Sony NEX-C3 and new firmware

[douglasf13]

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.

  I agree about the NEX lenses, in general.  However, for me, it is a non-issue, because rangefinder lenses are plenty small and very usable.  The Perar 35 f3.5 is laughably smaller than just about any lens available.  I did pick NEX over m4/3 because of both the IQ and crop factor differences.

[Ben Rubinstein]

With that new sensor now in the NEX bodies the IQ difference between that and something like the GF3 is not even arguably slight but huge. That sensor has been wowing people everywhere. Add the peaking and the ability to use a wider and cheaper selection of legacy lenses due to a smaller crop factor and put it this way, I can't wait for the NEX-C5 to be released...

[John Camp]

With that new sensor now in the NEX bodies the IQ difference between that and something like the GF3 is not even arguably slight but huge. That sensor has been wowing people everywhere. Add the peaking and the ability to use a wider and cheaper selection of legacy lenses due to a smaller crop factor and put it this way, I can't wait for the NEX-C5 to be released...

To tell the truth, I think it's only huge in terms of the way people now compare sensors. That is, it's a terrific sensor (I have a K5), but the major gains are at the margins. For *most* uses -- some high percentage -- you won't see much difference. You *will* see big differences at the margin, but I'm one of those people who don't shoot much in low light, so it's not quite so huge for me. Nevertheless, I would really like to see a m4/3 sensor that matches the Sony, and I think we'll eventually get it. For one thing, I doubt that Panasonic really likes to see it's arch rival kicking its ass with every sensor that goes out the door. IMHO.   

[feppe]

To tell the truth, I think it's only huge in terms of the way people now compare sensors. That is, it's a terrific sensor (I have a K5), but the major gains are at the margins. For *most* uses -- some high percentage -- you won't see much difference. You *will* see big differences at the margin, but I'm one of those people who don't shoot much in low light, so it's not quite so huge for me. Nevertheless, I would really like to see a m4/3 sensor that matches the Sony, and I think we'll eventually get it. For one thing, I doubt that Panasonic really likes to see it's arch rival kicking its ass with every sensor that goes out the door. IMHO.   

MFT will always lag behind in IQ purely because of sensor size*. But that's not really a relevant argument unless one is a gearhead, or has some specific needs not met by MFT sensors, cameras or lenses. I moved to MFT when the IQ met the first digital camera worthy of my money, Canon 30D. 30D was good enough when I bought it, and it still is - but now I have access to that IQ in a pocketable format. The upcoming sensors will be even better, in a much smaller package than any APS-C or even NEX camera system.

* unless Panasonic patents some magic dust which leapfrogs them ahead of the competition

[Pelao]

With that new sensor now in the NEX bodies the IQ difference between that and something like the GF3 is not even arguably slight but huge. That sensor has been wowing people everywhere. Add the peaking and the ability to use a wider and cheaper selection of legacy lenses due to a smaller crop factor and put it this way, I can't wait for the NEX-C5 to be released...

Yes, the sensor has gained a lot of attention, and for good reason. I wonder though are the photographs wowing people as much as the sensor's apparent technical ability.

In many ways, the sensor from a 5D will wow technically against a MFT sensor, but it's the overall ability of the camera and system (along with the photographer...) that makes photographs. If we were just buying a sensor then well and good, but we're not.

MFT will always lag behind in IQ purely because of sensor size*. But that's not really a relevant argument unless one is a gearhead, or has some specific needs not met by MFT sensors, cameras or lenses. I moved to MFT when the IQ met the first digital camera worthy of my money, Canon 30D. 30D was good enough when I bought it, and it still is - but now I have access to that IQ in a pocketable format. The upcoming sensors will be even better, in a much smaller package than any APS-C or even NEX camera system.

Yep.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I still shoot weddings with a pair of 5D's...

[Ben Rubinstein]

To tell the truth, I think it's only huge in terms of the way people now compare sensors. That is, it's a terrific sensor (I have a K5), but the major gains are at the margins. For *most* uses -- some high percentage -- you won't see much difference. You *will* see big differences at the margin, but I'm one of those people who don't shoot much in low light, so it's not quite so huge for me. Nevertheless, I would really like to see a m4/3 sensor that matches the Sony, and I think we'll eventually get it. For one thing, I doubt that Panasonic really likes to see it's arch rival kicking its ass with every sensor that goes out the door. IMHO.   

It's not just the bigger size, DR and noise but also the megapixels and the consumer buying their camera wants more megapixels (heck so do most photographers witness the success of the 5D mkII and IQ180).