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!

Sony's NEX-7 specs...wow!

RichA

New member
+1 on that!

I would love an E7 or EP4 with a Sony sensor.
We will finally see a true comparison, pixel to pixel of m4/3rds and Sony when they are released because the overall pixel density of it and the GH2 will be about the same. There will be no more questions!
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Looks interesting - in a typical Sony kitchen sink fashion, shame Sony didn't target their efforts on the m4/3rds standard... we could use the Sony tech combined with m4/3rds lenses.

Cheers

Brian
And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and Olympus made micro four thirds a closed standard (4/3rds also is a closed standard but Olympus let more people in initially). They clarified that much on its creation. And Sony doesn't have to play 2nd to the wishes and desires of the other two- they are their own force. I really think these new Sonys will do better than what they are seen at first pass when good lenses are put on them. I also think it's not so hot to compare 100% pixel peep and JPEG when a RAW comparison and a resize down to even 14 MP would probably blow whatever 4/3rds has now out of the water.

That said, to me as far as the Nex7 goes, the main issue for me is quality lenses at a small size. I think the body looks pretty interesting and they finally announced two lenses which will look like they will be pretty good (ironically sort of equivalent to the two new good Olympus lenses in the type of photography they can do)... and that looks cool but I want small.

I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.

- Raist
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.

- Raist
I probably have larger pockets than you. I think this combo would easily fit in my pocket



as would the GF3 or the E-PM1 with 14mm f/2.5, 17mm f/2.8 or 20mm f/1.7.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and Olympus made micro four thirds a closed standard (4/3rds also is a closed standard but Olympus let more people in initially). They clarified that much on its creation. And Sony doesn't have to play 2nd to the wishes and desires of the other two- they are their own force. I really think these new Sonys will do better than what they are seen at first pass when good lenses are put on them. I also think it's not so hot to compare 100% pixel peep and JPEG when a RAW comparison and a resize down to even 14 MP would probably blow whatever 4/3rds has now out of the water.

That said, to me as far as the Nex7 goes, the main issue for me is quality lenses at a small size. I think the body looks pretty interesting and they finally announced two lenses which will look like they will be pretty good (ironically sort of equivalent to the two new good Olympus lenses in the type of photography they can do)... and that looks cool but I want small.

I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.

- Raist
You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:

If they'd tapped into the m4/3rds standard, they could have made compelling bodies with well matched lenses. Missed opportunity imho.

Cheers

Brian
 
You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:

If they'd tapped into the m4/3rds standard, they could have made compelling bodies with well matched lenses. Missed opportunity imho.

Cheers

Brian
Brian, it is all relative to your shooting style. The NEX system was designed to change the way the photographer composes and shoots, so lens balancing becomes irrelevant depending on your stance. For me, shooting at waist level is the new norm and the lens barrel becomes an extension of the body, arguably making for an even more steady platform. For other people, this mode of shooting will be unacceptable but again, for me - damn it is fun and has improved my style of photography immensely.

It really boils down to whether you are an AF guy or into adapted lenses. This is a greater argument than the whole lens balance "issue". Simply put, NEX AF lenses are few and their quality is middling.

Now compare NEX to m4/3 in the adapted lens space and you have a different story. Peaking was a game changer and when matched with the tilt screen flexibility you have a very powerful tool that is quicker to focus and control than any m4/3 system I have tried or owned. I used to dread MF on anything other than a rangefinder or film SLR w/split prism but with the NEX it is fun fun fun!

Different strokes I guess and it is interesting how the manufacturers are moving to combine all these features. Look at the E-PL3 with its NEX like tilt screen and the new NEX 7 that combines the traditional NEX look with a more conservative eye-level EVF and larger body. We are lucky that these guys are so rapidly evolving the notions of what a camera can do.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
I know exactly what you mean - I took this yesterday with the E-PL3 + Hexanon 57mm f1.2 from waist level using the tilted screen to nail manual focus. We (the whole Olympus Safari Group) lobbied Olympus over 18 flipping months ago for peaking functionality... I guess they want to sell more mZD 45mm f1.8 lenses (not exactly a hard sell! lol)

E-PL3 + Hexanon 57mm f1.2
1/160s f/1.8 iso200


I wonder if I can get a Hexanon AR adapter for the Nex 5?

Cheers

Brian
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I probably have larger pockets than you. I think this combo would easily fit in my pocket

[]

as would the GF3 or the E-PM1 with 14mm f/2.5, 17mm f/2.8 or 20mm f/1.7.
I did think about that, I wish the ergonomics were better. Would like to see how it feels. Not a big fan of a slower zoom but compared to an ultra compact, it's offset by the sensor I guess.

Would be more interesting if Panasonic made a pro version of that.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
You just answered your own question... it's a shame because all that techery is going to waste without decently matched lenses - NEX looks totally out of balance to me... nicely sized bodies, shame about the frankenlenses :deadhorse:

If they'd tapped into the m4/3rds standard, they could have made compelling bodies with well matched lenses. Missed opportunity imho.

Cheers

Brian
But my point Brian is that *they can't tap into the m4/3rds standard* because both Panasonic and Olympus made it quite closed! And the Nex is finally going to have good lenses. As far as cameras that can't fit in a pocket, they are in good company with micro four thirds, though finally micro four thirds is going with some models towards smaller, but there are still some compromises.

I don't think the Nex 7 techery is going to waste. If you go say smaller micro four thirds you do pay a price- those sensors. No built in EVF (yet). And the better micro four thirds with the better lenses are not pocketable, so it's a similar situation.

Sure I will agree, with you that they don't have (yet) high quality small lenses (like pancake primes). The best lenses I am seeing in micro four thirds though, don't make for a pocketable system, except maybe a GF3 with a Panny pancake F1.7 but you miss on the better F1.4 from Panny and the two new Olympus lenses.

- Ricardo
 

cjlacz

Member
But my point Brian is that *they can't tap into the m4/3rds standard* because both Panasonic and Olympus made it quite closed!
It's closed in the sense Olympus controls the standard. Panasonic developed it with Olympus, but I'm not sure they have much control in it. Other manufacturers can create cameras based on the standard to the best of my knowledge. Unlike 4/3s where anyone could 'join' without creating a 4/3s product, a m4/3s product has to be released to join the m4/3s group.

Sony couldn't take m4/3s extend it and still call it m4/3s, but I'm fairly sure they could join and create cameras and lenses matching the standard if they wished. If you have a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it. Cosina is obviously in as they are using the m4/3's logo.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's closed in the sense Olympus controls the standard. Panasonic developed it with Olympus, but I'm not sure they have much control in it. Other manufacturers can create cameras based on the standard to the best of my knowledge. Unlike 4/3s where anyone could 'join' without creating a 4/3s product, a m4/3s product has to be released to join the m4/3s group.

Sony couldn't take m4/3s extend it and still call it m4/3s, but I'm fairly sure they could join and create cameras and lenses matching the standard if they wished. If you have a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it. Cosina is obviously in as they are using the m4/3's logo.
The most important difference compared to some other camera system standards is that the interface specifications are available to potential suppliers of lenses etc. When Sigma and other 3rd party suppliers make lenses for Nikon AF-S or Canon EF standard, it's based on reverse engineering, sometimes with the result that the camera manufacturers make changes that Sigma etc. hadn't anticipated, with malfunctioning lenses as a result.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
The most important difference compared to some other camera system standards is that the interface specifications are available to potential suppliers of lenses etc. When Sigma and other 3rd party suppliers make lenses for Nikon AF-S or Canon EF standard, it's based on reverse engineering, sometimes with the result that the camera manufacturers make changes that Sigma etc. hadn't anticipated, with malfunctioning lenses as a result.

Sony NEX lens mount specs are al publicly available.

- raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Both are closed standards. You can't participate as a camera manufacturer on micro four thirds without an agreement and both Olympus and Panasonic made it very clear it wasn't going to be easy to get in if someone gets in.

4/3rds was more open and it's still a closed standard.

I don't know where people get the idea that Fuji or Sony could just "jump in" anytime they want.

- Raist
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Both are closed standards. You can't participate as a camera manufacturer on micro four thirds without an agreement and both Olympus and Panasonic made it very clear it wasn't going to be easy to get in if someone gets in.

4/3rds was more open and it's still a closed standard.

I don't know where people get the idea that Fuji or Sony could just "jump in" anytime they want.

- Raist
Of course it isn't easy. If anybody could jump in, the quality standard would deteriorate faster than you can say microfourthirds, destroying the brand long term. The point is that it's possible to participate, as opposed to most other camera system standards.
 

RichA

New member
And why is that a shame? Both Panasonic and
I don't see much difference on that end on a Nex 7 and the Olympus 4/3rds since neither fits in a pocket with the good lenses. Of course that's just me.

- Raist
Give the specific size you would need to fit in a pocket. If you spec something like a 1" thick P&S, then much more conversation about an interchangeable lens cameras is moot, since it isn't going to happen.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Give the specific size you would need to fit in a pocket. If you spec something like a 1" thick P&S, then much more conversation about an interchangeable lens cameras is moot, since it isn't going to happen.
From the point of view of expecting an interchangeable lens camera to fit in a pocket maybe (then there's the Pentax Q but let's ignore that). From the point of view that it puts micro four thirds and the Nexes in not so distant categories usability wise on the size end, I think it's worth mentioning.

Now, as far as I see it, there's still advantages in having a bit smaller, slightly smaller primes, etc. All I am saying is that the difference in category/usability diminishes making them more valid to compare.

I would agree with the statement that Sony should still seek to make some quality pancake primes.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Of course it isn't easy. If anybody could jump in, the quality standard would deteriorate faster than you can say microfourthirds, destroying the brand long term. The point is that it's possible to participate, as opposed to most other camera system standards.
My point is not just that it's hard. My point is that micro four thirds *is* a closed standard. Whether you can really participate or not, whether in pragmatic terms is like almost no participation or not is another question.

And my point in mentioning all of this is that I see comments constantly thrown around like "Why Sony wasted time on their own standard and not join micro four thirds?" "Is about time Fuji puts out a micro four thirds camera! They are part of the consortium are they not?" "Why Fuji doesn't come out with a micro four thirds camera instead of making an X100 line type one?"

The first two questions are false and the last a game of chance against the odds. Sony nor Fuji can't just "join on a whim" (one of my points). And in the case of Fuji, they are not part of the micro four thirds consortium, only four thirds (in which they did nothing). Given the apparent success of the X100 (I could be wrong), I don't see why they should "give something in" to Olympus & Panasonic instead of coming up with their own (though maybe a whole set of patent exchange is something of a win win for both).

So what I am saying is that while it's possible Fuji could join and make say a micro four thirds camera, it's far from easy, and far from something Fuji could just "decide on a whim." Rumor was Panasonic didn't want them in but Olympus did- but that's just rumor. When Fuji comes out with their own mirror less (almost a certainty, in line of the X100) and it's not micro four thirds, I can imagine many saying the same baseless comments again.

The reality is, this is not a business choice that is just "easily available to be made by Fuji."

- Raist
 
Top