Nex vs A77 vs A580 vs A900 vs others

[Paratom]

More and more systems and sensors formats popping up (not only from Sony) and I am starting to get confused more and more:

What do I need/want and for what reason???
Right now it is jumping from one system to another, owning many different systems, and in the end being more confused than happy, spending more time with testing gear than with using it.

I would like to really see the benefits of different systems and which makes most sense.

Some thoughts from my side-and maybe others could comment/complete:


-EVF vs OVF: I personally prefer OVF, but I want them to be big. Since its not possible to put a big OVF in a small camera I believe the smaller the camera the more I would accept the (compromise) EVF. Makes much sense in a Nex or G3 IMO

- sensor size:....still confused but even though m4/3 becomes better and better I still have the feeling that dx-size is the site where IQ gets very very good. One big point here is DR IMO. When I shoot m4/3 I often get the feeling I need to push shaddows (and get noise) or if I expose more to the right that I loose highlights...seems much easier in dx-sized (or bigger) sensors

-Portability: When would one use rather a Nex7 over an A77? From a pure user interface I find dslr-sized cameras the best, sits steady in the hand, buttons are easy to find, viewfinder can be nice size
So what is the main reason that we want small cameras all the time?
I understand the ones which fit in a pocket, but everything else...does it make really a big difference if you carry a small or a medium sized bag?
Does it relly make a difference between 1kg or 2kg carrying around?
Confusion again on my side.

Any comments?

 

[ken_vs_ryu]

the nex-7 can do 90% of what the a77 can do in a nice lightweight body. I've travelled with a full frame dslr and it's not fun.

 

[etrigan63]

It's not just the mass difference, but the bulk. The A77 may have the same sensor and weigh 1kg more, but it is bulkier (relatively) than the NEX-7, and then there is the intended use. I plan on using my NEX-7 as a walkabout camera, always on my person. Leica may have an EVIL camera in the works, but it is expected for Photokina and will cost as much a 4-5 NEX-7's. Not in the cards financially I am afraid.

 

[pegelli]

EVF vs. OVF: Haven't made up my mind because I've only looked through an A33/55 once and not seen the improved version on the A77/Nex7 yet. My current thinking is I can get used to it, especially since appreciation of dof is much better than in an OVF, albeit the OVF has different advantages

Sensor size: for me is dictated by DR and dof, not by noise. With good technique and a bit of PP I think for most practical purposes noise is a non-issue which gets too much attention because the technology to pixel peep is readily available for everybody.

Portability: Nex makes sense for small lenses and taking a real small package. As soon as you take longer and larger aperture lenses a DSLR is not so much extra. And don't forget, the Nex3/5/7 (in any incarnation) is only stabilized with very few lenses. The A-mount lenses are stabilized with any digital body.

Hope this helps channeling your thoughts. Don't think there is a one size fits all or even one solution that works all the time. For me that's part of the fun, having choices and whatever you choose still come home with pictures you enjoy.

 

[Lisa]

A few thoughts...

- sensor size:....still confused but even though m4/3 becomes better and better I still have the feeling that dx-size is the site where IQ gets very very good. One big point here is DR IMO. When I shoot m4/3 I often get the feeling I need to push shaddows (and get noise) or if I expose more to the right that I loose highlights...seems much easier in dx-sized (or bigger) sensors

I agree with you completely on this one. I tried a m4/3 after some years with a DX (APS) camera, and my observations agree with yours. In any scene with much dynamic range, when you got it so the highlights weren't blown, the shadows were much darker, and it was difficult and tedious to mess around with the contrast and brightness to get them looking good again, when they would have been fine straight out of the camera with the larger-sensor camera. I went back to using my DX camera for everything.

-Portability: When would one use rather a Nex7 over an A77? From a pure user interface I find dslr-sized cameras the best, sits steady in the hand, buttons are easy to find, viewfinder can be nice size
So what is the main reason that we want small cameras all the time?
I understand the ones which fit in a pocket, but everything else...does it make really a big difference if you carry a small or a medium sized bag?
Does it relly make a difference between 1kg or 2kg carrying around?

Different peoples' requirements are different. In my case, because I'm a small person with small hands, a Nikon D300 with the 18-200 DX lens (what I use) is just a little too heavy to carry comfortably in one hand for more than a few minutes, and the camera bag makes my shoulder sore if I carry it for very long, and I was hoping for something lighter. If unlike me you're comfortable with the size of your current camera, then I don't see too much point in trying to find something somewhat smaller.

Lisa

 

[dhsimmonds]

As always I am afraid the real answer is in what subjects you are most likely to be shooting. :deadhorse:

I can only speak for myself as I am primarily a wildlife photographer but I also travel quite a bit so balance my needs with reducing hand baggage weight and bulk. I also need a good viewfinder and some excellent lenses.

I have used the A900 for almost four years now and have built up a good selection of Zeiss and Sony G lenses and a few others to get me to 500mm when needed for "shooting" wild birds.

A clear viewfinder is a must and fast but accurate ability to lock on to the subject. The A900 does this superbly but is hampered by it's limitations on high ISO, I rarely use anything over ISO 800 for instance. Good anti shake abilities is also essential as most of my shooting is hand held.

Alpha camera are great as I can use older or 3rd party lenses and still have the anti shake benefit. The A700 I have used for just over a year now and it is a good camera but slow to focus long lenses and I do miss fast moving creatures sometimes! However it has been a very useful back up to the A900 and used with wider lenses for those times when something get's too close for the long lens on the A900.

I have only used the A77 for four days, but already I know that this camera is capable of everything that my A900 does but faster. It can focus long lenses both accurately and blisteringly fast. It can also capture sharp images of fast moving critters faster than the A900 and leaves the A700 looking rather pedestrian!

I have grown to really like the viewfinder and the articulated LCD which is a godsend for those lying down in the mud type shots and I am one that decried EVF viewfinders for years in favour of big bright v/f's! It also allows the camera to shed an awful lot of weight and a little bulk.

I have become so confident in the A77's ability to produce clean images at high ISO's that I have today set the camera up with auto ISO, something I have never felt able to do with either the A900 or A700.

It is amazing how much that free's up one's shooting.

The Jpegs out of camera are excellent BTW and certainly useable, but as I always take RAW and Jpeg's, my favourite RAW processor is C1 Pro and A77 raw images are processed just how I like them just as they were with the A900 and A700.

Yippee, this camera is a keeper!

Perhaps it will be joined by the "A99? when it makes it's appearance next year?

 

[scho]

It's not just the mass difference, but the bulk. The A77 may have the same sensor and weigh 1kg more, but it is bulkier (relatively) than the NEX-7, and then there is the intended use. I plan on using my NEX-7 as a walkabout camera, always on my person. Leica may have an EVIL camera in the works, but it is expected for Photokina and will cost as much a 4-5 NEX-7's. Not in the cards financially I am afraid.

+1 and it is not just the camera - SLR lenses are also BULKY (particularly FF). I've been through several SLR systems now and I always end up leaving them in the closet when I go out for a walk or a trip - took awhile, but now I realize that the old slr paradigm just isn't for me.

 

[jonoslack]

Bugger it Tom - it doesn't matter a damn.

We ought to be taking pictures not anguishing about gear - it all does well enough!

. . . . but since you mention it. The advantage of the NEX 7 is that it takes smaller lenses . . . and with the helicoid adapter you can put a noctilux on it and focus down to 8" . . . I know, I've been doing it this evening with the 5n, and it's fab!

The advantage of the A77 is that it takes all those nice A lenses - it's very very fast focusing (and generally fast)

The advantage of the A900 is that it has lovely files

. . . . but give me an S2 any day . . . I wish . . . but hang on!



I'm off to bed.

all the best

 

[Paratom]

Ok, Thanks for all the great answers so far.
Lisa - Seems we agree on the sensor.. regarding weight on the shoulder is not much an issue for me. I often carry my daughter with 13kg on my shoulders, or my paraglider backpack with 15kg so my shoulders can take some abuse. (and thats why I sometimes even carry the S2 for occasional things)
Sizewise there are for sure occasion where I a) dont have the space for large cameras (for example when riding the bike on weekends with the family) or when I want an unobstrusive camera (in the city, when meeting friends, when being on business trips).
Pegelli-I agree with you on the lens size and that those small cameras make really sense when lenses dont beceome too big. Thats why I thought M4/3 would be the ideal compromise in this regard. But I have not yet convinced myself if the sensor fulfills my expectations totally.
Dave, interesting to hear how much you like the A77. Yesterday I played with it in a store side by side with a D7000 and still found the OVF of the Nikon much more compfortable. But maybe I would have to let a EVF grow on me and just use it for some time.
As long as I have a S2 for the really high IQ an A77 would make much more sense than an A900 size wise.

Regarding portable camera I am really interested in the NEX7 but also first want to make sure that m4/3 doesnt fulfill my needs (since I believe the m4/3 lens selection is better and the m4/3 cameras should be more responsive)

Jono, you know through how many cameras I went..and I believe you are even worse for some part in this regard...
By the way to make the confusion complete I even have shot some films lately and like what I get there.

I was not only wanting to figur out what fits my needs, I also wanted to discuss that we now have so many sensor sizes, different viewfinders and systems that it gets harder and harder to figur out what fits ones needs best.
I think the industry is pretty clever to move forward in small steps and allways includes certain features which makes us wanting a new camera (and sometimes forgetting if the whole package would work).

 

[Paratom]

And while discussing different formats...
Yesterday I took some snaps with a M9 and 90/2.8 and a G3+45/1.8 just for fun, with ISO in the 640-1000 ISO range, still images could include some slight shake.
It made me clear that the M9 with the 90 at 2.8 has clearly shallower DOF than the m4/3 with 45 at f1.8/2.0, and IMO it also shows the more gentle rendering of highlights and shaddows of the larger sensor.
This was not a high contrast situation, just cloudy daylight.

So in the end to get the same shallow DOF (and maybe the same noise behaviour) we need faster lenses for smaller sensors.
For DX 1 step faster lens, for m4/3 2 steps faster lens. I mean a 24/1.4 Nex lens would allow the same DOF and FOV like a 35mm/2.0 on a Fullframe camera. Having a f2.8 zoom on DX is like f4 on ff (from the DOF point of view).
I mean we have to take this into the equation if we judge size of systems.
In this regard the Leica M lenses shine for its small size while being good for full frame, being sharp wide open and still delievering great bokeh.

Here the images, if you like you can first guess which is which camera (M9/G3).

 

[ptomsu]

Ok, Thanks for all the great answers so far.
Lisa - Seems we agree on the sensor.. regarding weight on the shoulder is not much an issue for me. I often carry my daughter with 13kg on my shoulders, or my paraglider backpack with 15kg so my shoulders can take some abuse. (and thats why I sometimes even carry the S2 for occasional things)
Sizewise there are for sure occasion where I a) dont have the space for large cameras (for example when riding the bike on weekends with the family) or when I want an unobstrusive camera (in the city, when meeting friends, when being on business trips).
Pegelli-I agree with you on the lens size and that those small cameras make really sense when lenses dont beceome too big. Thats why I thought M4/3 would be the ideal compromise in this regard. But I have not yet convinced myself if the sensor fulfills my expectations totally.
Dave, interesting to hear how much you like the A77. Yesterday I played with it in a store side by side with a D7000 and still found the OVF of the Nikon much more compfortable. But maybe I would have to let a EVF grow on me and just use it for some time.
As long as I have a S2 for the really high IQ an A77 would make much more sense than an A900 size wise.

Regarding portable camera I am really interested in the NEX7 but also first want to make sure that m4/3 doesnt fulfill my needs (since I believe the m4/3 lens selection is better and the m4/3 cameras should be more responsive)

Jono, you know through how many cameras I went..and I believe you are even worse for some part in this regard...
By the way to make the confusion complete I even have shot some films lately and like what I get there.

I was not only wanting to figur out what fits my needs, I also wanted to discuss that we now have so many sensor sizes, different viewfinders and systems that it gets harder and harder to figur out what fits ones needs best.
I think the industry is pretty clever to move forward in small steps and allways includes certain features which makes us wanting a new camera (and sometimes forgetting if the whole package would work).

Tom,

interesting discussions here

WRT many cameras I have been through I think I am not much better (worse) than you and Jono. WRT my likings I am obviously pretty different.

1) I still do not like EVFs, although the EVF of the A77 is a big step forward, a medium quality OVF is still preferable to me. EVFs make me always fell disconnected.

2) Sensor sizes: I have (had) all from Dlux4, XZ1, 43 and M43, APSC, FF, MF. I recently clearly could see the limitations of 43/M43 for really high quality, these sensors are still too small. So either you stick wit 12MP or otherwise IQ suffers substantially.

3) Camera system - after trying a lot (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Pentax, Olympus) I am coming back to Nikon or Canon finally - FF. Both have (offer) a real system, which gives a number of choices for different needs.

So my camera (format) choices will be: small (like XZ1) for really pocket, small higher IQ (M43 or NEX) for light travel and reasonable IQ, FF either Nikon or Canon for real work and flexibilitx (Sony does still not play for me in this field) and MFD (Hasselblad in my case) when I need high MP count and highest IQ.

Most likely I will go back to Canon for FF DSLR, as when scanning through all my digital archives, the Canon DSLRs and L glass brought me the highest number of likes and keepers and their cameras are useable and operational for what I want and need.

MF - I tried the S System, great IQ and great camera, but as a sytem it is far away from being so complete like Hasselblad. I sympathized with Phase several times, but I cannot get friend with their cameras and even Schneider lenses - I prefer much more the Hasselblad handling and feeling and also the final IQ.

Well - and M9, good camera, I still keep all my m glass, but I want to wait till the M10 arrives in 1, 2 or even 3 years. No hurries here, as I am pretty well set up with my other systems / cameras.

So my way into the next future seems pretty clear.

Again, good discussion, keep it going, thanks!

Peter

 

[tsjanik]

view).
......Here the images, if you like you can first guess which is which camera (M9/G3).....

Tom:

Love the first one of the rose (third image? The first two images do not appear for me); wonderful smoothness (M9?). The second is somewhat overexposed for my taste and seems harsher and less appealing.



Tom

 

[Paratom]

Hi Peter,
so far I am also not yet totally convinced about EVF.
Every OVF smaller than that of a D7000 I might prefer an EVF because of size, but for larger ones I think I prefer OVF.

I am still not 100% happy with Nikon IQ, other than that the Nikon user interface, feel, and AF works very well IMO.
The IQ (color) is the reason I allways evaluate other brands.

Some time ago I tried a Canon 7d (I believe there are some Canon primes which are hard to beat (50/1.2, 135/2.0 for example) but the AF of the 7d seemed ubreiable with fast glass. That was the reason I gace up on it. So keep that in mind and check the AF when you get into Canon.
Here I am more torn between Nikon and Sony, and more torn towards DX sized sensor (because ff is too close in size etc. to my S2)
I think I want to check out the A77 and see if I can get used to an evf.

S2...For my needs the best MF system available.
I loved the Hy6 but the S2 is much more convenient for me, the AF is very precise, the camera is fast and instant to use-very nice user interface and I like the minimalistic approach. Its weather sealed, the lenses are great even wide open, and it just feels good in my hands. Plus very responsive service.

I am still afraid just having and thinking too much gear...

Tom,

interesting discussions here

WRT many cameras I have been through I think I am not much better (worse) than you and Jono. WRT my likings I am obviously pretty different.

1) I still do not like EVFs, although the EVF of the A77 is a big step forward, a medium quality OVF is still preferable to me. EVFs make me always fell disconnected.

2) Sensor sizes: I have (had) all from Dlux4, XZ1, 43 and M43, APSC, FF, MF. I recently clearly could see the limitations of 43/M43 for really high quality, these sensors are still too small. So either you stick wit 12MP or otherwise IQ suffers substantially.

3) Camera system - after trying a lot (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Pentax, Olympus) I am coming back to Nikon or Canon finally - FF. Both have (offer) a real system, which gives a number of choices for different needs.

So my camera (format) choices will be: small (like XZ1) for really pocket, small higher IQ (M43 or NEX) for light travel and reasonable IQ, FF either Nikon or Canon for real work and flexibilitx (Sony does still not play for me in this field) and MFD (Hasselblad in my case) when I need high MP count and highest IQ.

Most likely I will go back to Canon for FF DSLR, as when scanning through all my digital archives, the Canon DSLRs and L glass brought me the highest number of likes and keepers and their cameras are useable and operational for what I want and need.

MF - I tried the S System, great IQ and great camera, but as a sytem it is far away from being so complete like Hasselblad. I sympathized with Phase several times, but I cannot get friend with their cameras and even Schneider lenses - I prefer much more the Hasselblad handling and feeling and also the final IQ.

Well - and M9, good camera, I still keep all my m glass, but I want to wait till the M10 arrives in 1, 2 or even 3 years. No hurries here, as I am pretty well set up with my other systems / cameras.

So my way into the next future seems pretty clear.

Again, good discussion, keep it going, thanks!

Peter

 

[Paratom]

Tom:

Love the first one of the rose (third image? The first two images do not appear for me); wonderful smoothness (M9?). The second is somewhat overexposed for my taste and seems harsher and less appealing.



Tom

Tom-you are right-M9 and Elmarit 90mm.
I wonder if I overexposed the other image (g3) slightly but my thoguhts are that you really see the benefit of the larger sensor here.

 

[douglasf13]

...Some time ago I tried a Canon 7d (I believe there are some Canon primes which are hard to beat (50/1.2, 135/2.0 for example)...

FWIW, some think the ZA 135/1.8 itself is worth the price of admission into the Alpha range, and it probably even outperforms the 135L.

 

[ptomsu]

FWIW, some think the ZA 135/1.8 itself is worth the price of admission into the Alpha range, and it probably even outperforms the 135L.

No doubt there are some really great primes in the Sony/Zeiss lineup, the 135/1.8 being maybe the most outstanding here.

But a system for me is more than just one or a few good lenses. How much better is the 135/1.8 than the 135L really? Does this really matter in my photography? And would a fast 135 really be the prime I want? I doubt.

What is of more interest is a consistent high quality throughout fast zooms and primes from far wide to far tele, so one can pick the lenses he really wants. Having said that, both Nikon and Canon can do this today for the FF DSLR range, which is what I am looking for. Choosing Canon or Nikon is just a matter of taste, I am familiar with both as I have shot both brands several times throughout my life and there is absolutely no situation which I could not master equally good with one or the other.

I would have liked Sony to be part of this game from my evaluation point of view. While some of their glass is really outstanding, on the other hand some really sucks IMHO. And what is even more important for me is that they are far away from having a lineup like C/N and putting much less weight on FF. Plus they try to be innovative with inventions like EVF and all you can find in the A77, which is nice and helpful, but still does not replace a decent OVF for me. But if I would be into buying a small DSLR with great glass, maybe an A77 would be it. But this is not the case for me as I want to go FF again between m43 and Hasselblad, as APSC would be too close to m43. All I am hearing is that the A99 will be EVF again, so also this camera will probably not meet my criteria for FF DSLR and OVF, which is bad. Plus the whole lens situation at Sony, which for some is just the perfect and greatest lineup - which I perfectly understand - but for me it is not.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Peter,
so far I am also not yet totally convinced about EVF.
Every OVF smaller than that of a D7000 I might prefer an EVF because of size, but for larger ones I think I prefer OVF.

I am still not 100% happy with Nikon IQ, other than that the Nikon user interface, feel, and AF works very well IMO.
The IQ (color) is the reason I allways evaluate other brands.

Some time ago I tried a Canon 7d (I believe there are some Canon primes which are hard to beat (50/1.2, 135/2.0 for example) but the AF of the 7d seemed ubreiable with fast glass. That was the reason I gace up on it. So keep that in mind and check the AF when you get into Canon.
Here I am more torn between Nikon and Sony, and more torn towards DX sized sensor (because ff is too close in size etc. to my S2)
I think I want to check out the A77 and see if I can get used to an evf.

S2...For my needs the best MF system available.
I loved the Hy6 but the S2 is much more convenient for me, the AF is very precise, the camera is fast and instant to use-very nice user interface and I like the minimalistic approach. Its weather sealed, the lenses are great even wide open, and it just feels good in my hands. Plus very responsive service.

I am still afraid just having and thinking too much gear...

Tom,

I have shot some of my really best portraits with the 1.2/85L, probably for me the best portrait lens even outperforming the M 2/90APO, which means a lot - this being my personal summary of experience, including useability, fast operation and IQ.

If I talk about going back into Canon, I am talking about FF - most likely the 5D2 for the moment as the 5D3 is still not out, but the 5D2 getting very attractive in pricing. So what, why not buy a 3 year old design, as it fulfilled my needs perfectly already when I had it and I can use it as backup or simply trade in when the new 5D3 or even the 3D appear and become available But I am really looking for some of the great zooms as well like the 2.8/16-35L (for me the BEST WA zoom) and the 2.8/70-200II, a huge improvement over the old version and better than the Nikon VRII. Plus the 1.4/24L (unbeatable in IQ, handling and price) and the 1.2/85, which would do it perfectly for the moment. And then think about the coming 4/200-400 1.4 which will be expensive but would cover all my tele needs for wildlife and would result in a 5.6/600 with the integrated extender. Just perfect, a few lenses and I am done for the most part of FF DSLR photography. And to be honest I never had an issue with the AF of the 5D2.

You are right, the S2 is very close to FF WRT sensor size, plus I also think any 5D3 or whatever will come pretty close in resolution to the S2. I am absolutely aware of the fact that the S2 is unbeatable with Leica glass, but here again - does this difference really matter for me. I think the much more flexible, while same time high resolution FF DSLR does a better job for me.

If really high IQ, then I decided to stay with Hasselblad. Did you ever try? The AF is so precise and True Focus so helpful that I doubt the S2 can do any better job. The interface maybe not as minimalistic as the S2, but hey, who cares? If you do not want to use a function just don't use it. Actually I find the interface of the H cameras very good and I configured it that way that it suits my type of work perfectly and some of these functions I would not even have available on the S2 - matter of taste obviously. And the lenses are all perfect wide open already, especially the 2.2/100, which is kind of my standard lens for Hassi.

What actually made me rethink my MFD strategy was that LR3.5 does now support all H system lens profiles (same as Phocus) and the IQ in LR3.5 for Hasselblad is meanwhile on par with Phocus, because this is a joint development between Adobe and Hasselblad. Which all means that I can use now LR3.5, which became my preferred workflow, without any limitations for all my cameras, including Hasselblad. Which in turn measn that I am using my H3D39 more often again! I might upgrade through a trade in to an H4D60 over time, just do not feel the need for it right now.

 

[Paratom]

Hi Peter,
I didnt mean to suggest the S2 to be better than a Hassy (and I am sure the Hassy AF with true focus is at least as good or probabbly better since S2 doesnt have true focus), I just meant that the S2 works very well for me.
Also a question of 2:3 vs 3:4 which is a matter of taste (I like both )

In the end the S2 is not much bigger than what you plan to do in Canon world. The Canon DSLR-system you suggest will be better in low light and faster AF for sure, however the S2 would be my choice regarding user interface, viewfinder etc.
No doubt about the 50 and 85 L lenses, however I heard about quite some AF issues with the 5dII.
For me it is like a combination of a Hassy and a FF DSLR in just one camera. (Of course is not a sports camera though)
Thats why I am looking more towards a dx camera with smaller lenses, but then you ask your elf do you nead that if you have something like a Nex7?
And then you realize the Nex sonds really nice but lens options which fit the size are very limited. Then you think you can use M lenses on the NEx7 but the you ask yourself why would you do that if you also have a ff M9

 

[DHart]

Peter.... I'm heavily a portrait guy and have used Canon 5D and 5DMkII as replacements for my earlier Canon DSLRs from the moment they came out. For me, the 5DMkII with 70-200 f/2.8L is the standard bearer for portrait work. My 70-200 never leaves f/2.8 and I couldn't be happier with the output from this fantastic camera and lens combination. Not that I dislike many of the Canon primes. My vote is for the 5DMkII... an incredibly competent camera and I am not yearning for the MkIII for a second. I think the MkII could easily go on for a couple more years, for what I like from it. And when the MkIII does come out, I'm not at all likely to trade up from the MkII. I really see no reason to. Well... perhaps for a better AF system, I might!

In m4/3, one would need a 100 f/1.8 or 1.4 lens to achieve a similar look to what one can achieve with the 200mm at f/2.8L on the 5DMkII. I'd love to have such a native lens for m4/3, but I don't see one happening for quite some time to come. I do have a Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 that I totally love, but would prefer AF for portrait work. Until a native 100/1.4 comes onto the scene, I'm definitely keeping the Zeiss 85/1.4!

Much as I love the 45/1.8, I still yearn for a fast native 100 for m4/3.

 

[tsjanik]

.... if I overexposed the other image (g3) slightly but my thoguhts are that you really see the benefit of the larger sensor here.

I agree. There is a smoothness present in the first image but absent in the second shot that is independent of exposure, e.g. the leaf slightly lower and to the left of the rose.

Tom