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!

M9 AND the Sony Nex ..make any sense?

iiiNelson

Well-known member
100% Agree with what T_Streng just said. The mirrorless are all great with many having pluses and minuses. The Sony's are better for adapting as they have the best sensor and a more "normal" crop factor. Micro 4/3 is best if you want the most complete system with lenses that autofocus and still give very good IQ - and for that reason I actually started using the G1 as my "autofocus" camera again. I might pickup a "real" dSLR (like a A77) at some point but I don't see the point outside telephot ability and the Panasonic lenses are good enough honestly for what I do.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The best solution will ultimately be any Leica EVF ..if it can take M lenses (with an adapter) . Leica tunes their color to specific color chart (worth another topic at some point as to whether this matters in digital) . Images I ve taken with the M8,M9 ,DMR and S2 are all slightly different but can easily be tweaked in LR to flow together . You can tell them apart but you have to be looking for the signature .

This is not true in my experience with Nikon and Canon files . Lenses add another dimension ...Zeiss on a D3X is quite different from a Nikkor on a D3S . The so what comes years later when you try to pull together all your images around a subject . And you start picking only the Leica images ? Wish I would have used my M is not something I want to be saying.

But at the same time I have found shooting Polo with an M to be challenging and street shooting with a DSLR to be near impossible for me . Thats where the inconsistency comes from ..sometimes the best tool requires that you resolve the differences in post processing .

The so what is that adopting a new system (or camera/sensor) requires that think about how the images will be used over a period of time .

Agree completely on the challenge of working with two systems at the same time . Beyond the menu this screws up your hand eye coordination ... RF shooting if you do enough creates a flow thats similar to some sports . When I throw the x100 into the mix ...its gone ..and everytime I shoot with the Nikon s I need to warm up . The NEX would have to either be the only camera or the primary body for longer lenses .

But I ve been waiting now for 3-4 years to get my 180FOV back with Leica glass and thats worth trying for .
 

250swb

Member
Good luck Roger, but I can't help but think that the two camera system pro lobby haven't really done much two camera system shooting, its an aspiration, not a consistent working work regime. You get similar responses when questions like 'how low a shutter speed can you use with an M camera?' are asked. And of course everybody says something like 1/8th second, or longer, but they really wouldn't want to do it all the time, its a singular stroke of luck, not a fully repeatable result that leads to the bravado. And if you can't get the same result with one that you get with the other, then its not a backup camera. How long will it take before you have an AF lens on the NEX-7 and then forget to focus your M9? Its that simple, and then multiply it with all the other functions available.

Steve
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Steve

Not sure I follow your logic . I have shot with two cameras of the same type for going on 35 years . I do it because I can use a wide angle and a normal to short telephoto without changing lenses . To do this well you need to have two cameras that operate in a similar way and you have to shoot a lot . This is part of my standard practice and I have around 50K images over the past three years ..just M8/9 and all street .

I have another 35K thats all sports and much of it with Nikon DSLR . So I understand the differences ....darn focus button on the back stuff and those moving focus points ..thats really different . Plus shooting with a 600mm changes your whole way of viewing . I try not to shot both on the same day and sometimes it takes an hour or so to regain any consistency.

I had the opportunity to work thru my archive to fashion a portfolio and so I could reflect on the limitations of my approach and equipment . I accept that a CRF has limitations and I am looking for three key areas of improvement :
1. focusing longer lenses 2. better high ISO performance and 3. fill flash without all the effort .

I think in places I got some decent feedback on the NEX bodies. 1. Focusing long lenses can be considerably easier with focus peaking ..but expect some learning curve and its still tough in low light 2. don t expect any real improvement in high ISO and in fact you might not like high ISO with the NEX bodies because the rendering will be different from high ISO M files 3. fill flash looks good and its a decently integrated solution that allows a vey small very light flash .

Concerns are not missed ....1. forget creating a seamless flow between two bodies that focus and operate so differently 2. getting the files to look similar and work together needs to be proven (and in general probably not believed to be reasonable ).

Might not be worth it but I am consistently faced with missing a 180 FOV and not having a fill flash alternative .. I have them I just don t like the size and weight requirements .

I always assume that each of use has our own very personal set of requirements and criteria for evaluating gear .. I never ask what should I do ... I ask about the experience of others . Maybe my title was off a little but I hope I framed the questions appropriately . This was really helpful give and take Thanks to all that participated.

The Sony store indicated that the NEX 7 body will be shipping 1/23/12 ..in a month who knows .
 

250swb

Member
Logic? Well, it's nothing to do with shooting with two cameras, its the pitfalls of shooting with two totally different cameras. The difficulty of managing those differences while concentrating on the image seems like a fairly simple problem to grasp.

As a journalist I used a Leica and a Nikon together sometimes, but f/8 was the same on both cameras, as was 250th of a second, and Tri-X was Tri-X.

Steve
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I find it ok to shoot one camera one day and the other at another day.
A little more complicated to really shoot different cams side by side at the same occasion for my taste.
 

cam

Active member
shooting two very different cameras at once really isn't all that difficult at all, if you have familiarity with both and have them set the way you like... after that, the image/moment is all that need concern you.

i really don't understand the issue, nor the derogatory tone that someone might forget to focus when they went back to the Leica... say what?

using the X100 and M8 in tandem was great. i never once forgot to focus my Leica -- as a matter of fact, it always felt a little like going back home when it was in my hands. a rangefinder is my comfort zone.

that said, i also think shooting a different camera has helped my RF photography. i am still shooting with both cameras at the same time, mostly because i am still familiarising myself with the Fuji. but it doesn't feel awkward or strange or disconcerting in the least... when i put a camera to my eye, i shoot. it doesn't matter what that camera may be, not what i shot a second ago.

the only time this is an issue is if the camera has a shutter lag and then it *does* make a difference. on the X100, AF works about as fast as i can manual focus on the M8/M9 and i will half-press and be focused in preparation. in this way, i find the camera to be as fast as the Leicas almost all of the time. if i miss the moment, it's usually user error. the same can be said for the M's so the point is pretty moot.
 

250swb

Member
i really don't understand the issue, nor the derogatory tone that someone might forget to focus when they went back to the Leica... say what?
Derogatory tone? :rolleyes:

Well if it was derogatory it is against myself, because I have forgotten to focus a rangefinder while using it alongside an AF camera. And if you say its not possible to simply press the shutter before realising your mistake, then you may have some lessons to learn. Every photographer, no matter how experienced, is open to making every mistake once, some less experienced photographers make the same mistake twice. To suggest simple things can't suddenly bite you and get complicated is just arrogance, its what brings down space shuttles never mind all the everyday errors in a darkroom or out on a shoot.

Steve
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Logic? Well, it's nothing to do with shooting with two cameras, its the pitfalls of shooting with two totally different cameras. The difficulty of managing those differences while concentrating on the image seems like a fairly simple problem to grasp.

As a journalist I used a Leica and a Nikon together sometimes, but f/8 was the same on both cameras, as was 250th of a second, and Tri-X was Tri-X.

Steve
Steve

Exactly ....and using a DSLR like a D3 with AF/AE settings that are optimized for the shooting environment is different than using a SLR with manual settings and film.

No problem if you disagree thats the purpose of the discussion ..to learn ..but your example appeared to reference your experience with a manual SLR and the M . So I couldn t follow your argument in the context of today s cameras .
 

cam

Active member
Derogatory tone? :rolleyes:

Well if it was derogatory it is against myself, because I have forgotten to focus a rangefinder while using it alongside an AF camera. And if you say its not possible to simply press the shutter before realising your mistake, then you may have some lessons to learn. Every photographer, no matter how experienced, is open to making every mistake once, some less experienced photographers make the same mistake twice. To suggest simple things can't suddenly bite you and get complicated is just arrogance, its what brings down space shuttles never mind all the everyday errors in a darkroom or out on a shoot.
yes, and i stand by that.

i make mistakes. i have been known to shoot with the lens cap on, only to realise it when i hear that painfully long shutter speed. and i've done it more than once so call me an idiot, but i'm not arrogant.

but to imply that using two systems side-by-side invite errors that are unnecessary just isn't right. some people can do it with ease, others not. it isn't an absolute.


***********************


Roger, if your still a subscriber to Sean Reid's site, he's got the first part of a review looking at using the NEX 5N and the Ricoh GXR w/A12 mount with rangefinder lenses.

i haven't read it yet, but i thought i'd give you the head's up.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
CAM

Pretty sure you would believe me that I don t forget to focus my RF cameras . And I think I can shoot fairly quickly and accurately using two Ms . My goal is to forget the cameras completely and concentrate on seeing the opportunity develop in front of me . To accomplish that I need consistency in the feel and process. The more comfortable I get with the process the easier it is to let go of the urge to control the process .

Sorry if this sounds theoretical but there are great analogies in sports like tennis and golf ..you don t look at the ball ..you look at where you want it to go. But this only comes from significant repetition .

I ve watched some really great photographers work and they aren t messing with the settings . Yet when I handed my M9 to a really famous photographer who had been shooting a D3 ...he misfocused a half dozen captures ...just out of practice .

I tried working with the X100 and it was very different ..not saying I couldn t get there with similar practice . It sounds like you are developing a real comfort in working with the two different cameras .

Glad you are having some success with it ..... a super camera .
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Thanks for the reference to SR ... I read all his reviews and find them very relevant to my shooting style and requirements .

Keep in mind that my objective is to extend the capabilities of my kit beyond the M9 s ..not to create an alternative . So how will the latest and greatest (Sony,Ricoh,Fuji ) compliment the M9 ....I outlined three areas ...(1) focusing longer lenses (2) improving high ISO performance and (3) facilitating an integrated simple small fill flash option .....

Adding any other system comes at a cost (1) mastering a different user interface and (2) reconciling capture file differences . Nothing works better IMHO than two matched body/sensors .

So I tried to frame the discussion around the benefits and the costs and I hope my comments are taken as “what would work for me” .
 

nowherean

Member
There are times that I keep wishing to have a nice zoom or a macro. So NEX 7 seems like a great camera for that, although SONY is lacking decent lenses in that format in my opinion. I'm also not sure just how comfortable I would be with investing money into E mount, but that's a whole other consideration.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
There are times that I keep wishing to have a nice zoom or a macro. So NEX 7 seems like a great camera for that, although SONY is lacking decent lenses in that format in my opinion. I'm also not sure just how comfortable I would be with investing money into E mount, but that's a whole other consideration.
I now have used the Nex5n (kit and 24/1.8) a bit more side by side with a M9 (with 35 and 50 Lux asph)

When it is just about IQ I clearly prefer the Leica, because:
a) color and tones look different, the Leica color I prefer, but l guess its a question of taste
b)noise: The M9 at ISO 1250 beats clearly the Nex at 1600 ISO IMO.
c) Focus....For shallow DOF I get better results with the M9 - I know where I focus (eye vs nose) and it works. The Nex AF is ok but as soon as shooting shallow DOF I find the AF points too big and sometimes get the eyes very slightly out of focus for example. Focus peaking is fine, but also doesnnt allways works totally accurate IMO. And magnifier I dont like because I dont see the whole subject any more.
However with the Kit outside and a little more DOF the AF is fine.

But then the Nex offers zoom, it is very fast, I like the swivel display, it does video, and even if I prefer IQ of the M9 the Nex IQ is still very good.
The combo of the Kit and the 24/1.8 allwos to use the camera both in good and low light.

So for me the Nex for felexibility, for casual and for low weight,...bike tours, skiing, family events, things like that.
 

RichA

New member
Actually, I wasn't talking about the M9/NEX7
But you have stated rather categorically that the NEX7 is bad at high ISO, and I think that this is simply not correct.

all the best
Panasonic JPEGs are not good. Why use them or JPEGs at all? Check out RAW where noise levels in the two cameras are very similar and the NEX-5n is clearly (1.-1.5 stops) better than the NEX-7 and you give up very little resolution. It's too bad you can't get the 5 sensor in the 7 body.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Panasonic JPEGs are not good. Why use them or JPEGs at all? Check out RAW where noise levels in the two cameras are very similar and the NEX-5n is clearly (1.-1.5 stops) better than the NEX-7 and you give up very little resolution. It's too bad you can't get the 5 sensor in the 7 body.
Hmm - don't quite understand you - I don't use jpgs.
I was basing my understanding on MR's rather good comparison on LL - which certainly didn't give the 5n a 1-1.5 stop advantage. At least, not when you down ressed the 7 files to 16mp.

Actually, the 5n body is fine as long as you use the viewfinder (at least, I think so) but the extra resolution is clear, and it means something to me at least!
 
Top