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!

NEX-7 noise is just too much!

Amin

Active member
They do look to be cooked, making the comparisons more difficult. You basically have to process them to taste, do the same for the other camera, and compare at matched output size. Much harder to do a rigorous test.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print.
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
While I appreciate your opinion I must say that my mind has significantly changed over the past few years, since I started doing my own fine art large size prints. For 50x50 print sizes I found that 40MP are MORE than enough without any uprezing. For normal print sizes - say 30x20 you can achieve outstanding results even with 12MP from 43 or m43. Everything in between will be good if you want to do crops, but otherwise not needed.

The most important thing for IQ is NO AA filter! So I hope to see the next generation of 36MP DSLRs (Sony, Nikon) without such a filter.

Coming back to NEX7 and 24MP from APS-C sensor, this seems to be ok, if your main goal is not just high ISO.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be. It is of course possible that there would be even more details available if it had been taken with a NEX 7, but people already say WOW! when they see it, so for me there's no point.

I have to agree with Peter though that no or a weak AA filter is an absolute must. Let me also add a high quality lens. I bought the L1 mostly for the lens, but find the results I get with the camera so good that I use the lens on the L1 rather than on a m4/3 camera.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be. It is of course possible that there would be even more details available if it had been taken with a NEX 7, but people already say WOW! when they see it, so for me there's no point.

I have to agree with Peter though that no or a weak AA filter is an absolute must. Let me also add a high quality lens. I bought the L1 mostly for the lens, but find the results I get with the camera so good that I use the lens on the L1 rather than on a m4/3 camera.
The L1 was my first "serious" digital camera and to my surprise, the kit lens that Panasonic shipped with it remains one of my favorite 4/3 (and via an adapter, m4/3) lenses to this day. In fact, in many ways, I prefer it to the Olympus 14-35/f2, which is no slouch of a performer. I even bought an E-P1 body to use with it because none of the Panasonic bodies I had could autofocus it (since solved with a GX1 btw, which arrived last week).

That said, I can't imagine making a 13x17 print from an L1. While I'm sure it looks great from some distance, I also know that it has to be somewhat less spectacular when viewed from the 18" or so distance that I generally prefer. You see, I prefer to look at my photos portfolio-style, unmounted and unframed, while sitting at a table or in the big, comfy chair in my family room. And for viewing prints at that distance, my standards have to be high ones, which is why I could never print an L1 file any larger than 7.5x10 and still be happy with the resulting print. Obviously, YMMV, though...
 

RichA

New member
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
Not joking, really. Quality is somewhat indefinable, but resolution isn't. There is simply not much gain in the 16x20 paper size above 8 megapixels. If we refer only to resolution, the same thing is obtainable with 30x40 prints and 24 megapixels. Having said that, a medium format camera's image quality is definitely higher than a 35mm sensor with the same pixel count. But that's back to quality again.
 

Riley

New member
not to mention, when you downres an image to something less than the 1:1 the sensor is capable of, you lose resolution. It just could be that another sensor choice of lower resolution defeats the higher resolution downressed. And then all those proclivities about DR and noise come into the equation too. It is not as flat a landscape as high Mp sensor advocates would have you believe

what did Fossum call it, 'the force of marketing is stronger than the force of engineering'
 

Amin

Active member
Michael Reichmann is no noob, and his tests clearly demonstrate that the NEX-7 is great at high ISO and class leading in resolution.
 

Riley

New member
yes but arent MTF50 test done at max size? But this isnt hard to work out, find yourself a res chart like those shot at dpr, downres it to one of your favourite camera image sizes, and check out the difference. Last time I tried it with the 24Mp sensor, it lost...
 

Amin

Active member
I wasn't referring to any MTF50 tests or res charts. I was referring to the samples Reichmann posted and the judgments which he expressed.
 

RichA

New member
Michael Reichmann is no noob, and his tests clearly demonstrate that the NEX-7 is great at high ISO and class leading in resolution.
Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.
 

jonoslack

Active member
It's almost impossible to see a resolution loss on a print at 16x20 if the camera has at least 8 megapixels so "need" 24MP is likely not an issue until you hit at 30x40 inch or larger print.
You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo.
For 50x50 print sizes I found that 40MP are MORE than enough without any uprezing. For normal print sizes - say 30x20 you can achieve outstanding results even with 12MP from 43 or m43. Everything in between will be good if you want to do crops, but otherwise not needed.
Interesting that you mention the L1. I have a print in front of me taken with that camera and the kit-lens. It's 17x13 on A2 paper and it looks as perfect as it can be.
Not joking, really. Quality is somewhat indefinable, but resolution isn't. There is simply not much gain in the 16x20 paper size above 8 megapixels. If we refer only to resolution, the same thing is obtainable with 30x40 prints and 24 megapixels. Having said that, a medium format camera's image quality is definitely higher than a 35mm sensor with the same pixel count. But that's back to quality again.
. . . . . etc. etc. etc.

C'mon guys - it all depends on the

Subject

I've got some good A2+ prints from the humble 5mp Olympus E1, perfect in fact, with no obvious loss of resolution.
On the other hand - if you want a landscape with lots of foliage in it, then the 18mp of the M9 (without an AA filter) is pushing it.

Pictures of people don't need huge resolution, pictures of plants certainly can . . . . this kind of argument really does depend on the subject matter.

Personally I appreciate the 24mp - it makes a lot of difference to me with what I shoot - at least, to some of what I shoot. Definitely horses for courses here.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.
Rich - I think you should read his report again - he didn't say that - and it's misleading for you to put the words into his mouth.

For those who are interested:
Luminous Landscape 24mm comparison

He says (is it alright to post this?)

I have held the new Sony Zeiss e Mount 24mm to a very high standard. The 24mm f/1.4 Summilux is a world-class benchmark lens, one of the finest fast wide angle lenses made. It is of course a full frame lens, while the E mount Zeiss covers APS-C. Also, the Zeiss is an autofocus lens, so in some ways we're comparing peaches and apricots. Also, there is more than a $5,000 price difference between the lenses.

Given all of the above, the 24mm Zeiss stands up to the Leica Summilux very well indeed. It bests it in some areas, holds its own in some, and falls slightly behind elsewhere. Overall this is a stunning performance. There is little vignetting, even wide open, and corners have very good resolution for a lens of this focal length and format. CA and flare is more of an issue with the Zeiss though.


Added to which - you might say it requires that lens to get the best out of any camera - it's quite a good lens!
 

RichA

New member
Rich - I think you should read his report again - he didn't say that - and it's misleading for you to put the words into his mouth.

Added to which - you might say it requires that lens to get the best out of any camera - it's quite a good lens!
His standards are lower than they seem. The Zeiss from the images he posted really does not stand up to the Leica, hence my observation that in order to get the most out of a 24mp APS, you need the very best lenses. I also question his assertion that the Leica is somehow dealing with microlens effects of the NEX-7. It's simple; It's a better lens, it is better corrected and does a better job. You just see it more on the high MP 7 than the 5.
 

etrigan63

Active member
I've found my own observations to echo those of Mr. Reichmann, plus stuff I've gleaned from the fine folks in the Medium Format sections and chats I've had with Doug Petersen of CI: The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.

My father always preferred carpentry to steelwork because "wood forgives" (his words).

The NEX-7 has qualities of many different cameras all rolled into one. It's more chimera than camera. It's got rough spots, but nothing that a firmware patch can't fix. But it's going to take some time before everyone figures out how to really make it sing.
 

jonoslack

Active member
His standards are lower than they seem. The Zeiss from the images he posted really does not stand up to the Leica, hence my observation that in order to get the most out of a 24mp APS, you need the very best lenses.
Well, of course you're entitled to make your own conclusion from his results - but it's better to actually say that's what you're doing, rather than implying that they are his conclusions.

I also question his assertion that the Leica is somehow dealing with microlens effects of the NEX-7.
I don't understand that remark - please could you explain it properly

It's simple; It's a better lens, it is better corrected and does a better job. You just see it more on the high MP 7 than the 5.
When comparing two lenses nothing is simple - certainly a blanket statement like "does a better job" .

Mind you, it would be strange if the Leica wasn't better corrected - after all, it's nearly 4 times the price! I can't unfortunately do a comparison - I only have the 24 'lux (which, being reasonably tele centric does a good job on the NEX7). I'm too stingy to buy the Zeiss lens as well.

Interesting though, that you dislike the extra MP on the NEX7 . . . . but you assert that it does a better job at distinguishing between what are clearly two excellent lenses?
 
Top