Nex 5 or Epl2

[toddbee]

Looking to pick up a Nex 5 but was wondering how the Olympus Epl2 was compared to it. I realize MFT has a better lens selection at this point, but as far as IQ and function, I would like to hear what owners of both think. I hear the olympus puts out great jpegs, does the nex compare?
thanks

 

[toddbee]

No response. Very surprising. Anyways i took the plunge and picked up both. They are both actually great cameras. The NEX files are really amazing. They look and handle identical to my recently sold a900. The high iso is out of this world. I have been toying with iso 1600 and higher and it puts out images on par with my old d700 nikon. Technology has truly progressed in these new cameras. The epl2 is no slouch too, but as the light starts going down you do pick up noise in the images. There are many more lenses available for the mft so that is wavering in my mind. The NEX lenses are not the best at this point. I am seeing blurring at the corners at 18mm on the zoom, but once you get into the middle of the range it does clear up. I can't imagine what a good prime would do with this sensor. On my a900 i mostly used the zeiss 24-70 which cost approx 6 times the price of the NEX kit lense, so in that respect the kit lense is actually not that bad. The epl2 kit lense might be a hair better, but i believe that its because the lenses are easier to make as the sensor is smaller. So thats my finding. Got to decide which to keep. I also love the files coming out of my sigma dps2 which usually blows my mind. My question is how much better does the NEX look with good glass? i know most are putting MF primes on. Does it make a huge difference in iq? i assume yes. Will the sony primes coming out soon be much better? Thanks alot.

 

[douglasf13]

The good glass makes all the difference. The only issue is that, if you use wide angle rangefinder lenses, color shift and/or blurriness can arise at the edges, because the NEX doesn't have the offset microlenses of the M9. I use various 35mm, 50mm and 90mm rangefinder lenses on the NEX-5, and it works great. For wide angle, I use the Sony 16mm pancake.

 

[toddbee]

douglas,
thanks for the info. Yeah would love to try some good glass on here. I do have a contax g2 camera with a few lenses, 35,45, 90. Might have to pick up an adaptor to try these. Any news on when the zeiss glass will be available from sony? I assume that will be a pretty amazing lense.

 

[douglasf13]

No word, but rumors say a couple of months or so on the Zeiss. It'll probably be the only other NEX lens that I buy.

The Contax G 35 and 90, along with the Sony 16mm pancake, is my most used combo to bring along with me (I occasionally switch out the 90 for one of my various, fast 50s.) The Contax G 35 is my most used single lens, and, while the 45 is a better lens, technically, I went with the 35, because of the wider field of view.

Metabones and Kipon are the two most popular adapters. I've owned both, and, while the Metabones is better built and slightly smoother, I prefer the Kipon due to its size and weight.

 

[toddbee]

i may have to pick up an adaptor and give the 90 a try. it looks really easy to focus. douglas, with the g lenses, how the the images look? i think i remember you having an a900 also and was wondering how you think they compare. I am truly blown away with the file as it looks like my a900. i mostly used the 24-70 zeiss with was alot better glass to start with, but for a $200 kit lense it is probably actually really good. Do the MF primes get to this level of resolution? hard to focus?

 

[Streetshooter]

I tried my daughter's Nex 5 a few weeks ago. She sent me the raw files to process as she likes the way dad does it.
Anyway, I processed the files. Next day, sold all my m4/3 gear and bought a Nex 5.
No looking back. I'm waiting on the 16mm and a Leica adapter and then it's all over.
On the street, the nex blows away the GF1 even if just for the screen.
In sunny mode, I can see no matter how bright the light is.
End of story till I get the mail.
Shooter

 

[toddbee]

Thanks for all the great feedback guys. I am leaning toward the NEX over MFT. Again im blown away with the files. They seem equal to the DSLR files i have been processing over the fast few years. Bring on the good glass. Thanks again.

 

[douglasf13]

Well, I did sell my A900 after I used the NEX-5 for a couple of months, but that was about size more than IQ. Of course, it is hard to compare the two different format sizes, but, generally, I'd say take an APS-C crop out of an A900 file, and that is more or less what you're getting with NEX. The NEX would have a little more resolution and better high ISO than the A900 crop, but I'd say they're in the same general ballpark.

Since I really don't print over 13x19 these days, and I don't do studio work anymore, the NEX-5 and various rangefinder lenses has been a suitable replacement for my A900, and the small size of my new kit compared to the A900 is just ridiculous. I keep a 35mm on the NEX, and a tele and the Sony 16 in a small bag, and it is incredibly liberating for me. It is a big difference in size from the A900 with a few primes or the ZA 24-70.

p.s. people are probably starting to think that I work for them at this point LOL, but I would highly recommend the Clearviewer if you're interested in occasionally bringing the camera up to your eye to shoot. It works very well with the NEX's high res LCD, and flips out of the way when you need to use/tilt the LCD.

 

[saxshooter]

I have both systems -- a Sony NEX-5 with the 16mm 2.8 and an Olympus EPL-1 with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 lens. I was missing a fast, compact normal lens. The NEX doesn't offer one yet. I also have the EVF for the Olympus and enjoy holding the camera up to my eye.

Love the NEX files, though. Can't want to see if there is an EVF in the future and what compact, fast, pancake lenses are in the future.

 

[GaryW]

... I am truly blown away with the file as it looks like my a900. i mostly used the 24-70 zeiss with was alot better glass to start with, but for a $200 kit lense it is probably actually really good. Do the MF primes get to this level of resolution? hard to focus?

I find the Nex to be easier to MF than my DSLR, but I still prefer AF. I think the improvement is a bit subtle, comparing my (admittedly low-end) Minolta primes to the 18-55. It's close enough that I may want to simply use the kit lens. But to get the most out of the camera, a better lens will help, I'm sure! I was just surprised that the difference wasn't more drastic; I have to pixel peep at 100% crops, and there is a difference.

I haven't seen much in the way of direct comparisons. I decided to do my own. http://www.computingbits.com/gallery/nex2/Nex2.htm
Better prime lenses would do better, particularly with bokeh. Also, the kit lens can't replace a 50/1.7 for lower light use. But for convenience, I usually just use the 18-55 and try not to obsess too much about it.

I've started looking at resolution charts to be more objective about things, but my first attempts were not consistent, so I think I'll need to try something else.

I have not looked closely enough at the m43 cameras to comment on that.
Now that I have a 2nd battery, I might try the Sunny Weather mode on bright days.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Todd,

I too have both systems, using a GH1, GF1 and E-PL1 and most of the lenses (just waiting on the 100-300mm). It was this system that caused me to sell my D700 system. I also have a pair of NEX5 with the kit lenses.

I find the NEX kit lenses to be quite good (yes, even the 16mm, which, when stopped down a bit is just stellar), but I also use my Voigtländer M-mount lenses (actually on both systems). The MF lenses range from 12mm up to 90mm and all of them perform wonderfully. The wider lenses do have some magenta corners but as much of what I do is in B&W, this doesn't bother me in the least as I generally add a vignette.

Using MF on the NEX bodies is easy to do and the results are certainly worth it. My faster lenses (f2, f1.8, f1.1), together with that lovely big sensor give amazing results. There is a certain learning curve for shooting with the NEX, especially with MF lenses, but once you get comfortable, your keep-rate will go up. With the NEX on a tripod, you've got this incredible little digital back that you can then slap any number of lenses in front of.

Why do I keep both systems? Well, I bought the NEXs based on the assumption that Sony would be bringing out a EVF for them. Unfortunately, that hasn't yet happened, but the results and the fact that (as mentioned above) the LCD is actually usable virtually all the time makes them a keeper. I end up using the NEXs with the MF lenses and use the m43 system for my AF work, especially for longer focal lengths where the 2X crop has its advantages.

Cheers,