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!

DP review of Sony Nex5

Martin S

New member
This rather lukewarm review mirrors the other early reviews. What I find interesting is the lack of an appreciable difference in either dynamic range, or quality of high ISO images when compared to m 4/3,

For years we have heard that the conventional 4/3 system was inferior to the APS-C cameras primarily because of the smaller sensor (other aspects like CPU, and the width of the internal pipeline are also different). It seems, that perhaps some of the earlier observations of the deficiencies of the 4/3 system were based on parts of the system other than pixel size??

However. now with direct comparisons to APS-C sensor (Sony NEX5, and Samsung NX-10) to m 4/3, there appears to be a lack of real difference. How did the m 4/3 get to be so good, or the APS_C bodies to be so "bad" to minimize the aforementioned benefits of the larger sensor???

What do you think???

Martin
 
V

Vivek

Guest
For years we have heard that the conventional 4/3 system was inferior to the APS-C cameras primarily because of the smaller sensor (other aspects like CPU, and the width of the internal pipeline are also different). It seems, that perhaps some of the earlier observations of the deficiencies of the 4/3 system were based on parts of the system other than pixel size??



Martin

That, Martin, sort of gives the wrong idea. Auto focus, high ISO capability, overall better image quality are still lacking in m4/3rds (G1) realtive to some APS-C SLRs (Nikon, various cams), IME.

If it isn't for the swivel TFT screen, the fabulous EVF and the adaptability of various esoteric lenses (especially the fast variety), I would not continue to be enchanted with (and using) the G1, despite its shortcomings.
 

Martin S

New member
Vivek

Thanks for replying.

Since u have NX-10, u are in a great position to compare the DR, and high ISO qualities of each system. Let's leave out the focus issues and compare these two sensor size related qualities.

My question is is there much difference between on the two systems (DR, and high ISO quality), based on the sensor size only???

All of the comparisons that I have seen have indicated that there are pretty similar.

Your observations please, and anyone else who cares to comment.

Martin
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Martin, On that question (albeit my experience with the NX10 is very limited because the cam is just so difficult to use compared to a G1)-

The active pixel area in NX10 sensor is pretty (5 micron) close to that of the corresponding one in m4/3rds sensor while the NMOS sensor has much better
response (IMV) compared to the CMOS of Samsung (despite the advances they claim).

This is why I am so very eagerly looking forward to a Panasonic G3 with an improved sensor.

The NX10, to say the least, is a big disappointment.

I really have no idea what to do with it. I tried dumping it on the family members but alas, no takers. :(
 

Martin S

New member
Is the G2 sensor significantly improved??

Is the signal pipeline 4 channel instead of 2??

Any real data about the sensor itself??

Martin
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Is the G2 sensor significantly improved??

Is the signal pipeline 4 channel instead of 2??

Any real data about the sensor itself??

Martin
Good questions, Martin! :)

I feel that Panasonic should address such questions. They ought to put some info on their website or something like that instead of letting entities and individuals opining on such matters freely.


(Everyone knows by now that the touch screen is new and novel... for the m4/3rds..)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well the Sony review seems to bear out what the specs implied, that it was a magnificently tiny camera with big lenses, that the interface was innovative enough to be nearly useless, and that the image quality is only very slightly better than m4/3.
Maybe the Nex 7 will be different (but the lenses will still be too big, and for final quality, the sensor will still be too small).
To my mind m4/3 represents a splendid compromise, APS-C loses the advantages of small, without really gaining the advantages of BIG. Mind you I'd still like to see a tiny system based around a 2/3 sensor (the size of the one in the olympus e10)
 

Diane B

New member
Mind you I'd still like to see a tiny system based around a 2/3 sensor (the size of the one in the olympus e10)
I had forgotten the size of that sensor, Jono. For all it's quirks and faults still one of my favorite digitals-- the E10 that is.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I had forgotten the size of that sensor, Jono. For all it's quirks and faults still one of my favorite digitals-- the E10 that is.
HI Diane
Exactly, and with today's sensor developments. Truth is there is a huge difference between the 4/3 sensor and the next smaller one (look at the pixel density stats on dpreview). I reckon a 12mp 2.3 sensor would be an excellent compromise (and let's face it, everything is some sort of a compromise).

Mind you, the 'feel' of that sensor translated to the E1 . . and then to the M8 and M9 which still use Kodak CCD sensors.
 

arashm

Member
E10
well that takes me right back a bunch of years :)
funny I guess I'm part of a group that seems to have a soft spot for the E-10 and E-20.
Sorry don't mean to take this Off Topic.
am
 

Mark K

New member
Martin
Great observation. Nex5's image quality is killed by its intended market..and together with Nx10, there must be a huge room for improvement. The image processors need to be reengineered.
 

pellicle

New member
I had forgotten the size of that sensor, Jono. For all it's quirks and faults still one of my favorite digitals-- the E10 that is.
the problem for me is that if I'm going to be lumbered with a larger style body then I'd rather not have a 2/3 sensor. My Nikon CP5000 has a 2/3 sensor and succeeds in being about as compact as GF1. Its true the per pixel density has improved, and my CP5000 had 5 megapixels. I'm not sure if I'd like more, but it would be nice to have a good 2/3 sensor if it was in a compact and robust body. You can see it here compared to my 10D



however despite the 5 vs 6 MP of the Nikon CP 5000 vs 10D there is a substantial difference in image feel created by the smaller sensor. To be honest it makes pictures look more like snapshot cameras, despite having control over aperture and shutter. As the smaller sensor works well in close up to give better depth of field it works to make everything in focus (no blurred backgrounds) when things are at portrait distances.

So if you like 85~100mm focal length on a full frame for portrait then you'll be disappointed using the same angle of view and shooting distance on the 2/3 camera.


The 5000 btw was a fully magnesium body and you can just about hammer tent pegs in with it (as long as its soft ground).

;-)
 

pellicle

New member
Martin

This rather lukewarm review mirrors the other early reviews. What I find interesting is the lack of an appreciable difference in either dynamic range, or quality of high ISO images when compared to m 4/3,
sure ... old news really ... I don't know why but for some reason people seem to be hung up on comparing a 4/3 sensor camera in a NON SLR body to a APS-C sensor in a SLR body

when the mirror flops up its all the same really

The size difference is not really as significant as people mention, unlike say the difference between full frame and 4/3



there is hardly enough area change there to make more than a dB or so in signal I'd expect

Compare some results on dpreview ... eg




not much in it ...

For years we have heard that the conventional 4/3 system was inferior to the APS-C cameras primarily because of the smaller sensor (other aspects
as I've just mentioned above the real gap in sensor size is not any significant amount ... nipping around the edges, thus its likely to be a classic case of don't believe everything you hear. If you do some reading, look at the data that is presented in sites like dpreview you can build your own picture ... rather than be told by marketing departments and sprukers on forums extolling one system over another without any real evidence.

my opinion is that its primarily due to the impressions of the tiddly little optical finder and the lower signal processing that Oly used (canon no doubt have some cunning stuff happening in there)

there appears to be a lack of real difference. How did the m 4/3 get to be so good, or the APS_C bodies to be so "bad" to minimize the aforementioned benefits of the larger sensor???

my view is that you go full frame for image benefits such as shallower depth of field and higher contrast at shallower depth of field and 4/3 for fairly much everything else.

Optical SLR systems still have some advantages, and being able to parallel process (via different sub systems) focus - exposure - display of the image will have some advantages in AF speed for some time to come. I think that any of the optical SLR cameras (say, Olympus E-3 with SWD lens or Canon EOS with USM lenses) will be better for fast AF and being able to do fast follow focus (tracking) of subjects in sport for some time yet.
 
Last edited:

RichA

New member
Size diff between APS and 4/3rds doesn't seem large, but it is nearly 2x the surface area and it has had a marked effect on high ISO performance with the top APS sensors being noticeably superior to any 4/3rds sensors. Having said that, the Dpreview review of the NEX5 was, IMO, a bit of a white-wash because they failed to mention the terrible 16mm lens that makes it unacceptable to use on the camera. I would LOVE someone to try a conventional lens on a NEX camera, Hell, TAPE it to the body just to find out what the sensor is really capable of.
 

barjohn

New member
You only need to look at Imaging Resource's comparator test shots where they used an Alpha lens with the camera for their test shots. The superiority is very visible and evident in favor of the NEX 5. See image below at ISO 3200, EPL-1 to the left and NEX 5 to the right. The second comparison, also at ISO 3200 is the Panasonic G2 on the left and the NEX 5 on the right.
 
Last edited:

barjohn

New member
Having owned a G1, a GF1 and a Ricoh GXR-A12, I can tell you first hand there is a significant image quality difference in favor of the larger sensor. Under the right conditions, they all produce excellent images; however, when the lighting gets difficult the bigger sensor wins.
 

Martin S

New member
Barjohn:

Which Alpha lens did IR use in the comparison???

There is a real improvement in that comparison.

Only problem using an Alpha lens on a NEX, besides a size differential, is that the Alpha lenses have no built in IS.

Martin
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Having owned a G1, a GF1 and a Ricoh GXR-A12, I can tell you first hand there is a significant image quality difference in favor of the larger sensor. Under the right conditions, they all produce excellent images; however, when the lighting gets difficult the bigger sensor wins.

If that is the case, how come my NX10 still has <500 actuations?:confused:
 

barjohn

New member
Martin, I made an error, the lens they used was: "The Sony NEX-5, Nikon and Canon used our laboratory-standard Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro lenses, which are very sharp."

Vivek, It was a generalization. There are always exceptions to every rule. Every image I say posted on the NX10 seemed sub par to me. They (Samsung) used a heavy hand on noise reduction and a heavy anti-alias filter making for a very unpleasing look to me.
 

Martin S

New member
Just returned from B&H. The Sony rep was there, and he had an NEX5.

Nice package. Great LCD.

Small body with large lens. GUI was as described previously.

Now, we need real reviews to see about IQ. (Maybe better lenses,Zeiss??).

Still unavailable here, probably deliveries early July. Sales person said they have many pre-orders.

Martin
 
Top