The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A list of lenses that have been tested on the NEX--good and bad!

MPK2010

New member
For me there is no question that if I had a choice between an M9 and NEX I would take the M9. It is hard to see that even being a question. Where the NEX is weakest with M lenses is where they really shine on the M cameras -- wide open -- although there is no smearing, the look is often "flatter" than on the M9 files I've seen. Also, the out-of-focus rendering is sometimes less pleasant than for the same lens on an M8 (and I assume M9). And of course, M cameras are simply as fun to use as a camera gets and built to take some abuse. And this is without even getting to the issue of many wides just working better on the M cameras, presumably due to microlenses.

I would say, though, that with certain M lenses at certain focal lengths I have been able to obtain results with the NEX that I am quite happy with; it looks signficantly better than NEX+Kit or m43+M lens. I.e. in the situations where "it works", the file is not put to shame by comparison with the M8, especially when you consider the added flexibility in post.

Of course, there are also many times where I know the M8 would have done better, particularly at wide apertures, and I'm sure the M9 even better. Ideally, I would have an M9 plus an NEX as a very-low-light or backup cam that makes me look even less noticeable, i.e. like a tourist with a point-and-shoot. Unfortunately, I can't justify running an M9 at the same time as the A850 and with landscape my priority I am sticking with the A850 for now. But I would trade several NEXs for an M9.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Vivek,

Pray tell what is a "real camera" and what makes it so?
John,

Without letting you speak for me, I will answer that question. ;)

If the NEX-5 were to be holdable comfortably after having framed and focused a subject and before tripping the shutter, it would have been a real camera- this has something to do with a thing called ergonomics.

If the NEX-5 were to have a finder, it would have made it more useful.

If the NEX' have possibility use other than the supplied peanut flash that no one seems to use, it would have been tolerable.

If the NEX-5 had less of a shotgun shutter (it really startles me every time I tried to use it).....

.........

(Sometimes, unpredictably, my NEX-5 turns itself off totally, even with a fully charged battery. I need to turn it off and back on again to make it work. But, that is only a minor quirk. ;) )
 

barjohn

New member
Vivek,

I hope you don't think I was trying to speak for you. I wasn't. As to ergonomics, it really depends on the individual and how you chose or prefer to shoot. I have owned the M8 (same size as M9) and the ergonomics were not very good. Hence the need for the hand grip addition or the "Thumbs Up", which I preferred, I had both. I liked the view finder but found that due to my less than perfect eyesight (an ergonomic issue) and its lack of diopter adjustment (something they could and should have added as part of the RF mechanism, focusing was an issue for me. Additionally, I didn't like the size and weight. When out for casual dining etc. while on vacations it was always a question of where do I set this down that it won't get knocked off the small table, stolen or damaged. With the NEX 5 (and I don't consider it the be all end all of cameras by the way), I find that waist shooting with the screen flipped out and using my thumb on the shutter button is an ergonomic position I really like for shooting and it gives a perspective that is different than holding it up and out and it is easy to MF this way. I too would like a EVF as that would make it more comfortable for me to use held up to my face. I find the little flash perfect for what I use a flash for and really don't want to add or carry a big flash around. I don't find the shutter noise particularly objectionable and I haven't had a single comment about the shutter sound from anyone I have taken a picture of. On the street it is hardly noticeable.
 

roweraay

New member
John,

Without letting you speak for me, I will answer that question. ;)

If the NEX-5 were to be holdable comfortably after having framed and focused a subject and before tripping the shutter, it would have been a real camera- this has something to do with a thing called ergonomics.

If the NEX-5 were to have a finder, it would have made it more useful.

If the NEX' have possibility use other than the supplied peanut flash that no one seems to use, it would have been tolerable.

If the NEX-5 had less of a shotgun shutter (it really startles me every time I tried to use it).....

.........

(Sometimes, unpredictably, my NEX-5 turns itself off totally, even with a fully charged battery. I need to turn it off and back on again to make it work. But, that is only a minor quirk. ;) )
Even though I do agree that having an EVF and direct control over the exposure (PASM and ISO) via dedicated dials/buttons would have made the NEX far more useful than its current iteration, I disagree with the notion that it is not a "real camera".

Many of the the things you state about a shutter that "startles you" or the supplied "peanut flash" etc have got nothing to do with the camera being "real" or not.

The NEX5 has got several strengths and weaknesses (as with any other camera) and you simply have to leverage the strengths and work around the weaknesses.....or move onto something different.

PS: I sold my NEX5 yesterday but that has got nothing to do with its not being a "real camera". The announcement of the Sony A55, which could natively utilize all of my A-mount lenses, while having Phase Detect AF during Video recording, was the triggering point for the NEX biting the dust in my case. My main purpose from the NEX5 was to shoot HD video with it, and the A55 seems to serve that purpose better. The ability to shoot video footage with the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 or the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar and/or other lenses like the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar or the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar, with full Phase-detect tracking AF was just too tempting to pass up.:cool:
 

douglasf13

New member
Ha! John, I hold the camera he same way much of the time. I like shooting this way so much that it is causing me to ignore the A900 sitting lonely on my shelf. :) I really had no idea how much I missed waistlevel shooting.
 

sebboh

New member
If the NEX-5 were to be holdable comfortably after having framed and focused a subject and before tripping the shutter, it would have been a real camera- this has something to do with a thing called ergonomics.

If the NEX-5 were to have a finder, it would have made it more useful.

If the NEX' have possibility use other than the supplied peanut flash that no one seems to use, it would have been tolerable.

If the NEX-5 had less of a shotgun shutter (it really startles me every time I tried to use it).....

.........

(Sometimes, unpredictably, my NEX-5 turns itself off totally, even with a fully charged battery. I need to turn it off and back on again to make it work. But, that is only a minor quirk. ;) )
i don't care much for the meaningless (and rather condescending) term "real camera" but it sounds like it is definitely not the type of camera you are looking for. it fits my purposes wonderfully though. this is why companies make different kinds of cameras, not everyone is looking for the same thing.

i have no need for an added grip, i can hold it quite comfortably and certainly don't want it to be any larger.

i don't want an attached finder as that would make the camera to big for my use. i am hopeful that sony will release a clip on evf for the few times when i want a finder.

i have no use for any flash on a camera this small if i wanted to use a flash (which i almost never do) i would take a larger camera with me. again flash negates the smallness of the camera which is it's primary advantage.

i certainly would like a quieter shutter, however any amount of ambient noise seems to drown out the shutter. even in a quiet room the only time anybody notices anything odd is when i use the camera in speed priority.

i haven't experienced the camera spontaneously turning itself off, but in my use i usually turn the camera off before it can go into powersaver mode.

there are lots of little things i would change about the NEX if i were the designer, however it is very good as a carry anywhere large sensor camera that i can put compact manual focus lenses on. if somebody else makes a camera that works better for this purpose i will happily switch when i'm ready to buy a new camera, but this will keep me happy for quite some time.
 

douglasf13

New member
Agreed, sebboh.

As for the M9, I certainly don't mean to imply that the NEX-5 is an M9. The M9 is a wonderful, elegant piece of machinery that I've nearly purchased a couple of times, and buying one is a lot more than just achieving great IQ. Working with a rangefinder is a completely different way of working, and I'm sure I'll eventually bite.

That being said, I'm not sure how things like bokeh could be much better in an M8 over the NEX-5, outside of the slightly less DOF. The AA vs. no-AA filter debate is endless, and I certainly think that, with a top end raw demoisacing program (RPP or RT) and some deconvolution sharpening, the differences can be significantly narrowed. As for the underlying sensor and color filters, Leica's aren't exactly state of the art...outside of the microlens design, which gives it the incredible advantage of getting great performance out of wide M lenses.

With that in mind, I would love to see some head to head comparisons of the same Leica lens (not a wide) between the NEX-5, M8 and M9. I want to believe that there is magic in the Leica, and the larger sensor size will certainly assist in that, but using the NEX-5 inside of certain parameters (like with M lenses 35mm or greater) seems to be pretty great so far.
 

sebboh

New member
With that in mind, I would love to see some head to head comparisons of the same Leica lens (not a wide) between the NEX-5, M8 and M9. I want to believe that there is magic in the Leica, and the larger sensor size will certainly assist in that, but using the NEX-5 inside of certain parameters (like with M lenses 35mm or greater) seems to be pretty great so far.
sensor size is it's own type of magic. on an m9 lens flaws in CA, sharpness, and coma will represent a much smaller portion of the total image. in addition, the lower pixel density of the m9 will make each pixel sharper (before the lack of AA even comes into play), as it requires less sharpness from the lens to outresolve the sensor. on the m8 the differences should be much smaller.

the NEX will have one advantage over the m9 though for lenses longer than 35mm - it only uses the sweet spot of the lens. so there should be less difference between the center an edges on the NEX.
 

MPK2010

New member
That being said, I'm not sure how things like bokeh could be much better in an M8 over the NEX-5, outside of the slightly less DOF. The AA vs. no-AA filter debate is endless, and I certainly think that, with a top end raw demoisacing program (RPP or RT) and some deconvolution sharpening, the differences can be significantly narrowed. As for the underlying sensor and color filters, Leica's aren't exactly state of the art...outside of the microlens design, which gives it the incredible advantage of getting great performance out of wide M lenses.
Based on what I've read and seen I agree completely with this take on the M9 sensor -- not state of the art sensor technology, but with the microlenses there is really nothing comparable right now for M lens use across the board and the M9 results are often just spectacular and confirm what the M lenses are really capable of.

I raise the "odd bokeh" issue again because I also have not heard any good technical explanation for it. I know that sometimes at middle focus, near the edges, some of the M lenses really misfire on bokeh on the NEX and this simply didn't happen on the M8. Of course, a lot of the time it "works" with the NEX, and in those cases I think the results look great. The NEX+ 50 Cron or 35 Summarit is just great for a compact camera. The M8 I have access to is in California these days so unfortunately I have a great excuse for avoiding head-to-head comparisons. :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
There are a few folks here who give the strong impression that regardless of how bad the NEX might (even if they sell it off because it does not see any use :ROTFL:), they would defend it tooth and nails.

I have no further interest to discuss/share my experiences on the NEX sensor here.
 

aleksanderpolo

New member
I raise the "odd bokeh" issue again because I also have not heard any good technical explanation for it. I know that sometimes at middle focus, near the edges, some of the M lenses really misfire on bokeh on the NEX and this simply didn't happen on the M8. Of course, a lot of the time it "works" with the NEX, and in those cases I think the results look great. The NEX+ 50 Cron or 35 Summarit is just great for a compact camera. The M8 I have access to is in California these days so unfortunately I have a great excuse for avoiding head-to-head comparisons. :)
Wonder if it has to do with the slightly shorter flange distance of some of the adapter (that allow focus beyond infinity)? The in focus area would have been projected closer than designed and it might affect how the out of focus area's light ray? Just a wild speculation.
 

roweraay

New member
There are a few folks here who give the strong impression that regardless of how bad the NEX might (even if they sell it off because it does not see any use :ROTFL:), they would defend it tooth and nails.

I have no further interest to discuss/share my experiences on the NEX sensor here.
I suppose you meant me about selling off the NEX etc ? Sure, if the product does not meet one's needs, I don't believe in holding onto it and taking up shelf space. I bought a Leica Summicron 35/2 but sold it off subsequently. Did not mean that the Summicron was bad.....it just did not meet my needs, for the price paid. You just move on.

I just do not have much patience for hyperbolic statements like "real camera" etc., and don't mind making my feelings known on that. :)

I believe now a bunch of people have taken you to task on such blanket statements. I am not surprised. :)
 

sebboh

New member
Wonder if it has to do with the slightly shorter flange distance of some of the adapter (that allow focus beyond infinity)? The in focus area would have been projected closer than designed and it might affect how the out of focus area's light ray? Just a wild speculation.
as long as focus is accomplished by moving the entire lens assembly (no floating elements) for a given actual focus distance the distance from the rear element to sensor should be the same no matter what camera or what flange distance. otherwise, the rays will not converge and the image will not be in focus. focused at 15ft (or any other distance) the glass to sensor distance will be the same on both a NEX and an m9 (even though the distance scale has a different reading). if the lens incorporates floating elements however, things could get quite weird if the adapter doesn't put the lens at exactly the correct distance.
 

jonoslack

Active member
With that in mind, I would love to see some head to head comparisons of the same Leica lens (not a wide) between the NEX-5, M8 and M9. I want to believe that there is magic in the Leica, and the larger sensor size will certainly assist in that, but using the NEX-5 inside of certain parameters (like with M lenses 35mm or greater) seems to be pretty great so far.
Hi Douglas
Nothing to do with Leica magic. (it may be there but it isn't relevant in this sort of comparison)
just a lack of an AA filter, more resolution, less processing and angled microlenses . . . all little things, but added together. . . . .
 

douglasf13

New member
There are a few folks here who give the strong impression that regardless of how bad the NEX might (even if they sell it off because it does not see any use :ROTFL:), they would defend it tooth and nails.

I have no further interest to discuss/share my experiences on the NEX sensor here.
I know that you've checked out of this thread, but, for the record, I hope you didn't include me completely in that category. I certainly won't defend the NEX's wonky interface decisions much, even though I can still operate it with a little annoyance. Nor will I defend the choice of releasing only a kit zoom and wide prime at launch. I will, however, defend the NEX's sensor and claim that I don't think there are any sensors much better at APS-C size and smaller. It also seems to have the weakest Sony AA filter to date, which can be both a blessing and a curse. Granted, I'm not using Sony IDC. ;)

Jono, I certainly realize the advantages of the fullframe sensor. However, I'm not really seeing all THAT much difference between the quality of pics from the NEX-5 and A900, outside of the resolution advantage if I need to print big. Maybe I need to work it out some more, as I'm no stranger to being wrong! :LOL:
 

roweraay

New member
Jono, I certainly realize the advantages of the fullframe sensor. However, I'm not really seeing all THAT much difference between the quality of pics from the NEX-5 and A900, outside of the resolution advantage if I need to print big. Maybe I need to work it out some more, as I'm no stranger to being wrong! :LOL:
Processed from RAW and taken at or below ISO 800 ? The A900 images just stand out, to be quite honest. No contest there ! As mentioned a while back, I blew up some of those A900 (+CZ 135 and CZ85mm) images to 24"x36" (printed on canvas), and those take up pride of place on the walls of several people. Can't say I can do that with the NEX. ;)

However, portability wise, the NEX5 is just peerless, considering the size of the sensor residing in it. No contest with the A900, on that score either ! :)

Horses for courses as they say.
 

douglasf13

New member
Processed from RAW and taken at or below ISO 800 ? The A900 images just stand out, to be quite honest. No contest there ! As mentioned a while back, I blew up some of those A900 (+CZ 135 and CZ85mm) images to 24"x36" (printed on canvas), and those take up pride of place on the walls of several people. Can't say I can do that with the NEX. ;)

However, portability wise, the NEX5 is just peerless, considering the size of the sensor residing in it. No contest with the A900, on that score either ! :)

Horses for courses as they say.
That's exactly my point. If we're talking about the quality difference between the NEX-5 and a fullframe camera, are we comparing at 100% crops, or 16x24 prints, or 8x10, or web jpegs, etc? As the print size goes up, my A900 certainly starts to pull away in overall IQ. However, there isn't a "look" about it that is much different than my A700 or NEX-5. It just looks better at bigger sizes. At the pixel level, I might argue that the NEX-5 is a little better than the A900. If the point is simply that the M9 or A900 looks better at larger print sizes than the NEX-5, I'll certainly agree with that. The interesting question would be in regards to what size the fullframe sensors start to pull away.
 
B

Beto

Guest
Hi guys/gals,

I ordered a NEX-5 over the weekend and I am looking for a Nikon adapter. Which one would you recommend and where can I buy one? People have been talking about an "RJ" adapter. Where can I find that?

I have a number of old and newer Nikon lenses, ranging from manual focus ones of F2 vintage to auto lenses for my D300, and I would like to try them on the NEX-5.

Thanks!
 

Martin S

New member
I am looking to use a 28mm RF (Leica pre ASP) lens on the NEX5. What are my chances of edge smearing with this wide a lens????

Thanks.

Martin
 
Top