Nex 7

[mcbroomf]

Hi Michael,
Great 1st impressions report.  Thanks very much.

The comparison between the zeiss and leica 24mm.  Why is the center crop of the leica so bad (just looks OOF).  Microlense/pixels, if an issue, don't come into play until the edge of the sensor, and then anecdotaly are on lenses shorter than 24mm, and also largely fixed on the 3C and 5N.

Regards

[douglasf13]

I'm also curious about these crops. Strange.

[stever]

i'm excited that Michael's experience lives up to my hopes from specifications.  however, i'm concerned how long it will take Sony develop a useful complement of E-mount lenses that can take advantage of the sensor.  although a wide angle zoom is on their roadmap, what they really need is an 11 or 12mm high quality prime - f4 is fine if the edges hold up.  the 16mm pancake seems a bit odd as i think most of us would rather put a 24 or 30mm pancake in our pocket - a pocketable camera with the reported image quality would really get me excited.  in short, we need pocket battleship lenses, not lenses that turn the NEX-7 into a full size and weight battleship or lenses designed down to the price of the NEX-3

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'd presume that Michael made sure the lens was properly focused. Could focus shift have come in play? Great review!

Best regards
Erik

I'm also curious about these crops. Strange.

[John Camp]

I have suggested in other forums discussions that the critical difference between the Nex cameras and m4/3 is that the Nex uses what amount to full-sized lenses, while the m4/3 is substantially more compact. In other words, the Nex is more usefully compared to the D7000 or the K5 than to m4/3. But since both the m4/3 and the Nex are EVF systems, they tend to be lumped together. So a few questions, since I know you [Michael] have experience with both systems:

There is inevitably a difference in image quality because of the different sensor size, but I'm curious about where that kicks in on prints. Would you see much difference, say, at 13x19 using the best Panasonic vs. the best Sony lenses?

Do you *feel* like the size difference between Nex and m4/3 is notable? In terms of being discreet as you shoot, and in terms of carrying, say, a mid- or long-length zoom?

Are there times when you would prefer, as a shooting strategy, the m4/3 cameras?

[Alistair]

I'm also curious about these crops. Strange.

And me. There is more going on here than angle of attack. Can we really save $5k or is it as simple as mis-focus?

[NigelC]

Interesting to see how an NEX-7/18-200 stacks up as an alternative to the Panasonic GH2/14-140. I still feel lukewarm towards this after 6 months, mainly because I don't find it appealing in a tactile sense, although it delivers on a many counts. As described in the preview, Sony appears to have a lot more object appeal.

[NikoJorj]

The comparison between the zeiss and leica 24mm.  Why is the center crop of the leica so bad (just looks OOF).  Microlense/pixels, if an issue, don't come into play until the edge of the sensor

I was also a bit surprised ( - could deserve a comparison with the famous chinese 26/1.4 CCTV lens)... but about problems with microlenses right at the sensor center, yes there are.
Though, something like focus shift could make a good suspect, but that may not be the case for the 24summilux (see diglloyd's review) - field curvature shouldn't too, if any.

[JohnBrew]

The center crops of the Leica comparison bother me, also. For starters they aren't depicting the same size crops between the two lenses. Doesn't look like a fair fight to me.

[Kenneth Sky]

This thread is degenerating into a discussion about Michael's technique and an apologia for a great lens not performing well on a camera for which it was not designed. Can't people just accept the facts as reported?

[PierreVandevenne]

The center crops of the Leica comparison bother me, also. For starters they aren't depicting the same size crops between the two lenses. Doesn't look like a fair fight to me.

Does it need to be a fair fight?

Michael's pictures demonstrate a very important point, imho - in those small cameras where the constraints are very tight for proper positioning, incoming light and micro-lens geometry, there is a risk to see good lenses perform horribly in some systems.

[NikoJorj]

This thread is degenerating into a discussion about Michael's technique [...]

Just to be clear, it goes without saying (but better saying it) that such an inference wasn't in my mind. 

Having just bought a µ4/3 camera and reading here and there about adapting rangefinder lenses on it, I just want to understand what can wreck IQ to such an extent.
Some weird issue may be at work, such as the microlenses being non-lightproof between each other, spilling light to neighboring pixels when fed with oblique light, and as such acting as a mighty AA filter - I'm just thinking out loud here...

But this is only one point in Michael's very informative report, and this particular discussion may well be moved to its own thread.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Typo Michael: "a very week anti-aliasing filter"

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That's canadian for being not very strong, mostly used on sundays ;-)

Erik

Typo Michael: "a very week anti-aliasing filter"

[bobtowery]

Seems to me there is a great deal to like about this camera. A real evolution in small form factor.  I nearly always enjoy MR's compositions, and having numerous images enhances the technical impression for me.  A quick video to just get an impression of size in hand would be helpful. Here is one on youtube that could be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YemKW-5zKc&feature=related.

If it turns out the Leica lenses aren't very usable then that will be a big negative for me (having just bought several). So I'm looking forward to the Michael revisiting this part of the test. 

Thanks this introductory review Michael.

[JohnBrew]

Bob, thanks for the link. It was very helpful as to size in the hand. It's actually larger than I had originally surmised.

[Jeff Kott]

I have suggested in other forums discussions that the critical difference between the Nex cameras and m4/3 is that the Nex uses what amount to full-sized lenses, while the m4/3 is substantially more compact. In other words, the Nex is more usefully compared to the D7000 or the K5 than to m4/3.

For me, the difference is with an adapter I can use M mount lenses on the NEX. We could also compare it to Leica.

I just got a NEX 5N and viewfinder (I have a preorder in for a NEX 7) and I can tell you that my ZM 35/2.8 works great on the camera (thank you Phase One for providing NEX 5N and preliminary NEX 7 support in C1 6.3).

I'm heading off to Wyoming this weekend with my NEX 5N, my ZM 35/2.8 and CV 75/2.5 (M mount) and yes the camera and lenses are much more compact than my D300, ZF 35/2 and CV 75/2.5 SL I (F Mount).

You have to try the new Sony OLED viewfinder to understand how easy it is to nail manual focus with the NEX.

[douglasf13]

Does it need to be a fair fight?

Michael's pictures demonstrate a very important point, imho - in those small cameras where the constraints are very tight for proper positioning, incoming light and micro-lens geometry, there is a risk to see good lenses perform horribly in some systems.

I have personally used many M lenses on the NEX-5, and have seen thousands of images with just about every M lens on the NEX cameras, and I've never seen performance as poor as Michael's Summilux, especially in the center.  Something is up there.  BTW, the newer NEX-C3 and NEX-5N actually have improved micro lenses at the edges, and they are performing better than the first generation NEX cameras.  Sony has clearly understood that many use rangefinder lenses on NEX, and I can't imagine that they'd not include the improved micro lenses on the NEX-7.

[mcbroomf]

This thread is degenerating into a discussion about Michael's technique and an apologia for a great lens not performing well on a camera for which it was not designed. Can't people just accept the facts as reported?

I guess my response is to question the facts when the don't seem to correspond to my own tests and those of others..

also Michael has added this note..
"UPDATE: It looks like I may have muffed the Zeiss / Summilix lens comparison in my just published NEX-7 report. I will redo this test as soon as I can assemble all of the gear again, this time in a more controled environment."

Based on other aspects of Michaels report I've requested the B&H notification when they get them in stock and will have not hestitation in buying one.

[PierreVandevenne]

I agree that the whole situation is a bit weird. Either the lens really doesn't mate with the camera or Michael posted a comparison based on dramatically out of focus images without realizing it. Either option seems at first sight to be equally improbable.

But since F/8, things start to improve... Also, I find the amount of purple fringing in the center at wider apertures excessive even for an out of focus image.  Last, I would expect it to be worse in the corners, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Puzzling