And Nikon launches a Mirrorless....

[Lonnie Utah]

The J1 also makes a lot more sense for someone invested in Nikon glass over the NEX.

With the 2.7 crop factor, I'm not convinced. This is especially true for someone like myself that shoots mostly ultra wide angle. The vast majority of my shots when landscaping are in the 16 mm range. To get that same field of view on the V1, I'd have to use a 6mm fisheye vs an 11mm lens on the nex. For someone with F-mount glass that was interested in that range, it would be just as easy and more practical to buy an F-mount to NEX adapter and manually focus.

For my own personal photography, this is of utmost interest to me as much of my work is well off the beaten path covering long distances with big elevation gains, carrying heavy loads. Even when streamlined down to my "quick kit", a full frame body, a few F/2.8 lenses and a tripod (not to mention non-photographic essentials like water, food and other supplies), my pack is pretty heavy (15-20 lbs). The thought of something like a NEX body lightening the load while still giving me the ability to easily print up to 24x36" is very appealing.

Edit: Here's an idea of how much gear I lug around on a regular basis. Ironically, this well know spot is right off the road. :lol:

 

[jonoslack]

With the 2.7 crop factor, I'm not convinced. This is especially true for someone like myself that shoots mostly ultra wide angle. The vast majority of my shots when landscaping are in the 16 mm range. To get that same field of view on the V1, I'd have to use a 6mm fisheye vs an 11mm lens on the nex. For someone with F-mount glass that was interested in that range, it would be just as easy and more practical to buy an F-mount to NEX adapter and manually focus.
[/img]

Well Lonnie - the answer is easy - you need an M9. You can have better resolution than any SLR will manage for less than a kilo with an M9 and a WATE.
But I agree a NEX is much more practical than the new Nikon
But I don't think the new Nikon is aimed at you!

 

[Lonnie Utah]

you need an M9.

If you want to buy me one then AWESOME! If not, I think I just have to toughen up and bare the load...

 

[etrigan63]

Lonnie, please don't "bare" anything!

Honestly, someone needs to link the spelling auto-correction to a grammar checker or we will have to "bear" more of these statements.

 

[Bob]

^^ This. Which is why the NEX-5n beats the V1 hands down. Not only does it have more MP, it also has better noise handling characteristics than the V1. Win, win. (It also costs $200 less so win, win, win.)

Buy what you want but it is not win, win, win.
More likely it is compromise, compromise, compromise.
-bob

 

[Bob]

With the 2.7 crop factor, I'm not convinced. This is especially true for someone like myself that shoots mostly ultra wide angle. The vast majority of my shots when landscaping are in the 16 mm range. To get that same field of view on the V1, I'd have to use a 6mm fisheye vs an 11mm lens on the nex. For someone with F-mount glass that was interested in that range, it would be just as easy and more practical to buy an F-mount to NEX adapter and manually focus.

For my own personal photography, this is of utmost interest to me as much of my work is well off the beaten path covering long distances with big elevation gains, carrying heavy loads. Even when streamlined down to my "quick kit", a full frame body, a few F/2.8 lenses and a tripod (not to mention non-photographic essentials like water, food and other supplies), my pack is pretty heavy (15-20 lbs). The thought of something like a NEX body lightening the load while still giving me the ability to easily print up to 24x36" is very appealing.

Edit: Here's an idea of how much gear I lug around on a regular basis. Ironically, this well know spot is right off the road. :lol:

Yup,
I think you might be well to pick up a full frame anything and three lenses and go light.
that pack will kill you someday :angel:
-bob

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Buy what you want but it is not win, win, win.
More likely it is compromise, compromise, compromise.
-bob

You're obviously not a fan of "the Office", as my reply was a veiled pop culture reference....

 

[Bob]

You're obviously not a fan of "the Office", as my reply was a veiled pop culture reference....

Ah that explains it.
Maybe explains all of it.
-bob

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

With the 2.7 crop factor, I'm not convinced. This is especially true for someone like myself that shoots mostly ultra wide angle. The vast majority of my shots when landscaping are in the 16 mm range. To get that same field of view on the V1, I'd have to use a 6mm fisheye vs an 11mm lens on the nex. For someone with F-mount glass that was interested in that range, it would be just as easy and more practical to buy an F-mount to NEX adapter and manually focus.

The only EVIL system that has a lens with a 16mm eqv. FOV is m4/3 with the rather good Panasonic 7-14mm. The widest lens for NEX at the moment is the 16mm (24mm eqv.), and even on NEX cameras with less pixels, it isn't a particularly good lens, at least not with regards to sharpness. Samples I've seen with the 5n taken with the 18-55mm at wide angles don't look good in the corners either, and I don't see any reason to believe that it will improve by increasing the pixel count by 50%.

Nikon has already shown a mock-up of a "wide-angle landscape zoom" lens, so there's clearly something in the making. We obviously don't know how good or bad that lens will be, but if anything, it's easier to make a good WA lens for a small sensor than for a larger one if the physical size of the lens is the same.

When I discussed NEX with the man who on a regular basis empties my wallet in exchange for optical items made from glass, plastic and aluminium yesterday and asked him if the NEX 7 would make him take up Sony again (which he gave up a year ago for many good reasons), he replied that he could probably sell a lot of them. "But what when people start asking for good quality lenses? Basically, there's only one at the moment, the 24mm.", he answered.

Interestingly, while internet fora are full of Nikon vs. Sony discussions at the moment, m4/3 seems to be the only one of these systems that is useable on a broad basis, with lots of good quality lenses and a wide choice of bodies. If the lenses are up to it, shooting with the NEX 7 would enable me to print 26% larger than with a GH2 used in 3:2 mode, but from what I've seen so far, I don't think they are up to it, at least not in the corners, which make those 26% a rather theoretical value.

 

[jonoslack]

Nikon has already shown a mock-up of a "wide-angle landscape zoom" lens, so there's clearly something in the making. We obviously don't know how good or bad that lens will be, but if anything, it's easier to make a good WA lens for a small sensor than for a larger one if the physical size of the lens is the same.

C'mon Jorgen - I'm sure that the Nikon will be fab, but just like the m4.3 cameras (the excellent 7-14 lens notwithstanding) . . . This is not the perfect camera for landscape (and nor are they) - even if the corners are sharp.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

The widest lens for NEX at the moment is the 16mm (24mm eqv.),

Not true. There are several A-mount lenses from multiple lens makers in the 11-18 or 10-20mm range that will fit on the NEX with the LA-EA1 and soon to be release LA-EA2. The LA-EA2 will even PDAF those lenses for you.

What you MEANT to say was there are no E-mount lenses for the NEX in that range. This 100% get's to my main issue with the 1 series. Even if you did put F-mount lenses on them, they aren't in the equl focal lengths that I need, and it's doubtful that a quality lens could be made that goes that wide given the physical constraints of the system.

 

[Terry]

Not true. There are several A-mount lenses from multiple lens makers in the 11-18 or 10-20mm range that will fit on the NEX with the LA-EA1 and soon to be release LA-EA2. The LA-EA2 will even PDAF those lenses for you.

What you MEANT to say was there are no E-mount lenses for the NEX in that range. This 100% get's to my main issue with the 1 series. Even if you did put F-mount lenses on them, they aren't in the equl focal lengths that I need, and it's doubtful that a quality lens could be made that goes that wide given the physical constraints of the system.

Lonnie - since you have decided in a hundred different ways that the Nikon makes no sense for you, why do you hang out on this thread? :deadhorse:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Not true. There are several A-mount lenses from multiple lens makers in the 11-18 or 10-20mm range that will fit on the NEX with the LA-EA1 and soon to be release LA-EA2. The LA-EA2 will even PDAF those lenses for you.

What you MEANT to say was there are no E-mount lenses for the NEX in that range. This 100% get's to my main issue with the 1 series. Even if you did put F-mount lenses on them, they aren't in the equl focal lengths that I need, and it's doubtful that a quality lens could be made that goes that wide given the physical constraints of the system.

One of the points with EVIL systems is compactness. If I have to use DSLR lenses to get sharp photos, I might as well buy a DSLR. The size of the body is not the biggest advantage with EVIL. Lens size is (except for Sony, since the NEX lenses are almost as large as DSLR lenses anyway).

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

C'mon Jorgen - I'm sure that the Nikon will be fab, but just like the m4.3 cameras (the excellent 7-14 lens notwithstanding) . . . This is not the perfect camera for landscape (and nor are they) - even if the corners are sharp.

If landscape photography includes a 48 hour trek or many days and nights on trains, buses, boats and planes, they are.

I do less than 10% of my photography at more than ISO 400 but 100% of my photography with sharp lenses. So which should I choose, clean high ISO or sharp lenses?

 

[Bob]

If landscape photography includes a 48 hour trek or many days and nights on trains, buses, boats and planes, they are.

I do less than 10% of my photography at more than ISO 400 but 100% of my photography with sharp lenses. So which should I choose, clean high ISO or sharp lenses?

There are good reasons for either side of the argument. One and perhaps the most important one is your style and how they fit.
I know quite a few folks especially amongst the younger crowd that claim that sharpness is over-rated. I have a hard time agreeing but that pretty much indicates that their is a choice for everyone out there.
-bob

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

There are good reasons for either side of the argument. One and perhaps the most important one is your style and how they fit.
I know quite a few folks especially amongst the younger crowd that claim that sharpness is over-rated. I have a hard time agreeing but that pretty much indicates that their is a choice for everyone out there.
-bob

Sharpness is overrated, but it's great to have a choice. The same goes for high ISO I guess, if one needs it. What puzzles me is how we went from doing rather well with ISO 400 10 years ago to needing at least 6400 these days. With film, I shot more than 50% with Velvia. That was ISO 50 for those with a short memory, 7 - seven - stops slower than 6400. That's like going from f/1.4 to f/16. What are people using all those fast primes for? Mantelpiece decorations?

Oh, and the young crowd... they use camera phones, don't they? I know one who is on the waiting list for a Nokia N9. It will replace his Nikon, I believe. For most people, that's probably a more relevant choice than any NEX, 1 or m4/3. I'm of the impression that it can be used for wireless phone calls as well. Technology nowadays, eh?

 

[Lonnie Utah]

One of the points with EVIL systems is compactness. If I have to use DSLR lenses to get sharp photos, I might as well buy a DSLR. The size of the body is not the biggest advantage with EVIL. Lens size is (except for Sony, since the NEX lenses are almost as large as DSLR lenses anyway).

I tell you what. Why don't you come out here with me, and we'll go a little hiking. Let's say nothing really hard, just 10-15 miles (16-24 Km) with 2,000-3,000 (600-1,000 M) vertical feet of elevation gain at elevations of 9,000-10,000'+ (2,800 - 3,100+ M). You can carry my A900 and I'll carry my nex with equivalent DSLR lenses. When we are done, I'll let you revisit your hypothesis.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I tell you what. Why don't you come out here with me, and we'll go a little hiking. Let's say nothing really hard, just 10-15 miles (16-24 Km) with 2,000-3,000 (600-1,000 M) vertical feet of elevation gain at elevations of 9,000-10,000'+ (2,800 - 3,100+ M). You can carry my A900 and I'll carry my nex with equivalent DSLR lenses. When we are done, I'll let you revisit your hypothesis.

Thanks, but I'd rather carry my m4/3 gear. More resolution and less weight

 

[Steen]

nay


As a passionate pixel peeper and nay sayer I recommend that you stick to your 8.5 and 6 µm pixel pitch cameras :lecture:

My expectation is that this new generation of cameras with pixel sizes around 3.5 - 4 µm will require aggressive in-camera noise reduction, optics of unrealistic resolving power and governmental cancellation of diffraction .-)

Of course, at the end it’s all just a matter of personal preferences.
Some want pixel quantity, others (like me) prefer pixel quality.

is this development really what we want ...

 

[jonoslack]

Re: nay

As a passionate pixel peeper and nay sayer I recommend that you stick to your 8.5 and 6 µm pixel pitch cameras :lecture:

My expectation is that this new generation of cameras with pixel sizes around 3.5 - 4 µm will require aggressive in-camera noise reduction, optics of unrealistic resolving power and governmental cancellation of diffraction .-)

Of course, at the end it’s all just a matter of personal preferences.
Some want pixel quantity, others (like me) prefer pixel quality.

is this development really what we want ...

​

HI Steen
I hope you're well - interesting comparison here.
I remember visiting Minolta . . erm . . . 20 years ago? The same discussion had come up with respect to the Minolta Vectis and the resolving power of lenses.

The point was that lenses made for smaller film (read sensor) inherently have better resolving power than those made for large sensors (if this were not the case, then phones would be a catastrophe) - I'm no optical specialist, but I believed what I was told!

So, of course, the argument with respect to the D3s vs the A900 is relevant - but not so relevant between them and the A77 and the V1, because of the smaller sensors.

Sure, bigger pixels are going to be better for 100% pixel peeping, but in my experience more pixels is often better for printing to a certain size.

As for noise - I haven't applied noise reduction to anything under 1600 ISO for at least a couple of years - it might be there, but with higher mp it really isn't relevant unless you want to print huge and view from an unreasonably close distance. . . . . . . or view onscreen at 100%!