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!

Voigtlander 50 & 75 on NEX.

jsnack

New member
I have a chance to pick up a Voigtlander 50/2.5 Skopar and a 75/2.5 Heliar. Can anyone comment on how these perform on the NEX.

Or perhaps post or point me to some sample shots. I'm attracted by their small size which would keep the NEX in the very small category.

Thanks.
 

thePiRaTE!!

New member
While I can't comment directly to the two lenses in question, I can say every Cosina/Voigtlander I've used has been a delight, and using the 35/1.4 Nokton Classic on the NEX has been - I think - a perfect match. Very compact and also adds a real quality feel to the package as a whole. If you have an interest in those focal ranges and if the deal is decent, I'd say just try and resell if they fail to excite. Adapters are super affordable these days as well if necessary.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Be aware of their minimum focus distance.
Regarding sharpness or red corners - you should not be afraid.
 

jsnack

New member
Thanks for the link, Douglas...very helpful.

I travel quite a bit and my plan is to use the coming Fuji x100 for most of my shooting. The 35mm focal length is my favorite. For my occasional telephoto and wide angle needs, an NEX 5 with the 16/2.8 kit lens and the 50 &75mm Voigtlander lenses should make a very small and versatile kit.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
I travel quite a bit and my plan is to use the coming Fuji x100 for most of my shooting.
Ugh. Has to be the most over-hyped impractical camera evah. SO I'm supposed to pay $1200 ($500 more than a nex) for a hybrid viewfinder and dial and I can't remove the lens? Ok, that makes sense.... :rolleyes:

I guess "retro" really is worth something....
 
Last edited:

jsnack

New member
I understand that some don't see the value of this camera, but I've been a photographer since the 60s. These are the type of cameras I learned on and used extensively.

Really, it's hard for me to understand that it took camera companies this long to make such a basic, simple design.
 

douglasf13

New member
Agreed. I will be very tempted to add the X100 to my NEX kit. Outside of the design, the quiet shutter and hybrid viewfinder may be worth the price to me.

BTW, jsnack, there is a fast Zeiss 24mm prime coming out for NEX relatively soon, AFAIK.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
I understand that some don't see the value of this camera, but I've been a photographer since the 60s. These are the type of cameras I learned on and used extensively.

Really, it's hard for me to understand that it took camera companies this long to make such a basic, simple design.
Agreed. I will be very tempted to add the X100 to my NEX kit. Outside of the design, the quiet shutter and hybrid viewfinder may be worth the price to me.
Yes, and there is a reason that most of us don't use cameras like this any longer. It's called progress.

This might be a great camera if you want something to take pics of your kids birthday party or your cat. Beyond that, the restrictiveness on a fixed 35mm focal length just kills it. With the 35mm lens, you won't be able to take any decent shots of anything outside that's more than a reasonable distance away. Everyone sees that little dial on top and gets all goo-goo eyed and nostalgic. People were already giving the thing a good reviews without holding one and when the prototype wouldn't even save any images! This camera is just an expensive point and shoot (and a p/s that can't even zoom). :loco:
 

douglasf13

New member
Lonnie, this camera obviously isn't built for you, but there are plenty of users that are interested in this type of camera. Heck, Fuji is still releasing new models of fixed focal length medium format rangefinders.

Whether it is with an A900, Hasselblad or NEX-5, I use the same focal length a majority of the time, and I never use zooms any more.

Some artists use multiple brushes and an infinite amount of paints, while others use a pencil. To each his/her own.
 

jsnack

New member
I spent some time with the x100 at the CES in Las Vegas. Some may find the 35mm focal length "restrictive" but I love it.
 
Last edited:

Lonnie Utah

New member
And you guys don't recognize hyperbole when you read it.

But I still say that this camera is for elitists with more money than sense. As my mamma used to say, "A fool and his money is soon parted." I guess Fuji is on to something since so many people have lined up to buy these when functional models haven't even been given out for solid reviews yet. I will agree that the retro look is cool, but really for the money and practicality, there are MUCH better cameras out there. Looks alone aren't enough reason for me to spend $500 more than a NEX which has much more practical applications. For the same money (assuming the same photographic applications), I'll take a nex5 and a 16mm f2.8 pancake and buy one for my wife too. There is no way, NO WAY the x100 out preforms the nex in ANY category.

Lower resolution than a NEX5 14.2 MP vs 12.3
No interchangeable lenses for the x100.
No filter threads on the x100
No IS for the x100 vs in lens for the nex
X100 is larger than the NEX5
7 FPS for the NEX, 5 fps for the x100
1920 x 1080 video resolution on the nex, 1280 x 720 for the x100
$599 for the nex5 with the 16mm f/2.8, $1200 for the x100.
Both will shoot at 1/4000 sec, but the x100 will only do it at apertures of f/8 or smaller.
Built in sweep pano, 3d pano and HDR modes on the NEX.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm_FinePix_X100-vs-Sony_Alpha_NEX-5

So tell me again, other than the viewfinder (which only gives 90% coverage BTW) and the retro looks, why should someone spend 2x as much on this camera?
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
Lonnie, do have anything useful to contribute to this thread?
I think EVERYTHING that I've contributed is useful. I've pointed out the x100's short coming vs the NEX (its a sony subfourm btw). Simple a to b comparisons. Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean it's not useful. Buy what you want, but I'm not drinking the cool-aid.

Edit: If you are so strong in your convictions, tell me how the x100 beats a NEX5 and a 16 mm pancake.
 

douglasf13

New member
The hybrid viewfinder (90% due to parallax correction) and quiet shutter are the two main reasons for me to buy the Fuji, and they offer something the NEX doesn't have. However, don't underestimate the "fun" factor. Assuming everything checks out in the IQ department, I'll consider adding this along side NEX, because it looks...fun!

I shoot in M mode and Raw almost exclusively, so most camera's bells and whistles are lost on me.

Honestly, I think the camera is reasonably priced, considering the build quality. We aren't exactly talking Leica prices here.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think EVERYTHING that I've contributed is useful. I've pointed out the x100's short coming vs the NEX (its a sony subfourm btw). Simple a to b comparisons. Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean it's not useful. Buy what you want, but I'm not drinking the cool-aid.

Edit: If you are so strong in your convictions, tell me how the x100 beats a NEX5 and a 16 mm pancake.
You are really living your signature, are you?

So you aren't buying the Fuji then? Good! More cameras to those of us who aren't smart enough to see that we're being fooled :thumbs:
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
You are really living your signature, are you?
My sig is simply the name of a Prodigy album....

http://www.youtube.com/embed/MFN9C3DHNvA

So you aren't buying the Fuji then? Good! More cameras to those of us who aren't smart enough to see that we're being fooled :thumbs:
I've never said that anyone here should or shouldn't buy one. All I'm saying is that it's not the most practical camera on the market, and it seems the main reason people want one is simply because of it's "retro" look not practical uses (a point that has really yet to be refuted). One could buy a new A77 body for just about the same price as the x100 ($1400est vs $1200). For someone with an A900, A200 and a NEX5, which is the smarter/practical money to spend?

Still waiting on someone to tell me why it's better than the nex...
 

douglasf13

New member
I already mentioned a couple of reasons why it is better than the NEX:

-it has both the option of a Hybrid Viewfinder and an EVF.
-it has a very quiet shutter in lens (and the ND filter is cool, too)
-the build and feel of the camera is said to be top notch (although nex-5 isn't bad.)
-it has the most popular single focal length for street shooting (until the Zeiss 24 arrives.)
-some prefer the physical controls of aperture, exp. comp, shutter, etc.

Honestly, although I do think the camera looks nice, I'd consider it just the same if it was all black and a little less "retro," although I don't contend that it isn't all THAT retro.

The Hybrid viewfinder alone may be worth the price of admission for me. Just like the endless debates of OVF vs. EVF, user experience is a tangible feature when choosing a camera, and I think the hybrid viewfinder is a wonderful mesh between the technologies, from what I've seen so far. I can absolutely see carrying the X100 and/or the NEX+wide and tele in a small bag.

Many shooters, like me, shoot all manual and don't need fps, jpeg features, giant teles, etc, and cameras like the X100 are appealing. Heck, after shooting the NEX-5 for a couple of months, I sold my A100, A700 and A900, because, outside of the A900's pixel count, there really isn't much of a difference between those cameras and the NEX-5 with various rangefinder lenses, for me (I quit doing studio work.)
 

jsnack

New member
It doesn't have to be better than the NEX. I want it because I have held it, and it operates like cameras used to operate. That's important to me.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
Doug,

A serious question. You've said several times you want to use one of these for street photography, and for the quiet shutter. But if you are using it on the street with all the associated and ambient noise that entails, isn't the quite shutter immaterial? It's not like the nex is overly loud.

I think I could also make the argument that the articulating EVF screen of the NEX provides equal or more stealthy street photography opportunities than a camera with an OVF? I'm thinking of waist level shooting using the EVF and similar.

While the 35mm may be a popular focal length, there are times when it's too short and times when it's too long. You have to admit that fact. Interchangeable lenses win in those situations.

So for ME, and my type of shooting (except for my wife, I rarely take photos of people), it doesn't add up. I guess my point is that if this camera was $1000 less, it might be worth consideration. Maybe I'll get one on ebay for that in a year or two...


It doesn't have to be better than the NEX. I want it because I have held it, and it operates like cameras used to operate. That's important to me.
It that floats your boat and you have the money to spend, then go for it...
 
Top