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!

Luminous Landscape on NEX 5n

Terry

New member
I caved but it was before I read it. With the NEX 7 now delayed I decided to sell my remaining NEX 5 and make a 5N + 7 my two body kit. Not exactly cash neutral but.....

Also, to those looking for the EVF in the US. I ordered mine from DIgital Rev in Hong Kong. Believe it or not even with express shipping it was cheaper than ordering from the US. Oh...and right now in the US, good luck finding one.
 

Terry

New member
So Terry.....no more m4/3's?

R
I have both. I had sold all m4/3 last year but when I was invited on a Safari I bought back into m4/3 because the 100-300mm lens made the most sense for me.

There was always something about the NEX that I liked.....and it nagged at me a bit. The NEX 7 looked like a really cool camera and I pre-ordered it. With the delays and the high ISO kudos that the 5N gets, it seemed worth selling some gear to get it.

I'm not totally rational with my gear purchases.....but I do enjoy it.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Jono,
This review confirms the reason I got a nex5n, I also picked up a a CV 25mm and CV 40mm lenses which both perform excellent on the 5n, I also found a slightly used Sony EVF,
What a great little camera and I can finally manual focus :)
No it's not a M9, but for the price and the size, not a bad little setup

Steven
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I have both. I had sold all m4/3 last year but when I was invited on a Safari I bought back into m4/3 because the 100-300mm lens made the most sense for me.

There was always something about the NEX that I liked.....and it nagged at me a bit. The NEX 7 looked like a really cool camera and I pre-ordered it. With the delays and the high ISO kudos that the 5N gets, it seemed worth selling some gear to get it.

I'm not totally rational with my gear purchases.....but I do enjoy it.
Interesting, I am currently rethinking (rebuilding) all my systems and I am pretty close to sell my m43 (EP3 and GH2) and get a Sony NEX7 instead of it. Reasons? I am not so happy with the road M43 is going lately and they also seem not to be able to keep up with their promises on high speed primes.

Yes I know that 1.8/45 is fast, but for me not as high speed as I would like. And when using my M glass on M43, it is too much crop for me, wit the NEX7 it would be only 1.5. Plus the NEX7 seems to come closest to a real M setup, which of course is also appealing.

And finally, I could start practicing to get more used to an EVF, as I am still not able to really accept it, but as the NEX7 EVF is rumored to be the far best out today (and from the specs it is), that should be ok.
 

Terry

New member
I'm not defending m4/3 here (since I will also own NEX) but while f1.8 may not be fast enough for you but it is interesting because in terms of fast primes m4/3 is better than some more established dslr systems with

12 f2 (24)
14 f2.5 (28)
17 f2.8 (34)
20 f1.7 (40)
25 f1.4 (50)
24 f1.8 (90)

Unless you plan on using Zeiss Alpha glass, NEX is pretty far behind with the fastest lenses being 24 and 50. The only other primes are the 16 and the 30 macro.

Panasonic is supposed to release a more full featured camera in a few weeks. Rumors were at first that it had a new built in EVF and then rumors that it didn't. M4/3's is also working on two fast primes to be the classic 24-70 and 70-200 equivalents.

Given all of this I really don't understand the comments on the direction of m4/3
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Maybe I should have elaborated more on this:

Fast means for me 1.4 or 1.2. Anything else is just normal. So I could use my fast M glass for this, but then again NEX is better suited, because it has less crop - at least for me.

Anyway I am not arguing that M43 is bad, by no means, but maybe just like you I want sometimes also try different scenarios. In that regard time seems to have come.

Last comment: there are (were) promises for long time that M43 (and also 43) will get faster glass (as of my definition), but till today most has not come true and will happen only very slowly. I live now, I make photos now, so simply tired of waiting any longer ....
 

Paratom

Well-known member
IMO the 45/1.8 is really a nice step in the right direction.
Lets not forget though that the DOF atf 45mm/ f1.8 is comparable to the DOF of a full frame 90mm lens around f4.0...or on a DX sensor a 50 or 55mm lens at f2.8!

The 45/1.8 is a great step forward for m4/3 IMO because it is the first m4/3 (besides third party) lens which lets one get a nice blurred background, even though it is still not something what you can get with a f1.4 lens and a larger sensor.
 

Terry

New member
IMO the 45/1.8 is really a nice step in the right direction.
Lets not forget though that the DOF atf 45mm/ f1.8 is comparable to the DOF of a full frame 90mm lens around f4.0...or on a DX sensor a 50 or 55mm lens at f2.8!

The 45/1.8 is a great step forward for m4/3 IMO because it is the first m4/3 (besides third party) lens which lets one get a nice blurred background, even though it is still not something what you can get with a f1.4 lens and a larger sensor.
The 25mm f1.4 or 0.95 do the trick as well.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
IMO the 45/1.8 is really a nice step in the right direction.
Lets not forget though that the DOF atf 45mm/ f1.8 is comparable to the DOF of a full frame 90mm lens around f4.0...or on a DX sensor a 50 or 55mm lens at f2.8!

The 45/1.8 is a great step forward for m4/3 IMO because it is the first m4/3 (besides third party) lens which lets one get a nice blurred background, even though it is still not something what you can get with a f1.4 lens and a larger sensor.
Sure, I agree, a step in the right direction. But I would call we have arrived if it would be a 1.4/45.
 

jonoslack

Active member
45mm actual or effective? The 25mm is 590mm effective.
:) on which sensor is that Uwe?

Peter
If you want limited depth of field . . . . . . then you need a full frame camera (or MF) - it simply isn't sensible to be getting hold of a small sensor camera (even if it's 'big small'). f1.4 lenses are going to be big (even on m43 or NEX) which rather destroys the point . . . and still won't really give you limited depth of field.

Of course, you can use your M glass on a NEX . . . but why not use it on an M9?

Especially as you don't like the Sony colour . . . . which the NEX range seems to have consistently used.

all the best
 

emr

Member
I have been planning to get a NEX to be used with my manual lenses and as a compact travel camera. However, I would very much like it to have a VF and not just back telly. So I was waiting for the NEX-7, but after what happened to the Thai factories, we seem to be limited to C3 and 5N as long as even they are on stock. I'm just wondering whether the 5N is really worth the pretty substantial price difference compared to the C3? Especially considering the clicking issue. Admittedly the 5N can use an external EVF, but I find the idea of an external EVF somewhat disturbing and would definitely prefer the built-in of the 7. Oh well...
 

jonoslack

Active member
I have been planning to get a NEX to be used with my manual lenses and as a compact travel camera. However, I would very much like it to have a VF and not just back telly. So I was waiting for the NEX-7, but after what happened to the Thai factories, we seem to be limited to C3 and 5N as long as even they are on stock. I'm just wondering whether the 5N is really worth the pretty substantial price difference compared to the C3? Especially considering the clicking issue. Admittedly the 5N can use an external EVF, but I find the idea of an external EVF somewhat disturbing and would definitely prefer the built-in of the 7. Oh well...
Well, the external viewfinder on my NEX5n is firmly screwed to the camera - it works really well, feels firm, and (I think) looks pretty cool as well. Like the rest of us, I'd rather have the NEX 7, but this camera is fast and produces really fine images.
 

Amin

Active member
Very positive review, indeed. If I remember correctly, he didn't like the NEX-5 at all. For Reichmann, an eye level viewfinder is a must. Other than that option and video capability, there's very little difference between the 5N and the 5 with latest firmware update.

I decided to save myself $300 and downgrade from the 5N to a barely used C3.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
I pre-ordered the nex 7 to, though right now I am quite happy with my 5n + EVF which as Jono pointed out works very well, looks cool and it screws down onto the 5n.
IQ is very good..
 

Paratom

Well-known member
:) on which sensor is that Uwe?

Peter
If you want limited depth of field . . . . . . then you need a full frame camera (or MF) - it simply isn't sensible to be getting hold of a small sensor camera (even if it's 'big small'). f1.4 lenses are going to be big (even on m43 or NEX) which rather destroys the point . . . and still won't really give you limited depth of field.

Of course, you can use your M glass on a NEX . . . but why not use it on an M9?

Especially as you don't like the Sony colour . . . . which the NEX range seems to have consistently used.

all the best
Sorry the following to be off topic:
Over the last days I shot around a little more comparisons (with g3,M9,A900 and S2) and the M9 + M-glass produces a smoothness regarding bokeh and overall look which I just like a lot. The M9 images really shine in this regard.
So I also come to the conclusion that for "bokeh"-lovers and shallow DOF shooters the M9 does very very well.
However I have to say even though I am used to rangefinder I find it easier to frame with a nice slr viewfinder (or EVF) than a rangefinder.
With the rangefinder you need to use more the imagination vs with the other viewfinders you really better see what you get.

I am also at the point that IQ of many camera is so god today that maybe the different user interface and lens options make a bitter difference than just IQ of the sensor when deciding for a system.
 
M

memories

Guest
...
If you want limited depth of field . . . . . . then you need a full frame camera (or MF) - it simply isn't sensible to be getting hold of a small sensor camera (even if it's 'big small'). f1.4 lenses are going to be big (even on m43 or NEX) which rather destroys the point . . . and still won't really give you limited depth of field.

...
+1

....
However I have to say even though I am used to rangefinder I find it easier to frame with a nice slr viewfinder (or EVF) than a rangefinder.
With the rangefinder you need to use more the imagination vs with the other viewfinders you really better see what you get.

I am also at the point that IQ of many camera is so god today that maybe the different user interface and lens options make a bitter difference than just IQ of the sensor when deciding for a system.
+1
 
Top