If this is really the Nex-7

[jonoslack]

Yeah, if the NEX-7 can get close to the output of my A900, I'll be a really happy camper. The sensor size difference is the critical issue, but I'm hoping that the 3 years newer sensor tech makes up for the difference.

I quite agree - my only current worry is the quality of the lenses available, which either seem to be inadequate for a 24mp sensor . . . or too big!

For instance, I've been having a lot of fun with the EP3 with the Zuiko 12 f2 and the Panasonic 20 f1.7 together with the 14-150 zoom (which is half the weight of the 18-200) - the whole shebang is tiny and the quality is pretty good - clearly the NEX 7 has almost every possible advantage over the EP3 . .. except for the available lenses.

For me the A77 is a no-brainer, the Nex-7 will become so if there are decent smallish lenses to go with it.

 

[douglasf13]

I agree about the lens size. Granted, I hope that the rumored new sensor microlenses coax a little more performance out of the current lineup (ie. the 16mm.) Sony would need at least one Samsung NX-like 30/2 lens for me to buy anymore native lenses. I'll jus happily stick to manual lenses.

 

[ptomsu]

I quite agree - my only current worry is the quality of the lenses available, which either seem to be inadequate for a 24mp sensor . . . or too big!

For instance, I've been having a lot of fun with the EP3 with the Zuiko 12 f2 and the Panasonic 20 f1.7 together with the 14-150 zoom (which is half the weight of the 18-200) - the whole shebang is tiny and the quality is pretty good - clearly the NEX 7 has almost every possible advantage over the EP3 . .. except for the available lenses.

For me the A77 is a no-brainer, the Nex-7 will become so if there are decent smallish lenses to go with it.

You are kind of right Jono, but I was (and still am) pretty frustrated with the build quality of the standard kit lenses coming with the EP3 - 14-45 and 45-150, they come with plastic mounts and do not really feel that I could trust them for long time and heavy use. Sure the 12 and 45 are exceptions and even the older kit lenses were better build quality - had metal mounts at least.

 

[Terry]

I quite agree - my only current worry is the quality of the lenses available, which either seem to be inadequate for a 24mp sensor . . . or too big!

For instance, I've been having a lot of fun with the EP3 with the Zuiko 12 f2 and the Panasonic 20 f1.7 together with the 14-150 zoom (which is half the weight of the 18-200) - the whole shebang is tiny and the quality is pretty good - clearly the NEX 7 has almost every possible advantage over the EP3 . .. except for the available lenses.

For me the A77 is a no-brainer, the Nex-7 will become so if there are decent smallish lenses to go with it.

Jono - I know for your little cameras you want AF but all I can say is add a couple little manual focus primes and with focus peaking in the EVF and I bet it will be sweet!

 

[edwardkaraa]

I am personally less interested with the size factor and more so with the optical and build quality. As long as it is smaller than my A900 and Zeiss 24/2, it's small enough for me. Also, I'm looking for a camera that doesn't look much like a DSLR. I feel they attract too much attention when street shooting, while a cam that looks like an oversized P&S doesn't. People seem not to mind being photographed by a tourist looking guy holding the cam at arms length, while they get wary when someone points a DSLR at them.

 

[jonoslack]

You are kind of right Jono, but I was (and still am) pretty frustrated with the build quality of the standard kit lenses coming with the EP3 - 14-45 and 45-150, they come with plastic mounts and do not really feel that I could trust them for long time and heavy use. Sure the 12 and 45 are exceptions and even the older kit lenses were better build quality - had metal mounts at least.

HI Peter
Simple - stick the kit lenses back in the box and use something else. Actually, I rather suspect that those nasty plastic mounts are almost indestructible, but I don't like them much either.

currently I'm using the 12 f2 zuiko, the 20 f1.7 Pana and the 14-150 Zuiko (which does have a metal mount). I'm dithering about re-buying the 45 macro.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - I know for your little cameras you want AF but all I can say is add a couple little manual focus primes and with focus peaking in the EVF and I bet it will be sweet!

Hi Terry
Well, I already have the little manual focus primes (9 of them) but I can't see a good reason for sticking them on a NEX if I have an M9 around (can you?). Mind you, the adaptor with the helical screw for close focus makes things more tempting . . .shooting a 0.95 noctilux on a NEX 7 and focusing down to a few centimetres is an intoxicating proposition!

 

[Terry]

Hi Terry
. . .shooting a 0.95 noctilux on a NEX 7 and focusing down to a few centimetres is an intoxicating proposition!

Just don't inhale or exhale in the process. Might totally screw up your focus.

Some of us need focus peaking just to be in the ballpark of getting the right focus.... and why an M9 insn't part of our kit.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Well, I already have the little manual focus primes (9 of them) but I can't see a good reason for sticking them on a NEX if I have an M9 around (can you?).

Video work, high ISO shooting and high FPS work, other than that, let's call it a draw....

 

[ptomsu]

HI Peter
Simple - stick the kit lenses back in the box and use something else. Actually, I rather suspect that those nasty plastic mounts are almost indestructible, but I don't like them much either.

currently I'm using the 12 f2 zuiko, the 20 f1.7 Pana and the 14-150 Zuiko (which does have a metal mount). I'm dithering about re-buying the 45 macro.

Jono,

the issue is that these plastic lenses seem to be high IQ - hmmmm and as you said the plastic mount feels extremely well fitting on the metal mount of the EP3, much smoother compared to the metal mount lenses

But the issue is that I am kind of an old school guy (member of a dying race) who have burned into their brain that metal is better and more durable than plastic - which I know is not true for all situations

You are right, I will get a 12 and a 45 and maybe I also will get the 14-150. Isn't the 14-150 a bit heavy?????

 

[jonoslack]

maybe I also will get the 14-150. Isn't the 14-150 a bit heavy?????

290 gms I think . . . so, no!

 

[jonoslack]

Just don't inhale or exhale in the process. Might totally screw up your focus.

I'm much too old to bother with breathing It's swaying that's my problem

Some of us need focus peaking just to be in the ballpark of getting the right focus.... and why an M9 insn't part of our kit.

Actually Terry - that's something which really gets to me. If you want to be able to focus properly with an M9 you practice - it isn't that hard, but it isn't a given. But IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOUNG EYES!!!

The number of people I've seen saying that they're getting out of Leica because their eyes aren't up to it anymore . . . and then advertising their M8/M9 here with less than 1000 actuations! I've needed glasses for twenty years (and it certainly does bug me) - but I can still focus the noctilux at 0.95 80% of the time with no magnifier, and no contact lenses and no glasses. If I add a +1.75 dioptre contact lens (which is my correction for distance, it's 2.75 for close up) then I can get it right around 95%.

I don't believe that this would be very different with 20 year old eyes - it's simply practice - of course, if you haven't the time, or don't wish to make the effort, then that's fine . . . .but don't blame your eyes, and don't blame the camera! Rangefinders were always thus.

 

[jonoslack]

Video work, high ISO shooting and high FPS work, other than that, let's call it a draw....

Hi Lonnie
Okay - we'll certainly call it a draw - I don't do much of that stuff (high ISO maybe, but that's good on an M9 at f0.95!), but if I did, then I would.
From seeing your posts with respect to the A77, I think we pretty much agree with each other about the technology and it's advantages

 

[douglasf13]

I'm much too old to bother with breathing It's swaying that's my problem


Actually Terry - that's something which really gets to me. If you want to be able to focus properly with an M9 you practice - it isn't that hard, but it isn't a given. But IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOUNG EYES!!!

The number of people I've seen saying that they're getting out of Leica because their eyes aren't up to it anymore . . . and then advertising their M8/M9 here with less than 1000 actuations! I've needed glasses for twenty years (and it certainly does bug me) - but I can still focus the noctilux at 0.95 80% of the time with no magnifier, and no contact lenses and no glasses. If I add a +1.75 dioptre contact lens (which is my correction for distance, it's 2.75 for close up) then I can get it right around 95%.

I don't believe that this would be very different with 20 year old eyes - it's simply practice - of course, if you haven't the time, or don't wish to make the effort, then that's fine . . . .but don't blame your eyes, and don't blame the camera! Rangefinders were always thus.

Agreed. I'm actually seeing something similar with focus peaking, as people complain about its accuracy. With some practice, it works very well, IMO.

 

[Terry]

Jono - I know that I could practice. But the reality was that I was slow and I either missed the moment or the people ended up impatiently posing for me. When I nailed it the shots were fantastic, I just didn't like getting home and realizing that my keeper rate wasn't very good which hurts the overall enjoyment factor.

 

[pegelli]

Agreed. I'm actually seeing something similar with focus peaking, as people complain about its accuracy. With some practice, it works very well, IMO.

Very true, my experience is that you see a lot of peaking of edges that are not sharp, even outside the classical dof tables (depending on contrast in the scene). So for focus peaking to work you have to practice and really look for the "maximum peaking" in the spot you want to hit focus.

I've shot Leica rangefinders (even the old IIIf where the split image was a separate hole, as well as the M2), split screen MF SLR's, AF DSLR's and now a focus peaking 3" LCD. None of these systems is fool proof and they all need practice. For me that's part of the fun.

 

[LizaWitz]

Speaking of lenses... what I'm really hoping for is a NEX version of the SAL50F18 alpha lens. This is retailing for $125 right now, and this is right in my price range.

I'd hope/expect that Sony would make an equivalent of this in e-mount. Maybe 35mm would be better, but I'll take 50mm and the effective 75mm FOV (would be good for "portraits" right?)

Can someone explain to me why this isn't an obvious lens to have adapted, and why it wouldn't be quick or easy to do this and produce the e mount version for less than $200?

Seems like it would be a good choice for a kit lens. But I have the suspicion that if/when they do a fast prime for the e-mount it will be $500. I just don't understand why. I would think that the lower flange distance would make the designs a bit easier and cheaper, not harder, except for the new-design-have-to-recoup-R&D factor.

Am I missing something, or is there likely to be an affordable <f2.0 lens in e mount between 30mm-70mm?

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Liza,

For just about the same money, I'd look into buying an Olympus OM adapter, and a Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. The adapter can be had for right around $30, and with some time and shopping on ebay, the 50mm can be had for around $25 max (you might have to get it bundled with an OM body, but so what). The optics are on par with the SAL50F18, you just have to manual focus. With a little patience, you can pick up the Zuiko 135mm F/3.5 for about $50. Along with the native 16 f/2.8 you've a decent little kit. I'm still looking for a decent price on the OM 35 mm f/2.8 to round things out for myself.

Note: I stated as an olympus shooter as a kid, so that's why I originally got the OM adapter (I still have my OM cameras). I have not been disappointed in the quality of these 30 year old lenses.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - I know that I could practice. But the reality was that I was slow and I either missed the moment or the people ended up impatiently posing for me. When I nailed it the shots were fantastic, I just didn't like getting home and realizing that my keeper rate wasn't very good which hurts the overall enjoyment factor.

Hi Terry
Obviously your prerogative - I wouldn't dream of criticising anyone for not being bothered with a rangefinder. It was the common practice of blaming one's equipment (eyes in this case) which I find a little irritating!

 

[Terry]

Well I also probably needed a diopter adjustment but not sure which one. I don't yet wear reading glasses but some things that used to be simple for me to see aren't anymore (although I don't yet hold things out at arms length distance)

I'm pretty happy right now and don't lust for an M9 so it must have been the right decision for ME.

Back to the NEX7. I should be someone out in the bush watching the wildebeests migrate with no internet access when it is launched. I will miss all the gadget excitement!