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!

The future is here - Sony Nex 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonas

Active member
Well - in the end it's just another camera. Really.
(...) The fact is, hardly anyone on this forum is anywhere near a typical consumer in the target market we are discussing. Of course that is true for me too, so feel free to dismiss anything I say for the same reason hehe. :)
I don't want to dismiss anyone. It's interesting though to see how you skipped the whole viewfinder discussion.
and
I agree about what you say about the market and who can be considered the consumer, or target group.

I'm not sure I'm the typical entity of the target groups as figured out by Sony. But I surely do wait for images taken with the v1 firmware. I understand it as you don't care a bit - and I'm sure you have good reasons for that.
 

Jonas

Active member
Well, here I do agree . . but the new batch of panasonic lenses announced and rumoured still put them some way ahead from that point of view.
Wohoo, there is no comparison. Micro 4/3 got the lenses... but not the lenses I want. How could Panasonic dumb down the 25/1.4 like that, for example?
 

douglasf13

New member
Well, here I do agree . . but the new batch of panasonic lenses announced and rumoured still put them some way ahead from that point of view.
Jono, are you considering a motorized zoom? I'm not much of a zoom shooter anymore, but I don't think I'd ever seriously consider a motorized zoom as an option. Granted, I do like that Panasonic is realizing where their strength should be: size.

Really, it seems we all have a different dividing line between size, IQ and convenience. For me, NEX and rangefinder lenses make the most sense, but, if I only wanted to shoot native lenses, I'd probably go a different direction.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about me. I do think that, compared to NEX, both Samsung NX and m4/3 have a better native lens selection and direction. Hopefully, Sigma and others fill in NEX gaps. Remember the little Sigma 30/2.8 macro prototype from Feb? Surely, they've got NEX lenses on the horizon at this point.

 

jonoslack

Active member
Wohoo, there is no comparison. Micro 4/3 got the lenses... but not the lenses I want. How could Panasonic dumb down the 25/1.4 like that, for example?
HI Jonas
well, if you only want the body to use with legacy lenses, or with adapted lenses from other manufacturers, then I'd say that the NEX7 is a total no-brainer - a complete winner.

However, if you want to use it with small AF lenses of decent quality you can use the . . . . . erm .. . .. well, I suppose the 16mm pancake, but it's soft at the corners.

There are a number of good m4/3 lenses, if you fancy primes there's the excellent zuiko 12 f2, the PL 25/1.4 may be 'dumbed down' but it sounds like a good lens - the PL 45 f2.8 is excellent, the P 20 f1.7 is pretty good too. The new Panasonic X series zooms are small and interesting - especially the tiny 14-42 and the 12-35 'fast aperture' that's being pushed about on 4/3 rumours. The Zuiko 14-150 is tiny, and produces excellent results across the range. Both the Panasonic 7-14 and the Zuiko 9-18 are reckoned to be excellent.

I will almost certainly get a NEX7 - and the new Zeiss 24 sounds fine - but it's big! I really do wish it were different, but right now the E mount lenses for the NEX series really are pretty thin in the ground.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, are you considering a motorized zoom? I'm not much of a zoom shooter anymore, but I don't think I'd ever seriously consider a motorized zoom as an option. Granted, I do like that Panasonic is realizing where their strength should be: size.
I wouldn't want a motorised zoom as a main lens, but as a pocket option it sounds fine . . . but the new 12-35 and 35-100 fast aperture zooms from Panasonic also sound exciting.
Really, it seems we all have a different dividing line between size, IQ and convenience. For me, NEX and rangefinder lenses make the most sense, but, if I only wanted to shoot native lenses, I'd probably go a different direction.
I quite agree, and of course I'm spoiled in that if I'm going to shoot rangefinder lenses . . . I'll shoot them on an M9. . . . So although I don't only want to shoot native lenses . . . I do want to shoot some native lenses, and there aren't really any yet for NEX that seem attractive (and I still disagree about them needing to be big)>

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about me. I do think that, compared to NEX, both Samsung NX and m4/3 have a better native lens selection and direction. Hopefully, Sigma and others fill in NEX gaps. Remember the little Sigma 30/2.8 macro prototype from Feb? Surely, they've got NEX lenses on the horizon at this point.

. . . .and that lens is another proof that you can have small lenses for APSc!
Certainly Sigma'd be mad not to - and probably Sony have more coming as well.
Lenses seem to take some time to develop - m4/3 was a year ahead of NEX, so maybe there will be a rush of good Sony lenses next year.
 

douglasf13

New member
. . . .and that lens is another proof that you can have small lenses for APSc!
Certainly Sigma'd be mad not to - and probably Sony have more coming as well.
Lenses seem to take some time to develop - m4/3 was a year ahead of NEX, so maybe there will be a rush of good Sony lenses next year.
Ah ha! I don't think we're disagreeing much after all. I'm not saying that aps-c lenses can't be made smaller for NEX. Samsung has some cool little lenses,too. I was just saying that I'm not sure how much smaller a 24/1.8 could have been, and I wished they would have made is slightly longer and faster, so that it could have been smaller. either way, since Zeiss designed the lens, I'd bet they weren't interested in size/IQ compromise, and it unfortunately seems Sony isn't interested in making small lenses, either. Hopefully, Sigma, Tamron and other pick up that slack.

Interestingly, I just saw the measurements for the NEX-7. I use a leather half-case on my NEX-5 to add just a tiny bit of extra hand grip bulk, and the measurements of the NEX-7 are identical to my NEX-5 in height and depth, and only about 4mm wider. If I include the volume of my nexviewer, my NEX-5 setup is actually bigger! :thumbup:
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I personally prefer quality over (small) size. That is why I use Zeiss lenses. The Panasonic lenses, apart from the Leica ones, seem to be poorely built and the IQ is quite average or below, certainly nothing impressive.
 
HI Jonas
well, if you only want the body to use with legacy lenses, or with adapted lenses from other manufacturers, then I'd say that the NEX7 is a total no-brainer - a complete winner.
I'm not sold on the NEX-7 Jono. The body and features look to be amazing but that sensor is giving me pause. I know we are only seeing early samples off the A77 but they do not look good.

Check out some High ISO samples (again, I recognize these are all very early and things may change) where the 5N trounces the A77 and looks to be comparable to the Canon 5D Mark II.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/3802/which-is-best-for-low-light-sony-nex-5n-or-nex-7-and-a77

I just placed my pre-order in for a black 5N body. I sold my 3 and was going to replace it with the 3C but after handling one, thought otherwise. That 3C is just too small.

Chad
 

douglasf13

New member
I'm not sold on the NEX-7 Jono. The body and features look to be amazing but that sensor is giving me pause. I know we are only seeing early samples off the A77 but they do not look good.

Check out some High ISO samples (again, I recognize these are all very early and things may change) where the 5N trounces the A77 and looks to be comparable to the Canon 5D Mark II.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/3802/which-is-best-for-low-light-sony-nex-5n-or-nex-7-and-a77

I just placed my pre-order in for a black 5N body. I sold my 3 and was going to replace it with the 3C but after handling one, thought otherwise. That 3C is just too small.

Chad
Unless you shoot jpeg, I wouldn't be concerned much about the A77 performance. I've followed Sony for a long time, and their jpeg engine has always been far away from their raw performance. Plus, the A77 has a mirror in the light path, which both negatively affects noise by about 1/2 stop and hurts resolution a little bit.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I wouldn't want a motorised zoom as a main lens, but as a pocket option it sounds fine . . . but the new 12-35 and 35-100 fast aperture zooms from Panasonic also sound exciting.
Those to lenses will probably mean that the system is ready for critical work related stuff. The GH1 is already good enough for most of what I do, but the lack of large aperture quality zooms has represented a limitation in many situations.

Trusting third party suppliers for important lenses is rarely a safe option. Look what happened with the 4/3 lenses from Sigma when the market for them shrunk. They were discontinued immediately. Understandable from Sigma's point of view, but not good news for umpteen 4/3 users out there. One of the reasons for the low prices of third party lenses is the high production volume of each volume. If the volume is not there, they're not interested. To create sufficient interest in NEX, Sony will have to come up with the most important lenses themselves first.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I basing my decision to buy the Nex-7 on the performance of the Nex-5, which is very good. I have not shot a single serious jpeg in years - what is the point when raw is light years better?
 

douglasf13

New member
Those to lenses will probably mean that the system is ready for critical work related stuff. The GH1 is already good enough for most of what I do, but the lack of large aperture quality zooms has represented a limitation in many situations.

Trusting third party suppliers for important lenses is rarely a safe option. Look what happened with the 4/3 lenses from Sigma when the market for them shrunk. They were discontinued immediately. Understandable from Sigma's point of view, but not good news for umpteen 4/3 users out there. One of the reasons for the low prices of third party lenses is the high production volume of each volume. If the volume is not there, they're not interested. To create sufficient interest in NEX, Sony will have to come up with the most important lenses themselves first.
I think using the 4/3 system as a comparison is unfair to both m4/3 and NEX. The 4/3 system never sold that well, whereas the NEX and various m4/3 cameras have been consistently ranking in the top ten in Japanese sales every month. Voigtlander can't make enough of those m4/3 25/.95 lenses.
 

Lars

Active member
I don't want to dismiss anyone. It's interesting though to see how you skipped the whole viewfinder discussion.
and
I agree about what you say about the market and who can be considered the consumer, or target group.

I'm not sure I'm the typical entity of the target groups as figured out by Sony. But I surely do wait for images taken with the v1 firmware. I understand it as you don't care a bit - and I'm sure you have good reasons for that.
Not skipping anything, but these are busy days with preparing to move overseas.

I'd like to bring up Jono's point about the iPhone 4 display: at 300+ ppi it would perhaps seem like an infinite resolution. That is, until you see a display with double the resolution. I've seen a FHD display (1920x1200) next to a same-size quad-FHD display (3840x2160). FHD seems like a lot until you see what double the dot pitch really does. There is a realism by clarity, like a softness veil is removed. That's where EVF technology needs to go to match OVF in clarity.

If you don't think this is a valid point then ask yourself why laser printers went from 300 to 600 to 1200 dpi.

So I think the EVF we see today will be considered pure unusable crap in a few years.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Not skipping anything, but these are busy days with preparing to move overseas.

I'd like to bring up Jono's point about the iPhone 4 display: at 300+ ppi it would perhaps seem like an infinite resolution. That is, until you see a display with double the resolution. I've seen a FHD display (1920x1200) next to a same-size quad-FHD display (3840x2160). FHD seems like a lot until you see what double the dot pitch really does. There is a realism by clarity, like a softness veil is removed. That's where EVF technology needs to go to match OVF in clarity.

If you don't think this is a valid point then ask yourself why laser printers went from 300 to 600 to 1200 dpi.

So I think the EVF we see today will be considered pure unusable crap in a few years.
I think I'd have to agree with Lars here. While we love to engage in experimenting with new technologies, and some of us may find that it is quite "acceptable", we ALL do not have to settle for acceptable when something better already exists.

Some folks stuck with film longer than others when digital was on shaky baby legs ... and some even well beyond that ... because, despite all the endless heated debates, film was still better.

There are early adopters of any new technology, and they are often quite evangelic about their choices ... but that doesn't mean that specific technology is better or even parity to what exists ... it often is not. Some folks just won't buy into it until it is clearly superior (pardon the pun).

It has amazed me how makers of these devices continually short thrift one of the most important aspects of using digital cameras ... the viewfinder and LCD. One would expect a LCD view that is far superior to a dime-a-dozen cell phone.

While I may well upgrade to a NEX7, I'll do so knowing the EVF sucks. The reason to upgrade is that the NEX5 doesn't have one at all, and the NEX5 LCD is not viewable in bright light, rendering it useless.

Plus, so far, the increased meg count on the NEX7 produces inferior images to the NEX5 ... so I'm in a holding pattern until it is actually out in the field.

-Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Lars - Marc
Well - I'll probably agree with you about the display - I certainly understand that more resolution gives a better look / sound / whatever - way beyond the point of being able to see/hear the individual pixel etc.

all the best
 

Lars

Active member
Jono,
This thread reminds me a little of the discussion we had early last year, I think it was in January, about tablets. Not sure which thread it was, but I remember stating that 2010 would be the year tablets became popular. Looking back it turns out I was right, but for the wrong reasons: I did not at all see Apple's success coming. That's a good lesson about predictions - sometimes a lucky guess is just a lucky guess.
-Lars
 

LizaWitz

New member
Chad--

That EOSHD article you linked to is pure nonsense. You cannot compare images of wildly different field of views, but the same pixel resolution for ISO. This is exactly what they are doing. It is analogous of comparing a 35mm movie frame blown up %800 to a 16mm movie frame at full resolution and saying the 16mm frame has better image quality.

Across the same filed of view (e.g.: the entire APS-C frame, or the same crop) the 24 megapixel sensor is going to produce a 2-3 stop improvement in ISO sensitivity compared to the 16 megapixel sensor from the same manufacturer (using the same process technology, and state of the art, etc.).

This is because the degradation in image quality you see at high ISOs is due to electrostatic noise on the sensor. This noise is random, and upon reduction of resolution the noise is greatly reduced by averaging pixels. It will always be better to have a sensor that has twice as many pixels in the same area and then reduce resolution, unless the higher density pixels are more than 4 times lower quality. This is obvious if you think about it-- on one hand you have one pixel and its associated noise, and on the other you have the average of four pixels, and thus 1/4th the effective noise.

Thus for the same field of view, a higher megapixel sensor will produce higher quality images in low light, even though each pixel gets less light due to the increased density.

The error EOS HD makes is comparing a smaller amount of one sensor to a larger amount of another sensor, and thus comparing a section that got X amount of light to a section that got 16X amount of light. This is unequal in the extreme. Off by 1,600 percent! (roughly)

A fair comparison would be to compare images shot from both cameras of the same field of view, not the same number of pixels.

Unfortunately, there's no rebutting articles like that, and so in 6 months time those who want to bash the NEX or the A77 will point to this article and claim it proves they have terrible low light performance, and many people who don't think about it closely, or who don't recognize the deception going on will believe them. It is infuriating when I see innocent people mislead by nonsense like this.

Liza
 

LizaWitz

New member
While I may well upgrade to a NEX7, I'll do so knowing the EVF sucks.
Compared to what? Looking with your bare eyes? An optical DSLR? Sure, fine, whatever. Stick with an optical dslr if you want, or a rangefinder.

The idea that the EVF "sucks" on the NEX-7 is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Unless Sony is totally lying, the EVF is the best EVF that has shipped on digital camera ever.

Since the EVF on the Panasonic GH series is quite fine, there is zero chance the EVF on these new sony's "sucks" by comparison.

The reason to upgrade is that the NEX5 doesn't have one at all, and the NEX5 LCD is not viewable in bright light, rendering it useless.
So, obviously, it is impossible for the EVF to suck compared to the EVF on the NEX-5, right? and the EVF for the NEX-5N is the same one, so it can't suck by comparison to that.

Plus, so far, the increased meg count on the NEX7 produces inferior images to the NEX5
Nonsense.

The reason people spread this kind of bullshit is to dissuade potential customers from buying these products. Think Lars is here just expressing his opinion? No, he's defending the camera system he's invested in, which is why his arguments change every time one is rebutted and make no sense if you think about them anyway.

Tell me OM lenses are better than Sony? Fine. Tell me you like your m4/3 better because its smaller? Good for you. Tell me the GH1 has an EVF and that's important to you-- I'll agree its a concern, but I still chose the NEX-5. Tell me a Leica is better and the worst thing I'll call you is a "Leica man." Tell me you're Ken Rockwell and you prefer to shoot in "RealRAW", e.g. Film, and the worst you'll get from me is :ROTFL: -- I'll never tell you you're wrong.

And I won't ever go spreading FUD about your preferred camera system. Why? Because I'm not insecure about mine. Have I compromised? Hell Yes! I'm proud of it, and I'm also proud of the fact that I'm traveling the world, full time, with a backpack that weighs about 20 pounds, and contains all of the possessions I currently own. And I'm able to get the shots and footage I want, when I want, where I want, without ever messing with changing lenses, with great quality, using my NEX-5 and 18-200 "monster" lens. That lives in my jacket pocket. Tell me it is too big to pocket it? Yeah, whatever, I do it every day. Tell me it is heavier than *you* would like, and that's fine-- it's your preference. Tell me you want a camera with a VF, even an OVF, and that's your preference.

When the NEX line was announced ,there was an unrelenting stream of people claiming the 18-200 was joke of a lens and that it made no sense on this camera and that it would suck, etc. etc. etc. I find that it doesn't' suck.

There's a big difference between "I have different preferences" and "that camera is inadequate". The latter is almost always a reflection on the speaker.

When people's insecurity about new things is so strong that they feel the need to be dishonest, well, that deserves to be called out.
 

Lars

Active member
The reason people spread this kind of bullshit is to dissuade potential customers from buying these products. Think Lars is here just expressing his opinion? No, he's defending the camera system he's invested in, which is why his arguments change every time one is rebutted and make no sense if you think about them anyway.
No I'm not, that's just silly (and a bit offensive). I think you might be judging me based on your own thinking. BTW I have so many camera systems I'm not sure which one that would be (I'm actually not quite sure how many I have). And my arguments are hardly changing. Anyone who thinks she or he can change the camera market by disputing the merits of a new product here is clearly delusional. In my view a new product has to prove itself with users before I feel that I can approve of it. The NEX7 doesnt exist on the market yet, so it's to be seen with critical eyes, nothing wrong with that.

The question arises from the rhetoric of your last posts though - what's your own agenda? Why do you take offense when someone is critical of the potential of a new product?

In the end it only matters for the sake of this specific discussion thread - nobody else out there cares what we say here. So I'm here for an interesting discussion - how about you?

BTW I do take offense from you using my name in the same paragraph as "bullshit". That's unwarranted for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top