Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on December 16, 2011, 05:57:39 pm
-
I'm putting this new topic up to avoid the arguments about methodology in the other thread.
I found the review and the conclusions to be quite interesting. I own a Panasonic m4/3 system, and I have remained with that system because I felt that ultimately it had potential for IQ virtually as good as the NEX system, and, critically for me, it was smaller and lighter when carried as a system. I never doubted the IQ would be better with the larger sensor; however, that doesn't speak to size. NEX only makes sense to me if the lenses are also compact -- the NEX system is not THAT much smaller than, say, a Pentax K-5 or a Nikon D7000, if you have to carry Pentax- or Nikon-sized lenses around, and given that, I much prefer the optical viewfinder on the DSLRs.
So, while the review was interesting, I think the really critical questions for NEX are:
-Will there be a full range of *compact* system lenses, or will they be the same size as the general run of APS-C primes and zooms?
-Is it possible to make relatively fast compact zooms for APS-C? I note that the Panasonic m4/3 long zoom, an excellent-quality 100-300mm lens (equiv. 200-600) is only 5.5 inches long.
-What are the chances that Panasonic will catch up with Sony in sensor-making technique? Do they really have that potential?
-
Hi,
As I see it the NEX is already a success. On the other hand I see the big lens, small camera problem.
I find the NEX-7 attractive, but I may feel that the A77 is the more compelling alternative. Hard to know, until both cameras have been tested side by side. Right now I have the impression that the A77 has the better user interface.
One of the great attractions of the NEX-7 is that it accepts a lot of interesting lenses and makes them quite usable thanks live view and peaking. The real problem, in my view is the crop factor. It turns a 50 mm into a short tele, which is not a bad thing, but for wide angles you need ultrawides, and those can run into problems with lens cast.
As it is right now, I don't feel like buying neither the NEX-7 nor the A77. I have an Alpha 900 full frame DSLR, and I actually like the heft of the body. What I miss is live view, a capability already added by an Alpha 55 SLT. AF works well on the A900, by the way. Would Sony come out with an NEX-9, having full frame sensor and better user interface (PRESETS PLEASE!!!), I would be clearly interested.
Best regards
Erik
I'm putting this new topic up to avoid the arguments about methodology in the other thread.
I found the review and the conclusions to be quite interesting. I own a Panasonic m4/3 system, and I have remained with that system because I felt that ultimately it had potential for IQ virtually as good as the NEX system, and, critically for me, it was smaller and lighter when carried as a system. I never doubted the IQ would be better with the larger sensor; however, that doesn't speak to size. NEX only makes sense to me if the lenses are also compact -- the NEX system is not THAT much smaller than, say, a Pentax K-5 or a Nikon D7000, if you have to carry Pentax- or Nikon-sized lenses around, and given that, I much prefer the optical viewfinder on the DSLRs.
So, while the review was interesting, I think the really critical questions for NEX are:
-Will there be a full range of *compact* system lenses, or will they be the same size as the general run of APS-C primes and zooms?
-Is it possible to make relatively fast compact zooms for APS-C? I note that the Panasonic m4/3 long zoom, an excellent-quality 100-300mm lens (equiv. 200-600) is only 5.5 inches long.
-What are the chances that Panasonic will catch up with Sony in sensor-making technique? Do they really have that potential?
-
It saddens me to say it, but given the choice of a Sony NEX-7 and a Leica M9 I'd choose the latter. At least you can focus the Sony.
Former?
Jeremy
-
Hi,
Can you explain, please?!
Best regards
Erik
It saddens me to say it, but given the choice of a Sony NEX-7 and a Leica M9 I'd choose the latter. At least you can focus the Sony.
-
I always wonder why so many of us do the this is better then that. I own two m9s no not rich a working pro and have to have tow bodies. I got a nex 5n for iso 6400 which I need. but there are other things is does my 90 cron is a 135 f2 the sweep panorama and 16 by 9 format . And lastly three bodies to work with at once. A very nice thing when shooting with prime lenses. I can focus both the sony and the nex. Each camera brings a different set of advantages and disadvantages. And let us applaud Michael for throwing his opinions out and not taking the vague easy way out in his reviews.
-
While the CSC concept is interesting, I haven't cancelled my order for an M9-P.
-
While the CSC concept is interesting, I haven't cancelled my order for an M9-P.
And whilst I find the APS-C concept interesting, I haven't cancelled my order for a NEX 7 :) Just joking, I'll certainly keep my Nikon gear (at least for some while) but am looking forward immensely to taking delivery of the NEX 7 and would like to add my thanks to Michael for the very informative rolling review. It'll be a great reference as I get to grips with it. I briefly had a 5N which I returned to my dealer, got a full credit for the amount paid and ordered the 7. The joy of getting out in the hills with lightweight gear was even greater than I had hoped and if the image quality of the 7 is even anywhere near my expectations, I'll be one happy bunny :D
John
-
What happens with legacy lenses with no on-lens aperture controls? My Nikon 12-24 might be a good fit on the NEX-7, but how will the Sony actuate the aperture?
-
You'll need to get an adaptor that has aperture control.
The best is the one from Novoflex...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Novoflex-Adapter-Nikon-Lenses-Sony-NEX-Cameras-NEX-NIK-/390373197192?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae40e4588#ht_3644wt_922
Michael
-
Hi, John. I think the beauty of NEX for a lot of us is the ease at which it works with manual lenses. My NEX-5N with the CV 15/4.5, ZM 35/2 and ZM 50/1.5 is a ridiculously small package for the IQ, and it is a joy to use manually.
Despite Michael's wonderfully complete review, I actually decided to cancel my NEX-7 preorder and stick with the 5N. The dials of the 7 are nice, but I shoot manual lenses with aperture rings, so much of it is lost on me, and, despite preferring the lower profile of the 7's EVF, I love being able to tilt my 5N's EVF, and I shoot left eyed, so it makes a little more sense. Add the better corner performance with rangefinder lenses, and the 5N still ticks more boxes for me, despite the devilish allure of the sexy NEX-7.
p.s. I also use a nice, Italian leather half case on the 5N, which makes the grip and body size nearly identical to the 7. The 5N is a fun camera, and I nearly always shoot it like a waist level Hasselblad.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6103/6315850357_0126e68999.jpg)
-
As I see it the NEX is already a success.
From reading Michael's and other's reviews, this is my impression, too. I am very much tempted to purchase a NEX-7 next Spring.
I find the NEX-7 attractive, but I may feel that the A77 is the more compelling alternative. [...] Right now I have the impression that the A77 has the better user interface. One of the great attractions of the NEX-7 is that it accepts a lot of interesting lenses and makes them quite usable thanks live view and peaking.
My sentiments exactly! The NEX-7 is very compact ... but when used with big lenses, this particular advantage will mostly disappear, or may even turn into a disadvantage. All things considered, as a working photographer's tool the A77 (which shares the NEX-7's APS-C-format 24 MP sensor) probably will be the better choice. But then, the NEX-7 can take my Leica M lenses, and the A77 cannot ... arrrggh!
Maybe I should wait for the A99 and then buy that and the NEX-7 ...?
Would Sony come out with an NEX-9, having full frame sensor and better user interface [...], I would be clearly interested.
No way. Forget it. The Sony NEX system is, and always will be, restricted to APS-C format.
It is more likely that a camera that represents a hypothetical 35-mm full-frame 'NEX-9' will come from Leica, called 'M10.'
-
The NEX-7 with something like the Zeiss 24/1.8 is still MUCH smaller than the A77 and equivalent lens, and it is significantly lighter weight, too. Sure, you can't fit the Nex-7 in your jeans, but it's still a small system that means being able to use smaller bags and loosing pounds of weight.
-
Hi!
I'm not sure. Leica is rumored to have an AF system on way. It would make a lot of sense to have it full frame and have M-compatible mount, but that would not be an M10.
Sony is rumored to release three FF cameras next year. A pro model, like D3, an amateur model and one with a "hybrid mount". A Sony representant is said to have stated that the E-mount is compatible with full frame.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
Best regards
Erik
No way. Forget it. The Sony NEX system is, and always will be, restricted to APS-C format.
It is more likely that a camera that represents a hypothetical 35-mm full-frame 'NEX-9' will come from Leica, called 'M10.'
-
I've often wondered why camera companies aren't somewhat more cooperative, at least in *thinking* about their products. For example, if I owned Pentax, I would have asked the engineers to see if they could design the flash interface to get full functionality from the Nikon flash system, without violating any patents. Since the interface for flashes is generally pretty simple, I suspect it could be done -- and Pentax users would then have access to the best flash system ever made, and I doubt that Pentax would even notice the loss in its own flash system, which is pretty minimal.
Similarly, I think Sony should encourage, and even commission, Zeiss to come up with a whole range of small, fully-functioning primes for Nex -- and then NEX really *would* be the new Leica, and I would buy one in an instant. Throw in one or two somewhat compact zooms, and it'd be a beautiful system. But IMHO, as expressed above, compactness is essential. I think they might be able to achieve that by giving up the idea of super zooms, and going with perhaps four shorter-range zooms instead of the usual three. Sony might also take a close look at Leica's two tri-elmars: those are compact, even the wide one, and would be a terrific addition to the NEX system. But just pooping out a bunch of so-so Sony consumer zooms ain't gonna do it.
-
What happens with legacy lenses with no on-lens aperture controls? My Nikon 12-24 might be a good fit on the NEX-7, but how will the Sony actuate the aperture?
I sometimes use my Nikkor 14-24 on my D7000. The lens has superb performance on a cropped format body and is no doubt good enough to deliver even more resolution with a cropped format 24mp sensor.
However, comparing the weights of the two camera systems with this lens, we have about 1.85Kgs for the D7000 with lens, and maybe 1.45Kgs for the NEX-7 with adapter and lens, a saving of about 400gms which, in itself, is worthwhile, but not if one has to sacrifice all the automatic functions of the camera, including autofocussing when shooting video.
I think I would rather wait for Nikon to produce a 24mp cropped format. I'm reminded of a difficulty I experienced in cold weather in Nepal earlier this year. My D7000 refused to autofocus when cold. I found it very inconvenient having to manually focus every shot, and missed a few critical moments as a result.
-
The key to getting the best out of these new generation of high quality sensors contained in relatively low cost bodies is access to very high quality lenses.
If I owned a M9 with leica glass I would order a NEX 7 tomorrow. A no brainer!
The kit lenses are not up to the task. And even good quality zoom lens with large zoom ranges will struggle at 24MP.
-
I've often wondered why camera companies aren't somewhat more cooperative, at least in *thinking* about their products. For example, if I owned Pentax, I would have asked the engineers to see if they could design the flash interface to get full functionality from the Nikon flash system, without violating any patents. Since the interface for flashes is generally pretty simple, I suspect it could be done -- and Pentax users would then have access to the best flash system ever made, and I doubt that Pentax would even notice the loss in its own flash system, which is pretty minimal.
Similarly, I think Sony should encourage, and even commission, Zeiss to come up with a whole range of small, fully-functioning primes for Nex -- and then NEX really *would* be the new Leica, and I would buy one in an instant. Throw in one or two somewhat compact zooms, and it'd be a beautiful system. But IMHO, as expressed above, compactness is essential. I think they might be able to achieve that by giving up the idea of super zooms, and going with perhaps four shorter-range zooms instead of the usual three. Sony might also take a close look at Leica's two tri-elmars: those are compact, even the wide one, and would be a terrific addition to the NEX system. But just pooping out a bunch of so-so Sony consumer zooms ain't gonna do it.
Sony has encouraged every lens maker to make e-mount lenses by making the mount specs publicly available for free last spring, so it's just a matter of time.
That being said, making these lenses short is difficult. Most rangefinder lenses 35mm and wider have at least some kind of color shift and/or loss of detail on the NEX cameras. The recent Zeiss paper about wide angels explains this in detail, and it shows why Sony has made retrofocus lenses like the 24/1.8, which means longer length.
-
The key to getting the best out of these new generation of high quality sensors contained in relatively low cost bodies is access to very high quality lenses.
If I owned a M9 with leica glass I would order a NEX 7 tomorrow. A no brainer!
The kit lenses are not up to the task. And even good quality zoom lens with large zoom ranges will struggle at 24MP.
The NEX kit lens is probably the best kit zoom from any manufacturer. It is up to the 24mp, at least in the central 2/3rds of the frame. Most Leica glass doesn't live up to it's billing on the NEX-7, because of the sensor filter pack thickness. Sony needs to axe the AA filter in these cameras.
-
Hi,
Do you actually know if the Sony NEX-7 has a AA-filter? Has that been stated clearly anywhere?
The IR filter may be a source of problems to, it's normally quite thick and it would affect some Leica lenses. That was the reason that the M8 had very thin IR-filter. For the M9 the engineers came up with a thicker filter, but probably thinner then what is mostly used with other cameras.
Sony has the luxury to be able to construct it's lenses for the stuff sitting in front of the sensor. (CGA, microlenses, AA-filter and IR filter).
Best regards
Erik
The NEX kit lens is probably the best kit zoom from any manufacturer. It is up to the 24mp, at least in the central 2/3rds of the frame. Most Leica glass doesn't live up to it's billing on the NEX-7, because of the sensor filter pack thickness. Sony needs to axe the AA filter in these cameras.
-
The NEX kit lens is probably the best kit zoom from any manufacturer. It is up to the 24mp, at least in the central 2/3rds of the frame.
Hi Douglas, that's quite re-assuring as my aim is to use the NEX 7 for 3 months or so, mainly with the kit lens before making any decision as to either further lenses (especially manual focus types) or selling my Nikon gear. Your earlier post showed a lovely leather case for your NEX 5 - would you mind posting a link to the manufacturers so that I can see if anything is available for the 7.
Thanks
John
-
As usual Michael's review was, for me, incredibly useful. As befits a landmark camera it was thorough, and especially so in the areas that matter to me: handling & ergonomics, and output to print.
I have been using a M4/3 setup for 2 years now, along with my usual Canon pro gear. I have come to really enjoy having a responsive camera and 2 or 3 primes with me all the time, and with pretty decent output. In fact, in some circumstances the output has been excellent.
Unlike some, I don't find the Nex setup overly large with the native lenses. Certainly larger than the M4/3, and indeed I would like the lenses to be smaller. But when I step into the realm of actual handling, a Nex with the 24 or 50 is, overall, much lighter and less bulky than my 'pro' gear: it will easily be comfortable in the same bag I use for my M4/3 gear.
The Nex 7 is looking good as a candidate to replace both sets of current equipment. I hope they add a native 35 (50 equivalent), but that can be resolved using a MF lens.
Anyway, thanks Michael for concentrating on the stuff I needed to know.
-
Hi,
Do you actually know if the Sony NEX-7 has a AA-filter? Has that been stated clearly anywhere?
The IR filter may be a source of problems to, it's normally quite thick and it would affect some Leica lenses. That was the reason that the M8 had very thin IR-filter. For the M9 the engineers came up with a thicker filter, but probably thinner then what is mostly used with other cameras.
Sony has the luxury to be able to construct it's lenses for the stuff sitting in front of the sensor. (CGA, microlenses, AA-filter and IR filter).
Best regards
Erik
It seems to me that if the Nex 7 had no AA filter, that would be stated by Sony somewhere and be reported in the reviews.
I think future Leica w/a lenses are likely to be more "retro focus" in order to have fewer problems with color shift and vignetting in the corners unless sensors, microlenses or software correction improve.
Since the Nex 7 uses a smaller sensor, the issue is mitigated because the image is cropped before one gets to the parts that would be that big a problem. Also, the M9 has built in color shift and vignetting correction that is optimized for various lenses.
This is the explanation that Leica's CEO, Stefan Daniels, gives about IR filters.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/23834
Q: If you look at the DXOMARK results of the M9 you can see that the ISO marks are considerably lower than other full frame cameras. Do you see this as one of the major things you would like to improve in the next M version?
A: The reason why this is lower lies in the special circumstances of the M-System. It is quite complicated, but I will try to make it short: M-lenses hit the sensor in a flat angle, therefore they are the most compact on the market and older lenses are compatible with M8 and M9. This flat angle will not allow us to use interference IR cut coating on the sensor cover glass, as this would cause uncontrollable color fringes. Instead of, we use an absorption filter, which is not sensible to different light angles, but does filter much more of the visible light as interference filters, and therefore the signal from the sensor needs to be amplified much more which results in a lower light sensitivity. Of course, having a higher sensitivity of the sensor is an issue and we put a significant amount of effort in improving this.
-
Hi,
The reason I asked about the AA-filter is twofold. Firstly, my Sony Alpha 55 with 16 MP seems to have a very weak AA filter as it has a tendency to moiré. Secondly it makes a lot of sense to drop the AA-filter with shrinking pixel size. It is not exactly cheap, as far as I understand.
Thank you very much for the link to the interview with Stefan Daniels. Very interesting.
Best regards
Erik
It seems to me that if the Nex 7 had no AA filter, that would be stated by Sony somewhere and be reported in the reviews.
This is the explanation that Leica's CEO, Stefan Daniels, gives about IR filters.
http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/23834
-
Hi Douglas, that's quite re-assuring as my aim is to use the NEX 7 for 3 months or so, mainly with the kit lens before making any decision as to either further lenses (especially manual focus types) or selling my Nikon gear. Your earlier post showed a lovely leather case for your NEX 5 - would you mind posting a link to the manufacturers so that I can see if anything is available for the 7.
Thanks
John
Don't get me wrong, it's still a cheap kit zoom, but it has very good central sharpness. My NEX case is made by Ciesta, but I don't know if they have NEX-7 cases.
-
Hi,
Do you actually know if the Sony NEX-7 has a AA-filter? Has that been stated clearly anywhere?
The IR filter may be a source of problems to, it's normally quite thick and it would affect some Leica lenses. That was the reason that the M8 had very thin IR-filter. For the M9 the engineers came up with a thicker filter, but probably thinner then what is mostly used with other cameras.
Sony has the luxury to be able to construct it's lenses for the stuff sitting in front of the sensor. (CGA, microlenses, AA-filter and IR filter).
Best regards
Erik
Hi, Erik. Joakim "theSuede," who works in the industry, has some pretty specific things to say about the M9's filters. The M9's filters and micro lenses improvements appear to be mostly marketing. Check it out:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/893332/8&year=2010#8504636 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/893332/8&year=2010#8504636)
-
Do you actually know if the Sony NEX-7 has a AA-filter? Has that been stated clearly anywhere?
The IR filter may be a source of problems to, it's normally quite thick and it would affect some Leica lenses. That was the reason that the M8 had very thin IR-filter. For the M9 the engineers came up with a thicker filter, but probably thinner then what is mostly used with other cameras.
If the Nex-7 has a low pass filter, it must be relatively weak as judged by the aliasing pattern noted on a Siemens star on an image published in DPReview. The pattern is very similar to that of the Leica M9, which definitely lacks a low pass filter. The shown images are at 100% with no re-sizing.
One can also calculate the resolution using the Siemens star, according to the method (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217) outlined by Bart van der Wolf. The star in the DPReview image has 60 bars per circumference, whereas Bart's chart has 144 bars per circumference, so one has to modify the formula to (60 / pi) / diameter from (144 / pi) / diameter. This method is independent of the image magnification. Bart's chart is sinusoidal, which is better than the sharp bars of the star used by DPReview, but I don't think that this would materially affect the results.
Using this method, I get 58 cy/mm or 0.39 cy/pixel for the Leica and 106 cy/mm or 0.42 cy/mm for the Sony. The picture height of the Sony is 15.6 mm, so the Sony would resolve 1654 cy/ph. Using the same crop for the Leica, one gets 905 cy/ph. If one uses the full frame of the Leica, the resolution is 1392 cy/ph. It does not make sense to crop the Leica if one wants to maintain the image quality for which one is paying.
Regards,
Bill
-
It does not make sense to crop the Leica if one wants to maintain the image quality for which one is paying.
Regards,
Bill
Yes. But it also shows that the APS format, with a good lens, can deliver the quality that many people require and are used to getting from a Leica M9. It would be interesting to see a 100% comparison using a Summilux 75 on the M9 and a Summilux 50 on a Nex 7 of the same composition. Maybe if those images are close one could conclude that using 50 and longer Leica lenses on a Nex 7 for more reach makes a lot of sense.
I use Canon full frame cameras because my work requires high performance wide angles (17 & 24 TSE lenses especially) and this seems to be the best solution short of using an MF technical camera. But it looks like these higher res APS cameras will suit the needs of many photographers. When you look at it, there really only are a few models of full frame cameras, so I guess the market spoke long ago. But the gap seems to be narrowing further, especially if you figure that most people won't really need a 50MP full frame model even if the lenses can make use of that resolution. But perhaps such a camera will pull some users from considering MF.
-
Hi!
18*(1654/1392)^2=25 ;-)
Best regards
Erik
If the Nex-7 has a low pass filter, it must be relatively weak as judged by the aliasing pattern noted on a Siemens star on an image published in DPReview. The pattern is very similar to that of the Leica M9, which definitely lacks a low pass filter. The shown images are at 100% with no re-sizing.
One can also calculate the resolution using the Siemens star, according to the method (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217) outlined by Bart van der Wolf. The star in the DPReview image has 60 bars per circumference, whereas Bart's chart has 144 bars per circumference, so one has to modify the formula to (60 / pi) / diameter from (144 / pi) / diameter. This method is independent of the image magnification. Bart's chart is sinusoidal, which is better than the sharp bars of the star used by DPReview, but I don't think that this would materially affect the results.
Using this method, I get 58 cy/mm or 0.39 cy/pixel for the Leica and 106 cy/mm or 0.42 cy/mm for the Sony. The picture height of the Sony is 15.6 mm, so the Sony would resolve 1654 cy/ph. Using the same crop for the Leica, one gets 905 cy/ph. If one uses the full frame of the Leica, the resolution is 1392 cy/ph. It does not make sense to crop the Leica if one wants to maintain the image quality for which one is paying.
Regards,
Bill
-
Maybe I have missed it,
but is the Nex7 (Nex 5n) camera very silent?
I am using DSLR's and just cannot take photographs at violinconcerts wich i would like to do..
I know that the new Nikon J1/V1 is soundless, but their quality is below my standards...
anyone?
-
18*(1654/1392)^2=25 ;-)
Yes, the two cameras resolve pretty much as their pixel count would suggest, not much more nor much less. The lens used for the Nex-7 was the US $125 DT 50 mm f/1.8 and the lens used on the Leica was the US $4995 Summarit-M 75 mm f/2.5. Of course, the measurement was at low MTF, around 10%. The Leica lens might well do better at higher MTF because Leica lenses are usually regarded as favoring contrast over resolution (at least, according to commonly held belief).
Regards,
Bill
-
All the current NEX cameras have (relatively weak) optical low-pass filters, including the 7.
-
My most recent comparison (just published) shows that it must be very low indeed, because it's propensity for colour moire is almost exactly the same as the AAless M9.
Michael
-
But the gap seems to be narrowing further, especially if you figure that most people won't really need a 50MP full frame model even if the lenses can make use of that resolution.
If the lenses can make use of a 50mp full frame, there will be no shortage of buyers if the camera is priced right. Cropped format cameras have always provided an advantage at the long telephoto end, and full frame cameras an advantage at the wide-angle end.
A full frame 50 or 60mp camera gives one the best of both worlds. The 24mp of the NEX-7 translates to 60mp full frame. Fantastic!
But perhaps such a camera will pull some users from considering MF.
No doubt, but the fact remains that the larger sensor will always provide that noticeably better SNR at 18% grey, which translates to creamier skin texture for fashion models. ;D
-
No doubt, but the fact remains that the larger sensor will always provide that noticeably better SNR at 18% grey, which translates to creamier skin texture for fashion models. ;D
I would say that's only necessarily the case if the sensor technologies are the same. A larger sensor can only leverage it's size so much if the technology of the smaller sensor is better. That's partly why we're seeing the performance of these brand new aps-c sensors bump up against the FF cameras that have been on the market for a few years. Of course, the new FF cameras coming soon will start the cycle all over again. Medium format is an interesting beast, because the sensors are so much larger, despite being relatively primitive in design compared to the latest aps-c CMOS sensors. Man, if Sony would scale up their newest EXMOR tech into 6x6 or 645, then we'd really be seeing something.
-
On another web forum, dedicated to Canon cameras, this comment was made in the last couple of days in regards to the change that has come about since the release of the small form factor cameras with interchangeable lenses:
I work at a popular photography store and can tell you that canon is missing out. I have people coming in all day saying "olympus pen?" "Sony Nex?". They dont even know what they are but there is such a buzz surrounding those cameras. I inform people on those cameras and they are a pretty easy sell. To be honest we have been sold out of the olympus pens but could have sold tons if we had them (due to xmas aswell). I also show them the nikons and they say "where is the canon version of these?" The sony nex sells extremely well too.
... I think that speaks quite clearly about what the impact is of Canon's refusal thus far to eat its own lunch.
-
You'll need to get an adaptor that has aperture control.
The best is the one from Novoflex...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Novoflex-Adapter-Nikon-Lenses-Sony-NEX-Cameras-NEX-NIK-/390373197192?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae40e4588#ht_3644wt_922
Michael
There doesn't appear to be an equivalent Novoflex for Canon EOS mount lenses.
Does anyone here have any experience (1st or 2nd hand) on how well the various offerings work and/or which is best?
-
I would say that's only necessarily the case if the sensor technologies are the same. A larger sensor can only leverage it's size so much if the technology of the smaller sensor is better. That's partly why we're seeing the performance of these brand new aps-c sensors bump up against the FF cameras that have been on the market for a few years. Of course, the new FF cameras coming soon will start the cycle all over again. Medium format is an interesting beast, because the sensors are so much larger, despite being relatively primitive in design compared to the latest aps-c CMOS sensors. Man, if Sony would scale up their newest EXMOR tech into 6x6 or 645, then we'd really be seeing something.
Of course! It's understood that advanced technology applied to the smaller pixel may result in that smaller pixel having all the attributes of an 'obsolete' larger pixel. Why bring that into the equation. It applies across all fields.
The essential point I'm making can be clearly seen when comparing the Canon 20D with the Canon 5D2 on the DXOMark website. The pixels are about the same size and quality, yet when you toggle between screen and print, the larger 5D2 sensor always has the advantage at print size. At pixel size, in screen mode, both cameras are about equal, although the 20D does seem to have slightly better color sensitivity. On the other hand, the 5D2 has very slightly better DR in screen mode.
The point I'm making is, if Sony were to come out tomorrow with a FF sensor consisting of 60m NEX-7 pixels, the resulting image, downsampled to the 24mp NEX-7 size, would be better in all respects, assuming equality of lenses used.
-
+1
Except downsampling adds artifacts. The truth is that we never use images without resampling, except when pixel peeping at actual pixels.
- When we print, we resample and apply dither.
- When we post we resample
- The human vision system obviously also resamples
Best regards
Erik
Of course! It's understood that advanced technology applied to the smaller pixel may result in that smaller pixel having all the attributes of an 'obsolete' larger pixel. Why bring that into the equation. It applies across all fields.
The essential point I'm making can be clearly seen when comparing the Canon 20D with the Canon 5D2 on the DXOMark website. The pixels are about the same size and quality, yet when you toggle between screen and print, the larger 5D2 sensor always has the advantage at print size. At pixel size, in screen mode, both cameras are about equal, although the 20D does seem to have slightly better color sensitivity. On the other hand, the 5D2 has very slightly better DR in screen mode.
The point I'm making is, if Sony were to come out tomorrow with a FF sensor consisting of 60m NEX-7 pixels, the resulting image, downsampled to the 24mp NEX-7 size, would be better in all respects, assuming equality of lenses used.
-
Hi,
Two different factors. Shot noise is little dependent on sensor technology and is normally dominant. Bigger sensors captures more photons, less shot noise.
Readout noise affects the darkest parts. Here sensor technology plays a major role, so DR increases with improved technology.
Best regards
Erik
I would say that's only necessarily the case if the sensor technologies are the same. A larger sensor can only leverage it's size so much if the technology of the smaller sensor is better. That's partly why we're seeing the performance of these brand new aps-c sensors bump up against the FF cameras that have been on the market for a few years. Of course, the new FF cameras coming soon will start the cycle all over again. Medium format is an interesting beast, because the sensors are so much larger, despite being relatively primitive in design compared to the latest aps-c CMOS sensors. Man, if Sony would scale up their newest EXMOR tech into 6x6 or 645, then we'd really be seeing something.
-
Ray, I was responding to your comment about medium format sensors, which will be quite a bit behind the next round of 135 sensors in tech, although I'm not saying one will be better than the other. As Erik mentions above, shot noise will be better in medium format, just maybe not DR.
-
Hi,
Just to clarify.
In DxO-mark terminology:
- DR is essentially Full Well capacity / readout noise -> measures readout noise, really, as long as sensor size is same
- Tonal range is shot noise (square root of Full Well Capacity)
- Screen: is actual pixels
- Print: normalized to given print size.
It's a bit oversimplified, but quite true.
Best regards
Erik
Ray, I was responding to your comment about medium format sensors, which will be quite a bit behind the next round of 135 sensors in tech, although I'm not saying one will be better than the other. As Erik mentions above, shot noise will be better in medium format, just maybe not DR.
-
I'm still not convinced about mirror-less ILC type cameras.
The problem as far as I can see is that you can't get small lenses unless you are using a smaller sensor.
Those with larger sensors (NEX, NX) have lenses that are not that small. I know why they do this as they've not nailed the offset micro lenses, if they did you would get genuinely small "range-finder type" lenses. As none have this I feel they are fundamentally flawed products from the world go.
I'm also not convinced with the 24mp sensor, few need that..and I feel the 16mp one is superior for lower light.
Bottom line I can't see the point of a small body with not very small lenses.
-
I'm still not convinced about mirror-less ILC type cameras.
The problem as far as I can see is that you can't get small lenses unless you are using a smaller sensor.....
Bottom line I can't see the point of a small body with not very small lenses.
Lenses are always a major consideration when buying into any system. My Nikkor 14-24 weighs a whole kilogram. My full frame D700 also weighs a whole kilogram. Sometimes when I have that lens attached to my D7k, which is a bit lighter at 800gms, the weight difference is not obvious and I may forget for a moment which body is attached to the lens.
However, a 350gms body attached to such a lens would definitely be noticeably lighter, but not necessarily noticeably lighter if we're talking about a 2Kg telephoto lens.
I'm also not convinced with the 24mp sensor, few need that..and I feel the 16mp one is superior for lower light.
Once again, when the greater number of pixels are downsampled, from 24mp to 16mp for example, the result is rarely worse and usually better. Whenever maximum telephoto reach is the goal, the greater number of pixels are usually of great beneft.
-
Ray, I was responding to your comment about medium format sensors, which will be quite a bit behind the next round of 135 sensors in tech, although I'm not saying one will be better than the other. As Erik mentions above, shot noise will be better in medium format, just maybe not DR.
I'm not a fan of MFDB by any stretch of the imagination. But one can't deny there is usually some IQ benefit from that larger sensor. If you compare sensors at DXOMark, you will find without exception that SNR at 18% grey for the MF sensor is better than for any smaller format, at equal image size.
However, this is not necessarily true for DR, which is SNR at 1% and 0.1% grey, that is, the deep shadows. And it's not true at higher ISO's. I guess if one is paying several thousand dollars a day to hire a model, that extra cost of an MFDB system to produce the creamiest skin tones is not such a big deal ;D .
-
Thank you Michael for listening to forum comments,
your NEX 7 review is the most interesting by far, compared to all other sites.
-
Barry, quite a few of the Samsung lenses are very small, and even the Sony lenses make a MUCH more compact system than any equivalent DSLR system. Sure, you can't put a NEX camera in your front pocket, but it is still considerably smaller than a DSLR in both size and weight. I wouldn't be able to fit half of my equivalent DSLR gear into the bag that I put my 5N and four lenses into. Heck, the DSLR on it's own would be too thick to fit into my Nex bag.
(D)SLRs have become unnecessarily large over the last 20 years, and these mirrorless cams are the backlash, finally.
-
Barry, quite a few of the Samsung lenses are very small, and even the Sony lenses make a MUCH more compact system than any equivalent DSLR system. Sure, you can't put a NEX camera in your front pocket, but it is still considerably smaller than a DSLR in both size and weight. I wouldn't be able to fit half of my equivalent DSLR gear into the bag that I put my 5N and four lenses into. Heck, the DSLR on it's own would be too thick to fit into my Nex bag.
(D)SLRs have become unnecessarily large over the last 20 years, and these mirrorless cams are the backlash, finally.
Backlash?
I was under the impression that there are a variety of camera types to suit various users? Seems to have been that way for some time now.
I can see the point about Samsung and their NX models, they have some pancake lenses which are obviously small (pancakes seem to be a logical move for these camera types)
When you move to other types of lenses zooms for example and fast primes such as the new Samsung 85mm f/1.4 ED SSA..it's far from small and looks completely at odds with a small body concept. I can completely buy into the small body pancake take makes sense. When you start to use other lenses it's a lot less appealing.
Problem for NEX is currently they just don't have the lenses to back it up, or course you can fit other lenses and fire away
I don't think DSLR's are that big I was trying a K-5 a few weeks ago and it's really rather compact. Not all DSLR's are full frame pro level Canon monster big/heavy
No problems with the choice aspect here, but I believe there are limits to small size and that is driven by the need to hold a camera in your hands. It would be a very strange thing to suggest all cameras need to be really small. Having held an A55 Sony SLT I can happily say the body is too small for me, with cramped controls. In this case smaller size= handling compromises.
Personally I see the ILC market as driven more by the desire to mount some older bargain glass on a body without any major hassles. I'm not sure that the lens ranges, nor other accessories will ever truly be a viable option for some DSLR users. Possibly a mistake to suggest ILC's will dominate the market, they have a place no question.
I'd know which I'd rather use for a wedding a DSLR is the obvious choice, I can't see how a NEX-7 would be a better choice for that. Let's not forget at current prices you can get a very decent DSLR and a pretty good lens for less than a NEX 7 just the body only. I'm standing by my offset micro lenses argument though without it these models will never really offer the kind of compact optics that a rangefinder does, bar doing a pancake for primes which can involve compromises in design too.
-
Backlash?
I was under the impression that there are a variety of camera types to suit various users? Seems to have been that way for some time now.
I can see the point about Samsung and their NX models, they have some pancake lenses which are obviously small (pancakes seem to be a logical move for these camera types)
When you move to other types of lenses zooms for example and fast primes such as the new Samsung 85mm f/1.4 ED SSA..it's far from small and looks completely at odds with a small body concept. I can completely buy into the small body pancake take makes sense. When you start to use other lenses it's a lot less appealing.
Problem for NEX is currently they just don't have the lenses to back it up, or course you can fit other lenses and fire away
I don't think DSLR's are that big I was trying a K-5 a few weeks ago and it's really rather compact. Not all DSLR's are full frame pro level Canon monster big/heavy
No problems with the choice aspect here, but I believe there are limits to small size and that is driven by the need to hold a camera in your hands. It would be a very strange thing to suggest all cameras need to be really small. Having held an A55 Sony SLT I can happily say the body is too small for me, with cramped controls. In this case smaller size= handling compromises.
Personally I see the ILC market as driven more by the desire to mount some older bargain glass on a body without any major hassles. I'm not sure that the lens ranges, nor other accessories will ever truly be a viable option for some DSLR users. Possibly a mistake to suggest ILC's will dominate the market, they have a place no question.
I'd know which I'd rather use for a wedding a DSLR is the obvious choice, I can't see how a NEX-7 would be a better choice for that. Let's not forget at current prices you can get a very decent DSLR and a pretty good lens for less than a NEX 7 just the body only. I'm standing by my offset micro lenses argument though without it these models will never really offer the kind of compact optics that a rangefinder does, bar doing a pancake for primes which can involve compromises in design too.
That's my point. There is finally a variety of camera types for various types of users, and now many of us aren't being forced to choose between some big, black blob of a DSLR. Even compared to the smallest DSLRs, NEX cameras are much smaller in 2 of 3 dimensions with native lenses, and the weight difference is even more noticeable. Of course, I bought a range of ZM lenses to use on the 5N, so my setup is smaller in 3 of 3 dimensions, but the vast majority of users still use native NEX lenses, and there is still a considerable size and weight difference between NEX and any DSLR.
I hold a camera by cradling under the lens, so camera body size doesn't make a huge difference for me, although I do use a leather half case on the 5N, which makes the grip about the same size as the NEX-7.
Of course, there are sport, wedding, etc. shooters that shouldn't use NEX Personally, although I'm only 34 years old, I've shot all cameras the same since high school (A or M mode,) and I don't often change a bunch of settings or operate the camera like a high powered weapon, so I don't need a ton of real estate for 25 buttons and special features. In fact, manual focus is so easy and enjoyable on NEX that I've sold off my A100, A700 and A900, as I found that I just wasn't using them anymore, because the 5N is just so much ore convenient to bring along for my kind of shooting. When I don't care about camera size, I'll just bring my Hasselblad along.
As for micro lenses, the main issue is actually in the sensor toppings. Removing the AA filter gets you a long way. Most current DSLR cameras already have a much better fill factor than the M9 with incident light angles, and the M9's IR filter is still thicker, too. Removing the AA filter and using software correction are the main advantages of the M9, in this regard. The new Ricoh GXR M mount is also very good with wide angle rangefinder lenses.
p.s. The funny thing is, I actually bought the A900 for the opposite reason. Getting a 135 sensor in a camera body not much bigger than my aps-c DSLRs was a no brainer, and the A900 wasn't really a noticeable change in weight or packable size. To me, many aps-c DSLRs are in no man's land, because they have the small sensor in a relatively large body. I would only buy a DSLR again if it is a 135 sensor in a small body (like K-5 size,) which should be doable by some maker.
-
p.s. The funny thing is, I actually bought the A900 for the opposite reason. Getting a 135 sensor in a camera body not much bigger than my aps-c DSLRs was a no brainer, and the A900 wasn't really a noticeable change in weight or packable size. To me, many aps-c DSLRs are in no man's land, because they have the small sensor in a relatively large body. I would only buy a DSLR again if it is a 135 sensor in a small body (like K-5 size,) which should be doable by some maker.
I agree. A 5DII is not much bigger than a Canon APS DSLR and I'd only want FF capable lenses for my Canons. So there is no size savings on lenses. The Nex and others is an entirely different concept and about the only reason I'd get an APS camera.
-
Cost is an obvious factor which is why APS-C is popular for DSLR's they are affordable for all. I had hoped full frame would come down in price, but that has not really happened as yet. It might we shall see but just as the Canon Rebel broke a price barrier in it's day, FF could.
I'm quite happy to use APS-C myself I think it's "good enough" for most folks. Just because some of the mirrorless cameras have APS-C sensors does not make then viable alternatives for many DSLR users. In addition to a DSLR possibly, or for some folks who don't really want one.
I'm also starting to tire greatly of the "resolution obsession" we see on many reviews and forums. I really don't think it's a serious issue anymore for the vast majority of people. Right now I don't really think many desire 24mp and going above that is unlikely to do much bar appeal to the big sticker crowd. But folks fell for it almost everyone I know (non photographers) thinks that more pixels = better. As we've seen with the compact market this is misleading and it's a shame to see some sites still on this old band wagon that ran out of steam years ago.
-
Well for me I find the Nex7 with a petite body and big lens' sexy! I always liked the look of sleek aircraft with large engines too.
Marc