Sony NEX-C3 and new firmware

[douglasf13]

Michael, thanks for the preliminary write up about the NEX-C3 and focus peaking function. The NEX cameras have been adopted by many of us for using old lenses, and the peaking will make focus very fast.

After seeing your Clearviewer mention, I wanted to show you my Clearviewer mod, the "nexviewer," that many of us are using...Clearviewer themselves are even selling a modded piece for it. The "nexviewer" was developed in the spirit of Hassy finders, and it folds down nice and small. My need for a NEX EVF has officially been erased by this mod, and glare is a non-issue with it.  FWIW, I have no affiliation with Clearviewer, and I'm not profiting from this easy mod. I just thought you might dig it.
LINK for more info

[feppe]

That was a good article. As someone who's main system is now Micro Four Thirds (I sold my entire APS-C kit recently), I'm looking jealously at peaking. There are no native fast portrait lenses for MFT, yet, so I rely on a legacy MF lens (Hexanon 57mm f/1.4). It's a great lens, but MF is painful: one has to go to 10x or 14x magnification, and focusing manually is an exercise in frustration on a tripod, and an exercise in self flagellation handheld.

There are new cameras expected to be announced in June, Panasonic's tiny response to NEX-C3, and one or two MFT cameras from Olympus, probably with a new sensor. I believe Samsung is also updating their NX selection this year. Exciting times with mirrorless cameras.

What's the benefit of Clearviewer over LCD use? I'm a bit surprisingly not at all missing OVF/EVF, and not entirely sure how a loupe over the screen would help.

[Pelao]

Does anyone know if Michael will be looking at the Panasonic G3? His field reviews are very useful for me, and I would be interested in a comparison with the GH2, which he has reviewed.

Anyway, in the meantime, thanks for the C3 comments. I hope the Nex 7, and some good primes, come true. If so, I will look closely.

[douglasf13]

That was a good article. As someone who's main system is now Micro Four Thirds (I sold my entire APS-C kit recently), I'm looking jealously at peaking. There are no native fast portrait lenses for MFT, yet, so I rely on a legacy MF lens (Hexanon 57mm f/1.4). It's a great lens, but MF is painful: one has to go to 10x or 14x magnification, and focusing manually is an exercise in frustration on a tripod, and an exercise in self flagellation handheld.

There are new cameras expected to be announced in June, Panasonic's tiny response to NEX-C3, and one or two MFT cameras from Olympus, probably with a new sensor. I believe Samsung is also updating their NX selection this year. Exciting times with mirrorless cameras.

What's the benefit of Clearviewer over LCD use? I'm a bit surprisingly not at all missing OVF/EVF, and not entirely sure how a loupe over the screen would help.

  With my Clearviewer mod above, you get most of the things that make EVFs/OVFs advantageous, like no glare and extra stability, as well as those that just prefer having the camera up to their face.  Interestingly, compared to even the best current EVFs, the Clearviewer mod has a much larger view, more resolution, none of the tearing issues, folds down smaller than an external EVF, and is much cheaper.  The main disadvantage with the mod is that there is some pincushion distortion, but it doesn't bother me.

  Personally, I shoot the NEX-5 at chest level with the above mod, and I look down into the camera at around a 45 degree angle or so.

[adi]

Hello,

I enjoyed reading the NEX-C3 article, which from my point of view highlights useful features as well as shortcomings from the camera's design. 

I only want to add a comment to better balance the section 'The Lens / Size / Aperture Quandary', which well describes in a paragraph disadvantages in lower light conditions, while advantages in bright light are only briefly mentioned. Besides the added resolution from the 16 MPixels, more importantly diffraction loss is significantly reduced thanks to the large sensor size, most evidently at small apertures.

[barryfitzgerald]

It's quite clear that Sony still "don't really get it". The small body only makes sense if they had a nice range of good pancake primes. Granted you can dig about and use some older MF lenses and great if that's what you want.

The kit lens is too big not because of the laws of optics, but because the lens sits so close to the sensor I'd wager they are not using offset micro lenses..it would not be that hard to make a smaller lens. No built in flash is also puzzling as is the lack of proper controls or a viewfinder. I'll pass thanks very much..so far nobody has really nailed this compact system camera satisfactorily.

And I think it's potential growth is not as big as some suggest..average Joe isn't likely to be buying anywhere near as many lenses as an SLR system. As most profits are in lenses it has limited impact longer term in the market.

[Wayne Fox]

It's quite clear that Sony still "don't really get it". The small body only makes sense if they had a nice range of good pancake primes. Granted you can dig about and use some older MF lenses and great if that's what you want.

The kit lens is too big not because of the laws of optics, but because the lens sits so close to the sensor I'd wager they are not using offset micro lenses..it would not be that hard to make a smaller lens. No built in flash is also puzzling as is the lack of proper controls or a viewfinder. I'll pass thanks very much..so far nobody has really nailed this compact system camera satisfactorily.

And I think it's potential growth is not as big as some suggest..average Joe isn't likely to be buying anywhere near as many lenses as an SLR system. As most profits are in lenses it has limited impact longer term in the market.

Some good points, as far as potential growth hard to predict ... I can't keep the NEX-5 and a55  in stock, yet don't move many of the dSLR's. Many are buying the 18-200mm lens for the NEX-5.  Yes, it's a big lens, but it's not uncomfortable to hold with a big range and image quality of most APS dSLR's. I've switched to this combo for a "backup" or carry around camera.

As for more profitability in lenses, with Canon or Nikon margins are very tight because of all the aggressive discounting ... doesn't matter lens or body.  (ie ... small dealers are making little and probably losing money selling these).

As far as potential growth, tough for Sony to compete with the big two, they are trying to do it with some innovation, but they keep tripping themselves up a little by "innovating" something that isn't as appealing such as the new C3.  Unfortunately for them, many photographers don't see Sony as a serious camera company ... their lack of interest in the dSLR space lends some credence to that point of view.

[douglasf13]

It's quite clear that Sony still "don't really get it". The small body only makes sense if they had a nice range of good pancake primes. Granted you can dig about and use some older MF lenses and great if that's what you want.

The kit lens is too big not because of the laws of optics, but because the lens sits so close to the sensor I'd wager they are not using offset micro lenses..it would not be that hard to make a smaller lens. No built in flash is also puzzling as is the lack of proper controls or a viewfinder. I'll pass thanks very much..so far nobody has really nailed this compact system camera satisfactorily.

And I think it's potential growth is not as big as some suggest..average Joe isn't likely to be buying anywhere near as many lenses as an SLR system. As most profits are in lenses it has limited impact longer term in the market.

  With NEX, it really depends on what kind of user one is.  For more traditional shooters, like me, the NEX-5 couldn't be much better.  I keep the camera in M mode with spot metering.  I can assign one button to ISO and the other to focus magnification, and the wheel on the back controls shutter speed.  I nearly always use manual, rangefinder lenses, so the aperture control is on the lens itself.  So, I rarely have to dive into a single menu.  Granted, I'm a raw only shooter, so I don't need to mess with jpeg settings, although there are a couple of banks open on the C button for me, if I do need to assign more functions.  I've never cared about on board flash, so that's a non-issue, and I actually use the add on flash as a removable strobe trigger.  The nexviewer above is better than an EVF in most ways, so I'm not really interested in that anymore, either.

  The NEX cameras may not make sense to many, but there certainly seems to be a population of manual lens users that love the camera. Heck, I traded in my A700 and A900 after using one for a few months, and it kept me from buying an M9!  Focus peaking will be icing on the cake.

[feppe]

The kit lens is too big not because of the laws of optics, but because the lens sits so close to the sensor I'd wager they are not using offset micro lenses..it would not be that hard to make a smaller lens.

You don't think Sony wouldn't make smaller lenses if they could? Some MFT cameras are smaller with equivalent FOV lenses - not sure about C3 but the upcoming Panny will most likely be even smaller -, so Sony has a real incentive to do so.

No built in flash is also puzzling as is the lack of proper controls or a viewfinder.

Then the camera is not designed for you - those compromises are necessary to make the camera smaller for those who want a small system camera. There are plenty of alternatives with flash, "proper" controls and viewfinder, with or without a mirror, but they are all bigger, of course.

[douglasf13]

You don't think Sony wouldn't make smaller lenses if they could? Some MFT cameras are smaller with equivalent FOV lenses - not sure about C3 but the upcoming Panny will most likely be even smaller -, so Sony has a real incentive to do so.

Then the camera is not designed for you - those compromises are necessary to make the camera smaller for those who want a small system camera. There are plenty of alternatives with flash, "proper" controls and viewfinder, with or without a mirror, but they are all bigger, of course.

Yeah, some MFT lenses also have massive distortion that is corrected in the camera, which also enables them to go smaller.

[feppe]

Yeah, some MFT lenses also have massive distortion that is corrected in the camera, which also enables them to go smaller.

No correction for us RAW shooters. I've profiled my lenses with Adobe profiler. The 14-45mm Panasonic kit lens has quite a bit of distortion - not a surprise, but there are not enough primes to fill the gaps, yet.

[douglasf13]

No correction for us RAW shooters. I've profiled my lenses with Adobe profiler. The 14-45mm Panasonic kit lens has quite a bit of distortion - not a surprise, but there are not enough primes to fill the gaps, yet.

 I believe some programs like ACR already have distortion correction built in for the 20mm and 14mm, no?

[feppe]

I believe some programs like ACR already have distortion correction built in for the 20mm and 14mm, no?

They do, but the profiles I created for the 20mm and 14-45mm are better than the default. It could be because I use the Panny lenses on an Olympus body, though, so they might not be corrected.

[barryfitzgerald]

Couple of follow up comments regarding the size of lenses a few things stick out

Mount size I think this could have been made smaller myself
Lenses are using built in AF motors which will add some size to the lens

Check out the 16mm prime lens image below

And a tiny bit of glass in the middle!

Leaving those points aside add half a dozen pancake lenses and you'll def get more interest from users. NEX could be pretty appealing with the right lenses in place.
It loses it's size appeal when you mount other lenses. Of course I appreciate some of the fun is getting an adaptor and using legacy older lenses from other makers..that's not a bad thing to have.

[Pelao]

Leaving those points aside add half a dozen pancake lenses and you'll def get more interest from users. NEX could be pretty appealing with the right lenses in place.
It loses it's size appeal when you mount other lenses. Of course I appreciate some of the fun is getting an adaptor and using legacy older lenses from other makers..that's not a bad thing to have.

I agree. Sony needs to increase it's level of commitment to the Nex mount with a decent range of good lenses. The MFT  mount is solidly ahead. Sony's sensors are 'better' for sure, but in terms of the end output (images for web or prints to, say, 13 x 19) I think most of us will find it hard to see a difference.

I suspect that part of Sony's challenge is their SLT series. By having a more consumer range of lenses and no VF etc., they stop the Nex competing with the SLT for more 'serious' photographers.

[douglasf13]

Remember, the mount is only one year old, and Sony promised all of these lenses sometime throughout this year and next:

[Pelao]

Remember, the mount is only one year old, and Sony promised all of these lenses sometime throughout this year and next:

Yes, I am aware of the lens roadmap, but if you look at the specifications released to date, they are not particularly impressive. More to the point, few have been released, whereas the MFT camp is well populated, with more coming this week and later in the summer.

[douglasf13]

Considering m4/3 has been out for 3 years, that should be expected, no? Besides, many of us wouldn't consider m4/3 because of sensor size. Honestly, I think Samsung NX has the most impressive native lens roadmap, but none of it matters to me much, because I'm using Zeiss M glass.

[feppe]

Yes, I am aware of the lens roadmap, but if you look at the specifications released to date, they are not particularly impressive. More to the point, few have been released, whereas the MFT camp is well populated, with more coming this week and later in the summer.

There are some rather wide gaps in MFT lineup, though. Mainly a fast AF/IS portrait prime is missing, as are high-quality wide angle primes. If one is ok with slow or slowish zooms of varying quality, MFT is great, but good quality lenses with high IQ, AF and/or IS are few. There are some very promising rumors and it should get better as you said - and just today it did.

[John Camp]

There are some rather wide gaps in MFT lineup, though. Mainly a fast AF/IS portrait prime is missing, as are high-quality wide angle primes. If one is ok with slow or slowish zooms of varying quality, MFT is great, but good quality lenses with high IQ, AF and/or IS are few. There are some very promising rumors and it should get better as you said - and just today it did.

You can get a fairly wide range (7-300) of good, if somewhat slow, MFT lenses. As a former film guy, that doesn't affect me much, because I'm perfectly happy shooting 800 or 1600 with a MFT and the slower lenses. There's also the Voightlander 0.95 25mm in a native MFT mount, which Michael likes, and now the new "Leica" 25mm. I was a bit disappointed that this Leica was a 25mm, although I guess it makes some sense, to come out with a fast "normal." But I think a 45mm fast portrait lens would have been preferable. And I think it will come.

But no matter, because the main thing about MFT is size. Frankly, I don't think the NEX and MFT are direct competitors -- rather, the NEX is competing against other APS-C cameras because of the size of its lenses. The key to MFT is simply size, nothing more. The four-thirds concept was dying before MFT came along, because nobody could think of a good reason for it. The cameras were essentially as large as APS-C cameras, but the sensor was smaller, and slightly less capable, in comparable generations. The whole game changed with MFT -- both the cameras and the lenses are sharply smaller, and yet, the quality is good enough even for most commercial purposes. (Though if I were going to be a commercial photographer, I would not choose MFT, or APS-C, I'd go full-frame or larger.)

The problem with NEX is that the lenses can't shrink much. It's like the reverse of the problem that the full-sized four-thirds had. What's the point of a tiny body if the lenses can't shrink? You still wind up with a bulky system. Sure, you save some weight with the small bodies, but you also lose function available in larger bodies (like the mirrors -- EVF may someday rival the quality of a good mirror, but it won't be soon.) If you're going to have big lenses anyway, you might as well go with slightly larger bodies: the Pentax K5, for example, which uses the same sensor as the new NEX, is a pretty small camera, with a really fine optical viewfinder.

MFT loses a bit of quality to the APS-C sensors, but not much -- probably undetectable by most people in most common print sizes. What it has is, the very small lenses to go with the compact bodies. I can carry a wide range of lenses and three MFT bodies in a Leica pack meant for two bodies; I can carry an GF1 with either of two pancakes, attached,in a jacket pocket, and a nice zoom in the other jacket pocket, and have a pretty good system with me. Can't do that with NEX. Can't even do it with a Leica.

I would jump to NEX in one minute if they could figure out a way to shrink the lenses. I don't necessarily need the extra IQ, but I'd like it, if I could keep the system small. I don't think they will be able (or willing) to do that. The biggest benefit and the thing that would really make the smallness of the NEX more viable would be four or five good pancake primes (look at Pentax as a model.)

Anyway, I think arguing about IQ between NEX and MFT is a little goofy - not only is there not much difference, IQ is not the reason people will go to one of these systems. It's size, and not just body size, but in-the-hand size. In the purse size. Long-distance-travel size.