Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion  (Read 20467 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2011, 01:52:39 am »

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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2011, 03:54:18 am »

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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2011, 04:25:47 am »

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.


Quote
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.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2011, 04:45:35 am »

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 .
Logged

Anadrol

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2011, 08:43:37 am »

Thank you Michael for listening to forum comments,
your NEX 7 review is the most interesting by far, compared to all other sites.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2011, 01:44:17 pm »

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.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2011, 06:39:33 am »

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.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2011, 01:34:48 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 01:39:00 pm by douglasf13 »
Logged

AlanG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2011, 06:17:22 pm »


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.
Logged
Alan Goldstein
[url=http://www.Goldstein

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2011, 05:55:41 am »

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.

Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: NEX7 Rolling Review -- conclusion
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2011, 08:13:41 pm »

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
Logged
Marc McCalmont
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up