument - another red-herring. I have a great deal of difficulty believing a published author with 4 decades of experience and knowing that every manufacturer who matters will be reading this stuff makes those kind of mistakes, and especially after the description of the care he put into this. Time to get real guys.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 04:19:32 pm
I think that there is no perfect methodology as simply sensor sizes are different.

Michael's test is interesting,
but it should also be done with a 35mm Leica on the NEX and a 50mm on the M9.
With if possible both lenses having about the same resolution.

Also, testing the Zeiss 24mm on the NEX VS a 35mm on the M9 would be interesting.
After all this would be comparing the best of what the NEX system has to offer VS the best of Leica.

I'm also curious about bokeh differences.

I agree, there is no perfect methodology when the sensor sizes and resolutions are different; so the methodology needs to be adapted as best as possible to the questions being asked, and that I continue to think Michael has done as well could be expected. I don't think using different lenses would be as good a solution, because that introduces another differentiating variable whose impact is not under the author's control and not well enough knowable.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: allenmacaulay on December 15, 2011, 04:34:07 pm
because cropping simply normalizes the comparison of covered scene but leaves the resolution of the retained material intact and that is what matters here.

Hypothetical question:  Suppose we had the adaptors required to mount M-series lenses on a Pentax Q, which has the same sensor size as a typical point & shoot compact camera.  The crop factor is about 5.6 and it's a 12.4MP sensor.  We then compare it to an M9, both cameras using a 24mm M-series lens of your choice.  We take the pictures, then equalize the field of view by cropping out around 96% of the photo from the M9, leaving only a tiny central portion.  Afterwards, we upsize the Pentax Q to 18MP to match the resolution of the M9.  We then conclude that the Pentax Q has a higher resolution compared to the M9 with regards to making pictures as a whole.  Is this a valid conclusion?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 04:38:32 pm
Hi,

You may be right on the focusing issue.


I'm not convinced it's reasonable to think there is a "focusing issue". Firstly, the first set of images have depth. You can examine both columns at all f/stops and throughout the scene range, and you will see that the left column out-resolves the right column. There would have to be a case of severe short-focus on the Leica to produce a result like this as a result of a focusing fault. Given the brand and the owner of the camera, while nothing is impossible, it lacks credibility. Then at f/5.6, the images from the next day confirm the finding of the day before. Of course a major generic fault would repeat the same error no matter how many times it is tried, but the likelihood of that error is low and the repeat test is useful for eliminating pilot error, it being unlikely that the pilot errs the same way over and over again. All as much to suggest, while not out of the question, real hard to believe focusing is the issue here.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 04:47:56 pm
Hypothetical question:  Suppose we had the adaptors required to mount M-series lenses on a Pentax Q, which has the same sensor size as a typical point & shoot compact camera.  The crop factor is about 5.6 and it's a 12.4MP sensor.  We then compare it to an M9, both cameras using a 24mm M-series lens of your choice.  We take the pictures, then equalize the field of view by cropping out around 96% of the photo from the M9, leaving only a tiny central portion.  Afterwards, we upsize the Pentax Q to 18MP to match the resolution of the M9.  We then conclude that the Pentax Q has a higher resolution compared to the M9 with regards to making pictures as a whole.  Is this a valid conclusion?

A great many arguments can be demolished by taking them to extremes and introducing variables that are not part of the relevant discussion.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: pegelli on December 15, 2011, 04:54:18 pm
We then conclude that the Pentax Q has a higher resolution compared to the M9 with regards to making pictures as a whole.  Is this a valid conclusion?

Nobody (including Michael) made conclusions on resolution of pictures "as a whole", the only valid conclusion from this test (and from an experiment you describe) is about resolution on the sensor.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 05:15:53 pm
Hi,

Making two tests reduces the probability of "pilot error", especially with a good pilot that we are sure to have. But systematic errors cannot be ruled out.

Here is quotation from Erwin Puts test of the Leica M9 http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page155/m9part2.html :

"The camera lens must have the exact distance from lens flange to sensor location, the rangefinder must be adjusted to this distance too and the focus cam must be precisely machined with the correct steepness over the whole focusing range. Leica sets the nominal distance between flange and sensor location to 27.80 mm. I checked three lenses (3.8/24, 1.4/35 and 1.4/50) and got these values: 27.84, 27.83 and 27.81! This is an outstandingly good result and a fine indication of the care of production at the Leica factory."

So he tested three lenses and they were 10, 30 and 40 microns off. At 40 microns of at f/1.4 the offset would cause a circle of confusion of 28 microns that is about 4 pixels!

And here is another one:

"With maximum aperture the result is amazing: the zero position delivers the best result. Note that both extremes are less good The plus range gives generally the better performance: so it is best to focus a bit farther than indicated. With the aperture stopped down to f/2.8 the best position is the +2 focus: here we see in critical situations the effect of a slight focus shift. But it is also evident that even at 2.8 there is hardly room for focusing errors if the optimum performance is required The accuracy of the rangefinder of the M9 is beyond reproach, but the optional magnifier (1.4x) is absolutely necessary."

So in this case the range finder was exactly correct for full aperture but stopping down to f/2.8 shifted best focus to +2 cm, at 1.3 m object distance.

It's quite clear from Mr Puts testing that the probability for systematic error is real.

It's the beauty of live view that focusing can be done from the sensor image at actual pixels. Focus shift can also fool live view, if focusing is not done at shooting aperture, and it is absolutely possible that sensor is not perpendicular to lens axis or that the lens is misaligned.

Best regards
Erik





I'm not convinced it's reasonable to think there is a "focusing issue". Firstly, the first set of images have depth. You can examine both columns at all f/stops and throughout the scene range, and you will see that the left column out-resolves the right column. There would have to be a case of severe short-focus on the Leica to produce a result like this as a result of a focusing fault. Given the brand and the owner of the camera, while nothing is impossible, it lacks credibility. Then at f/5.6, the images from the next day confirm the finding of the day before. Of course a major generic fault would repeat the same error no matter how many times it is tried, but the likelihood of that error is low and the repeat test is useful for eliminating pilot error, it being unlikely that the pilot errs the same way over and over again. All as much to suggest, while not out of the question, real hard to believe focusing is the issue here.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dreed on December 15, 2011, 05:32:48 pm
In retrospect, what I dislike about Michael saying that he likes the output from the NEX-7 over the M9 is that he doesn't articulate which particular sections of the photo he believes represent that.

In many ways, the "hand waving" about the NEX-7 being better than the M9 reminds me of reviews written for audio equipment. People say "the <newer and often more expensive thing> is warmer, more open", etc. After you've read one or two reviews like that, you quickly learn to dismiss such reviews - if you want to know how a pair of speakers sound, the only way is to know is to find a shop that can plug them in for you and sit down to listen. Rinse and repeat with audio equipment. With digital cameras, we're in the fortunate position where the reviewer is able to share the material for review with us. If you read the reviews of websites such as dpreview, when they compare images from specific cameras, they will mention what part of the image they believe highlights X as being better or worse than Y. I can completely understand that he doesn't want to turn LuLa into dpreview, but if someone is going to say image X is better than image Y and show crops from both images, then it is to everyone's benefit if examples are given about why X is better than Y from the material that is presented. Otherwise, the images may as well have not been posted - unless the objective is just to generate discussion.

In short a key part of what I think is missing from the review is the ability to understand Michael's conclusion through specific examples in the crops that he believes represents his findings.

Way back when, I seem to recall that mention was made of how well camera X rendered some remote building Y. If you search back 5 or 6 years, you'll find the reviews that I'm referring to. When discussion is at that level of detail, it is much easier (as a reader) to come to the same conclusion - or at least understand - the points the review(er) is making about image quality. When all that is presented is hand waving, you're left feeling as if the reviewer is not being genuine with their comparison and is just leading us on to some conclusion based on relative new-ness and cool-ness rather than specific qualities.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: 01af on December 15, 2011, 06:03:21 pm
I have a great deal of difficulty believing a published author with 4 decades of experience and knowing that every manufacturer who matters will be reading this stuff makes those kind of mistakes, and especially after the description of the care he put into this.

So you decide to keep your eyes closed. Well, each to his own ... those who are both able and willing to use their eyes can easily see that in the six-frame series of comparison shots, the NEX-7 was focused at the bush in the frame's center; the M9 was focused at a somewhat greater distance. At f/1.4, the center is (clearly) sharper with the NEX-7; the corner is (slightly) sharper with the M9. At f/5.6, the center sharpens up only marginally with the NEX-7; the center sharpens up considerably with the M9. Both facts are very clear indications that the M9's focus was not on the bush but beyond.

Which renders the entire comparison worthless. And sheds a bad light on the author's ability to interpret and understand his own test shots.


... the only valid conclusion from this test (and from an experiment you describe) is about resolution on the sensor.

If the only thing you're interested in is the resolution in the sensor then why bother making test shots? Why don't you simply take a look at the tech specs? Sony NEX-7—24 MP. Leica M9—18 MP. Twenty-four is more than eighteen, so Sony has higher resolution. Case closed. Any questions?

If however you're interested in a real-world comparison then you'll have to look at both cameras' output, not at one square millimeter of each sensor's output. I predict this: When doing the comparison properly—i. e. using equivalent lenses and focusing accurately with both cameras—then the difference in the final images will be so small that you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. The NEX-7 has a slightly higher resolution but the M9 will mostly compensate this through a significantly bigger image area. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some people are going to prefer the M9 pictures over the NEX-7 pictures, despite the lower resolution. The only real-world problem is—perfectly accurate focus is so much easier to achieve with the NEX-7 than with the M9 ... this will spoil at least some of the M9's real-world results.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: allenmacaulay on December 15, 2011, 06:08:02 pm
A great many arguments can be demolished by taking them to extremes and introducing variables that are not part of the relevant discussion.

Right.  So where do you draw the line?  It seems you support the article's conclusions so throwing away half the pixels from the M9 is acceptable to you for the purposes of the comparison.  Ok, so what about micro 4/3?  Many people mount Leica lenses on micro 4/3 cameras, so let's run the test with a Panasonic GX1 (16MP sensor) and an M9, cropping out 75% of the M9 image to match the field of view.  Is that still acceptable?  What about a Nikon 1 with its 2.7X crop factor sensor where 86% of the M9's frame is removed to equalize the field, is that still fair?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 15, 2011, 06:13:44 pm
Right.  So where do you draw the line?  

I don't draw lines. I evaluate the reasonableness of the actual methodology being used in the context of the question or questions being addressed, and that evaluation is based on what I know about the problems raised by such comparisons drawn from my own experience doing them.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 15, 2011, 06:34:51 pm
Agreed.  Leica's 35mm and 50mm lenses will both outresolve the sensors on the NEX-7 and M9.  It also gets the field of view pretty close so that cropping is not a factor and we can look at what the sensor as a whole can do.  As the test stands we're looking at lines/mm on the sensor and disregarding sensor size, taking it to a logical conclusion the camera in an iPhone will have higher resolution than the NEX-7 if we used the same test methodology.

Yep, that makes more sense to me also. It is, by the way, the comparison method that has been used by most testers until now when comparing APS and FF.

That enables also the testing of images in print at the same size/same crop.

Frankly, I am amazed by the conclusion if Michael's tests this time because it is radically opposite to what he has been claiming for years when comparing the M9 to cameras like the D3x that have very weak AA filters. He was very vocal about the fanboy behavior of those claiming the opposite.

Either his past conclusions were wrong, or his current test result is wrong. I would love to hear from him about this weird discrepancy.

Or shall we just agree that whatever carries a Sony logo is superior?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 07:03:11 pm
Hi,

To begin with I'm not absolutely sure that the NEX7 has an OLP filter. The A55 I have has a very weak one and I have seen some color Moiré on it. The NEX7 has smaller pixel pitch, so I guess sooner or later the AA-filter can be dropped.

Now, the NEX7 has pixels that are about half the size of the Leica M9 pixels. The way Michael tested the NEX image is downscaled to match the Leica's resolution. The downscaling would effectively hide any effect of AA-filter. The downscaling will also introduce aliasing artifacts which can enhance impression of sharpness. The downscaling method also includes some sharpening.

So I don't think that Michaels testing contradict his old claims. I don't share his view on the issue of OLP filtering.

By the way, I have checked out the Leica M9 on the DPReview site, they have an image in their comparator. I have downloaded that raw image and compared against Alpha 900 and Panasonics latest camera (I don't recall which). The Leica image was not very sharp, but according to EXIF data it was shot at f/22, that could explain the softness. I also found some color Moiré in the Leica image, I wouldn't expect it at f/22, so I guess the EXIF information could be false. I don't see how the Leica would record the shooting aperture.

Going back to OLP-filtering, it's destructive effects are overstated for sure. If we look at almost any lens tests the lenses peak at around f/8 or even f/5.6. So diffraction clearly dominates over OLP filtering at apertures < f/8. Also, I did shoot a test with carefully calibrated amount of defocus (by moving camera) and it was quite obvious that diffraction effects  were quite visible as soon as the airy ring diameter exceeded pixel pitch. That test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1

Best regards
Erik

Frankly, I am amazed by the conclusion if Michael's tests this time because it is radically opposite to what he has been claiming for years when comparing the M9 to cameras like the D3x that have very weak AA filters. He was very vocal about the fanboy behavior of those claiming the opposite.

Either his past conclusions were wrong, or his current test result is wrong. I would love to hear from him about this weird discrepancy.

Or shall we just agree that whatever carries a Sony logo is superior?

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Anadrol on December 15, 2011, 07:35:23 pm
Right.  So where do you draw the line?  It seems you support the article's conclusions so throwing away half the pixels from the M9 is acceptable to you for the purposes of the comparison.  Ok, so what about micro 4/3?  Many people mount Leica lenses on micro 4/3 cameras, so let's run the test with a Panasonic GX1 (16MP sensor) and an M9, cropping out 75% of the M9 image to match the field of view.  Is that still acceptable?  What about a Nikon 1 with its 2.7X crop factor sensor where 86% of the M9's frame is removed to equalize the field, is that still fair?

I totally agree !

But one thing is not clear, did Michael upped the resolution of the M9 crop from 7.6 to 18 MP ?
Because if the NEX image was downsized to 18 MP, it could not have the display size of the 7.6 MP Leica original file.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review (Another comparison)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 07:38:51 pm
Hi,


Here is another comparison between NEX7 and M9: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60329.msg486308#msg486308

The images are taken from DPReviews comparison tools. EXIF data on M9 indicates f/22. If the EXIF data is correct than DPReview should have not posted this image! Does M9 record aperture in EXIF?!

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dreed on December 15, 2011, 07:44:08 pm
Either his past conclusions were wrong, or his current test result is wrong. I would love to hear from him about this weird discrepancy.

Or shall we just agree that whatever carries a Sony logo is superior?

If you've read enough of his reviews you'll understand that once he starts to like something newer always seems to be better regardless of the brand. You just have to accept that as part of his reviewing style. IMHO, although he's presented crops from the pictures that he took, he's failed to articulate specific areas of those crops that demonstrate why the NEX-7 is better than the M9. That makes his conclusion rather hollow.

Some of the subjective aspects of the review (handling, ergonomics, etc) are very worthwhile but I'm increasingly of the opinion that unless you're going to shoot test charts and run computer analysis, there's no value in a "resolution test" of a digital camera if it does not have an objective statement regarding the results. In other reviews there is specific mention of what is better/worse with a specific lens/camera. I can't find any such commentary with the NEX7/M9.

In review of the last pair of crop'd images, looking at the bare twigs of the tree against the various surfaces, it's hard to tell whether the photo on the left is better because of resolution or better because of the different colour and hence the greater contrast to the twigs. In some cases there is clearly a preference for the one on the left and none that favour the picture on the right. The two photos are obviously close together in time (no difference in shadow) but the colour in them is quite different. In that last pairing, there's no labelling to say which is which, so I'm not going to assume one or ther other.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 07:55:38 pm
Hi,

There are many fallacies in testing. Small differences in color and tonalities may affect judgement. I don't think that Michael says that the NEX-7 is better than the M9, what he says is that the NEX-7 crops are sharper.

Best regards
Erik

If you've read enough of his reviews you'll understand that once he starts to like something newer always seems to be better regardless of the brand. You just have to accept that as part of his reviewing style. IMHO, although he's presented crops from the pictures that he took, he's failed to articulate specific areas of those crops that demonstrate why the NEX-7 is better than the M9. That makes his conclusion rather hollow.

Some of the subjective aspects of the review (handling, ergonomics, etc) are very worthwhile but I'm increasingly of the opinion that unless you're going to shoot test charts and run computer analysis, there's no value in a "resolution test" of a digital camera if it does not have an objective statement regarding the results. In other reviews there is specific mention of what is better/worse with a specific lens/camera. I can't find any such commentary with the NEX7/M9.

In review of the last pair of crop'd images, looking at the bare twigs of the tree against the various surfaces, it's hard to tell whether the photo on the left is better because of resolution or better because of the different colour and hence the greater contrast to the twigs. In some cases there is clearly a preference for the one on the left and none that favour the picture on the right. The two photos are obviously close together in time (no difference in shadow) but the colour in them is quite different. In that last pairing, there's no labelling to say which is which, so I'm not going to assume one or ther other.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 15, 2011, 09:25:54 pm
Eric,

Yes, this is true in theory based on pixel pitch alone, but wouldn't be in practice, because the IQ would be crap. The whole point of this was that DxO has already passed their judgement on the relative merits of the sensors – excluding resolution. That's why the DxO chart was at the top of the segment.

I was then trying to level the playing field on the resolution topic. Guess some people just don't get it.

Michael


Michael,
Your method of "leveling the playing field" on resolution deliberately throws out all the advantages of a large sensor compared to a small sensor.  Do you get that?

For example, if you compared the actual Leica to a hypothetical Leica where someone had deliberately masked off all but the center pixels, your conclusion would clearly be that those two cameras have the same resolution.  In fact, they would have exactly the same image quality under the ground rules of your test.  While strictly true, such a conclusion is not very useful in practice, and is likely to be misleading to many readers.  I know which of those two cameras I would prefer to own ....
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: nucleonb on December 15, 2011, 10:40:20 pm
The Rolling Review is a big compliment to M9. I did not know that M9 is so good! - its image after being cropped is as good as a full NEX-7, 24 MP image! However, I can afford NEX-5n or may be NEX-7 in the future :-)
Excellent review series! Thank you!
Leo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: michael on December 15, 2011, 10:44:56 pm
This will be my last comment on the subject.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time understanding what I was after. So, I will state it in different words, and hopefully more clearly than I have thus far.

Imagine that I am standing in the same place with both cameras and one lens. I know how they compare in terms of noise, dynamic range and other resolution independent factors, because I either believe in DxOMark, or I have discovered the answers for myself.

Now I want to know how they compare in terms of resolution. I know that one is 24 Megapixels and one is 18 Megapixels. The 24MP will always out-resolves the 18MP all other things being equal. That's not the point though, because that's a trivial case and not worth debating.

But, how does that translate to real-world prints of real-world images? I want to know which camera, taking a shot of the same subject, with the same angle of view, and making prints in which the coverage and size are the same, will look.

So I take a photograph with each camera, from the same spot, with the same lens. Now I make a print from each. But, because one covers a wider field of view I have to crop it to the same size as the one with narrower coverage. I also realize that the NEX-7 can make a larger print before running out of steam, because it has higher resolution. So, I make the biggest print that I can from the M9 (remaining within reasonable ppi parameters) and then I make a print from the higher resolution one at the same physical size, effectively giving up some resolution to equalize the playing field.

Come on folks. I've been doing this stuff, writing about it and teaching it for some 40 years! I understand the issues.

If you think that my methodology is wrong, fine. Do your own tests, and come to your own conclusions. Tell us about them.

But, I own both cameras (or at least I will when my NEX-7 is delivered and I return my test sample to Sony) and I wanted to know what the prints would like like under those conditions. Why those? Because they reflect the way I work.

I can't show you the actual prints I made and so I simulated them using the methodology described. My comparison prints and the online samples match quite closely, so I'm satisfied with the merits of what I published.

Michael




Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Anadrol on December 15, 2011, 11:41:34 pm
First I would like to tell you that I appreciate your site a lot, and this review as well.

Your Leica crop has only about 7.6 MP so you discarded 57% of the resolution.
An APS-C sensor has 2.36* less surface than a full frame sensor.

You ressed down the NEX file, but this is different than completely discarding the pixels !

Your test is interesting but it is only one side of the story.

"I asked Leica's chief lens designer if sensors were out-resolving lenses yet, and his answer was – no not yet."

So if lenses are better than sensors, just put a 35mm on the NEX, please,
I and many people would be very interested by the result.
The differences between the 35mm and 50mm lenses will be certainly less important than discarding 57% of the M9 resolution.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: dmerger on December 15, 2011, 11:56:14 pm
Imagine that I am standing in the same place with both cameras and one lens.

Geez, Michael, asking me to imagine you with just one lens is like asking me to imagine a world with ten dimensions.  It just can't be done.  ;)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: nucleonb on December 16, 2011, 12:06:03 am
Michael,
I have understood your test from the first reading. It is not complicated and see great value in your test results for both cameras and especially for me. No one, as I remember many posted comparricon tests, tried this simple and practical approach. It the value especially when changing non zoom lenses without changing position - not all of us have one excellent lens to share between two excellent bodies with different sensor sizes:-)

I am planning to purchase by end of the next week your Camera to Print & Screen videos after viewing just one of your posted video. Hope to find an answer for many questions.
>>> One question so far could not be answered by many asked: Canon rep, by Tim Grey (pro) and by many others including Red River paper technical support team.
How (or where) to turn off the Printer Managed Colors when printing with profiles using Adobe LR3.

My printer Canonon 9000 MK II, Computer Mac OSX 10.6, Adobe Lightroom 3 and Canon paper (or Red River paper) with profiles.
When I am printing with a profile (not manage by Printer) I would be always asked by LR3 not to forget to turn OFF the Printer managing colors. However, I could not find how or where and all who I have asked for help to find could not either. The prints with profiles are darker and little muddy. So, I am printing with the Printer managing the colors, which it not correct in many cases.

Again, your test is great! - simple and with no questionable settings or conclusions.
Leo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 01:00:52 am
Hi,

I may see the point, but than it depends on how large you print and,  to some extent, on which resolution you are using in the printer driver.

Best regards
Erik


This will be my last comment on the subject.

I don't see why people are having such a hard time understanding what I was after. So, I will state it in different words, and hopefully more clearly than I have thus far.

Imagine that I am standing in the same place with both cameras and one lens. I know how they compare in terms of noise, dynamic range and other resolution independent factors, because I either believe in DxOMark, or I have discovered the answers for myself.

Now I want to know how they compare in terms of resolution. I know that one is 24 Megapixels and one is 18 Megapixels. The 24MP will always out-resolves the 18MP all other things being equal. That's not the point though, because that's a trivial case and not worth debating.

But, how does that translate to real-world prints of real-world images? I want to know which camera, taking a shot of the same subject, with the same angle of view, and making prints in which the coverage and size are the same, will look.

So I take a photograph with each camera, from the same spot, with the same lens. Now I make a print from each. But, because one covers a wider field of view I have to crop it to the same size as the one with narrower coverage. I also realize that the NEX-7 can make a larger print before running out of steam, because it has higher resolution. So, I make the biggest print that I can from the M9 (remaining within reasonable ppi parameters) and then I make a print from the higher resolution one at the same physical size, effectively giving up some resolution to equalize the playing field.

Come on folks. I've been doing this stuff, writing about it and teaching it for some 40 years! I understand the issues.

If you think that my methodology is wrong, fine. Do your own tests, and come to your own conclusions. Tell us about them.

But, I own both cameras (or at least I will when my NEX-7 is delivered and I return my test sample to Sony) and I wanted to know what the prints would like like under those conditions. Why those? Because they reflect the way I work.

I can't show you the actual prints I made and so I simulated them using the methodology described. My comparison prints and the online samples match quite closely, so I'm satisfied with the merits of what I published.

Michael





Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: pegelli on December 16, 2011, 01:08:18 am
Your test is interesting but it is only one side of the story.

True, but Michael set out to only answer one of the many questions which is resolution on the sensor with one lens. One could theoretically conclude that the 24 MP APS-C should always be higher than a 18 MP FF but things like AA filter and other sensor characteristics could prove that theory wrong. So he tested and published the results to answer his question (which is indeed that the higher MP/smaller sensor outresolves the lower MP/bigger sensor).

I agree there are other interesting questions as well, for instance
1) putting a longer lens on the big sensor or shorter lens on the small sensor to compare the same image area
2) moving the camera with the smaller sensor back to cover the same image area
but the fact of the matter is that Michael gave full disclosure of his method and wasn't interested in the other two questions.

So if you're intersted in the answer to other questions there's two things you can do
1) ask Michael friendly to do more tests
2) do these tests yourself and post the results here

But saying he did the "wrong" test isn't going to solve anything, he did the right test to answer his question and it's an interesting result that I appreciate very much.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 01:13:44 am
Hi,

It's actually worse than discarding the pixels. Downsizing an image will cause a lot of artifacts and fake detail. It would not be very obvious on a subject like Michael's but the fake detail would still be there. Sometimes the effects will be subtle and often show up as fake detail.

Check this: http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm

This page by the same author demonstrates the effects on a more everyday subject: http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm

By the way, you can download Bart's test pattern here: http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample_files/Rings1.gif and test yourself.

Best regards
Erik




You ressed down the NEX file, but this is different than completely discarding the pixels !


Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 01:34:45 am
Hi,

I'm actually thankful that Michael does this and other tests. Unfortunately testers always face harsh and often undeserved critic.

Regarding the resolution issue it cannot be assumed that an 24 MP APS-C sensor would "outresolve" a 18 MP FF sensor. That does not only depend on AA filtering but at least as much on the lens and how much that lens is stopped down. The FF sensor has the advantage of the surface, making less demands on the lens. The smaller sensor has the advantage of having more pixels. Just stopping down from f/5.6 to f/8 has a perceivable effect on a 16 MP APS-C sensor.

Michael has a point regarding prints, but what resolution would he choose in the printer driver? The printer driver itself would use dithering, so it would not produce the same kind of artifacts as downsizing.

It is actually possible to scan crops of prints. I have done that on some occasions, because it demonstrates the whole processing chain.

Finally sharpening plays a very major role.

Attached images are from this article: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?showall=1

Best regards
Erik


True, but Michael set out to only answer one of the many questions which is resolution on the sensor with one lens. One could theoretically conclude that the 24 MP APS-C should always be higher than a 18 MP FF but things like AA filter and other sensor characteristics could prove that theory wrong. So he tested and published the results to answer his question (which is indeed that the higher MP/smaller sensor outresolves the lower MP/bigger sensor).

But saying he did the "wrong" test isn't going to solve anything, he did the right test to answer his question and it's an interesting result that I appreciate very much.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 16, 2011, 01:38:26 am
Imagine that I am standing in the same place with both cameras and one lens.
Michael
Case A) The camera with the smaller sensor has such a small field of view that it does not capture the scene with the framing you want.  Result -- you go home without a picture.  This case was given no weight in your comparison.
Case B) Same as case A, but you reconsider and decide to capture the scene with the smaller sensor camera, stitching together multiple images to achieve the required field of view.  If you think about it, this is very close in spirit to the comparison you actually performed.  Result -- the stitched image wins.
Case C) You move on to a new subject or change your composition.  This time the camera with the smaller sensor has an adequate field of view.  Since you do not have the right lens for the other camera, you end up discarding most of its pixels.  Result -- the camera with the smaller sensor wins.  This is precisely the comparison you performed, and your result is perfectly valid and easy to understand, given this scenario.
Case D) You look through your camera bag again, and discover a longer focal length for the second camera.  The two cameras now have the same field of view and frame your image without wasted pixels.  Result -- the camera with the larger sensor wins!  This case was not considered in your comparison, but nearly any decent lens will provide this result, if the alternative is a large crop.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 01:58:34 am
Hi,

In case D you cannot know which camera wins. That depends on the lens, sensor and aperture chosen.

DPReview published comparison images from NEX-7 and Leica M9. The NEX-7 is sharper. See attached image.

Here the Leica image was upressed using bicubic to match resolution of the other two. It is not obvious to me that the FF cameras outperform the NEX7, although lens has same FOV. Leica left, NEX7 top right and Alpha 900 bottom right.

I'm not saying that DPReview's testing is fault less, nor that the way I compare images is the only correct way.

Note:

In this test the Sony Alpha 900 seems to outperform the Leica M9. That surprises me because I'd assume that the Leica would have the better lens. This also contradict testing made by Michael earlier where he found that the Leica outperformed the Alpha 900. On the other hand, the DPReview images show very similar differences to the test Erwin Puts has made here: http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html (see the end of arcticle). Here are links to the images in Mr. Puts tests. By the way, if you don't know Mr. Puts he is the author of the Leica Compendium.

A900:
(http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/files/a900_flower.jpg)

M9:
(http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/files/m9_flower.jpg)

Nikon D3X is best of the bunch:
(http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/files/d3x_flower.jpg)

Leica S2 with bigger sensor and better lens is superior:
(http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/files/s2_flower.jpg)

One explanation may be that the test images are central and shot at medium aperture where the lens may be diffraction limited. Most fixed focal normal lenses are very well corrected at medium apertures. If the images were shot at large aperture or crops were from edge or corner the superiority of the Leica lens may be visible.


Best regards
Erik


Case A) The camera with the smaller sensor has such a small field of view that it does not capture the scene with the framing you want.  Result -- you go home without a picture.  This case was given no weight in your comparison.
Case B) Same as case A, but you reconsider and decide to capture the scene with the smaller sensor camera, stitching together multiple images to achieve the required field of view.  If you think about it, this is very close in spirit to the comparison you actually performed.  Result -- the stitched image wins.
Case C) You move on to a new subject or change your composition.  This time the camera with the smaller sensor has an adequate field of view.  Since you do not have the right lens for the other camera, you end up discarding most of its pixels.  Result -- the camera with the smaller sensor wins.  This is precisely the comparison you performed, and your result is perfectly valid and easy to understand, given this scenario.
Case D) You look through your camera bag again, and discover a longer focal length for the second camera.  The two cameras now have the same field of view and frame your image without wasted pixels.  Result -- the camera with the larger sensor wins!  This case was not considered in your comparison, but nearly any decent lens will provide this result, if the alternative is a large crop.

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: xxl_and on December 16, 2011, 07:54:29 am
From my point of view the explanation is clear and the review valid.

Michael, is it possible to also test the Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm F1.4 with the NEX-7 and compare it with the Leica 50mm you used?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 16, 2011, 08:20:56 am
My chances of owning either the Leica or the NEX-7 are remote.  From a scientific perspective the test was somewhat flawed as others have noted.  My only other observation is the rather large numbers of first time posters to this forum as a result of this test (plus the lack of real name identification though one of them indicated that they would be purchasing the most recent video tutorial which is a good thing for LuLa).
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 16, 2011, 08:52:02 am
Hi,

DPReview published comparison images from NEX-7 and Leica M9. The NEX-7 is sharper. See attached image.


Best regards
Erik


Thanks for showing us all that Erik - and after all the hand-wringing about focus etc., it seems another reviewer approaching it in a slightly different way comes to roughly the same bottom line. One thing that would concern me about the DPReview approach is the up-sampling. It could also bias results - to what extent depending on how much and how done. As one discussant mentioned - there's no perfect methodology.

The one thing in all of this I would be careful of is to limit the differentiating variables to the strict minimum needed to answer the question being asked - and indeed to ask the questions in a manner allowing this, otherwise it becomes impossible to reliably associate causes with effects. So as usual, it all depends...............
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: bjanes on December 16, 2011, 09:06:34 am
This will be my last comment on the subject.

But, how does that translate to real-world prints of real-world images? I want to know which camera, taking a shot of the same subject, with the same angle of view, and making prints in which the coverage and size are the same, will look.

So I take a photograph with each camera, from the same spot, with the same lens. Now I make a print from each. But, because one covers a wider field of view I have to crop it to the same size as the one with narrower coverage.
 
If you think that my methodology is wrong, fine. Do your own tests, and come to your own conclusions. Tell us about them.

But, I own both cameras (or at least I will when my NEX-7 is delivered and I return my test sample to Sony) and I wanted to know what the prints would like like under those conditions. Why those? Because they reflect the way I work.
Michael


This might have been Michael's last comment in this thread, but in cropping the Leica image, he has thrown away a great deal of its resolution. In comparing sensors of differing dimensions, it is customary to express resolution in terms of pixels per picture height. In the case of the M9, the picture height is 24 mm and the number of pixels is 3472, but in cropping the image, the effective picture height was 15.6 mm and 15.6/24*3472 or 2257 pixels. To the best of my knowledge, he has never explained this discrepancy.

I firmly believe that the methodology was incorrect and would be interested in a proper comparison, which I can not do since I have neither camera. So we will have to wait until someone does a proper comparison.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: EricV on December 16, 2011, 12:17:48 pm
One last post on this subject for me too.  For those of us old enough to remember film days, suppose Michael decided to compare a 4x5" view camera with an 8x10" view camera.  In addition to leveling the playing field by using the same lens, he could also level the playing field by using the same film type.  Then it is obvious that the conclusion of the test would be "the 4x5 has the same resolution as the 8x10".  Completely true, given the ground rules of the comparison, but in my opinion, completely missing the point of using the larger camera.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: PierreVandevenne on December 16, 2011, 12:55:36 pm
And also completely true in general.

Is the point Michael makes so hard to get? The lens outresolves the sensor in the M9. That was the question, and that is the answer. Could be that it still outresolves the sensor in the Sony as well, we'll see with some future generation of camera. Stating that Michael misses the point/usefulness of a larger sensor is simply preposterous, and frankly, quite hard to understand given all the explanations he has given and his clear statements.

No one disputes the fact that the Sony, used from the same position as the Leica, would have an effective zero resolution on the field it does not cover. :-) Michael could have taken a shot closer or further to equalize FOVs, but he also explicitly explained why he didn't.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: pegelli on December 16, 2011, 02:00:30 pm
I firmly believe that the methodology was incorrect and would be interested in a proper comparison, which I can not do since I have neither camera. So we will have to wait until someone does a proper comparison.

There's nothing "incorrect" about the methodology to answer Michael's question. You have a different question you think is more proper but that's beside the question (pun intended)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 02:02:27 pm
Mark,

I absolutely agree that upsizing also has issues. One of the issues is that any resizing also requires some sharpening. Upsizing is also adding some artificial detail, but downscaling both discards real detail and creates fake detail. The upscaling was not DPReview methodology. I downloaded the raw images, converted using identical settings and rescaled. An issue with this is that we know little about the accuracy behind the DPReview images. For that reason I also looked at the images by Erwin Puts. Erwin is a real Leica expert, even if his expertise may mainly be in lenses. He described the methods shooting the images exactly. The pecking order is quite clear on those images Nikon D3X is best, Sony A900 not even close second and Leica M9 is honorable third. The real champ is Leica S2, however. All those images are at actual pixels.

This pretty much contradicts Michaels earlier tests, comparing Sigma SD1 to M9 and different Sony cameras. I don't know why. One point that is pretty clear that any decent fixed focal lens will be nearly diffraction limited at f/8 most often used in tests. Test shots used to be near the optical axis where aberrations normally are minimal. So the advantage that Leica lenses may have does not really come into play, because all decent lenses perform about the same on the optical axis at f/8.

Whatever method is used comparing images there will be some issues with focusing. Especially f/1.4 lenses do exhibit significant focus shift between f/1.4 and f/4. In Erwin Puts's test of the M9 the focus shift was 2 cm between f/1.4 and f/2.8 at 1.3m, a quite significant change. This affects "live view" more than AF as AF probably would use f/2.8.

What I have seen in previous tests I have made with my own stuff is that there is a big difference on image files from a 12 MP APS-C and a 24 MP full frame, but the difference between A2-prints may not be very obvious, much depending on the amount of fine detail. The difference show up for sure if you print large enough and look close enough. Looking at fine details in a large print can be quite attractive. Seeing fine detail is one of the reasons to print big. It is also the reason some folks buy Pentax 645D or even Phase One IQ180.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks for showing us all that Erik - and after all the hand-wringing about focus etc., it seems another reviewer approaching it in a slightly different way comes to roughly the same bottom line. One thing that would concern me about the DPReview approach is the up-sampling. It could also bias results - to what extent depending on how much and how done. As one discussant mentioned - there's no perfect methodology.

The one thing in all of this I would be careful of is to limit the differentiating variables to the strict minimum needed to answer the question being asked - and indeed to ask the questions in a manner allowing this, otherwise it becomes impossible to reliably associate causes with effects. So as usual, it all depends...............

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review (Effect of Bicubic Sharper...)
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 02:18:01 pm
Hi,

The included screenshot demonstrates the amount of fake detail created by bicubic sharper.  The test target used shows these prominently.

You can download it here: http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample_files/Rings1.gif

Just open it in photoshop and resize the image to 66% using "Bicubic sharper". Note also that "uprezzing" would also give artifacts but significantly less than "downrezzing".

Note: The image has been made available by Bart van der Wolf, a frequent poster on this forums.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: John Camp on December 16, 2011, 06:00:47 pm
All this techie stuff on methodology seems to be missing one factor -- that what you want measured isn't what Michael was measuring. What he was doing is very clear. Nothing wrong with what he did -- in fact, that's what most photographers would do if out walking around shooting in the street. It's just not a lab test. Get a  life.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: marcmccalmont on December 16, 2011, 06:54:06 pm
All this techie stuff on methodology seems to be missing one factor -- that what you want measured isn't what Michael was measuring. What he was doing is very clear. Nothing wrong with what he did -- in fact, that's what most photographers would do if out walking around shooting in the street. It's just not a lab test. Get a  life.
John
Without all the LuLu "techie talk" I never would have gained the understanding of modern digital photography that I have or gained it as quickly or spent so much money on equipment :) peace
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: John Camp on December 16, 2011, 07:34:21 pm
John
Without all the LuLu "techie talk" I never would have gained the understanding of modern digital photography that I have or gained it as quickly or spent so much money on equipment :) peace
Marc

Sure. I read it myself. It's just that many of these guys are setting up straw men -- jumping on Michael for not doing what they wanted him to do, rather than for what he did. Or, saying that what he did isn't what he should have done, or some combination of the above. Suppose you're walking down the street with a 50mm lens on your camera, and you see a fat man with an umbrella jumping over a rain puddle. What do you do, run backwards or forwards, or change lenses, while the guy is in mid-air? You take the shot. This is what you get with a Leica, this is what you get with a NEX. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'm as happy to criticize Michael as the next guy, but there ain't nothin' here. Move along.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2011, 08:32:24 pm
I'm a bit amazed at all the fuss this comparison from Michael has created.  I appreciate both sides of the argument. I can see that Michael's test in itself would not be particularly useful to those who are undecided whether or not to buy an M9 or NEX-7.

From my perspective, the situation of having just one lens, on which Michael has based his comparison, would rarely apply because I've long since been converted to the convenience of zooms.

As I see it, if one is concerned, perhaps even obsessed with subtle differences in image resolution, then utilising the entire area of the sensor, in whatever camera one is using, is something one would always strive to do.

However, if one is travelling light with an M9 and a Summilux 50mm prime, perhaps attempting to get shots in the manner of Henri Cartier-Bresson, the additional weight of an NEX-7 body is trivial. I'm amazed how light that camera body really is. It's the lenses which are the weight problem.

In such circumstances, one would definitely want to know to what degree one might be disadvantaged, resolution-wise,  when in any particular situation. If the lens when attached to the NEX-7 doesn't provide a suffient FOV for the composition, then that's reason enough to switch the lens to the M9.

If the lens is already attached to the M9 and one realises that a particular composition will need significant cropping, it would be good to know for purely paractical reasons just how significant an improvement in image resolution would be achieved by taking the trouble to change the lens over to the NEX-7, at the risk of perhaps losing the shot. Missing the shot completely has to be worse than getting the shot with slightly compromised resolution.

If I were to criticise Michael's test, which I'm reluctant to do because he's already received such a blasting, it would be for not going far enough with the test. The 8mp of the M9 after cropping is really only good for an 8"x12"print without interpolation, perhaps a bit larger depending on chosen ppi. For purely practical reasons, it would be good to know how both images compare at A2 print size, which of course involves interpolation of the M9 image and appropriate sharpening of both images.

I know this raises other matters of contention, upsampling algorithms and sharpening procedures, but that can't be avoided. The NEX-7 image at its native resolution is good for an A2 print. For purely practical reasons one would surely like to know how the cropped M9 image stacks up when both files are prepared for printing at A2 size.

A theoretical flow-on from Michael's test is the issue of the practical benefits of increased pixel count, in relation to lens quality. Full-frame sensor technology has a habit of catching up with the pixel densities that first appeared on cropped formats. The 21mp Canon 5D2 has almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the earlier 8mp 20D. If one crops the 5D2 sensor to the same FoV as one gets with the 20D, using the same lens from the same position, the resulting images are essentially equal in quality in all respects, with only very minor differences, according to DXOMark.

I wonder how long it will take for Sony, or Nikon or Canon to give us a 50-60mp full frame, 35mm format sensor.  ;D

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: marcmccalmont on December 16, 2011, 09:35:52 pm

I wonder how long it will take for Sony, or Nikon or Canon to give us a 50-60mp full frame, 35mm format sensor.  ;D


Or how about a FF 120mp sensor that is binned to 30mp! no AA filter (the lens resolution becomes the filter) less artifacts etc
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 10:21:04 pm
Hi Marc,

I started a new topic on that issue, as I feel that I kidnapped this thread to much, sorry for that!

The new thread is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=4.0

Best regards
Erik
Or how about a FF 120mp sensor that is binned to 30mp! no AA filter (the lens resolution becomes the filter) less artifacts etc
Marc
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 10:22:47 pm
;-)

Give a camera to a technician and he'll capture a chart.

Give a camera to a monkey and he'll capture a really rather striking and creative self portrait.

(http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2011/07/monkeymain_1339300a-490x627.jpg)
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2011, 10:29:35 pm
Give a camera to a technician and he'll capture a chart.

Give a camera to a monkey and he'll capture a really rather striking and creative self portrait.


How did you manage to fit such a wide-angle lens through the bars?  ;D
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 16, 2011, 11:04:43 pm
Hi,

From the background it's quite obvious that it was not taken with a wide angle, but monkeys have long arms ;-)

Best regards
Erik


How did you manage to fit such a wide-angle lens through the bars?  ;D
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Ray on December 17, 2011, 02:31:50 am
Hi,

From the background it's quite obvious that it was not taken with a wide angle, but monkeys have long arms ;-)

Best regards
Erik



Don't be silly, Erik. It's clearly a wide-angle shot very close up.  ;D
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: OldRoy on December 17, 2011, 08:26:22 am
From the conclusions:
"Remove the bulky and expensive mirror and prism assembly, develop a new lens mount that allows for smaller and lighter lenses, and innovate in terms of features and interface. That's the formula... Nikon has recently jumped into the CSC fray with its new "1" system and "CX" lens format...... as a market leader in DSLRs they have turf to protect. But their decision to go with a quite small sensor does limit the "1" series' appeal for more advanced users..."

This is called wishing to retain the integrity of one's cake whilst eating it.

From what I've read so far there seems to be no shortage of "advanced users" to whom the Nikon 1 series does appeal, shallow DOF limitations, inevitably, excepted. I'd also like to point out that in relation to this detailed and informative review of the NEX 7 there exists a vanishingly small number of potential buyers for whom there is a realistic option of using hideously expensive Leica lenses.

Roy
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2011, 08:36:06 am
Hi!

There are three categories of Leica lens owners:

1) Those who want the best and can afford it

2) Those to happen Leica lenses lying around from the film times

3) Orphaned Leica R-seies users who lack body for their lenses

Then NEX-7 is probably a nice alternative to the M9, if you can live with the crop factor.

Best regards
Erik


I'd also like to point out that in relation to this detailed and informative review of the NEX 7 there exists a vanishingly small number of potential buyers for whom there is a realistic option of using hideously expensive Leica lenses.

Roy
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: AlanG on December 17, 2011, 12:41:31 pm
There is another way to state the results from this test:

The photo using a 7.8MP APS-C sized cropped area from an M9 is almost as good as an 18MP down sampled un-cropped shot from a Nex 7 using this particular lens. So if you don't have a longer lens with you, using a Leica M9 and cropping may give you acceptable results.  

Of course if the Nex 7 image had not been down sampled, the resolution difference between the two cameras might be a little greater.  (But we can't confirm that from this test.)

At some point the M9 image was scaled up to match the 18MP size of the down sampled Nex 7 image. So I don't know why the Nex7 image was not simply left at 24MP and the M9 could have been scaled up to match it. This would have eliminated one variable and countless expressions of confusion and complaints.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: nucleonb on December 17, 2011, 01:26:20 pm
The amount of "confusion" would be the same or even more because  no one confused by the test setup but they tailor the test to their need, requirements or curiosity  :)
M9 with its excellent lens is stunning!
Leo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 17, 2011, 04:53:52 pm
Hi,

The way I see it Michael has a lot of good stuff in the review. This one test is controversial, I see some issues and other authors see other issues, some authors feel the test is OK.

Lets concentrate on the good stuff instead of discussing the merits or lack thereof of a single test of many.

Best regards
Erik

There is another way to state the results from this test:

The photo using a 7.8MP APS-C sized cropped area from an M9 is almost as good as an 18MP down sampled un-cropped shot from a Nex 7 using this particular lens. So if you don't have a longer lens with you, using a Leica M9 and cropping may give you acceptable results.  

Of course if the Nex 7 image had not been down sampled, the resolution difference between the two cameras might be a little greater.  (But we can't confirm that from this test.)

At some point the M9 image was scaled up to match the 18MP size of the down sampled Nex 7 image. So I don't know why the Nex7 image was not simply left at 24MP and the M9 could have been scaled up to match it. This would have eliminated one variable and countless expressions of confusion and complaints.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: AlanG on December 18, 2011, 12:02:34 pm
Hi,

The way I see it Michael has a lot of good stuff in the review. This one test is controversial, I see some issues and other authors see other issues, some authors feel the test is OK.

Lets concentrate on the good stuff instead of discussing the merits or lack thereof of a single test of many.

Best regards
Erik


I also agree there is some good stuff in this review including the Nex7/M9 Summilux part which I'd like to see presented in a way that gives a bit more of an incontrovertible conclusion.  Since on-line articles are not carved in stone, I have a simple suggestion... It would be pretty easy for him to update the review for clarification. Especially considering that it is a rolling review. He could simply show 100% crops from each photo and also show a crop from the M9 scaled up to match the 100% crop of the Nex 7 (No down sizing of the Nex 7 photo.)

And instead of leaving some with the impression this is a comparison of the overall photographic qualities of the two cameras, he should clearly state that what is being shown is mostly the result of sensor pixel density and that the overall number of pixels in comparable photos from the two cameras will even this out.  One can conclude that there will be a resolution benefit if Leica ups the pixel count in future models.

It is a shame to go to this much work and leave some viewers with possibly "wrong" conclusions due to their own interpretation of what is going on.


Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: nucleonb on December 18, 2011, 01:07:18 pm
I also agree........
. He could simply show 100% crops from each photo and also show a crop from the M9 scaled up to match the 100% crop of the Nex 7 (No down sizing of the Nex 7 photo.)


It is a shame to go to this much work and leave some viewers with possibly "wrong" conclusions due to their own interpretation of what is going on.

I think M9 may loose in scaling up comparison because scaling up soften the image and always require sharpening after. When scaling up new pixels created in looser manner that when image scaled down. I think that Michael comparison is valid.
You can run this test if you have two formats or as easy with your camera and a zoom lens:
Photograph a scenery then without changing position zoom in 1.5 times and photograph again. Then upscale the wider view, crop and compare with zoomed image. Now downscale the original zoomed image and compare with wider view. Should not take more that 20 minutes. :-)
The test should help all of us.

I have no doubt that Michael with his always question the results nature performed the test both ways, however decided to post only one comparison.

Leo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: uaiomex on December 18, 2011, 04:13:01 pm
From the several documentary pretty successful pictures I've seen published by Michael, I conclude it is real contender for the ultimate street camera including the M9. Or perhaps MR's little Sony is just turning into a Mex 7.  ;)
Eduardo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2011, 04:13:17 pm
Hi,

If you print the printer driver, or the printing application will upsize the image to 360, 480,or 720 PPI. If you print on a new Epson with finest detail you will hit the uspcale limit at 8.3" on a 24 MPix camera (8.3 * 720 is around 6000 pixels).

I have both APS-C and full frame, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony Alpha 55 (and before that Alpha 700). The Alpha 900 I normally use with the 24-70/2.8 ZA while on the Alpha 700/SLT I always use the 16-80/3.5-4.5. And yes I normally carry both lenses and bodies. I do this because the respective focal ranges are convenient. Would like to use a "normal" lens I would not be happy with a 50 mm on a Sony NEX, which effectively turns it into a "portrait lens".

So, my view is that modern printers can make use of all pixels even in moderate size prints, and that I would probably not use the same lens on APS-C and full frame. So for me shooting with a 35 mm lens on the NEX-7 and with a 50 mm lens on the NEX would be a natural comparison.

On the other hand, I have seen that the difference between files on the Sonya Alpha 900 and the Alpha 700 are large but sometimes hardly visible in A2 size prints. The way Michael chose to illustrate the differences may be more like what we would see in print than on screen.

Best regards
Erik


I think M9 may loose in scaling up comparison because scaling up soften the image and always require sharpening after. When scaling up new pixels created in looser manner that when image scaled down. I think that Michael comparison is valid.
You can run this test if you have two formats or as easy with your camera and a zoom lens:
Photograph a scenery then without changing position zoom in 1.5 times and photograph again. Then upscale the wider view, crop and compare with zoomed image. Now downscale the original zoomed image and compare with wider view. Should not take more that 20 minutes. :-)
The test should help all of us.

I have no doubt that Michael with his always question the results nature performed the test both ways, however decided to post only one comparison.

Leo
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: AlanG on December 18, 2011, 06:43:53 pm
I think M9 may loose in scaling up comparison because scaling up soften the image and always require sharpening after. When scaling up new pixels created in looser manner that when image scaled down. I think that Michael comparison is valid.


He must have already scaled up the M9 image otherwise the crop from it would not have matched the crop from the 18MP downsized Nex 7 shot.  (An APS-C size crop from the M9 is only 7.8MP to start with.  It is not 18MP.)

All I'm saying is that if you are going to do that, why scale down the Nex 7 shot from 24MP to 18MP first?
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2011, 06:51:28 pm
From what I've read so far there seems to be no shortage of "advanced users" to whom the Nikon 1 series does appeal, shallow DOF limitations, inevitably, excepted. I'd also like to point out that in relation to this detailed and informative review of the NEX 7 there exists a vanishingly small number of potential buyers for whom there is a realistic option of using hideously expensive Leica lenses.

As I mentioned a few times, the key to my eyes is to know clearly what one's needs/usage patterns are.

As a single camera, the NEX7 is obviously very tempting. For a person with an existing array of cameras, including a well specced DSLR, I feel that the gain in real world size if not different enough from the DSLR to make it an appealing proposition.

Nikon has never been shy on self-cannibalization (think D700 using the same sensor and AF as the twice more expensive D3), so I am not sure if the sensor size of the 1 was designed to avoid cannibalizing the Nikon DSLRs (the 1 is in the same price bracket anyway). My guess is that they didn't see the value of offering something the size of a NEX (body + lenses).

A new platform is a strategic decision whose value is long term. From a rational standpoint, we can expect the already excellent 1 series sensor to reach a higher level in a few years. They are already sufficient for pro grade A3 prints that satisfy the need of 80% of photographers... even those not owning any other camera. I would not bet against the 1 series at this point of time.

Finally, using Leica lenses on a NEX7 does indeed make little economic sense for all but a tiny niche.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 18, 2011, 08:59:23 pm

Finally, using Leica lenses on a NEX7 does indeed make little economic sense for all but a tiny niche.


Bernard, have you tried using a Leica lens on a NEX?

Using the NEX EVF for live view focus magnification and focus peaking is pretty compelling.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2011, 09:27:38 pm
Bernard, have you tried using a Leica lens on a NEX?

Using the NEX EVF for live view focus magnification and focus peaking is pretty compelling.

I have seen it done by a friend who owns a NEX-5n. It seems to be working very well on static objects, I don't doubt the value of the capability.

My point was that few people who look at the price bracket of the NEX will be willing to spend so much on Leica lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 18, 2011, 09:53:11 pm
I'm assuming from the lack of discussion about the remote control that Sony didn't provide one with the review NEX-7.  Depending on its capabilities, this could be a very useful accessory, especially for video mode.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 18, 2011, 10:05:15 pm

My point was that few people who look at the price bracket of the NEX will be willing to spend so much on Leica lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard


I think that's clear. The whole point about Leica lenses on a NEX is mainly for people who are fortunate enough to already own Leica lenses and don't necessarily want to spend 8K on an M9.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2011, 10:44:49 pm
Hi,

Yes, of course, if you can live with the crop factor. It may hurt a lot if you like to shoot wide angle.

Best regards
Erik


I think that's clear. The whole point about Leica lenses on a NEX is mainly for people who are fortunate enough to already own Leica lenses and don't necessarily want to spend 8K on an M9.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 18, 2011, 11:00:56 pm
I think that's clear. The whole point about Leica lenses on a NEX is mainly for people who are fortunate enough to already own Leica lenses and don't necessarily want to spend 8K on an M9.

Hmmm. There could be some people out there who always wanted to try using the absolute best lenses, but didn't want to deal with a rangefinder for whatever reason.

I bought a NEX 5N, EVF and then purchased a ZM 35 and CV 75/2.5. After using them for several months I have a NEX 7 on backorder, have just purchased a 28 Summicron and have a 50 Summicron on order.

I guess I must be some kind of weird outlier.  ;D
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2011, 11:11:06 pm
I bought a NEX 5N, EVF and then purchased a ZM 35 and CV 75/2.5. After using them for several months I have a NEX 7 on backorder, have just purchased a 28 Summicron and have a 50 Summicron on order.

I guess I must be some kind of weird outlier.  ;D

It makes sense if you like the results and have the cash. :)

Such adapters are starting to appear for 1 series too, but I am not sure about the level of quality:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-M-Lens-Nikon-1-Mount-Camera-Adapter-Ring-J1-V1-/220901394660

There are other ways to enjoy Leica lenses though. Replacement mount parts make it a breeze to use R lenses on F mount bodies for example. I do in fact have such a mount sitting on a shelf at my place, waiting for the Leica R 180 f2.8 APO it was supposed to be assembled on in brighter days.  :D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 18, 2011, 11:37:35 pm

There are other ways to enjoy Leica lenses though. Replacement mount parts make it a breeze to use R lenses on F mount bodies for example. I do in fact have such a mount sitting on a shelf at my place, waiting for the Leica R 180 f2.8 APO it was supposed to be assembled on in brighter days.  :D


Hi Bernard,

Putting Leica R lenses on a Nikon body would result in a much larger solution. I travel a lot mostly with just carry on luggage. What I have been looking for is the highest image quality in the most compact possible package.

The other thing I have found is that with the NEX and EVF I have a much higher percentage of images in which I achieve critical focus as compared to my Nikon D300 or Pentax K5 with a split prism focus screen or using the AF "dot" to judge focus. My results are much better using my rangefinder ZM 35 on my NEX 5N than my ZF 35 on my D300.

Also, don't underestimate what a game changer focus peaking is. Here's a shot I took yesterday with the 5N and ZM 35.

(http://jkott.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v40/p1062492596-5.jpg)

Not that this is the greatest photo technically, but I saw these 4 coming towards me out of the corner of my eye and had about a second to focus and take the photo. With the EVF and focus peaking, I was able to get it. Trying to manual focus on a DSLR, there's no way I would have captured it.

The other thing is that when I use the NEX people don't have the same negative reaction to the camera that they have with an SLR. It looks like a point and shoot.

Kind regards,

Jeff

Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 19, 2011, 12:19:51 am
No longer when you put a Leica 180/2.8 APO on it ;-)

Jeff,

I really appreciated your thoughtful comments. Focus peaking seems to be an interesting technique, which I unfortunately don't have on my stuff. Does it work for critically accurate focusing?

As I normally travel with a lot of gear I can really appreciate the alternative to keep wight down and quality up.

I'm a bit contemplating the options:

- NEX-7
- Alpha 77
- No more cameras right now

I have a Sony Alpha 55 SLT, which has LV. It's the camera I use for long telephoto (400, 560 and 800 using extenders). Main camera is the Alpha 900. The Alpha 55 SLT with 16-80 and 70-300 works as walkaround kit. But I would love to have a "real camera", with more switches and wheels.

Best regards
Erik


The other thing is that when I use the NEX people don't have the same negative reaction to the camera that they have with an SLR. It looks like a point and shoot.


Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Jeff Kott on December 19, 2011, 02:09:20 am

Jeff,

......Does it work for critically accurate focusing?


Hi Erik,

The thing that you have to keep in mind with focus peaking is that it shows the areas of highest contrast in the image, which are usually, but not always, the areas that are the most in focus.

It works best at wide apertures with shallower depth of field, but I find that between focus peaking and magnified live view, I can focus at my shooting aperture, which is another advantage because it eliminates any lens focus shift issues and you see the depth of field at your shooting aperture. For example, when taking a photo of a person at reasonably close distance wide open, the focus peaking will outline the dark part of the pupil or the eyelashes, which is perfect.

I find focus peaking least helpful outdoors in bright sunlight when there are many areas of the image with extremely high contrast. In those situations, one push of the button gives you eye level magnified live view for fine tuning. Push the button a second time and it zooms in even more. To avoid the issues involved with focusing in the center of the frame and then recomposing, you can push on the scroll wheel to move the zoomed in portion of the image around the frame.

So, after using the NEX for a while I find that between focus peaking and fine tuning with magnified live view I can pretty much nail focus in any situation. My percentage of critically focused shots is much higher than with AF or MF with my D300 or K5.

Also, my percentage of properly exposed shots on the first try is up because you can have a live histogram in the corner of the viewfinder and change exposure compensation and ISO to get the correct exposure and shutter speed without taking the camera from your eye. At this point, I feel kind of handicapped when I go back to the OVF of my D300 or K5.

I know this is heresy, but the reason I have a NEX is not because I cannot afford an M9.

Cheers,

Jeff
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2011, 05:18:05 am
Thanks for that detailed feedback Jeff.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: Mark D Segal on December 19, 2011, 08:39:05 am


I guess I must be some kind of weird outlier.  ;D

 "Mainly" describes a "general" circumstance. Exceptions are neither weird, nor outliers nor practicing heresy! What you are doing is obviously within your means, most interesting and you are surely getting excellent results with it, which is what matters most. I'm also using a NEX 5N though with the kit lens, and I find myself reaching for it more readily than for my 1DsMk3, whose functioning I am intimately familiar with, largely for the reasons you mention. I'm getting very satisfactory 11*17"-ish prints on 13*19" sheets with it, as long as I compose carefully enough to avoid excessive cropping.
Title: Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
Post by: douglasf13 on December 19, 2011, 03:11:08 pm
  Me too, Mark.  I finally sold my A900 and lenses after it was just sitting on the shelf too long.  I also use a 13x19 printer, and the 5N is certainly good enough for that.  As someone who prefers manual focus, despite the A900's OVF being the best in DSLR, it just can't match the accuracy of the focus magnification/focus peaking combo for manual focus.  As Jeff mentioned, throw in a live histogram, and it almost feels like cheating.  It's funny to scroll through my Lightroom catalogue, because you can tell when I started using NEX... the bad exposures are much rarer.   :)