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!
pegelli
Well-known member
Interesting statement, you're technically correct but I think the difference between your rhetorical question and a declaration is not awfully large.Then you should not have a problem with me if you correct your reading of a question as "declaration".
Secondly you didn't address my second (and in my mind more important) issue with your OP, but maybe silence is concurrance
V
Vivek
Guest
Quite possibly and it makes absolutely no difference to me or my photography.
Your rhetoric about what you have, be happy, blah, blah. Good for you! Be happy!
Read post #8. I happened to have looked at the features of the models in a bit more detail because they matter to me.Secondly you didn't address my second (and in my mind more important) issue with your OP, but maybe silence is concurrance
Your rhetoric about what you have, be happy, blah, blah. Good for you! Be happy!
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
@ mazor: Ho-hum indeed! Having lugged multiple bodies (FF, both film and digital) for waayyy too many years (30+), I felt it was time to explore the smaller/lighter options.
I had that lens on the A850, too, and it was excellent.
@ Vivek: lovely combination optically, but (I say this ducking for cover) I really do not like the ergonomics of the M8/9 body, and the M9 is not a small camera—I prefer the feel of the X-Pro1, personally if one were going that large. But I decided not to get it simply because it (XP1) is not a small camera either, in the way the NEX-7 plus Sigmaret is. and no tilting EVE nor fold-out LCD, and I need one or the other. And then there's the no adjustable diopter. And for some things (dogs, children) I like the way good AF works. Face detection on the OM-D really works, and it's definitely faster and more accurate than focus and recompose, for me.
@ Douglas: I have the 25/1.4 too as well as the 20/1.7, but when it's fitted, I feel the total package is a bit big; I left that one at home. Feelings-wise (because I have had to get a copy of Lr to process the Raw files; Aperture now recognises these now, so can do a side-by side comparison), the OM-D files are not as malleable as the NEX-7 ones, but that's just a feeling. I will be able to shoot them side by side after today (getting the NEX-7 back today).
The NEX-7 will have the Sigmaret; the OM-D the Panny 20/1.7, so while not the same EFOV, close enough I am hoping to make a meaningful comparison. So far, using the OM-D, I feel you need to protect highlights 1/3EV more than bigger frame cameras, but that's WRT FF sensors. Whether that difference is still apparent between APS-C and µ4/3rds, given the sensor improvements, I can't say yet.
Re. Panny 20/1.4 on the OM-D: no banding at high ISO (but I rarely go over 3200) so far but (and this has to be expected, IMHO), some CA when wide open, and some flare when shooing into bright backlit subjects. It's a brilliant little lens otherwise.
Re. EVFs: have not looked side-by-side yet (as mentioned, I have not had the NEX in my hands for a few weeks); but I get it back today, and will look. My impression is that the OM-D is definitely good enough, way better than the GXR, and in use as good as the NEX-7. Side-by-side might be different!
I had that lens on the A850, too, and it was excellent.
@ Vivek: lovely combination optically, but (I say this ducking for cover) I really do not like the ergonomics of the M8/9 body, and the M9 is not a small camera—I prefer the feel of the X-Pro1, personally if one were going that large. But I decided not to get it simply because it (XP1) is not a small camera either, in the way the NEX-7 plus Sigmaret is. and no tilting EVE nor fold-out LCD, and I need one or the other. And then there's the no adjustable diopter. And for some things (dogs, children) I like the way good AF works. Face detection on the OM-D really works, and it's definitely faster and more accurate than focus and recompose, for me.
@ Douglas: I have the 25/1.4 too as well as the 20/1.7, but when it's fitted, I feel the total package is a bit big; I left that one at home. Feelings-wise (because I have had to get a copy of Lr to process the Raw files; Aperture now recognises these now, so can do a side-by side comparison), the OM-D files are not as malleable as the NEX-7 ones, but that's just a feeling. I will be able to shoot them side by side after today (getting the NEX-7 back today).
The NEX-7 will have the Sigmaret; the OM-D the Panny 20/1.7, so while not the same EFOV, close enough I am hoping to make a meaningful comparison. So far, using the OM-D, I feel you need to protect highlights 1/3EV more than bigger frame cameras, but that's WRT FF sensors. Whether that difference is still apparent between APS-C and µ4/3rds, given the sensor improvements, I can't say yet.
Re. Panny 20/1.4 on the OM-D: no banding at high ISO (but I rarely go over 3200) so far but (and this has to be expected, IMHO), some CA when wide open, and some flare when shooing into bright backlit subjects. It's a brilliant little lens otherwise.
Re. EVFs: have not looked side-by-side yet (as mentioned, I have not had the NEX in my hands for a few weeks); but I get it back today, and will look. My impression is that the OM-D is definitely good enough, way better than the GXR, and in use as good as the NEX-7. Side-by-side might be different!
Last edited:
douglasf13
New member
Fantastic, thanks Kit.
pegelli
Well-known member
Why don't you follow your own advice and be happy, buying and changing lenses and bodies faster than dirty underwear isn't going to make you any happier unless you're a gear geek.:bugeyes:Good for you! Be happy!
m_driscoll
New member
I personally, don't think so. Too many photographic dilettantes, like me, switch from camera system to camera system, several times a year. On this forum, that means switching sections and threads (might seem like "winding down")
My 'constant' is the Leica M system. My other systems are, somewhat (other then the Sony A) based on their ability to use Leica glass and offer something missing from the Leica. My missing elements are AF, compact size, viewfinder, larger tilting LCD, big glass, and high ISO performance.
M9 - Leica glass!
Nex 7 - AF, compact size, viewfinder, tilting LCD, Sony A mount lenses, reasonably good E - mount lenses, decent high ISO, big Sony glass with adapter, Leica glass and almost any other lens with an adapter, and Focus Peaking!
A77 - fast AF, viewfinder, tilting LCD, decent high ISO, big glass and excellent lenses
Fuji X-Pro 1- fast enough AF, excellent fast prime lenses, high ISO performance, viewfinder, Leica glass with adapter
Fuji X10 - AF, compact size, fast fixed telephoto, good enough high ISO
IQ isn't missing from the M9. The cameras above certainly don't compete with it on that score. I think (and hope) the Nex system will be around for a while, and keep improving. It has a lot going for it!
Cheers, Matt
Zenfolio | Matt Driscoll
My 'constant' is the Leica M system. My other systems are, somewhat (other then the Sony A) based on their ability to use Leica glass and offer something missing from the Leica. My missing elements are AF, compact size, viewfinder, larger tilting LCD, big glass, and high ISO performance.
M9 - Leica glass!
Nex 7 - AF, compact size, viewfinder, tilting LCD, Sony A mount lenses, reasonably good E - mount lenses, decent high ISO, big Sony glass with adapter, Leica glass and almost any other lens with an adapter, and Focus Peaking!
A77 - fast AF, viewfinder, tilting LCD, decent high ISO, big glass and excellent lenses
Fuji X-Pro 1- fast enough AF, excellent fast prime lenses, high ISO performance, viewfinder, Leica glass with adapter
Fuji X10 - AF, compact size, fast fixed telephoto, good enough high ISO
IQ isn't missing from the M9. The cameras above certainly don't compete with it on that score. I think (and hope) the Nex system will be around for a while, and keep improving. It has a lot going for it!
Cheers, Matt
Zenfolio | Matt Driscoll
4season
Well-known member
I still don't see what the big deal is: As originally shipped, the NEX-3 and 5 were clearly conceived as "lifestyle" products, and I think Sony was not expecting so many advanced users! Nevertheless, they greatly improved the firmware for the earlier cameras, shipped the NEX-7 and 24/1.8 Zeiss lens, and have a "G" zoom on the way. That's a pretty quick turnabout I think.
But there's still room for "Lifestyle" too, and in fact, a lot of today's pro/prosumer features started off as silly consumer gimmicks. Like video, articulated screens and so on.
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Using the two cameras today (NEX-7, OM-D), indoors, I am convinced that the EVF of the OM-D is the better of the two, against all specs, and what others have written. Some reasons:
OM-D diopter is far the easier EFV to focus (meaning to get a clear image in the finder), and I have the JPEGs in both set to reduced contrast (-1) and the Sony set to +1 sharpness (another [poster's recommendation of +3 made the image look way too video-like for me, with the Sigmaret mounted (so, using AF).
And the big one is that the image is clearer and more detailed. I was sufficiently concerned that the NEX-7 EVF was inferior to the 5N's external finder that I sent the '7 back to the dealer for him to check; I had already sold the 5N by that time and thus could not compare. Side-by-side in the same interior (my AZ hotel room!) my impression is that the OM-D finder is simply a better image, despite way less pixels. The NEX-7 finder strains my eyesight (the eye is constantly trying to make the image better), whereas the the eye is relaxed using the OM-D.
I cannot find a way to have shadows/highlights displaying on the NEX-7 while composing; is there one? I find this very handy with the OM-D; often faster than the histogram.
That's all for now; more later.
OM-D diopter is far the easier EFV to focus (meaning to get a clear image in the finder), and I have the JPEGs in both set to reduced contrast (-1) and the Sony set to +1 sharpness (another [poster's recommendation of +3 made the image look way too video-like for me, with the Sigmaret mounted (so, using AF).
And the big one is that the image is clearer and more detailed. I was sufficiently concerned that the NEX-7 EVF was inferior to the 5N's external finder that I sent the '7 back to the dealer for him to check; I had already sold the 5N by that time and thus could not compare. Side-by-side in the same interior (my AZ hotel room!) my impression is that the OM-D finder is simply a better image, despite way less pixels. The NEX-7 finder strains my eyesight (the eye is constantly trying to make the image better), whereas the the eye is relaxed using the OM-D.
I cannot find a way to have shadows/highlights displaying on the NEX-7 while composing; is there one? I find this very handy with the OM-D; often faster than the histogram.
That's all for now; more later.
kuau
Workshop Member
I am hanging on to my NEX 7 and will wait for these new sony e lenses to come out.
Hell it took forever to get and I like the size of it, and the built in EVF range finder style. Sure I would have liked a NEX 7 with the 16mp sensor and life would be better.
Though since I don't really like 3:2 format to start with, having the 24mp sensor is a plus because i end up chopping off to 5:4 format which I much prefer and still end up with a 18-20mp image...
Steven
Hell it took forever to get and I like the size of it, and the built in EVF range finder style. Sure I would have liked a NEX 7 with the 16mp sensor and life would be better.
Though since I don't really like 3:2 format to start with, having the 24mp sensor is a plus because i end up chopping off to 5:4 format which I much prefer and still end up with a 18-20mp image...
Steven
V
Vivek
Guest
I think your sole purpose here appears to be to harrass me.
I have no clue who you are and I would ask you to leave me and my posts alone. Thanks. I am not too enthusiastic to be posting here under these circumstances.kit laughlin, i have never had issues focusing the dioptor on the 5n external viewfinder. Is it possible that your nex7 one is not calibrated properly? From the spec the nex 5n evf accessory is the same spec as the nex 7 built in evf.
My evf is so clear and easy to view, I find myself frequently reviewing my images through the evf rather than the lcd.
My evf is so clear and easy to view, I find myself frequently reviewing my images through the evf rather than the lcd.
douglasf13
New member
+1, and I don't remember a difference between my 5N and 7 EVF.
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Hello mazor and douglas; I sent the NEX-7 back to the dealer, who compared it to others, and he said it was the same—and I respect that, but I am selling it because I do not find it as good, or as 'transparent' as the 5N's.
Not sure what's going on, but I do not enjoy looking though it as much as the OM-D. Thanks for the comments.
Not sure what's going on, but I do not enjoy looking though it as much as the OM-D. Thanks for the comments.
douglasf13
New member
That's interesting, thanks Kit. After talking to a lot of various users about various EVFs, I think people's eyes differ enough to make the preferences vary quite a bit. The NEX-7 EVF is great for me, but I'll just have to try that OM-D out sometime.
douglasf13
New member
I do notice that I prefer shooting the 7 with the eyecup removed, so that I can get my eye right up on the lens. With the 5N, I left the eye cup on, because tilting the EVF up a little allowed a good angle.
In one way I agree that it is important to have the right lenses for the task and those with the right quality. But then the next question would be: how many different lenses does one really "need"?
douglasf13
New member
No kidding. I constantly see this argument for the Canon DSLR system, but I only use 3-4 focal lengths max on any system.