Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: NEX-7 Rolling Review  (Read 80626 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #60 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?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #61 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.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 02:50:18 am by douglasf13 »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #62 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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #63 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.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #64 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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #65 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

« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 11:41:19 pm by Ray »
Logged

Jonathan Cross

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 645
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #66 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
Logged
Jonathan in UK

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #67 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
Logged
Marc McCalmont

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #68 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
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #69 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
Logged
Marc McCalmont

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #70 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).

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™.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:54:23 pm by Isaac »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #71 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).

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
Logged

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #72 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.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #73 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.

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?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 05:42:22 pm by Isaac »
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #74 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
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #75 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.
Logged

bobtowery

  • Antarctica 2016
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
    • http://bobtowery.typepad.com
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #76 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.
Logged
Bob
 ht

Maurício Costa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
    • Mauricio Costa
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #77 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...  ???
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #78 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
Logged

allenmacaulay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: NEX-7 Rolling Review
« Reply #79 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up