Nex-5n vs Nex7

[jonoslack]

I wish they could also implement an option of having the DSLR like predefined focus box locations which you can quickly cycle through. Touchscreen definitely simplifies the process of selecting a fox box, but you have to take your eye off the viewfinder (I dont own a 5N yet, this is just based on playing with the camera in store ). And also unless you are on a tripod, when you are selecting the focus box location with touch screen you are not looking at the actual scene that you are going to capture - so you have to estimate where you need the box to be. Where as on my DSLR, I can easily and quickly select the more relavant focus point while keeping the camera at my eye.

Off course with something like that, you loose the "i can place my focus box anywhere I want", but I will happily take that compromise. It will allow me to select the focus point, magnify the view, set focus and be done very quickly without having to take my eye off.

Hmm - well - I mostly have the focus point variable - you can then cycle through it using the arrows even with your eye to the viewfinder. I think that what you want is perfectly possible.

 

[jonoslack]

It's funny that, after trying to sell Jono on peaking a few months back, now I'm enjoying focus magnification again with the 5N touchscreen.

Oh! I've had to eat my hat so many times recently that I'm getting indigestion! I don't know how many times I swore I'd never use an EVF . . .

For any type of non-static, moving scenario, focus peaking is outstanding, and I use it much of the time. Now that the touchscreen allows you to press to magnify any part of the screen, I'm using touch magnification for static scenes, since it is more accurate. I hated moving the little box around with magnification on the NEX-5, but I rather enjoy the new method on the 5N.

I understand what you're saying - but so much of my method is instinctive composition that the zoom in bit really disturbs my equilibrium.

 

[curious80]

Hmm - well - I mostly have the focus point variable - you can then cycle through it using the arrows even with your eye to the viewfinder. I think that what you want is perfectly possible.

But doesn't that move at something like a couple of LCD pixels at a time such that it takes a lot of time if you want to move it significantly?

 

[douglasf13]

From center, it takes 16 clicks to reach the sides, or 10 clicks to reach the top or bottom. However, if you pick a focus point with the touchscreen, it'll return to that point when you hit the magnification button.

 

[curious80]

Thanks for the detailed info!

The 10 and 16 clicks might not be too bad, probably quite workable. But it would still be great to have the ability to "hop" quickly to focus points instead of precise-but-slow incremental adjustments.

Touchscreen way is off course quite handy, I suppose I need to use it in the field to see how much of an issue it is to have to take the eye and look at the LCD for focus point adjustment

 

[jonoslack]

From center, it takes 16 clicks to reach the sides, or 10 clicks to reach the top or bottom. However, if you pick a focus point with the touchscreen, it'll return to that point when you hit the magnification button.

Hmmm Mine's different:

Flexible spot
centre to edge - 8 clicks (16 from one side to the other)
centre to top - 5 clicks (10 from top to bottom)

that's half as many clicks as you.

have I done something different!

all the best

Thanks for the detailed info!

The 10 and 16 clicks might not be too bad, probably quite workable. But it would still be great to have the ability to "hop" quickly to focus points instead of precise-but-slow incremental adjustments.

When you are in 'clicking' mode (depending on how you set it up) then the number of clicks from centre is as above (not sure why I get different from Douglas?). If you use the touchscreen it then gets you to any spot you want.
To be honest, it's really easier than a dSLR focus point selection.

I guess you'll have to try it, and getting it to do what you want is not always terribly obvious! . . . but once you've sussed it it's usually pretty easy.

 

[douglasf13]

That's weird, Jono. I just tried it again and got 16/10 clicks. Wonder if there is a setting some where that I'm missing?

 

[curious80]

Could this be a difference in firmware version or something like that?

 

[curious80]

Here is what imagine resource says about flexible spot mode:

"This mode provides greater positioning accuracy and a smaller AF point, which can be placed anywhere within a 17 x 11 grid that fills most of the image frame, except for the extreme edges."

So this seems to go with what Jono said i.e. 8/5 clicks from center to edge and 16/10 clicks edge-to-edge

 

[douglasf13]

Huh, I'll have to look into it.

 

[fotografz]

Hmmm, I wonder about the increase in pixel count with the NEX7 verses the NEX5N bringing any real image improvement.

I just watched the entire Yale lecture by Eric Fossum, inventor of the CMOS technology on DP Review, which now makes me question the jump from 16 meg to 24 meg on this sized sensor. Basically he sums it up in one statement ... "The force of marketing is greater that the force of engineering."

In essence, he forwards the notion that increasing the number is good for selling, but the more the sensor exceeds the 4 micron diffraction limit, the less return on image quality, or something to that effect. He stated this a number of times during the lecture along with charts and graphs illustrating the point.

It is also interesting why CMOS was invented in the first place ...which he also covers.

I think I'll move from my NEX5 to a 5N with the EFV and wait on the NEX 7, which if anything like the A77 as it is currently performing, seems to prove Dr. Fossum's point.

Just my 2¢

-Marc

 

[jonoslack]

Hmmm, I wonder about the increase in pixel count with the NEX7 verses the NEX5N bringing any real image improvement.

I just watched the entire Yale lecture by Eric Fossum, inventor of the CMOS technology on DP Review, which now makes me question the jump from 16 meg to 24 meg on this sized sensor. Basically he sums it up in one statement ... "The force of marketing is greater that the force of engineering."

In essence, he forwards the notion that increasing the number is good for selling, but the more the sensor exceeds the 4 micron diffraction limit, the less return on image quality, or something to that effect. He stated this a number of times during the lecture along with charts and graphs illustrating the point.

It is also interesting why CMOS was invented in the first place ...which he also covers.

I think I'll move from my NEX5 to a 5N with the EFV and wait on the NEX 7, which if anything like the A77 as it is currently performing, seems to prove Dr. Fossum's point.

Just my 2¢

-Marc

HI Marc
You may be right . . . . but I seem to remember the same arguments being put forward for the increase from 5mp to 10!

Remember, diminishing returns doesn't mean NO returns.

 

[fotografz]

HI Marc
You may be right . . . . but I seem to remember the same arguments being put forward for the increase from 5mp to 10!

Remember, diminishing returns doesn't mean NO returns.

Yeah, I remember those type discussions too ... but those arguments back then weren't coming from the guy that invented the technology and is on the forefront of applying it now

While it is a bit long, take a listen to what he says about the state of current pixel sizes ... in retrospect, 5 meg to 10 meg probably involved pixel sizes with-in the scope of the sensor de-fraction limit he discusses. It may well be that diminishing returns are now approaching no returns with the currently available sensor technology.

I began suspecting this some time ago when using a FF D700 with a lower meg count but excellent IQ ... and actually have taken heart in that Canon chose to bring a FF 18 meg high performance camera to market.

We'll see.

-Marc

 

[ptomsu]

I am actually coming to this point as well, that there is a reasonable limit for pixel count WRT sensor size. The optimum for FF seems to be in the area of 18-22MP. And as I could see with my E5 and the limitation to 12MP in this camera (sure 43 sensor, so half the size of FF sensor) in combination with superior image processing technology and weak AA filter delivers stunning results.

Physics can hardly be fooled. Marketing can fool a lot!

When I first saw the Canon 1DX announcement I was disappointed, but finally after rethinking all and looking also to my image DB comparing different DSLRs with different pixel count, I come to the conclusion that something like 18 (or 20 or 24)MP in a FF DSLR seems to be the optimum. Higher resolution just brings number of issues, not only more noise, but also more diffraction if not used in the optimum aperture range.

Currently sitting on the fence for my next DSLR purchase (I know gearhead ) and the 1DX is VERY tempting, although I would welcome some slightly smaller form factor like the 5D2 (then hopefully the 5D3) with some MP count around 20MP.

Times are getting interesting, especially while the Nikon D800 is rumored to have 36MP (same as later to follow A99), which would then be in perfect contradiction to what Canon found and where they are moving

 

[douglasf13]

I haven't had a chance to watch that Dr. Fossum video yet, but the conclusions being reached from it don't sound like they jive with what he's said in the past. In fact, to quote Dr. Fossum from a forum posting from January '11:

------
"Generally, image quality improves with pixel count, assuming ideal sensor technology. There is only a sweet spot according to a specific technology. The sweet spot is constantly migrating to higher pixel counts. And I am pretty sure that in our life time, there will be gigapixel sensors.

Fill factor is indeed improving and BSI was a big step for improving FF and reducing crosstalk. You can expect pixel sizes less than a micron within 5 years in consumer products and digital biinning of sub-micron pixels to a larger pixel and lower pixel count will give better SNR for the same optics than the equivalent single RGBG kernel size from say 5 or 10 years ago.

All this whining about the megapixel race is a waste of your time and breath. This race results in a rising technology tide that floats all boats, from VGA laptop sensors to DSLRs and astronomical applications. Don't worry, be happy."
------

The returns may be diminishing, especially due to diffraction, but, until we're limited to diffraction at f1.4 or something, I have no problem with the megapixel counts moving up.

As for the Canon 1DX, it's almost a case of marketing to 2007. In the beginning, increasing megapixel counts was desired. Then, in the mid 2000s, everyone started comparing pixels to buckets of water, etc. and decided that more megapixels meant more noise. Now, most are realizing that, if you compare at like image sizes, more megapixels doesn't mean more noise. It only means more noise at the pixel level, which doesn't have much practical application.

In order to consolidate their product line, Canon is making a strange move and marketing to the pixel noise meme of 2007, when, really, I'd imagine that the 1DX is only 18mp because the thing has to shoot at 14fps. I'd personally be pretty PO'd if I was a Canon studio/landscape shooter, because the next round of Sony 135 chips will surely be 30+ megapixels. As a photographer, it just makes more sense for both Canon and Nikon to have 2 pro cameras catered towards different segments, but I think this is a cost cutting move by Canon. If I was a 1D shooter, I'd probably be excited, but, if I was a 1Ds shooter, I'd be disappointed.

Back to the subject at hand, I'm really hoping that the NEX-7 performs as well as the 5N with rangefinder glass, but, seeing preliminary examples, I'm worried that the micro lens design for the smaller pixels isn't optimized well enough, and the corners may have issues, so I may actually stick with the lower megapixel camera, in this case.

 

[jonoslack]

Yeah, I remember those type discussions too ... but those arguments back then weren't coming from the guy that invented the technology and is on the forefront of applying it now

HI Marc
Everyone has an agenda, and the current agenda might just be sponsored by Canon . . . . I'm never very convinced by the 'It Stops Here' arguments - they're so popular, and so rarely right:
Remember Bill Gates on RAM
Remember the rules about data transfer and copper wire
. . . . I could go on and on (and so could you).

Maybe the sensor in the A77 and NEX7 isn't any better than the one in the NEX5n (but in my viewing it's certainly just as good when (as Douglas says) viewing images rather than pixels) - and at low ISO it provides a lot more real-estate for cropping.

@Douglas - right on - quite agree - thanks for the quotes

 

[ptomsu]

All of this argumentation does not overcome some basic physical laws, like eg diffraction limits and even more limiting lp a lens can resolve. Only expensive pro grade lenses can in best case justify high MP count. We are actually above lens resolution of high grade glass already today with 24MP in a FF DSLR. Maybe with Leica glass you can get a bit higher but something around 30+ MP will definitely be the reasonable limit for FF.

 

[ptomsu]

HI Marc
Everyone has an agenda, and the current agenda might just be sponsored by Canon . . . . I'm never very convinced by the 'It Stops Here' arguments - they're so popular, and so rarely right:
Remember Bill Gates on RAM
Remember the rules about data transfer and copper wire
. . . . I could go on and on (and so could you).

Maybe the sensor in the A77 and NEX7 isn't any better than the one in the NEX5n (but in my viewing it's certainly just as good when (as Douglas says) viewing images rather than pixels) - and at low ISO it provides a lot more real-estate for cropping.

@Douglas - right on - quite agree - thanks for the quotes

BTW WRT data rate on copper - VDSL (around 50Mbps) is still the limit for copper wire telephone cable and 1Gbps is the limit for Cat6 (shielded) when trying to achieve reasonable distances.

These limits are there since long time (over 10 years) and are not being pushed upwards because simply not possible with reasonably priced technology.

Pretty much the same is true for optics and image sensors.

 

[Jim DE]

Marc, I have to question this comment "I think I'll move from my NEX5 to a 5N with the EFV and wait on the NEX 7, which if anything like the A77 as it is currently performing, seems to prove Dr. Fossum's point." You referring to the comments from the DPR review? Or owners?

I don't see owners having anything but praise for the IQ of the a77 from 1600 to 50 ISO. Fact is I think there might be too much detail in 50 ISO images for web or a4 and smaller prints but it all pans out by downsizing. Yes the review sites have their issues but in the real world these seem to not exist except in a extremely few owners comments. I have one and am waiting for aperture 3 support but have had no Negative IQ issues to report even using JPEG's. But that is just me and I know very well that others may have different opinions.

It works great for my wildlife shots and especially the BIF shots but I bought it to do these and bin the pixels during cropping to obtain low cost additional effective focal length. A 600mm Minolta lens costs far more than a a77 body.

All this pixel density and noise at high ISO chat reminds me when the Canon G10 came out and DPR forums ripped it and DPR followed with a silver review for these issues. Knuckling under to consumers complaints Canon came out with a lower pixel count G11 which few considered better than the G10 for IQ. A new G10 goes for 3 times the price of a new G12 today and is still a very high demand item for those who liked and used them. I use one still today in a underwater housing for my wet work and enjoy its IQ.

I've gotten to the point that if DPR reviews a product as silver I look at it more seriously than one they rate at gold. Case in point: the Canon G10, the NEX 5, and now the a77 all of which I own and enjoy and DPR stoned these products and IMO got it wrong each time.

 

[douglasf13]

Most lenses still out resolve even the 24mp asp-c sensor at larger apertures, especially in the center. As megapixels go up, this will eventually change, but the sensor is still the limiting force in system resolution in most cases, outside of when diffraction limits lens resolution. Megapixel counts have a ways to go before they out resolve lenses at all apertures.